Judgments/OrdersRegistration Of FIR Mandatory If Information Discloses Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court ReiteratesCase title: Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 639The Supreme Court recently reinforced the obligatory nature of registering First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when the police...
Judgments/Orders
Registration Of FIR Mandatory If Information Discloses Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case title: Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 639
The Supreme Court recently reinforced the obligatory nature of registering First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when the police received information pertaining to a cognizable offense.
Case title: Hind Offshore Pvt Ltd v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640
The Supreme Court recently held that in marine insurance, if the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness. It also observed that the mere knowledge of an insurer about a breach of warranty does not automatically equate to a waiver unless explicitly stated.
The Court held that an insured party seeking insurance coverage based on a Classification Certificate for a vessel must proactively bring any shortcomings or defects to the attention of the Classification Society before the certificate is issued. This is important as the insurance coverage is based on the assumption that the Classification Society has diligently assessed all aspects before issuing the certificate.
Case title: Yaddanapudi Madhusudhana Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 641
"To attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence to substantiate the existence of suicide. It should be followed by abetment, as required under Section 107 of the IPC. In as much as we do not find any merit in evidence to support the case of the prosecution that there was a suicide, thereby the statement recorded from LW25 itself shows that the deceased was ailing and therefore, not keeping in good health.", the court added.
Correctness Of Witness Statements Cannot Be Decided In Section 482 CrPC Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case title: Manik B v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet while considering a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all, the bench of Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed.
Case title: Palanisamy v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 643
The Supreme Court ordered the release of a vegetable vendor who was convicted of possessing 43 counterfeit notes of the denomination of Rs.10.
The court modified the sentence to the one already undergone while retaining the conviction.
Case Title: Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 644
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that no protection should be given to persons who secure public employment through false caste certificates. The Court set aside a judgment of the Orissa High Court which directed a public authority to consider reinstating an employee, who was found to have obtained employment in reserved post on the basis of a false certificate(Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das & Ors).
The Court held that it is immaterial whether the caste certificate was submitted fraudulently or due to a genuine mistaken belief. Intent is of no consequence.
Case title: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 645
The Supreme Court recently underlined the significance of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression while dismissing a PIL which sought a direction to the Government of India to constitute a "Broadcast Regulatory Authority of India" to regulate media.
Can't Pass 'One Size Fits All' Direction For Page Limit On Petitions: Supreme Court
Case Title: Amrish Rajnikant Kilachand v. Secretary General SCI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 646
The Supreme Court recently disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to limit the pages in petitions filed in Court. While the Top Court said the concern of the Petitioner was ‘laudable’, the Court was of the view that it would not be proper to issue a ‘one size fits all’ direction.
The Apex Court disposed the plea leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Secretary General of the Supreme Court on any ‘concrete’ suggestions he may have for expeditious disposal of cases.
Case title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647
The Supreme Court recently set free a life convict, who despite being granted remission by Andhra Pradesh government, was not released on the ground that his sentence for a subsequent offence would start running from the date of remission(State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa).
The court noted that for an escaped convict, the second conviction starts only when he serves the remaining term of his previous conviction. But for a life convict, it's impossible to determine what was the remaining sentence.
The Court took into aid section 427(2) CrPC to hold that the second sentence would run concurrently with the previous life sentence. Therefore, the convict may be released upon grant of remission.
Case Title: SHREE NILKANTH DEVELOPERS v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 648
A Division bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal, discussed the objective and purpose behind setting up a Settlement Commission under the Income Tax Act 1961. The Court opined:
“We find that there is a real object and purpose of setting up of the Settlement Commission as an Assessee, who is given an opportunity to disclose the undisclosed income in order to seek benefit in the form of immunity from penalty and prosecution.
Case Title: Case Title: Asma Shaw v. The Islamia College of Science & Commerce Srinagar Kashmir, Civil Appeal No.4951 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 649
The Supreme Court recently directed the Islamia College of Science & Commerce, Srinagar under the University of Kashmir to give a Lecturer the benefit of pay protection holding that the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court was wrong in holding that she was appointed against a short-term vacancy and not against a substantive post.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/s Denis Chem Lab Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 650
The Supreme Court has ruled that in order to determine whether a product would fall under the description of “Intravenous Fluids” so as to be eligible for exemption from excise duty, it is the composition of the product in question which is relevant and not whether the product is used for treatment of any particular disease.
