JUDGMENT THIS WEEK Section 319 CrPC Power Has To Be Exercised Before Pronouncement Of Sentence In Case Of Conviction : Supreme Court Constitution Bench Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab | Crl A. No. 885/2019 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009 A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday pronounced the judgment answering the reference made on the ambit of powers under Section...
JUDGMENT THIS WEEK
Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab | Crl A. No. 885/2019 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday pronounced the judgment answering the reference made on the ambit of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gives power to the trial court to summon additional accused.
Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab | Crl A. No. 885/2019 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued elaborate guidelines today regarding the excercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning additional accused during trial.
A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna issued the guidelines while answering certain issues referred to it.
Criminal Trial Is Not Complete On Conviction Of Accused, But With Sentencing: Supreme Court
Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab | Crl A. No. 885/2019 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
The Supreme Court held that a criminal trial is not complete on the pronouncement of the judgment of conviction of the accused, but with their sentencing.
The conclusion of the trial in a criminal prosecution if it ends in conviction, a judgment is considered to be complete in all respects only when the sentence is imposed on the convict, if the convict is not given the benefit of Section 360 of CrPC, the five judges Constitution Bench observed in a judgment which dealt with a reference on the scope of power under Section 319 CrPC.
Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani vs Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010 | SLP (Crl) 9092 of 2022
The Supreme Court set aside a direction issued by Bombay High Court to the State to give 72 hours' notice to an accused in the event it intends to arrest him.
Such a direction could not have been issued by the High Court, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha observed.
In this case, the Bombay High Court, while disposing an Anticipatory Bail Application filed by accused, directed that the accused should be given 72 hours' notice in the event that the State intends to arrest him on the registration of an FIR making out a cognizable offence.
Sudesh Chhikara vs Ramti Devi | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1011 | CA 174 OF 2021
The Supreme Court has held that Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act will be attracted only if the transfer of property by a senior citizen was subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to him/her.
In this case, a petition was filed by a senior citizen woman under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) alleging that her son and daughters were not maintaining her and therefore the release deed executed by her in favour of her two daughters has to be declared void. The Maintenance Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the release deed null and void. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this order.
Anjali vs Lokendra Rathod | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012 | CA 9014 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that deceased's Income Tax Return can be considered for computation of his annual income in Motor Accident Compensation Claim cases.
In this case, the claimants had filed the deceased's Income Tax Returns before the Tribunal which showed the total income of deceased to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9855/- per month. The MACT disregarded it on the ground that neither any ITR prior to 2009-2010 nor any other document with regard to the deceased's income was filed. It thus fixed his income at Rs.4000/- per month i.e., Rs.48,000/- per annum. In appeal, the High Court also refused to consider ITR and estimated the deceased's income as Rs.5,000/- per month.
Anjali Bhardwaj vs CPIO, SC (RTI Cell) | SLP (C) No. 21019/2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1015
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition which sought for details of the Supreme Court collegium's meeting of December 12, 2018 under the Right to Information Act, observing that the discussion cannot be disclosed to the public and that only the final decision of the Collegium need to be uploaded in the website.
Kamla Neti (D) vs Special Land Acquisition Officer | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1014 | CA 6901 OF 2022
The Supreme Court held that a female member of the scheduled tribe is not entitled to any right of survivorship under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari urged the Central Government to consider whether it is necessary to bring a suitable amendment to Hindu Succession Act in this regard.
Rajwati @ Rajjo vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1016 | CA 8179 OF 2022
The Supreme Court reiterated that strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases.
In this case, the Rajasthan High Court, while reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to claimants, refused to consider the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased merely on the ground that the person issuing these documents was not examined before the Tribunal.
Mohd Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs Regional Manager UPSRTC | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1017 | CA 9070-9071 OF 2022
Socio-economic background of the claimants must be considered while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability caused due to motor accidents, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered today (9 December 2022).
The bench of Justices Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat observed thus while allowing appeal filed by a claimant seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation.
