Hyderpora Encounter - "Decent Burial Given, Last Rites Performed By State" : Supreme Court Dismisses Father's Plea For Handing Over Son's BodyCase Status: Mohammad Latief Magrey v. Union Territory of Jammu Kashmir And Ors. SLP(C) No. 12743/2022 Observing that Amir Magrey, who was killed by security forces in the Hyderpora encounter in Jammu and Kashmir was given a decent burial by the...
Case Status: Mohammad Latief Magrey v. Union Territory of Jammu Kashmir And Ors. SLP(C) No. 12743/2022
Observing that Amir Magrey, who was killed by security forces in the Hyderpora encounter in Jammu and Kashmir was given a decent burial by the State authorities, including performance of last rites in accordance with religious beliefs, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by his father Mohammed Latif Magrey seeking hand over of the body of his son.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala however directed the State to comply with the High Court direction to pay Rs 5 lakhs compensation to the family and also to allow them to have prayers at the grave site where the body of Magrey was buried by the officials.
Case Status: Indian Union of Muslim League And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1470/2019
The Supreme Court heard a batch of 220 petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019.
A bench comprising CJI UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat directed the Central Government to file a response to the petitions challenging the CAA. It further directed the State of Assam and the State of Tripura to file responses to petitions regarding the challenge to the CAA which were specific to the two States in question. While taking into account intervening vacations, the court has listed the matter next on 31st October 2022 for directions.
Case Status: Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka SLP(C) No. 5236/2022
The Supreme Court continued hearing the batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim girl students in some schools and colleges in the State. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Senior Advocate Yusuf Mucchala appearing for the Petitioners raised a preliminary objection that the matter should be referred to the Constitution Bench.
Case Status: Mohammed Latif Magrey v. Union Territory Of Jammu and Kashmir CA No. 6544/2022
The Supreme Court has suggested that the Union Government should consider enacting an appropriate legislation on exhumation.
The right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution is not only available to a living man but also to his body after his death..His family members also have a right to perform the last rites in accordance with the religious traditions., the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking National Level Liquor Prohibition Policy
Case Status: Viniyog Parivar Trust v. UOI WP(C) No. 894/2021
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation which sought for a national policy for prevention of alcohol.
Case Status: SCBA v. Ministry of Urban Development WP(C) No. 640/2022
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition requesting to direct the Ministry of Urban Development to convert the entire land measuring 1.33 acres that was recently allotted to the Top Court, situated behind the petrol pump near ITO on the Ring Road, into chamber blocks for lawyers.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking To Examine Link Between Pornography & Sexual Crimes
Case Status: Nalin Kohli@ Nalin Satyakam Kohli v. Union Of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 454/2022
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) by the police to examine the impact of viewing of pornographic material while investigation a sexual offence case. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat.
Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea To Constitute GST Appellate Tribunal
Case Status: Amit Sahni v. Union Of India And Anr. WP(C) No. 775/2021
The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to file its response in a petition seeking to constitute the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, on utmost priority basis and as early as possible, in the interest of justice.
A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli was hearing a petition filed by Lawyer and Activist Amit Sahni.
Case Status: Mahendra Vishwanath Kawchale v. Union of India WP (Crl) No. 314/2022
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging the validity of Section 376DA of the Indian Penal Code for prescribing a mandatory life sentence without remission. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat.
Case Status: O Panneerselvam v. Revenue Divisional Officer SLP(Crl) No. 7119-21/2022
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, O Paneerselvam challenging the order of Madras High Court to de-seal headquarters of AIADMK party and hand over the keys to Edappadi Palanisamy.
A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli upheld the order of the High Court stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), indeed, lacked jurisdictional requirements for exercising power under Section 145(1) CrPC.
Case Status: Abhishek Yadav v. Army College Of Medical Sciences And Anr.
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea seeking directions against Army College of Medical Science for non-payment of stipend to MBBS students undergoing compulsory one year internship in the Army base hospital.
