Judgments/OrdersPreventive Detention Laws Are Exceptional Measures, Not To Be Invoked When Ordinary Criminal Law Provides Remedies: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ameena Begum v. The State of Telangana & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743The Supreme Court has stated that preventive detention laws are an 'exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations' and must not be used as a...
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Ameena Begum v. The State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743
The Supreme Court has stated that preventive detention laws are an 'exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations' and must not be used as a tool for enforcing 'law and order'. The Court strongly condemned the growing trend in the state of Telangana of passing orders of preventive detention at the ‘drop of a hat’ without consideration of the liberty and freedom guaranteed to people under the Constitution of India.
Case title: Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744
The Supreme Court observed that Section 162 CrPC does not affect a Court's power to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu to contradict them.
"There is in our opinion nothing in Section 162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from looking into the papers of the chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness.", the bench of Justices B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed.
Judge Is Not A Mere Recording Machine; Must Actively Search For Truth In Trial: Supreme Court
Case Title: Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar - 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744
The Supreme Court On September 4 overturned a judgment of the Patna High Court which confirmed the death sentence of a convict for the offense of rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl, after finding several faults with the High Court's approach. While remitting the matter for reconsideration by the High Court, the Supreme Court made strong observations about the concept of fair trial. The judgment was authored by Justice JB Pardiwala and it starts with a quote from Harry Browne:
“A fair trial is one in which the rules of evidence are honored, the accused has competent counsel, and the judge enforces the proper courtroom procedures - a trial in which every assumption can be challenged.”
Case title: Union of India v. Manjurani Routray
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 745
The Supreme Court reiterated that to strike down the provisions of a law or to declare certain rules as ultra vires, there must be a specific pleading and a request for such a relief in the case
The Court observed, “It is a trite law that for striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made, that is conspicuously missing in the present case.”
Case title: Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746
The Supreme Court observed that an appeal from an order of Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered/
Case title:L R Patil v. Gulbarga University
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748
The Supreme Court observed that a ‘lien’ of a government servant only ceases to exist when he/she is appointed on another post ‘substantively’/confirmed or absorbed permanently.
Otherwise, his/her lien would continue on the previous post, the bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan observed.
Case title: UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749
The Court came down heavily on the Ladakh Administration for notifying the LAHDC elections while sitting over the representation made by JKNC seeking the allotment of the reserved symbol.
“The Appellants(Ladakh Admin), while sitting on the representation of R1(JKNC), went ahead and notified the elections on 02/05.08.2023. We are unable to appreciate such conduct. This recalcitrance to decide in time speaks volumes. Instances like these raise serious questions", the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted
Case title: UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749
The Supreme Court has clarified that the High Courts cannot refuse to follow its binding judgment on the ground that a reference has been made against it to the larger bench or a review is pending against it.
It observed, “We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness.”
Case title: UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749
The Supreme Court recently held that as a general rule, the courts do not interfere in election matters. However, the court clarified that this principle is not absolute. It recognized that there are circumstances where executive actions or attempts to disrupt a fair electoral playing field may emerge. In such cases, the Constitutional Courts are not only permitted but also duty-bound to step in and ensure the integrity of the election process.
It observed “We would indicate that the restraint, self-imposed, by the Courts as a general principle, laid out in some detail in some of the decisions, in election matters to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to interfere, is not a contentious issue. But where issues crop up, indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field between candidates and/or political parties with no justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are required, nay they are duty-bound, to step in"
Case: Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749
In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the notification issued by the Union Territory of Ladakh on August 5 for the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) election in the Kargil region, which was scheduled on September 10.
The Court further held that the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party(JKNC) is entitled to the 'plough' symbol. The Court passed this ruling dismissing the petition filed by the Union Territory of Ladakh opposing the allotment of 'plough' symbol to JKNC. The Court imposed a cost of Rupees One Lakh on the Ladakh Administration for filing the petition. The Administration has been directed to issue a fresh election notification within seven days.
Case Title: Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that litigants will be liable for 'civil contempt' on wilful breach of an undertaking given on their behalf by their advocate to the Court.