NEWS THIS WEEK
The Centre's recent notification amending the Electoral Bonds Scheme to allow an additional window of 15 days for the sale of the bonds was issued overruling the objections raised by certain officials of the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Law & Justice, stated the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms in a supplementary affidavit filed before the Supreme Court.
The requirement of obtaining permission from district magistrates before conversion is designed to shield against forcible conversions and protect the freedom of conscience, submitted the Gujarat government in an affidavit. Such steps stipulated by the state's anti-conversion law, key provisions of which were held in abeyance by the High Court in 2021, were "precautions" to ensure that the process of renouncing one religion and adopting another is "genuine, voluntary and bona fide" as well as "free from any force, allurement and fraudulent means", the state government has informed the apex court. The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003, which was amended in 2021 to include forcible religious conversions through marriage, sought to control and curb "the menace of organised, sophisticated large-scale, illegal conversions" in the state, the affidavit states.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition which sought directions to the ASI to determine the "correct age" of Taj Mahal and to remove "wrong facts" from history books regarding the monument.
"What kind of PIL is this?", a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar asked. The bench asked how will the court decide if the historical facts are right or wrong.
The petitioner then sought to withdraw the petition. The petition was accordingly withdrawn with liberty to file a representation before the ASI.
Remarking that "India is a secular country", the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition which sought to declare Sri Sri Thakur Anukul Chandra as 'Paramaatma'.
"India is a secular country and the petitioner cannot be permitted to pray that the citizens of India may accept Sri Sri Thakur Anukul Chandra as Paramaatma (supreme spirit)", the bench observed in the order.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner for filing a "publicity interest litigation".
The Supreme Court on Monday, directed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to expeditiously examine the lack of uniformity in rules regarding cadaveric organ transplant across states with the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014. The direction was issued in a petition seeking issuance of appropriate directions to State Governments for regulation and monitoring or the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act,1994 and bringing uniformity in Rules across various states in consonance with the Central Rules of 2014.
A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the November 7 judgment which acquitted 3 men who were sentenced to death in the 2012 Chhawla rape case related to the gangrape and murder of a 19-year-old girl. The parents of the victim have filed the review petition stating that many crucial facts were not brought to notice before the top court and certain facts were incorrectly interpreted while the convicts' appeals were allowed.
'On Monday, The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was made aware of issue pertaining to benches rising for lunch at different times on miscellaneous days on Monday.
The issue was raised by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who stated that the issue created problems for the members of the bar who could not each lunch at times due to different benches of the Supreme Court of India following their own board as per their own convenience.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, while holding court on Monday, orally remarked that it was time to impose pre-hearing costs in commercial cases to prevent frivolous matters involving commercial issues to be argued before the Supreme Court of India.
'Every charity or good work is welcome, but the intention has to be checked', the Supreme Court orally observed on Monday while hearing a petition filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to curb forced religious conversions.
Justice MR Shah, the presiding judge of the bench, said that alluring people to convert to other religions by offering medicines and food grains is a 'very serious' issue.
The Supreme Court on Monday directed all High Courts to file their responses on the proposed set up of online RTI Portals within three weeks. The issue arose before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha when a counsel informed the bench that only nine High Court had filed their replies in the plea seeking mechanism to set up an online portal for e-filing Right to Information (RTI) applications and first appeals in High Courts.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, forbade the Advocates-on-Record of the Apex Court from putting down their signatures on petitions that they are filing without reading and verifying them. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka noted that there is a great responsibility on Advocates-on-Record and they should exercise caution while signing petitions.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has moved Supreme Court of India seeking a review of the Constitution Bench judgment upholding the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced provisions for reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
The judgement dated 07.11.2022, by a 3:2 majority, had upheld the validity f the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment, which was concurred with by the then Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit.
Under the aegis of the Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Supreme Court of India will have its first ever Hackathon Event. The aim of the exercise is to identify innovative ideas and explore practical propositions to make the existing filing and listing process efficient.