While issuing the notice, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli asked ASG, Col Bala Subramanium to look into the issue.
Case Status: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Educational And Cultural Trust v. Hon'ble High Court Jharkhand And Ors. WP(C) No. 405/2022
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging the non-inclusion of reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes communities in the process of appointment of District Judges in pursuant to an advertisement issued by the High Court of Jharkhand in March, 2022. The petition claims that the exclusion of reservation violates Jharkhand State Reservation Policy and constitutional guarantee under Article 16(4). Apart from this, it is also in derogation of a resolution passed by the High Court vouching to implement reservation in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli granted liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Jharkhand High Court.
Case Status: BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar CA No. 4235/2014
The Supreme Court commenced with the hearing of the plea seeking permission to amend the constitution of the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI), to do away with the cooling-off period of three years after six years of holding position as an office-bearer of a State Association or the BCCI or combination of both. Appearing before a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, Amicus Curiae, Mr. Maninder Singh suggested that the cooling-off period requirement can be relaxed.
Case Status: Karshaka Shabdam v. Union of India & Anr. WP(C) No. 425/2021
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat dismissed a PIL challenging the Draft Notification published by Central Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, demarcating over 55 sq.KM area as 'Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Area'.
Case Status: Mahmood Ansari v. Union of India SLP(C) No. 11184/2018
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to pay ex gratia payment of Rs. 10 lakhs to a man who claimed that he was deputed to Pakistan for a covert mission where he was arrested and kept imprisoned for 14 years. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To TN Govt On Plea To Remove Atheistic Inscriptions In Periyar Statues
Case Status: Dr. M. Deivanayagam v. Chief Secretary Govt of Tamil Nadu Diary No 22422/2021
The Supreme Court issued notice and sought response from the Tamil Nadu Government and Dravidar Kazhagam on a plea seeking removal of atheistic inscriptions at the statue of Periyar erected all over the State of Tamil Nadu.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A S Oka issued notice on the petition which contended that the inscriptions hurt the belief and sentiments of the petitioner and public at large.
Case Status: Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka And Ors. SLP(C) No. 5236/2022
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court continued to hear the challenge against a Government Order (GO) passed by the State of Karnataka that effectively allowed college development committees to place a ban on the hijab in government colleges. A batch of 23 petitions was filed in this connection, some of which were writ petitions placed directly before the Supreme Court, while others were appeals by special leave preferred against the judgement of the Karnataka High Court upholding the impugned order. The Bench comprised Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Lodging Juveniles In Adult Prisons Amounts To Deprivation Of Their Personal Liberty: Supreme Court
Case Status: Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 757
The Supreme Court observed that lodging juveniles in adult prisons amounts to deprivation of their personal liberty.
Once a child is caught in the web of adult criminal justice system, it is difficult for the child to get out of it unscathed, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala observed while considering a writ petition filed by a murder accused undergoing life imprisonment seeking appropriate directions to the respondent State of Uttar Pradesh to verify the exact age of the convict on the date of the commission of the offence. According to the convict, on the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 10.09.1982 he was a juvenile aged around 15 years.
Case Status: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India WP(C) No. 55/2019
Acclaimed academician Professor Dr. Mohan Gopal made arguments before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Constitution(103rd) Amendment which introduced reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. Addressing a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, Dr.Gopal argued that the EWS quota inverted the concept of reservation as a tool of representation for the disadvantaged groups and converts it into a scheme for financial upliftment. As the EWS quota excludes socially and educationally backward classes and confines the benefits only to the "forward classes", it results in violation of the principles of equality and social justice and amounts to infringing the basic structure of the Constitution.
Case Status: Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Election Commission of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 758
The Supreme Court observed that the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right but only a right conferred by a statute.
An individual cannot claim that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as to file his nomination without any proposer as is required under the Act, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed by Vishwanath Pratap Singh.
Case Status: Director of Teacher's Training Research Education v. OM Jessymol 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 759
The Supreme Court upheld a Tamil Nadu Government Order fixing 50% marks in SSLC for eligibility to undergo Teachers' Training Certificate Course for appointment in the State.