"We hold that an assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel / advocate on behalf of his client to the court; the wilful breach or disobedience of the same would amount to “civil contempt” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act 1971. The undertaking given to a court attracts the provisions of the Act 1971 whereas an undertaking given to a party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlement or otherwise would not attract the provisions of the Act 1971", the Court held(Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor).
Case title: R Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751
The Supreme Court observed that the ‘last seen’ theory can be invoked only when the same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
"The burden on the accused would kick in, only when the last seen theory is established. In the instant case, that itself is in doubt.", the bench comprising of Justices said while acquitting the accused in a murder case.
Case title: K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752
The Supreme Court observed that the question of whether a cheque was issued towards a time-barred debt is to be decided on evidence.
"It is only in cases wherein an amount which is out and out non-recoverable, towards which a cheque is issued, dishonored and for recovery of which a criminal action is initiated, the question of threshold jurisdiction will arise. In such cases, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC will be justified in interfering but not otherwise", the bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra said.
Case Title: Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited V. Punjab National Bank & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 753
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that even though the highest bidder in an auction sale under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 has no indefeasible right to demand acceptance of his bid, the liquidator, if such a bid is rejected must furnish reasons for the same in the rejection order.
A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the mere expectation of the Liquidator that a higher price may be obtained is not a good ground to cancel an otherwise valid auction. The Court also held that once an auction is complete, the liquidator does not have absolute or unfettered discretion to cancel the auction, unless it is found that fraud or collusion had vitiated it.
Case Title: XXX v. YYY
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754
While allowing a petition filed by an estranged wife seeking divorce, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (06.09.2023) said that the word ‘cruelty’ under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act Act gives wide discretion to Courts ‘to apply it liberally and contextually’.
While interpreting the meaning of cruelty, the Court said that what is cruelty for a person, may not be cruelty for another and that the meaning has to be ascertained in its context. “It has to be applied from person to person while taking note of the attending circumstances.”, the Apex Court said.
Case Title: Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. v. M/s Vipul Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754
The Supreme Court has ruled that a person buying goods either for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activity, will not be a ‘consumer’ entitled to protection of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, if the commercial use is by the purchasers themselves for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchasers of goods would continue to be ‘consumers’
SLP Cannot Be Filed To Challenge An Order Passed By High Court On Administrative Side: Supreme Court
Case title: Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court Of Telangana - Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755
Article 136 contemplates only special leave petition to the Court from adjudication of courts and tribunals and such adjudication must doubtless be judicial. Since no Special Leave Petition can be filed against the administrative order, there is nothing wrong with the order of the Registrar and the order dated 6th January, 2023 passed by the Registrar is upheld", the judge noted.
Case Title: NHPC LTD. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 756
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible for the legislature to remove a defect in earlier legislation, as pointed out by a constitutional court in the exercise of its powers of judicial review. The court said the defect can be removed both prospectively and retrospectively by a legislative process and previous actions can also be validated.
“However, where a legislature merely seeks to validate the acts carried out under a previous legislation which has been struck down or rendered inoperative by a Court, by a subsequent legislation without curing the defects in such legislation, the subsequent legislation would also be ultra-vires,” the bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said.
Case Title: Makkella Nagaiah V. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 429 Of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 757
The Supreme Court recently directed the release of a man who had undergone 12 years of imprisonment, after finding that he was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the crime and reiterating that the maximum sentence under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 is 3 years.
Case title: Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 758
The Supreme Court raised serious doubts regarding a conviction based on a guilty plea in a case involving allegations against a Border Security Force (BSF) constable(respondent) of clicking photographs of a lady doctor while she was bathing. The Court highlighted several critical factors that raised concerns about the credibility of the confession, including the absence of an eye witness, the recovery of the camera from another person's house, and inconsistencies in witness statements. The Court questioned why would the respondent confess when there was minimal evidence against him.
LIC Not Entitled To Levy Fee For Endorsing Transfer Or Assignment Of A Policy: Supreme Court
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.4095 of 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 759
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) is not entitled to levy a service charge or fee for endorsing the assignment or transfer of a policy.