CBI Manual On Seizure Of Electronic Devices Needs To Be Updated, Says Supreme Court
In a plea, inter alia, seeking guidelines for the seizure of personal electronic devices by investigating agencies, the Supreme Court, on Monday, indicated that the CBI Manual needs to be updated.
During the course of the hearing of a plea seeking directions on police and investigative agencies, working under the control of Central and State Governments for specifying guidelines with regards to seizure, examination and preservation of personal digital and electronic devices and their contents thereof, the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka noted that the CBI must keep up with the changes that are brought about in the criminal manuals in the other jurisdictions in this regard.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on the plea filed by Muhammed Ameer-ul-Islam, who has been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a woman in Kerala in 2016, seeking transfer from the prison from Kerala to a prison in his home state Assam.
We Gave The Recommendation For Demonetisation, All Procedures Followed : RBI Tells Supreme Court
Insinuating procedural impropriety without having concrete evidence, when allegations of procedural lapses were denied by both the central government and the Reserve Bank of India, was nothing but a 'fishing and roving enquiry', Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing on behalf of the central bank, told the Supreme Court on Monday. "The process was followed. For instance, we have stated on affidavit that the quorum as determined by the regulations was met. In these matters, the burden typically lies with the person making an allegation. They have not said with certainty that the quorum requirements were not met, but only attempted to shift the burden onto us. This is a highly prejudicial line of argument," he submitted before the Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Union Government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016. The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, is considering, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 circular that set the policy in motion, six years after it sent shockwaves through the nation.
The Kerala Yuktivadi Sangham (KYS), which is a part of Kerala Rationalist Movement, a continuation of Sri Narayana Swamy reform movement in Kerala, has filed an intervention application in BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay's PIL relating to religious conversions.
In the application, the organisation stated that it is deeply concerned about fraternity and brotherhood of all people regardless of their faith, and hence it wishes to intervene in the PIL, which it claims is spreading "untruths" about mass forced conversion and causing hysteria so as to cause ruptures between communities.
The three stated objectives of the 2016 banknote demonetisation, namely, counterfeit currency, black money, and terror financing, were like Jarasandha from Mahabharata, and the only way to effectively tackle these issues was to 'cut them into pieces', Attorney-General for India, R. Venkataramani told the Supreme Court on Friday. "If you do not cut Jarasandha into pieces, it will always be alive. These three evils often escape inquiry and grin at the government from quarters they cannot reach. The petitioners have said that we should have had an impact study. For more than a decade, the government and the Reserve Bank have been looking at these three problems," he submitted before the Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Union Government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016. The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, is considering, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 circular that set the policy in motion, six years after it sent shockwaves through the nation.
Taking objection to the recent order passed by the Kerala High Court which observed that religious organizations were encroaching public land, the Catholic Diocese of Bathery on Monday urged the Supreme Court to stay the same, in which directions were issued to the government to act against public encroachments made by religious and charitable trusts.
The Supreme Court on Monday took grave note of a police officer's complaint alleging that he was assaulted inside the chambers of an Additional District Judge (ADJ) in Patna.
A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar directed the Chief Justice of Patna High Court to probe into the police officer's complaint as well as the ADJ's counter FIR. However, the Bench reminded that the Judiciary's sanctity and dignity are most important.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea seeking removal of levy of Goods and Services Tax on medicines to cure spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) stating that its a 'policy decision'.
The petitioner was seeking a GST exemption on medical treatment of patients suffering from SMA. He submitted that the the Drugs for SMA are prohibitively priced. One dose of Zolegsnama is Rs 17 crores. And, that the GST component itself would be upward of 2.5 crores, the plea averred.
The Central Government has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking to refer the issue relating to the control of administrative services in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to a bench having strength of 9 or more judges.
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Union Government to examine means to improve the conditions of persons suffering from the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The issue arose in a petition filed by a person claiming to be suffering from a condition called Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, a condition recognized by the World Health Organization as a neurological disease since 1969.
Next Week To Be "Miscellaneous Week" In Supreme Court : CJI DY Chandrachud
Next week (December 12 to 16) will be a miscellaneous week in the Supreme Court, said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Tuesday. The CJI said this when the case related to Shiv Sena dispute was mentioned for urgent listing next week.