The top court made the observation while ruling that the veterinary products ‘Calcium Borogluconate Injection (I.P.) (Vet.)’ and ‘Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injection (I.P.) (Vet.)’ manufactured by the assessee, M/s. Denis Chem Lab Ltd., fell under the description of “Intravenous Fluids”, and thus were eligible for exemption from excise duty
Case Title: Government Of NCT Of Delhi v. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: MA 1740/2023 in C.A. No. 4039/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday extended the time granted to the Delhi Government to finalise the Delhi Motor Vehicle Aggregator and Delivery Service Provider Scheme, 2023 for regulation of two-wheeler aggregators till September 30th.
Case Title: News Broadcasters Association v. Union Of India And Ors
Citation: Diary No. 10801-2021
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its concerns about the ineffectiveness of the self-regulatory mechanism set up by the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA), namely, the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBSA).
While acknowledging the NBDA's stance against pre-censorship or post-censorship on news channels through the statutory mechanism, the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stressed the necessity for an effective self-regulatory mechanism.
CJI Chandrachud questioned the adequacy of the existing penalties imposed by the NBDA, citing a need for proportional fines that reflect the profits earned from news channels by airing disputed news. The bench noted that the penalty for violations is Rupees 1 lakh, a figure which was set in 2008.
Case Title: Agnostos Theos V. Union Of India & Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 651
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the setting up of a National Internal Security Council to deal with organised crime in the country such as smuggling, interstate trafficking, cybercrimes and large-scale political violence.
The PIL also sought for all national and state-level investigation agencies to be brought under the control of such a body. The Apex Court dismissed the PIL on the ground that the reliefs sought for were in the nature of policy and in the domain of the legislature and hence the writ jurisdiction of the court could not be exercised for the same
Case Title: Dhanraj N Asawani vs Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 652
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal, held that: “The police have independent power and even duty under the CrPC to investigate into an offence once information has been drawn to their attention indicating the commission of an offence. This power is not curtailed by the provisions of the 1960 Act (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act).
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Mandatory Pre-Litigation Mediation
Case Title: Youth Bar Association of India v. Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(SC)653
The Supreme Court on Monday(August 14) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought for directions for mandatory pre-litigation mediation in certain matters such commercial cases, partition suits, probation petitions. The PIL had also sought for guidelines or a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to give effect to pre-litigation mediation.
The Court observed that provisions for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement already exist under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. The Commercial Courts Act 2015 also provides for pre-institution mediation and settlement and hence there was no requirement for the reliefs sought for to be entertained by the Court.
Case Title: HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED v. ASHISH JAIN & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 654
While hearing a bunch of appeals, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal, held, "Public interest need not remain exclusively limited to ensuring maximum revenue accrual for the Government. Instead, public interest includes, without limiting itself to, a fair, transparent & stable process which any and all executive action must adhere to.”
Partition Can Also Be Effected Under A Settlement Or Oral Understanding: Supreme Court
Case title: H Vasanthi vs A. Santha (D)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 655
The Supreme Court observed that a partition can also be effected under a settlement or oral understanding.
There is no prohibition to effect a partition otherwise than through an instrument in writing by duly complying with the requirement of law, the bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and SV Bhatti said.
Case Title: Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 657
Last week, the Supreme Court sought the responses of the chief secretaries to the state governments of Meghalaya and Sikkim and the union territory administration of Ladakh with respect to their failure to establish regulatory authorities as well as appellate tribunals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Responses have also been sought from the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and West Bengal, and the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir for not establishing real estate appellate tribunals. These states have notified the rules and established regulatory authorities under the RERA.
The court has also issued notice to Nagaland, which is the only state to not have notified the rules under the Act yet.
Case title: Bhasker & Anr. v. Ayodhya Jewellers
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658
The Supreme Court recently referred a pertinent question of law for reconsideration by a larger bench. The court grappled with the question of determining the starting point of limitation for filing an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of CPC, 1908. These provisions relate to a situation where property of a person is sold through public auction to satisfy a decree passed by the court.