The Apex Court was considering the legality of a circular dated 24th April 2006 issued by LIC that imposed a registration charge of Rs.250 per assignment of policy. The Bombay High Court had struck down this circular as unconstitutional, holding that it was levying service charges or fees without any power to do so.
Case Title: Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No.1726 of 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC)760
Last week, the Supreme Court sentenced former Member of Parliament (MP) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Prabhunath Singh to life imprisonment in the double murder case of 1995.
While pronouncing the sentence, the Apex Court also directed compensation of Rupees 10 lakh each for both the deceased and Rs 5 lakhs each for the injured in the incident, to be paid by the Bihar Government and the convict separately. The Court also imposed a sentence of seven years imprisonment on Singh for the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
Case title: State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761
The Supreme Court recently reiterated the distinction between simpliciter termination and punitive termination. This distinction is crucial since if the order of termination is punitive or stigmatic in nature, it becomes mandatory to conduct an inquiry following the procedure and an opportunity to be heard has to be given. Failure to do so may make such termination/discharge illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.
The Court relied on the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (2004) which emphasized that if an enquiry or assessment is conducted with the aim of uncovering any misconduct by an employee and results in their termination, it is considered punitive in nature. Whereas, if it is focused on evaluating an employee's suitability for a specific job, the termination is considered termination simpliciter and not punitive.
Case Title: Purushottam Bagh Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. Sri Shobhan Pal Singh And Anr. Etc,
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 762
The Supreme Court, while affirming an impugned judgment of the High Court, observed that "mere living in a particular house by itself would not mean that the said house is under the ownership of the person living therein in his individual capacity or even that it is within the area of operation of the society".
Case Title: ARN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED v. HARA PRASAD GHOSH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 763
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC), while upholding the principles of natural justice. The Court opined that although the opposite party had not filed its written version and may not have participated in the proceedings before the NCDRC, it nevertheless had the right to address final arguments before the NCDRC.
While remanding the matter, the Court found that refusing to hear the opposite party while considering the complainant’s case on its merits amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice
Case Title: Prakash Bang vs Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 764
The Supreme Court has upheld an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) where the Commission had held that no case of deficiency of service or defect was made out against drug-manufacturer, Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, in relation to administration of vaccine Engerix-B
“Except for the appellant assuming that he has suffered ‘myositis’ and the cause for the same was the Engerix-B vaccine being administered, the same has not been established with the minimal required evidence to conclude even on preponderance of probability,” the bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra said while dismissing the appeal.
Case Title: Anshul Gupta v. Prime Minister Office, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 635/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 765
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged the September 2021 Cabinet decision to relax payment terms of the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) due from Telecom Service Providers.
Dismissing the PIL, the Court observed that it would have been more appropriate for the Central Government to file an application in the Supreme Court seeking modification of the directions passed on 01.09.2020. However, the Court refused to interfere with the Government's decision to give relaxations to the telecom sector in view of the "outstanding performance of the telecom sector in meeting the COVID-19 pandemic challenges
News Updates
In a significant step towards enhancing digital accessibility within the Indian judicial system, the eCommittee, Supreme Court of India, initiated its Regional Digital Accessibility Training program for visually challenged court staff. The training took place at the Delhi Judicial Academy and welcomed participants from District and Taluk courts in the North Zone, encompassing Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, Allahabad, and Uttarakhand.
The Supreme Court on Monday (04.09.2023) expressed its displeasure at advocates being constrained to approach the court to recover legal fees due to them for representing the State Government.
The Apex Court was hearing a plea by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an order of the Uttarakhand High Court that had directed the State to pay interest to an advocate on outstanding legal fees.
Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Restoration Of Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha Membership
A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court challenging the restoration of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha Membership. His membership was restored vide a notification issued by the Loksabha Secretariat on August 7 in view of the Supreme Court's August 4 order suspending his conviction in the criminal defamation case over the "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark
Case Details: Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India
Citation: Diary No. 23007 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a ‘cooling off’ period of two years before any retired judge of a constitutional court can accept a post-retirement appointment.