The CJI said that since it is a Constitution Bench matter, it can't be heard next week, which is a miscellaneous week. "It won't be possible to assemble 5 judges on a miscellaneous week", CJI said.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday posted the batch of petitions filed by both the Uddhav Thackeray faction and the Eknath Sindhe faction in relation to the political crisis in the State of Maharashtra, for directions, on 13th January, 2023. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. The matter was initially supposed to be posted for directions on 29th November 2022.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to next week the hearing of the petition filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking to adduce additional evidence in the criminal appeal filed by him in the Gujarat High Court challenging his conviction in a 1990 custodial death case. Bhatt has filed the Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by the High Court on August 24 which denied permission to him to produce additional evidence in the appeal.
The Secretary of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court refuting the allegations made by Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia regarding the non-cooperation by the officials serving the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
The Deputy CM had alleged that officials are showing an indifferent attitude to the Government and are skipping meetings with Ministers and not picking up calls.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the plea filed by Christian James Michel, who is facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with Agustawestland case, challenging Delhi High Court's order of dismissing his bail pleas. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. The bench enquired if it was appropriate to completely deprive Michel of his liberty simply because he was a foreign national and asked the counsels to submit a note to assist the court. The matter will now be heard in the second week of January 2023.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the Bar Council of India, being a major body, has to come up with propositions to handle situations regarding advocates agitating and going on strikes.
A bench comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed that, "This is a matter which should concern all of us not only on the point of law but otherwise as well and all of us have to apply ourselves in the matter."
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Judicial Enquiry Against Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition which sought judicial enquiry against former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in relation to an order passed in a case.
The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, alleged that a bench led by ex-CJI Gogoi had dismissed his case in merely 10 minutes in a "dictatorial manner". He alleged that the order was passed to unduly favour a corporate body.
The Supreme Cour will hear Goa Congress Chief Girish Chodankar's petition challenging the Bombay High Court's order upholding the Goa Legislative Assembly Speaker's order dismissing his petition seeking the disqualification of 12 Goa MLAs, after a year.
The MLAs joined the BJP in 2019. The High Court had held that it was a case of merger as the MLAs who joined the BJP constituted 2/3rds of the Congress MLAs. This view is challenged on the ground that 2/3rds of the entire political party, instead of the legislature party, has to be taken into account to determine if a valid merger is there.
While hearing petitions challenging the 2016 banknote demonetisation decision, the Supreme Court said that it will not play the role of a silent spectator and sit quietly with folded hands only because it was an economic policy decision.
"Just because it is an economic decision, does not mean we will fold our hands and sit. We can always examine the manner in which the decision was taken," said Justice B.V. Nagarathna, one of the five judges sitting on a Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Union Government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday asked the Union to get updated information from states on the number of migrant workers registered with the e-portal, 'eShram'.
The Ministry of Labour and Employment recently developed a "National Database of Unorganised Workers portal" and "eShram portal" for registration of unorganized workers. The list of workers includes migrant workers spread over 400 occupations such as Building and other Construction workers, Agricultural workers, Self-Employed workers, Asha workers, Anganwadi workers, Fisherman, Dairy workers, among others.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday resumed hearing on the challenge to the constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra
The 5-judge bench of Justices K. M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C. T. Ravi Kumar is hearing the matter. The present batch of petitions were initially filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union of India on 07.01.2016 and to direct the concerned States to comply with the judgment of the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547. While the matter was pending, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 was passed. Thereafter, the writ petitions were modified to seek quashing of the said Amendment Act.
JNU scholar and activist Sharjeel Imam has moved the Supreme Court seeking to expunge the remarks made by the Delhi High Court against him while denying bail to Umar Khalid in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case.
The High Court had said that Sharjeel Imam was arguably 'at the head of the conspiracy' with whom Umar Khalid was in touch. The High Court had also cited certain instances of alleged meetings between the duo to hold that Khalid was a part of larger conspiracy behind the riots which took place in north east Delhi during February 2020.