The State Government, in exercise of its Executive Power, can determine the minimum eligibility conditions of the marks for appointment, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.
Case Status: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India WP(C) No. 55/2019
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench commenced the hearing on the cases challenging the constitutional validity of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections. In the last hearing, the 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala had proposed to complete the hearing on the matter in five working days. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora argued that the 103rd amendment was destructive of the Equality Code and the basic structure of the Constitution and it erased the Principle of Reparative Justice from the Constitution. Thus, she submitted that the 103rd amendment was ultra vires the Indian Constitution. In the alternative, she submitted that it could be intra vires, if it were read down.
Case Status: Mohd Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan CA No. 104/2020
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India began to hear the challenge against a decision of the Allahabad High Court to disqualify Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan, son of SP leader Azam Khan, for allegedly not having attained the age of 25 years on the date of the election as prescribed in Article 173(b) of the Constitution. In 2019, the Allahabad High Court struck a major blow to Khan's electoral aspirations when the petitioner, one Nawab Kazam Ali Khan, moved the Court claiming that the young politician from the Samajwadi Party had falsely represented himself to be older for the purpose of contesting the 2017 assembly elections.
Case Status: Ajay Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors. WP(C) No. 231/2019
While hearing a hearing filed by Ajay Bharadwaj, one of the Accused in the GainBitcoin scam, the Supreme Court once again questioned the Centre regarding the legality of Bitcoin transactions.
"There's a grey area on legality of bitcoins. Interim protection extension can be confirmed..it's your prerogative. If you declare it as illegal, it's up to you... ", a bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Surya Kant and MM Sundresh observed.
No Adequate Time To Hear Miscellaneous Matters In New Listing System : Supreme Court Bench
Case Status: Nagesh Chaudhary v. State of U.P. And Ors. SLP(Crl)No. 1427/2021
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Oka has observed that the new listing system leaves less time to hear miscellaneous hearing matters. According to the new listing system, regular hearing matters are taken in the forenoon session and miscellaneous matters are listed in the afternoon session on non-miscellaneous days (Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays). The bench observed that this system leaves less time for taking up fresh matters in the afternoon.
Case Status: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors WP(C) No. 943/2021
The Election Commission of India has told the Supreme Court that it does not have the legal power to withdraw the recognition of a political party or disqualify its members, if a party or its members indulge in hate-speech.
Case Status: Raman (D) v. R Natarajan 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 760
The Supreme Court observed that a Court cannot grant the relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against such a third party.
Case Status: Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 757
Revealing a rather unpleasant truth, the Supreme Court of India lamented that once children are caught in the web of adult criminal justice system, it is difficult for them to get out of it unscathed.
A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwalafurther observed that awareness about child rights and correlated duties remain low among the functionaries of the juvenile justice system.
Case Status: Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (D) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 762
The Supreme Court observed that second appeal jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act 1918, cannot be exercised for re -appreciation of evidence.
"Though it is not necessary to formulate a substantial question of law, the jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Act would permit only such decisions to be considered in second appeal which are contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law, or when the courts below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law", the bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed.
Case Status: Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka SLP(C) No. 5236/2022
The Supreme Court is continuing hearing in the batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim girl students in some schools and colleges in the State. Today is the fifth day of hearing by a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Today, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan appearing for the Petitioners argued that once a practice is shown to be bona fide,it is permissible.
The Bar Council of India has sought the views of the State Bar Councils seeking their views regarding allowing a Korean citizen, who completed law education in India, to enrol as an advocate in India.
The BCI has sent a letter to State Bar Councils in this regard seeking their views and through them, the views of the Bar Associations as well.
Case Status: Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 763
The Supreme Court observed that a simple and necessary inquiry can be conducted while considering discharge plea to find out whether a prima facie case is made out.
The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Status: BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar CA No. 4235/2014
The Supreme Court allowed the amendments proposed to the Constitution of the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) to relax the mandatory cooling off period requirement.