Justice P.S. Narasimha, judge of the Supreme Court while talking about the efforts required by the legal fraternity to advance marginalized communities, suggested that every senior advocate should recruit and mentor at least one member from marginalized community in their chambers. However, he added a caveat by saying that such mentoring needs to be accompanied by some patience and dignity; otherwise, it will have a negative effect. He went on to say that this should not be done to resemble tokenism, but rather, a humanistic approach is needed.
MoU Signed Between Supreme Court Of India & Supreme Court Of Singapore For Judicial Cooperation
During an official visit to Singapore, the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud met with the Chief Justice of Singapore Sundaresh Menon.
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) has been signed between the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Singapore in the field of judicial cooperation
An application has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking registration of an FIR against Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin for his recent statements made against 'Sanatana Dharma'.
The plea also seeks contempt action against the Delhi Police and Chennai Police for not complying with the Supreme Court's direction to register suo motu FIR in hate speech cases.
On the occasion of Vimukta Diwas, Justice P.S. Narasimha delivered a lecture on ‘Justice For Marginalised In A Constitutional Democracy’.
Justice Narasimha commenced his lecture by giving a brief background on Vimukta Diwas. He talked about the enactment of the Criminal Tribe Act, 1871(Act) and how certain communities were criminalized under this Act.
“Every person born in these communities were labelled as criminal and subjected to police verification, arrest, violence based on their birth. The Act continued to remain in force ever after independence. It was repealed only on 31st August 1952, when the so-called criminal tribes were de-notified. Therefore, Vimukta Diwas is celebrated as day of independence by people belonging to these de-notified tribes (DNTs).In fact, it is for us to celebrate, more than them.”
Ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has staunchly defended electronic voting machines (EVM) as ‘non-tamperable’, both owing to technological measures and strict administrative and security procedures designed by the commission. In a recent affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the commission has stated –
“The electronic voting machines are non-tamperable, both due to technological measures, and also due to strict administrative and security procedures laid out by ECI, whereby no access to EVM/VVPAT is allowed to any unauthorized person. Hence, these are protected from any tampering or manipulation whether before the polls, or during the polls, or after the polls, in storage or transportation from the manufacturer to the state or district or vice versa, or when transported from one state to another.
The Bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, while issuing notice, expressed concerns about the High Court setting aside the said matter prematurely instead of remitting the matter back to ASI for re-consideration.
“In the circumstances, prima facie, we find that the matter ought to have been relegated to the Additional Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi for re-considering the matter, after giving reasonable opportunity to all sides of being heard and by following the principles of natural justice. Instead, the High Court has simply quashed notice(s) and concluded the proceedings.
Saying that the affidavit was a "direct attack" on her, Arora said that she will recuse from appearing for the committee headed by former High Court Chief Justice Gita Mittal.
"We have gone through this affidavit. It seems like a direct attack towards the counsel for the committee...I have not made any statements on my own again, only on the instructions on committee. Regardless, since it's a direct attack on me, I will recuse myself", Arora told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Of PIL Seeking EVM-VVPAT Tally, Says There Is No Urgency
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday expressed doubts over a public interest litigation (PIL) petition asking for more extensive verification of electronic voting machine (EVM) data against voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) records. The court also shared its misgivings about the multiplicity of fresh PILs seeking electoral reforms filed from time to time despite its earlier rulings on the subject.
While refusing to urgently hear the most recent plea, Justice Sanjiv Khanna said –
“Every year, a fresh petition is filed on this. Every year this is happening. This has been dealt with in a number of cases. How many times will this issue be raised? Every six months or eight months, this issue is freshly raised.
One Can't Apply One Bail Order To All Subsequent Cases': Supreme Court Refuses Bail In PACL Scam
Case Title: PACL v. Central Bureau of Investigation, W.P. (Crl) No. 326 Of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 747
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (05.09.2023) refused to grant bail to Gurmeet Singh and Subrata Bhattacharya, erstwhile directors of PACL (Pearls Agrotech Corporation Limited), a real estate company embroiled in a scam involving more than 40,000 crores that is said to have duped several investors across the country.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, stayed for three weeks the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had quashed the GST Intimation Notice to the tune of Rs 21,000 crore and had held that online/electronic/digital Rummy games and other Online/Electronic/Digital games played on Gameskraft’s platforms are not taxable as "betting" and "gambling".