On Wednesday, the Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud made an important announcement in the Supreme Court of India. He announced the launch of the 'Supreme Court Mobile App 2.0'.
A review petition has been filed by All India Backward Classes Federation against the majority judgement of the Constitution Bench judgment upholding the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced provisions for reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
A plea seeking intervention of the Supreme Court of India in Senior Advocate designations in the Madras High Court owing to low representation of women in the posts was mentioned before the bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha on Wednesday. The bench refused to grant an urgent listing to the matter stating that issues such as these did not require out of turn intervention from the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court on December 2 converted a writ petition filed under Article 32 into a Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 to consider the legality of a High Court order which quashed a case against a school teacher for allegedly molesting his student based on a "compromise" with the family members.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the decision taken by the Union Government six years ago to demonetise the currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1000 denominations.
A Constitution Bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna heard arguments in a batch of 58 petitions. The bench allowed parties to give written submission by December 10.
Providing its current stand on the issue of extending the benefit of reservation available to the Scheduled Caste community to Dalits who have converted to other faiths, the Solicitor General of India, on Wednesday, informed the Supreme Court that the Union Government has decided not go by the report of the Ranganath Mishra Commission Report and has appointed a new Commission headed by Former CJI, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan to examine the issue.
A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 12, 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangster Acts) along with Rule 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3) and 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (Gangster Rules) stating that the provisions are ultra vires as violative of Article 14, 19, 20(2), 21 of the Constitution of India and offending the principles of Natural Justice.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked that a visually impaired person appearing for the examination for Advocate-on-Record (AOR) could not be provided with a scribe who was an LLB degree holder or a lawyer. The remark was made in a matter mentioned on behalf of a visually impaired lawyer who was unable to get a clearing for his scribe (who was an LLB degree holder) to assist him in the AOR examination. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
Anti-Trafficking Bill Under Consideration, Being Revised Further: Centre Informs Supreme Court
The Union government has informed the Supreme Court that it has no plans to refrain from adhering to the directions passed by the Court in 2015 for coming up with comprehensive legislation dealing with trafficking.
The Draft Trafficking of Persons (Protection, Care and Rehabilitation) Bill is presently under the government's consideration and is being revised further, the Union's affidavit dated December 1, 2022, informed.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, granted the Union Government two months' time to submit a report on the inter-state water dispute amongst Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Chhattisgarh with respect to river Godavari and the Polavaram Dam project on the said river. The Apex Court further indicated that in the interregnum the Ministry of Jal Shakti is to take initiative to hold meetings with the Chief Ministers of the concerned States to see if a consensus can be reached.
CAT Vacancies: Supreme Court Directs Tenure Of Officers To Be Extended Until Vacancies Are Filled
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala directed the tenure of all officers of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to be extended further until the vacancies for posts in the CAT are filled. The court has now listed the matter in the first week of February 2023 when it shall be apprised of further steps taken to fill up the remaining 19 vacancies in CAT.
At the request of the Union Government, the Supreme Court has deferred the hearing of the PIL preferred by the NGO, Lok Prahari seeking invocation of Article 224A of the Constitution of India for making ad-hoc appointments of judges to tackle the problem of mounting case arrears in High Courts till tomorrow.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing on the challenge to the constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
The 5-judge bench of Justices K. M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C. T. Ravi Kumar are hearing the matter. The present batch of petitions were initially filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union of India on 07.01.2016 and to direct the concerned States to comply with the judgment of the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547. While the matter was pending, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 was passed. Thereafter, the writ petitions were modified to seek quashing of the said Amendment Act.
A review petition against the order acquitting the three men accused in the 2012 Chhawla Gang Rape was mentioned in the Supreme Court before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice PS Narasimha on Thursday.
The counsel, highlighting that the public's confidence had been shaken due to the conversion of capital punishment to acquittal in the case, sought urgent listing of the matter.
The Supreme Court on Thursday told the Central Government that the collegium system is the "law of the land" which should be "followed to the teeth". Just because there are some sections of the society who express a view against the collegium system, it will not cease to the law of the land, the Court added.