In the present case Bhasker & Anr. v. Ayodhya Jewellers, the Court referred to a co-ordinate bench decision in Pattam Khader Khan v. Pattam Sardar Khan & Anr (1996) 5 SCC 48 which held that it is not necessary for auction purchaser to file sale certificate along with the application under Rule 95 of Order 21. But the Court disagreed with such interpretation since Rule 95 clearly states that unless a certificate of sale is granted under Rule 94 of Order XXI, the auction purchaser does not get a right to apply for delivery of possession by invoking Rule 95 of Order XXI
Case title: YP Lele vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
Citation: 2023 INSC 732
The Supreme Court observed that, under explanation to Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court can record the presence of that party alone who has led evidence or substantial evidence and thereafter failed to appear.
"Under Order XVII Rule 2, the Court would proceed to pass orders with respect to any of the parties being absent or both the parties being absent. Whereas the explanation is confined to record the presence of that party and that party alone, which has led evidence or substantial evidence and has thereafter failed to appear.", the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed.
Case Title: SECUNDRABAD CLUB ETC. v. C.I.T.-V ETC.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660
The Supreme Court has ruled that the interest income earned on fixed deposits (FDs) made by Clubs in the banks that are members of those Clubs has to be treated like any other income from other sources within the meaning of Section 2(24) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra said that the principle of mutuality would not apply to interest income earned on FDs made by Clubs in the banks irrespective of whether the banks are corporate members of the Club or not.
Case Title: DHARMIN BAI KASHYAP v. BABLI SAHU & OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 661
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and S.V.N. Bhatti, while hearing an appeal reiterated the trite position of law that when it comes to the interpretation of statutory provisions relating to election law, jurisprudence on the subject mandates strict construction of the provisions. The Court elucidated: “Election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but purely a statutory proceeding, provision for which has to be strictly construed.”
Pension | Past Service As Contractual Employee To Be Taken Into Account For Pension: Supreme Court
Case title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663
The Supreme Court recently held that for the purposes of pension, past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account. The court directed the state of Himachal Pradesh to finish the entire process within 3 months and issue orders fixing pensions for these employees engaged in education and ayurvedic department.
Case title: MALA v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3992-4000/2011
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, while hearing a bunch of appeals reiterated the established law that while determining the deduction for development charges, the courts should take into consideration important factors including the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not, if developed to what extent, the purpose of acquisition etc. This exercise is required for ascertaining the percentage of deduction by the Courts.
Case title: Kavita Yadav v. Secy, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Citation: CA No-5010/2023
The Supreme Court on Thursday(17 Aug) held that maternity benefits have to be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. Maternity benefits can travel beyond the term of contractual employment. The court directed the employer to pay maternity benefits as would have been available in terms of Sections 5 and 8 of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 and payment to be made within 3 months.
The court underlined that the statute itself envisions the continuation of benefits beyond the term of employment, asserting that entitlement to medical benefits, as stipulated under Section 5, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 goes beyond the confines of employment duration.
Case Title: Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664
The Supreme Court on Friday (18.08.2023) convicted Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Prabhunath Singh in a double murder case of 1995, reversing his acquittal granted by the trial court and confirmed by the Patna High Court.
The Apex Court heavily criticized the 'deplorable conduct' of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court in the case, which according to the Court resulted in the miscarriage of justice at various steps of the trial. The Apex Court also said that the three main stakeholders in the criminal trial, i.e, the Investigating Officer, part of the police of the State of Bihar, the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, failed miserably in performing their respective duties and responsibilities.
Case Title: Harendra Rai V. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No.1726 of 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664
In a strongly worded judgment, the Supreme Court called the trial "shabby" and the investigation "tainted", which showed the "highhandedness of the accused-Respondent no.2, who was a powerful person, being a sitting M.P. of the Ruling Party".
Case Title: Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No.1726 of 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664
The Supreme Court held that the First Information Report (FIR) is a public document defined under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
The statement by an injured person recorded as FIR can be treated as a dying declaration and such a statement is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, the bench of Justices observed while convicting Prabhunath Singh, a former Member of Parliament.
Case title: Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 665
The Supreme Court directed the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions to ensure proper implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act.