A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra issued notice on the petition filed by the GST Department against the High Court order.
Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Of Bihar Caste Survey Case Until October
Case Details: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India |
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16942 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing in a batch of pleas doubting the constitutionality of the caste-based survey conducted by the Bihar government last month.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti is hearing a plea by non-governmental organizations Youth for Equality and Ek Soch Ek Prayas against the decision of the Patna High Court to uphold the Bihar government's caste-based survey. This verdict was delivered by a division bench of the high court, which rejected the contention that an attempt to collect data on the basis of caste amounted to a census and held the exercise to be “perfectly valid initiated with due competence
Supreme Court Stays Disqualification Of Elected Members Of Anjuna Panchayat, Goa
Case title: Laxmidas Ashok Chimulkar & Anr. vs State of Goa
Citation: SLP (C) No. 19887 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 6) stayed the disqualification of two elected members (Sarpanch and Ward member) of the Anjuna Panchayat, Goa. The Court, while issuing notice to the State Government of Goa, also restored the position of the sitting Sarpanch and Ward Member. The proceedings before BDO(Block Development Officer) who was given 15 days to decide as regards disqualification proceedings were also stayed.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the bail hearing of former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid in connection with the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, until next week.
He has been behind bars since September 2020, awaiting his trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for his alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy surrounding the communal violence that broke out in February 2020 in the national capital.
Private Class 12 Student Eligible To Take NEET, Says NMC; Supreme Court Allows MBBS Admission
Case Title: Srishti Nayak and Another v Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 26/2022
The Supreme Court recently allowed a candidate who passed Class 12 as a private student to take admission for MBBS course after NEET counselling. This was after the National Medical Commission informed the Court that as per the latest Graduate Medical Education Regulations (GMER) 2023, such candidates are eligible to appear for the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (NEET).
In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 5) reserved its judgment in the long-pending case challenging the Union Government's 2019 decision to repeal the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution. The petitioners also challenged the J&K Reorganization Act which bifurcated the State into Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
The hearing, which commenced on August 2, 2023, witnessed extensive arguments and discussions over a span of sixteen days. This landmark case had remained dormant for over three years, with its last listing dating back to March 2020
National Conference leader and Member of Parliament Mohammad Akbar Lone, who is the lead petitioner in the batch of petitions challenging the repeal of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, on the direction of the Supreme Court, has filed an affidavit stating that he would preserve and uphold the provisions of the Constitution of India and protect the territorial integrity of the nation.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court had asked him to file such an affidavit after a Kashmiri Pandits' organisation named "Roots in Kashmir" stated that Lone had raised slogans supporting Pakistan in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly. Expressing serious concerns at Lone's statements, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta had demanded that the Court should ask him to state on affidavit if he accepted India's total sovereignty and denounced terrorist and separatist acts in J&K. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Lone's lawyer, said that he deprecated his client's remarks if he has made them.
Case title: Divya v. Union of India| Vimlok Tiwari v. UPSC| Ved Prakash Singh v. UPSC
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 724/2023| W.P.(C) No. 705/2023| W.P.(C) No. 764/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday(September 5) reserved its judgment on a petition filed by UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) candidates who were denied the benefits of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation category in the 2022 Civil Service Examination due to an error in their certificates.
As per a recent notification, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will commence hearing three cases of immense constitutional significance. The bench will comprise CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Mishra and will take up Assam Public Works v. Union of India, Ashok Kumar Jain v. Union of India, and Sita Soren v. Union of India from September 20, 2023.
It may be noted that these cases pertain to the Assam NRC, validity of reservations to the Anglo-Indian community, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, and whether MPs and MLAs have immunity from being prosecuted for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe to cast vote in the legislature respectively.
Case Title: Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra And Anr.
Citation: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 867 of 2021 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2419 of 2019
The Supreme Court has directed to list a plea against the central government sitting over names reiterated by the court's collegium for appointment to constitutional courts on September 26. This was orally mentioned for an early hearing before a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia today by Advocate Amit Pai.