The Constitution Bench judgements which formulated the collegium system for judges' appointment must be adhered to, the bench told the Attorney General and the Solicitor General in no uncertain terms.
Amidst the ongoing differences between the Central Government and the Judiciary over collegium system, the Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed disapproval of the comments made by the government functionaries against the collegium system.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, AS Oka and Vikram Nath was hearing a contempt petition filed against the Centre for not approving the collegium recommendations within the time lines laid down by the Court. During the hearing, the bench was informed of certain comments made by "people holding constitutional posts" against the collegium system.
Supreme Court Dismisses Curative Petition Seeking Probe Into Killings Of Kashmiri Pandits In '90s
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Curative Petition filed by an organisation Roots in Kashmir seeking probe into the killings of Kashmiri Pandits during the height of militancy in the valley during the 1990s.
The bench of Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer observed that, "We have gone through the Curative Petition and the connected documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra."
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, made it abundantly clear that the issue pertaining to the existing Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court has been settled and ought to be complied with.
While hearing a plea against Centre sitting over names reiterated by Collegium for judges' appointment, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, A.S. Oka and Vikram Nath stated that once the aspect of the MoP is settled by the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, the Union Government cannot get over the issue by referring to observations made by two judges, namely, Justices Ranjan Gogoi and J. Chelameshwar sitting in a 7-Judge Bench( in the suo motu case against CS Karnan)to justify the delay in making appointments.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, asked Senior Advocate, Mr. Arvind P. Datar and the Attorney General for India, Mr. R. Venkataramani to brainstorm and come up with a less cumbersome process to appoint ad-hoc judges in the High Court.
While hearing two applications filed in the PIL preferred by NGO Lok Prahari seeking invocation of Article 224A for appointment of ad-hoc judges to tackle the problem of mounting case arrears in High Courts, the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, A.S. Oka and Vikram Nath noted that though senior lawyers are often not willing to take up permanent positions at the Bench, they might be inclined to take up ad-hoc positions for a couple of years as a part of their social commitment. The Bench orally suggested both the Counsels to explore the idea and make suggestions in this regard.
Jallikattu Case: Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgment
A 5 judge Constitutional bench headed by Justice KM Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravi Kumar, today concluded hearing the batch of petitions challenging constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
Even if the Prime Minister had, on the eve of demonetisation, assured that the exchange window would be extended beyond the end of the year, it would not be binding on the Government or the Reserve Bank of India in light of the statutory notification that was issued, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta told the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 7). "In his address to the nation, the Prime Minister told the people that their money would remain theirs only if they followed the directions issued under the law. He also mentioned a timeline of fifty days. He did not say that more time would be given later. But, even if he had, it cannot be said that any promissory estoppel operated on the statutory notification causing the deadline to be extended," he submitted before the Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Union Government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016. The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, was invited to examine, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 circular that set the policy in motion, six years after it sent shockwaves through the nation. On Wednesday, after a marathon hearing over a period of six days, the Bench finally reserved its judgement.
The Supreme Court on Thursday extended the terms of the President and Members of the Maharashtra State Commission as well as the District Commissions, formed under the Consumer Protection Act, who are due to retire shortly, till March 1, 2023.
A Bench of Justice MR Shah and MM Sundresh passed the interim order after it was informed that many members of the Consumer Forums in Maharashtra were due to retire this month and in January 2023. The Court wanted to ensure that the litigants are not troubled in any way owing to this.
On Thursday, while passing order in a plea against Centre sitting over collegium recommendations, the Supreme Court categorically recorded that the scheme of the Constitution of India is such that though it contemplates that the law-making power is with the Parliament, the same is subject to the scrutiny of the Judiciary.
"We in the end say only this that the scheme of the Constitution stipulates the Court to be the final arbiter on the position of law. The power to enact law is with the Parliament. However, that power is subject to the scrutiny of the Courts. It is necessary that all follow the law as laid down by this Court else otherwise sections of society may decide to follow their own course even though the law is laid down"
On January 17, the Supreme Court of India will hear the Maharashtra government's plea challenging the acquittal granted by the Bombay High Court discharging former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba and others in an alleged Maoist links case.