"While declaring that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative ‘duty’ in the form of an obligation of public authorities is recognized in Section 4.", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case title: Ramathal vs K Rajamani
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 666
In a judgment delivered on Thursday (17 August 2023), the Supreme Court explained the requirements for a successful plea of non-est factum.
A plea of non-est factum is a latin maxim that literally means “it is not the deed". It is a defense available in Contract Law allowing a person to escape the effect of a document that she/he may have executed/signed.
The court said that a plea of non-est factum can be taken by an executor or signatory of the deed to plead that the said document is invalid as its executor/signatory was mistaken about its character at the time of executing/signing it.
Case title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667
The Supreme Court on Friday(Aug 18), passed an order relating to the appointment of support persons under the POCSO Act and their qualifications. The Court issued directions for framing guidelines on their appointment.
“A support person is to provide information, emotional and psychological support, and practical assistance which are often crucial to the recovery of the child. This can go a long way in helping them cope with the aftermath of the crime and with the strain of any criminal proceedings – in many ways a support person, acts as guardian ad litem for the child", the Court observed.
Case title: Konkan Railway Corporation Limited v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 668
The Supreme Court observed that Arbitration awards cannot be set aside on mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract.
The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is exercised only to see if the Arbitral Tribunal’s view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case title: Bhole vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 669
The Supreme Court observed that in a case involving 149 of the Indian Penal Code, a witness cannot be expected to speak with graphic detail about the specific overt act that can be attributed to each of the accused.
Case title: Ejike Jonas Orji vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 670
Prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners violates the constitutional principles of dignity and liberty, the Supreme Court observed while relaxing a bail condition imposed on a Nigerian accused.
The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal said that the liberty of an accused who is facing a prolonged trial deserves the attention of the Court.
Case title: T G Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 671
The Supreme Court reiterated that the principle “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has got no application to the courts in India. It is the duty of the Court to remove the chaff from the grain in its pursuit for truth, the bench of Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala observed while dismissing a criminal appeal.
Law Presumes Marriage When Man & Woman Cohabits For Long Time: Supreme Court
Case Title: Smt. Shirambai v. The Captain, Record Officer, Sena Corps Abhilekh, Gaya
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (SC) 672
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court recently observed that when a man and a woman have continuously cohabited for a long time, there is a presumption of marriage.
A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal observed: “Law infers a presumption in favour of a marriage when a man and woman have continuously cohabitated for a long spell. No doubt, the said presumption is rebuttable and can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. When there is any circumstance that weakens such a presumption, courts ought not to ignore the same. The burden lies heavily on the party who seeks to question the cohabitation and to deprive the relationship of a legal sanctity.”
When Does An Order Become A Binding Precedent? Supreme Court Explains
Case title: Secunderabad Club vs CIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) | 2023 INSC 736
The Supreme Court observed that its brief orders that are meant only for the purpose of closure of the controversy involved in a particular case and with a view to conclude the case, cannot act as a precedent for subsequent cases.
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai East vs Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 673
The Supreme Court has recalled its Division Bench judgment dated 10 April 2023, where the top court had ruled that Duty-Free Shops situated in the arrival or departure terminals of Airports are outside the customs frontiers of India and therefore, they cannot be saddled with any indirect taxes like the Service Tax.
SC Order Dismissing An Appeal Without Any Reasons Cannot Be Treated As Precedent: Supreme Court
Case title: Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 674
The Supreme Court observed that its order dismissing an appeal without any reasons being recorded cannot be treated as a binding precedent.
Precedents cannot decide questions of fact, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan observed in the judgment
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II v. M/s 3I Infotech Ltd
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 675
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, while hearing appeals, held that “Assessee cannot be subjected to a penalty on the basis of a show cause notice containing a completely erroneous category of service.” Therefore, Court rendered the demand made on the basis of the said show cause notice illegal.
Case title: Upendra Kaul v. S.C. Mathur(Dead) Thr Lrs.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 676
The court held that “the observation made by NCDRC that the ventilator was connected belatedly is not justified. Therefore, the finding that there was a delay that led to negligence would not hold true. The adverse observations against the appellant doctor and hospital are set aside. Having taken note that the state commission had directed payment of 2 lakhs and since the said amount has already been paid, the matter is disposed of.”