Case Status: Tulsi Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 764
The Supreme Court reiterated that bail applications must be decided as expeditiously as possible and not to be posted in due course of time.
The bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna observed thus while considering a Special Leave Petition against an order passed by Chhattisgarh High Court dismissing an interim relief prayed in an anticipatory bail application. The High Court had admitted the bail petition posted the matter for final hearing 'in due course'.
Case Title: Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka SLP(C) No. 5236/2022
The Supreme Court today continued hearing the batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim girl students in some schools and colleges in the State.
Today was the fifth day of hearing by a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia. It heard Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appearing for an intervenor and Senior Advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Huzefa Ahmadi for the Petitioners. Ahmadi argued that the impugned GO against wearing hijab in schools misunderstands the concept of fraternity and confuses the same as the antithesis of diversity.
Case Status: Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 765
The Supreme Court observed that a court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not strictly bound by provisions of CPC and should not withhold relief on the mere technicality.
Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief under Section 9, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed.
Case Status: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India WP(C) No. 55/2019
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench continued hearings on the cases challenging the constitutional validity of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections. In the last hearing, submissions were made by Dr. Mohan Gopal, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora and Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh. A detailed report of the submissions can be found here and here. Today's pleadings were commenced by Senior Advocate Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar, who, while addressing the Bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, submitted that weaker sections had to be understood ejusdem generisScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that economic depravity was not a ground of discrimination under the Indian Constitution.
Case Status: S Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 766
The Supreme Court observed that a false declaration with regard to the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents, constitutes corrupt practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration on the election of the candidate.
The bench of CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi also upheld the power of State Election Commissions to issue directions requiring disclosure of assets of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependent associates by way of affidavit.
Case Status: Akansh Dhull And Ors. v. UPSC And Ors. WP(C) No. 779/2022
The Supreme Court allowed five Civil Services aspirants, whose candidature had been cancelled only two days prior to the Civil Services (Mains) Examination, to appear for the same.
Case Status: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India WP(C)No. 55/2019
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala continued hearings on the cases challenging the constitutional validity of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections. Today's pleadings were commenced by Senior Advocate Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar whose arguments can be found here. This was followed by submissions made by Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid and Senior Advocate P. Wilson.
Case Title: Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka SLP(C) No. 5236/2022
The Supreme Court today continued hearing in the batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgmentwhich upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim girl students in some schools and colleges in the State.
Today was the fifth day of hearing by bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia which heard Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appearing for an intervenor and Senior Advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Huzefa Ahmadi appearing for the Petitioners. Sondhi has relied on a Nigerian Supreme Court decision which held that the prescription against wearing hijab in schools is illegal.
He also argued that the impugned Karnataka High Court decision forces Muslim girl students to make a choice between right to freedom of religion and right to education, and is a case of "indirect discrimination" against them.
Case Status: Axis Bank Ltd v. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd RP(Civil) No. 1043/2022
The Supreme Court allowed open court hearing for the review petition filed against the judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs Axis Bank Limited which held that the National Company Law Tribunal has discretion to not admit the insolvency application filed by a financial creditor even if the corporate debtor is in default.
A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and MM Sundersh listed the review petition filed by Axis Bank for hearing in open court on September 19.
Case Status: State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayadu 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767
The Supreme Court observed that there is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State.
The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that State Reorganization laws cannot take away from citizens the right to reside and settle in any part of the country.