Case title: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 406/2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 6) asked the Superintendent of Police, Muzzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh) to file a report regarding the status of investigation in the case against a teacher for asking other students to slap a Muslim student, a video of which became viral in social media two weeks ago. The Court has further asked the SP to report about the steps taken to protect the victim of the crime.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim protection to four members of the Editors Guild of India from the FIRs registered by the Manipur police over a fact-finding report published by them in relation to the ethnic violence in the northeastern state.
Carrying Capacity Of 13 Himalayan States Should Be Assessed, Centre Tells Supreme Court
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Raghav v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: WP (C) No 144/2023
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has submitted a report before the Apex Court suggesting the constitution of an Expert Committee to determine the carrying capacity of 13 Himalayan Region States.
The Supreme Court has been considering a plea seeking for Carrying Capacity studies to be conducted in 13 Himachal States/UTs. On 21st August, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra had directed the Petitioner and Respondent to discuss and suggest a way forward on the issue.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has expressed serious concerns at reports regarding the ransacking of the home and office of Manipur lawyer S Chittaranjan for representing Kuki professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing in a criminal case.
Earlier this month, reports emerged that the home of Soraisham Chittaranjan, Hausing's lawyer, had been vandalised by a mob. Following this, he and three other Imphal-based lawyers told the Manipur High Court that they were withdrawing from representing the Hyderabad University professor.
The Supreme Court on September 1 issued notice to the Neerukonda and Kuragallu Farmers Welfare Association (respondent) in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by State of Andhra Pradesh (petitioner) assailing an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that stayed further construction of houses for the economically weaker sections in R-5 Zone of the capital city of Amaravat
Case Details: Brinda Karat & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5107 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing of a plea filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Brinda Karat and KM Tiwari seeking the registration of first information reports (FIR) against Bharatiya Janata Party leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches during election rallies in January 2020. The hearing is now scheduled to be held on October 3. Although the court ordered the matter to be relisted a month later, it explicitly stated that Delhi police would not be granted any more adjournments.
Case Details: Reshma Prasad v. State of Bihar
Citation: Diary No. 36554 of 2023
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court over the Bihar government including ‘hijra’, ‘kinnar’, ‘kothi’, and ‘transgender’ as an item in the caste list, while conducting its caste-based survey last month. The court is also hearing a batch of pleas doubting the constitutionality of the exercise.
Trans activist Reshma Prasad has challenged the state government’s decision to assign a separate caste code to these gender identities and include them in the list of 214 named castes created for the purposes of conducting the survey, as unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, and against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s precedents, including the 2014 NALSA judgment which recognised the fundamental right of gender self-identification.
During the hearing, the bench expressed disagreement with the argument raised by Senior Advocate V Giri that if Article 370 was resurrected, that would be violative of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The bench found this to be an untenable argument with CJI stating–
"This might be a little too far fetched because then that would be to postulate that original Article 370 was violative of basic structure."
At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that most of the arguments raised by the respondents were "unsolicited" and "without reference" to the arguments made by the petitioners. He clarified that no-one from the petitioners' side challenged the sovereignty of India. Continuing his course of submissions, he said–
"I was somewhat pained when one counsel argued that we respect the sentiments of people of Jammu and Kashmir but you must also respect our sentiments. We cannot reduce this case to an emotive, majoritarian interpretation of constitution of India. All residents in Jammu and Kashmir are citizens of India. If historically there is an Article which gives them certain rights, they're entitled to defend that as a matter of law. To say that you must respect our sentiments as if they're somebody else itself is creating a kind of chasm it shouldn't be creating."
The Supreme Court recently(August 28) issued notice to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a petition filed by a Court staff challenging his transfer. The petitioner also sought the implementation of a clear and transparent transfer policy for staff of the district judiciary. He contended that in the absence of a transfer policy, Grade III and IV employees working in subordinate courts under the High Court faced arbitrary transfers which are often punitive in nature.
The petitioner called for the implementation of recommendations made by the committee headed by Justice Surya Kant (presently Supreme Court judge) on 17.02. 2017 for formulation of a comprehensive and transparent policy for employees, in the Punjab and Haryana Subordinate Courts Establishments.