Case Title: Manoj V. State of UP, SLP(Crl) No. 7696/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 677
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a contempt petition filed by an Advocate on Record against the Secretary-General and Registrar Judicial Administration of the Supreme Court for allegedly not listing a matter, despite the direction of the Court to do so. The Apex Court expressed its strong displeasure and called it a ‘browbeating tactic’ and an abuse of the process of law.
Case title: Pesala Nookaraju v. Govt of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678
The Supreme Court clarified that the 3-month time limit prescribed by Article 22(4)(a) pertains to the period before the Advisory Board's report is obtained. Depending on the Board's opinion, the State Government, as per Section 12 of the Act, can either confirm the detention order, extend the detention for a maximum of twelve months as outlined in Section 13 of the Act, or release the detainee without delay.
The Court added, “Article 22(4)(a) applies at the initial stage of passing of the order of detention by the State Government or by an officer and not at the stage subsequent to the report of the Advisory Board”.
News Updates
The Supreme Court recently directed the Centre to submit its views on whether the bail condition requiring assurance from the Embassy/High Commission that a foreign national accused will not leave the country, has been incorporated by courts.
Be Liberal In Conferring Senior Designation' : SCBA President Requests Supreme Court
The President of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Dr.Adish C Aggarwala, Senior Advocate, in a letter to the Chief Justice of India on Wednesday, has urged the Top Court to be "liberal" in its approach in conferring the title of Senior Advocate to candidates who have applied in the upcoming round of selection, since this is only the second selection process to have taken place in the last 8 years.
Pointing out that the upcoming selection for Senior Advocates is taking place after a gap of 4 years, the SCBA has requested the top court to be ‘liberal in designating meritorious and deserving candidates
The Centre has come out with a draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with regard to the appearance of Government officials before courts in litigation that involves the Government.
The SOP suggests that the presence of government officials should be required in courts only in ‘exceptional cases’, and not as a regular practice. If officials are summoned by courts, advanced notice must be given, allowing ample time for their appearance, the Centre has said in its SOP. Also, first option must be given to the officer to appear virtually.
The SOP also asks courts to refrain from commenting on the dress/physical appearance/educational and social background of the government official appearing in Court.
Supreme Court To Examine Constitutional Validity Of Works of Defence Act, 1903
Case details: GOYA RESORTS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: CA 6079/2017
The Supreme Court will examine the constitutional validity of the Works of Defence Act, 1903.
This law is invoked for restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of land in the vicinity of works of defence so that such land is kept free from buildings and other obstructions. The Act also deals with determination determining the amount of compensation to affected law owners.
Case Details: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16942 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday, while hearing a challenge against the Bihar government's caste-based survey, questioned whether the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution would be affected since only cumulative data, and not personal data relating to each participant would be released by the government. Justice Sanjiv Khanna also asked whether it was a violation of the participants' privacy when a caste survey is carried out in a state like Bihar where everyone knows their neighbor's caste.
Case Title : Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun
Citation: C.A. No. 2844/2011
The Supreme Court today reserved its judgment in the issue of whether children born out of a void or voidable marriage had a right in parents' ancestral property as per the Hindu law. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a reference of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1 regarding the scope of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Manipur Violence | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea By Two Kuki Women
Case Title: Jamnagaihkim Gangte and another V. State of Manipur and others
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 823/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a plea filed by two women of the Kuki tribal community seeking a direction to government hospitals to provide free medical treatment to persons fleeing violence in the state of Manipur. The plea had also sought for appropriate guidelines directing the police to lodge zero FIRs as the local police has shown resistance in registering FIRs so far.
The bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra, while issuing notice also tagged the matter along with other pleas before it related to the Manipur violence
Case title: The State Of Meghalaya v. Union Of India And Ors.
Case Number: Original. Suit No. 1/2021
The Supreme Court is set to hear the State of Meghalaya claiming ‘legal right’ to sell its lottery tickets in other states. The Court on Friday(18 Aug) ordered that all the states who have not filed their counter yet must do so within 1 month.
Earlier, a 2 judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar had held that Meghalaya's suit was maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution.