On October 15, the Apex Court suspended the Bombay High Court's order discharging Saibaba and five others: Mahesh Tirki, Pandu Pora Narote (deceased during appeal), Hem Keshwdatta Mishra, Prashant Rahi, and Vijay Nan Tirki.
Why Eminent Lawyers Are Reluctant To Join The Bench? Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court has stated that the delay caused by the Central Government in approving the collegium recommendations is discouraging good lawyers from giving consent for judgeship.
While considering a contempt petition filed against the Union Ministry of Law and Justice for not adhering to the time-lines set by the Court for finalising the appointment process, the Court discussed how the delay is making many lawyers reluctant to join the bench as they "do not want their life to be dragged into an uncertainty".
The Supreme Court on Friday clarified that the observations made by the Delhi High Court against Sharjeel Imam in the order denying bail to Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots conspiracy case will not prejudice Imam's case.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka was considering a special leave petition filed by Imam seeking to expunge the remarks in the order passed by a division bench of the Delhi High Court on October 18 denying bail to Umar Khalid.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court came down heavily on a petitioner who sought damages of Rs 75 lakhs from Google India because he was allegedly distracted by the sexual content in advertisements on the Google-owned streaming platform, YouTube, and consequently, unable to pass a Madhya Pradesh police recruitment examination. Invoking Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which outlines the reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, the petitioner also sought a blanket ban on nudity on social media platforms.
A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna, adjourned the SLP filed in Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association vs. State of Maharashtra, on Friday.
The special leave petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court which has upheld the validity of Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act which mandates signboards to be in Marathi language in Devanagari script on top and having the same font size as any other language. By way of an amendment the said Rule 35 has now been incorporated into the main Act as Section 36-A making it applicable to shops and establishments with even less than 10 workers.
Nagaland DGP Appointment : Supreme Court Pulls Up UPSC For Delay, Sets December 19 Deadline
The Supreme Court, on Friday, sternly directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to take a final decision with respect to the appointment of Director General of Police (DGP), Nagaland 'on or before 19th December, 2022'. The Apex Court rejected an application filed by the UPSC seeking an additional 60 days to take the final decision. The UPSC had sought additional time for convening the empanelment committee meeting for preparing a panel of officers for appointment to the post of DGP, Nagaland on the ground that the consultation with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs is under process.
Lengthy Bail Hearings A Waste Of Time; Arguments Should Not Exceed 10 Minutes, Says Justice SK Kaul
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice, on Friday disapproved of the practice of filing lengthy bail applications and arguing "as if a final conviction has already taken place". "Speaking for myself, I find it a complete waste of time of this court or any court to deal with bail applications that go on for pages and pages…The whole argument is made as if the final conviction has taken place," Justice Kaul remarked.
In the order passed in the contempt petition filed against the Central Government over delay in finalizing judicial appointments, the Supreme Court has recorded its concern regarding the Centre splitting up collegium recommendations.
The Court has asked the Centre to address the issue, as the seniority intended by the collegium gets disrupted when the Centre decides to pick some names leaving out other names forwarded in the same resolution.
Expressing sympathy with the plight of various Indian medical students who could not complete their clinical training in foreign countries like China, Ukraine etc, due to conditions like Covid and war, the Supreme Court on Friday asked the Union Government and the National Medical Commission to find out a solution. The Court asked the Government to constitute a committee of experts to find out solutions for the students' situations, considering the fact that these students can be a national asset when the country is facing a dearth of doctors.
Padma Shree awardee and a former member of the Planning Commission of India, Dr. Syeda Hameed has moved the Supreme Court seeking impleadment in the PIL filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay against forced religious conversions, which is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.
Hameed has already filed a petition before the Top Court raising concerns over rising incidents of hate speech. In the present application, she claims that there is an "intrinsic relationship" between hate speech and free exercise of freedom of religion under Article 25.