Case Status: Goa State Co-Op Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. State of Goa SLP(C) No. 14789-99/2022
The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued notice in a plea impugning the order of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the constitutional validity of the Goa Cess on Fluid Milk (Control) Act, 2000 (2000 Act). However, the Apex Court has refused to grant stay on the operation of the order of the High Court. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari issued notice in the petition only to the extent that it assails the relevant provisions of the 2000 Act and the competence of the State legislature to enact it. The notice has been made returnable on 15.11.2022.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India continued to hear the challenge against a decision of the Allahabad High Court to disqualify Rampur MLA Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan for allegedly not having attained the age of 25 years on the date of the election as prescribed in Article 173(b) of the Constitution. In 2019, the Allahabad High Court struck a major blow to Khan's electoral aspirations when the petitioner, one Nawab Kazam Ali Khan, moved the Court claiming that the young politician from the Samajwadi Party had falsely represented himself to be older for the purpose of contesting the assembly elections. The Bench comprised Justices Ajay Rastogi and B.V. Nagarathna
Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Directions To States To Frame Rules For Sikh Marriages Registration
A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking directions for the State Governments to formulate rules for the registration of Sikh Marriages under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909.
Case Status: Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy And Ors. SLP(C) No. 19671/2021
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Pharmacy Council of India against the judgments of certain High Courts which set aside the moratorium imposed on starting new Pharmacy colleges for 5 years.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha expressed agreement with the High Court that the ban cannot be imposed through executive instructions.
Case Status: Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka SLP(C) No. 5236/2022
The Supreme Court is continuing hearing the petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim students in educational institutions. Advocate Shoeb Alam argued that Hijab is a matter of persons' identity and the extent to which an individual chooses to cover his or her body to feel secure from public gaze is a matter of personal choice. The same cannot be taken away by virtue of a person being in public place.
Case Status: Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka SLP(C) No. 5236/2022
The Supreme Court is continuing hearing the petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim students in educational institutions. Senior Advocate Dr Colin Gonsalves argued that the Karnataka High Court ignored international precedents on the subject and wrongly held that if hijab is not shown to be essential in Islam, there is no right. He submitted that several observations made by the High Court hurt religious sentiments of the community and gives wrong impression about Islam to other religions.
Case Status: Archita And Ors. v. National Medical Commission And Ors. WP(C) No. 607/2022
In a significant development, the Central Government has told the Supreme Court that Indian medical students who returned from Ukraine cannot be accommodated in Indian universities as there is no provision in the National Medical Commission Act allowing it.
Case Status: Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka SLP(C) No. 5236/2022
The Supreme Court today continued hearing the petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim students in educational institutions.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal urged the division bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia to refer the matter to the Constitution Bench. He submitted that the issue involved in this case is not merely confined to Article 19 but relates to the concept of 'qualified public space' evolved during the course.
Case Status: Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh SLP(Crl) No. 529/2021
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday opined that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence, and whose appeals will not be heard in the near future, should be enlarged on bail, unless there are other reasons to deny them bail.
A division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka was considering a batch of petitions of life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before various High Courts.
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, continued hearings on the cases challenging the constitutional validity of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections. Adv. Farasat argued 103rd Amendment violates the Equality Code by Excluding Backward Classes
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India continued to hear the challenge against a decision of the Allahabad High Court to disqualify Rampur MLA Mohd. The petitioner (respondent in this appeal) was represented by Advocate Aadil Singh Boparai, who contended that he had successfully discharged the initial burden placed on him, and hence, the onus has shifted onto the opposite party. In response, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal resolutely maintained that the burden had not shifted since the appellant had not denied the entire existence of the documents relied on by the other side but had merely disputed the date of birth indicated in them.
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, continued hearings on the cases challenging the constitutional validity of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections.
Case Status: Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768
The Supreme Court held that the right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and reasonable restrictions on such a right can be imposed only by a law and not by an execution instruction.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Uniform Dress Code In Schools
Case Status: Nikhil Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors WP(C) No. 115/2022
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking Common Dress Code in all registered and recognised educational institutions for staff and students.
At the offset, a Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia commented. "This is not a matter which has to come to Court."
Supreme Court bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice B. V. Nagarathna issued notice on a batch of petitions filed assailing the split verdict of the Delhi High Court on the issue of Marital Rape.
MSMED Act- Facilitation Council Cannot Review Its Own Decisions : Supreme Court
Case Status: Bajaj Auto Limited v. Ajanta Press and Mechanical Works 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 769
The Supreme Court observed that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act does not empower the Facilitation Council to review its own decisions.