It had observed that the “State of Meghalaya seeks to assert its right to do business in lotteries under Article 298(b) and its executive power to do so would be subject to parliamentary legislation, viz., the Act of 1998, the grievances raised by it in that context would constitute disputes which fall squarely within the four corners of Article 131 of the Constitution.”
Case title: Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 665
The Supreme Court directed the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions to ensure proper implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act.
"While declaring that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative ‘duty’ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognized in Section 4.", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case Details: XYZ v. State of Gujarat
Citation: Diary No.- 33790 - 2023
The Supreme Court on Saturday held a special sitting to urgently hear the plea of a rape victim for termination of pregnancy which is nearing 28 weeks. The woman approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court refused her relief.
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the High Court posting the matter after 12 days. "How can the court stand it over to 23rd August? How many valuable days would have been lost by then!", a dismayed Justice Nagarathna said.
Case Title: Harsh Vibhore Singhal v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 702/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (18.08.2023) sought the assistance of Attorney General for India R Venkatramani in a plea seeking for a "fixed time limit" for the Centre to notify appointment of judges as recommended by the Supreme Court collegium. The PIL was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal stated that the lack of time limit for notifying the appointments of judges as per the Supreme Court collegium recommendations is a ‘zone of twilight’.
Doctors Should Only Prescribe Generic Drugs Instead Of Brand-Name Medicines: Plea In Supreme Court
Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics and Medical Registration Board and Ors
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 794 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday has issued notice in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking action and guidelines against medical practitioners who prescribe branded medicines to patients instead of more affordable generic drugs with the same active ingredients. The petition argues that healthcare professionals prescribing generic drugs could help ease the financial burden on patients and improve access to essential medications.
“Access to medicines plays a critical role in providing a lifeline to treatment for individuals in need. The affordability of medicines is vital factor that contributes to effective healthcare delivery and the realization of the ‘right to health’. Without access to necessary medications, individuals may face significant barriers in receiving proper medical treatment and achieving optimal health outcomes.”
Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response On Plea To Decriminalise Consensual Sex By 16-18 Year Olds
Case Title: Harsh Vibhore Singhal v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 000700 OF 2023
On Friday, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the vires of the statutory rape laws that criminalize consensual sex by 16-18-year-olds.
The Apex Court, taking note of the PIL, sought a response from the Centre on seeking a direction to decriminalize the law on statutory rape often invoked against 16- to 18-year-old adolescents for indulging in consensual sex.
Case Title: University of Delhi v. St. Stephen's College & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17344 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the plea filed by Delhi University against St Stephen’s College deciding to adopt an 85-15 formula for minority applicants, with the university’s common entrance examination contributing only 85 percent to the overall score considered at the time of admission and the remaining 15% from the interview.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand V. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav
Citation: SLP (Crl) 1550/2020
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to list the appeals of the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the bail granted by the Jharkhand High Court to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Fodder Scam Cases on August 25th.
Supreme Court To Hear Umar Khalid's Bail Plea In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case After Two Weeks
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6857 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the bail application of former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid in connection with the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. 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.
Case Title: Mukta Dabholkar And Anr. v. CBI And Ors.
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 6539/2023
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, resumed its hearing on a plea challenging the Bombay High Court’s refusal to continue monitoring the case relating to the murder of anti-superstition crusader Narendra Dabholkar. The Bench was hearing the petition filed by Mukta Dabholkar, daughter of Narendra Dabholkar.
The Bench has granted two weeks to the Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for the petitioner, for filling of some additional documents. The Bench observed that these documents could also facilitate Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the CBI, in examining the issue of a larger conspiracy.
Hate Speeches From All Sides Will Be Treated Alike': Supreme Court
Case Details: Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022
Hate speech, whether be it from one side or the other, will be treated alike and dealt with under the law, the Supreme Court orally said on Friday.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti was hearing a batch of petitions seeking action against hate speeches, including a recently filed plea seeking action against calls made by several groups for the social and economic boycott of Muslims following the Nuh-Gurugram communal violence in Haryana.
Case Details: Yakub Shah v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: Diary No. 33188 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed status quo to be maintained with respect to a demolition drive being carried out by railway authorities in a settlement in the backyard of Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura.