A lawyer and disability rights activist, Mr. Arnab Roy has moved the Supreme Court challenging the stringent conditions imposed on the Persons with Disabilities intending to avail scribes for the upcoming Common Law Admission Test, 2023 (CLAT 2023).
The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record, Mr. N. Sai Vinod, assails the conditions for being arbitrary, excessive and unreasonable. It appears that 13 visually impaired candidates were denied scribes owing to the restrictions imposed by the Consortium of National Law Universities. The Consortium prohibits scribes if they are above 11th grade or they are affiliated to any test preparatory organisation or examination coaching centre.
Activist John Dayal has filed an Impleadment Application in the Writ Petition Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya vs. Union of India Writ Petition (C) No. 63 of 2022 alleging that the petition filed by the Petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya is frivolous, without basis, misconceived, vague, unsubstantiated, malicious and defamatory.
The application filed through Advocate on Record Anas Tanwir alleged that the Additional Application for Directions to Central government which was filed by the Petitioner carries derogatory and inflammatory statements against the Christian and Muslim community. The IA states that the statements made in the Writ Petition affect the communal harmony and secular fabric of the country.
Supreme Court Declines To Take Up Fresh Plea Against Stubble Burning
On Friday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a fresh writ petition highlighting the issue of air pollution in Delhi due to stubble burning in the neighbouring states.
While disposing of the plea, a Bench of Justices MR Shah and Ravindra Bhat orally observed that there are similar petitions before the Supreme Court for consideration.
Raising serious issues, the plea moved by Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha submits that stubble burning in the neighbouring states of Delhi has caused a huge level of Air Quality Index, resulting in the National Capital Territory "choking".
The Supreme Court, on Friday, issued notice in a plea filed by National Commission for Women for enforcement of fundamental rights of minor Muslim women seeking uniform application of penal laws to Muslim women, who contract marriage before attaining the age of majority, irrespective of what is professed in personal laws.
The Supreme Court, on Friday, dismissed a plea preferred by Citizens for Injustice And Peace seeking issuance of mandamus to regulate all kinds of processions, including religious processions and also issue Standard Operating Procedure for granting permission for such processions.
A medical student who has not undergone clinical training was like someone who has learned the theory of swimming but has never entered the water, and as such, such students should not be allowed to treat Indian patients under any circumstances, Advocate Gaurav Sharma, appearing on behalf of the National Medical Council, told the Supreme Court on Friday.
Supreme Court Stays Execution In Two Death Penalty Matters For Psychological Examination Of Convicts
This week, the Supreme Court stayed execution in two death penalty matters. Further, following the principle laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it directed psychological evaluation of the accused (Samivel and Deen Dayal Tiwari). Both the executions were stayed by a Bench comprising the CJI, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
The Bench directed the concerned State (Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu) to file the reports of all Probation Officers pertaining to Samivel and Deen Dayal within a period of eight weeks. The Superintendent of the respective jails were asked to submit a report on the nature of work performed by the accused while in jail. Another report with respect to the conduct and behaviour of the accused in jail for the past eight weeks have also been sought.
The Supreme Court to hear Bilkis Bano's writ petition, challenging the premature release of 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for gang rape and murder during the 2002 Gujarat riots, on 13th December, 2022 (Tuesday).
Bano has also sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment allowing the Gujarat Government to make a decision on the remission of the convicts.
Recently, the Supreme Court issued notice in a plea assailing the direction of the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata to the West Bengal Government to ensure that public transport vehicles below BS-IV are phased out within a period of six months.
While issuing notice, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka stayed the operation of the impugned direction.
'Tandav' Webseries Row : Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Amazon Prime Video India Head
The Supreme Court on Friday confirmed its earlier order granting interim anticipatory bail to Aparna Purohit, Head of India Originals at Amazon Prime Video regarding the 2021 webshow 'Tandav'. The top court also set aside the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad which had earlier dismissed her application seeking anticipatory bail. The High Court had observed that the series caused hurt to religious sentiments.