Every decision of the Facilitation Council is an award, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.
Case Status: Archita And Ors. v. National Medical Commission And Ors. WP(C) No. 607/2022
The Supreme Court suggested that the Union Government could create a web portal containing the details of the foreign universities where the Ukraine returnee Indian medical students can complete their courses as per the academic mobility program approved by the National Medical Commission.
A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia suggested that there should be a transparent system and that the web portal could give details of the fees and the number of seats in the alternate foreign universities, which are compatible.
Prophet Remarks Row : Supreme Court Reserves Order On Navika Kumar's Plea Seeking Clubbing Of FIRs
Case Status: Navika Kumar v. UOI WP(Crl) No. 286/2022
The Supreme Court reserved its order in the petition filed by the Times Now anchor, Navika Kumar, seeking clubbing of the multiple FIRs/complaints registered against her over the remarks made by Nupur Sharma about Prophet Muhammed on the Times Now channel. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari heard the matter.
Case Status: Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 771
The Supreme Court imposed 10 Lakhs costs on applicants for attempting to seek review of a judgment under the garb of miscellaneous applications.
In this case, a Miscellaneous Application was filed seeking clarification of a judgment. The applicant contended that the court had not dealt with the aspect of security of pledge of shares with EARC having been arbitrarily and illegally wiped out in the Resolution Plan and invocation/non invocation of pledge of shares by EARC.
Case Status: S P Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 772
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court can quash a cheque case only if it comes across some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the Director/partner of a firm could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques.
"Vicarious criminal liability can be inferred against the partners of a firm when it is specifically averred in the complaint about the status of the partners 'qua' the firm.", the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case Status: Shruti Dixit And Anr. v. Union of India And Anr. WP(C) No. 1363/2020
In a plea seeking directions to regulate Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis/Testing (PGD) in India, pending enactment of codified law, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their petition in view of the newly enacted legislation, Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. Considering the fact that the codified law came into force after the petition was filed in November, 2020, the Court suggested the petitioners withdraw the petition at the present stage. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli asked the petitioners to examine the impact of the provisions of the 2021 Act, and granted them liberty to approach the concerned authorities or the Apex Court, if the grievance still persists.
Case Status: State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das SLP(C) No. 16270/2022
The Supreme Court reserved judgment in the petition filed by the State of West Bengal assailing the order of the Calcutta High Court, whereby the decision of the State to re-appoint Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University was set aside. The State Government's petition along with that of the ousted Vice-Chancellor was listed before a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kolhi.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India on Friday upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court to not initiate a probe into the disinvestment of Metro Dairy by the Trinamool Congress-led West Bengal government. This petition, which travelled to the apex court in appeal, had been filed by the West Bengal Congress President and Member of Parliament, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury.
Holding that no interference with the High Court order was warranted, the Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari refused to entertain the special leave petition. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Case Status: Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773
The Supreme Court reiterated that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and unless the court suo motu directs, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed that non-impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.
Disputes Related To Tax Concessions Are Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court
Case Status: M/s Shree Enterprise Coal Sales Pvt Ltd. v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 774
The Supreme Court has held that disputes related to tax concessions are not arbitrable. The division bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli has observed that the High Court was in error in holding that the terms of e-auction provided that any dispute was arbitrable. Undoubtedly, a contractual dispute would be amenable to being resolved by arbitration. However, in the present case, the relief related to tax concessions was not of an arbitrable nature.
Supreme Court Reinstates Judicial Officer Who Was Terminated Citing 'Dheeraj Mor' Judgment
Case Status: Sunil Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 775
The Supreme Court directed reinstation a judicial officer of Bihar who was terminated from service citing the judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed that the Dheeraj Mor (supra) case is not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
Andhra Pradesh Govt Moves Supreme Court Against High Court Direction To Develop Amaravati As Capital
Andhra Pradesh Government has moved the Supreme Court assailing the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which declared Amravati to be the only capital of the State.