Supreme Court Seeks Suggestions On Electoral Reforms In Supreme Court Bar Association
Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik
Citation: Diary No. 13992 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 14) directed the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), including its president and senior counsel Adhish C Aggarwala, to submit their suggestions with respect to further reforms in the election process of the lawyers’ body. The order reads:
“We have impressed upon Dr. Adish Aggarwala and the other members of the Supreme Court Bar Association to submit their respective suggestions and/or the modalities to be followed for further reforms in the election process of the bar association. The suggestions may be submitted within eight weeks.”
The Supreme Court has released the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes’ on Wednesday. The plan to release this legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms used in legal discourse – a mission Chief Justice DY Chandrachud admitted to personally undertaking – has been in the works for several years now, although it was announced for the first time earlier this year at a Women’s Day celebration.
Words or phrases that the court has frowned upon are usually ones that make imputations about one or more aspects of the character of an individual. Instead of phrases like ‘career woman’; ‘chaste woman’; ‘woman of easy virtue’; ‘fallen woman’; ‘Indian woman’ as juxtaposed against ‘Western woman’; ‘seductress’; ‘woman of loose morals’; ‘promiscuous woman’; and ‘wanton woman’, the court has said that only the word ‘woman’ should be used. This means that the practice of describing the characteristics of a woman – particularly her perceived promiscuity, chastity, or modernity, should be avoided altogether.
Supreme Court Asks Centre To Consider Whether Cap On Iron Ore Mining Needs To Be Imposed In Odisha
Case Title: Common Cause V. Union of India
Citation: I.A. NO. 42571/2023 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).114/2014
The Supreme Court on Monday(August 14) directed the Centre to consider whether a cap on iron ore mining needs to be imposed in the state of Odisha as was done for Karnataka and Goa while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on illegal mining in the state.
Those Facing Arbitrary Arrests, Illegal Demolitions Must Find Voice In SC : CJI DY Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, speaking at the Independence Day celebration organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association on August 15, stressed that the Supreme Court must provide solace to persons facing arbitrary arrests and illegal demolitions.
"Irrespective of an outcome of the case, I believe the real strength of our system is granting access to justice to our citizens, that sense of confidence of the individual that an arbitrary arrest, a threatened demolition, must find solace and a voice in judges of the Supreme Court," he said.
"The past 76 years suggests that the history of the Indian judiciary is the history of struggle of daily common people. No matter is big or small for the court. In seemingly small matters, matters of great constitutional importance emerge." he said.
Case Title: Sivanandan CT and others vs High Court of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658
The Supreme Court cited public interest to allow certain judicial officers in Kerala to continue in their posts, despite finding that the process followed by the Kerala High Court in selecting them was illegal and arbitrary. Noting that six years have elapsed since their selection, the Court opined that unseating those officers "would be contrary to public interest".
Case title: Shaheen Abdulla V. Union of India & Ors
Citation: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 940 OF 2022
Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Brinda Karat & KM Tiwari have sought impleadment in an ongoing case against hate speeches (Shaheen Abdulla V. Union of India & Ors) in the Supreme Court of India.
In the main matter, the petitioner (journalist Shaheen Abdulla) had filed a writ petition praying for certain directions to call off the country’s growing climate of hate/hate speeches. The said matter is pending for adjudication before the Supreme Court.
Case title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
The Supreme Court questioned why the policy for premature release was being applied selectively, during Thursday’s hearing in the challenge against the remission granted to Bilkis Bano’s rapists. This question was in response to the Gujarat government advocating for prisoners convicted of heinous crimes being given a chance of reformation by being prematurely released from jail, on showing contrition, and after serving their time.
“Why is the policy of remission being applied selectively and How far is this law being applied to inmates in jail? Why are our jails overcrowded? Particularly with undertrials? Why is the policy of remission being applied selectively?”, Justice BV Nagarthna asked
Is There Any CAG Report On Implementation Of Manual Scavengers Act? Supreme Court Asks Centre
Case Title: DR. BALRAM SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 324/2020
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, resumed its hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (Act).
Justice Bhat inquired, “Where is the CAG report? This Act has been in force for ten years. Many schemes have come. Do you have any CAG report after 2013 on any aspect?”
To this, ASG answered that a note had been finalized and would be placed on record.
Case Title: APOORVA PATHAK v. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 379/2023
The Supreme Court recently asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to have a relook the case of a judicial aspirant, whose name was deleted from the merit list of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination, 2019 (Examination) due to a "false" criminal complaint. The petitioner stated that High Court did not take into account her acquittal from the criminal case.
The Collegium of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sanjiv Khanna has recommended names of an advocate and a judicial officer for elevation to the Orissa High Court.
The name of Advocate Sibo Sankar Mishra, who is currently an Advocate-on-Record for the State of Odisha in the Supreme Court, has been recommended. He is also a counsel for Union of India and Orissa High Court in the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court Collegium on Thursday recommended the appointment of Arunachal Pradesh judicial officer Budi Habung as a judge of the Gauhati High Court.
In its resolution uploaded on the Supreme Court website, the Collegium comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul and Sanjiv Khanna noted that Habung is the senior most judicial officer in Arunachal Pradesh.
Dave argued that since the J&K Constituent Assembly no longer existed, Article 370(3) had also ceased to exist. However, Dave insisted that Article 370(1) continued to survive because if the Constitution of India was amended now and a new article was inserted, Article 370(1) would be used to apply it to J&K. To this submission, CJI said–
"You say that Article 370 has worked itself out and achieved its purpose once the Constituent Assembly of J&K has completed its task. But that would be belied by constitutional practice. Because even after 1957, there were orders issued progressively modifying the constitution in relation to J&K. This means that Article 370 had continued to operate even thereafter."
Case Title: Kham Khan Suan Hausing v. The State Of Manipur And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 311/2023 PIL-W
The Supreme Court on Monday granted two week long protection to Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing from coercive actions in two criminal cases against him in Manipur. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra passed the order.
Case title: Union of India v. Aligarh Muslim University And Ors
Citation: T.P.(C) No. 1870/2014
The Supreme Court has transferred to itself the petition titled Anoop Prabhakar v. Union of India (2014) pending in the Allahabad HC seeking to implement Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 in the Aligarh Muslim University.
The bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed an order on Monday allowing the transfer plea filed by the Union of India
Since the question about the "status of Aligarh Muslim University" is already pending before SC in Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal(2006), the court directed the present matter to be tagged along with it.
Case title: Vishal Chelani v Debashis Nanda
Citation: C.A. No. 3806/2023
The Supreme has agreed to decide the question of law whether homebuyers, who secure a decree from the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for a refund of their investment, should be treated as financial creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
Case Title: National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights vs Jerald Alameda and others
Citation: Diary No. 30895-2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) challenging an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which held that a complaint under the MP Freedom of Religion Act can be made only by a person converted or person aggrieved or against whom attempt is made for conversion or by their relatives.
Case title: Admiral D K Joshi, the Hon’ble Lieutenant Appellants Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Another v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Respondents Sangh and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 656
The Supreme Court has closed the matter concerning the order passed by the Calcutta high Court's Port Blair Circuit Bench which suspended Keshav Chandra, the Chief Secretary of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Administration, and fined Admiral D.K. Joshi, the Lt. Governor, a sum of Rs 5 lakh to be paid “from his own funds” for not implementing its directions in relation to payments to be made to Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs).
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, speaking at the function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association on the occasion of Independence day, announced major plans for expansion of the Supreme Court. He announced that the project is envisaged to be completed in two stages. The plan includes 27 new courtrooms and 4 registrar courtrooms and additional facilities for lawyers and litigants. “We need to overhaul our infrastructure on priority”, the CJI said.
Case Title: D.M.Kathir Anand V. N.S.Phanidharan and Another
Citation: SLP (Crl) No. 9567 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the criminal proceedings initiated against DMK MP Kathir Anand by the Income Tax Department for delayed filing of Income Tax returns and alleged tax evasion, after the Madras High Court refused to quash the said proceedings against him in July
Case Title: Y Balaji V. The State Represented By Commissioner Respondent(S)/ Of Police & Ors
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1675-1676 of 2023
The Supreme Court recently extended the time granted to the state of Tamil Nadu for investigation into the cash for jobs scam till 30th of September. The Apex Court however, made it clear that no further extensions would be granted and that a Special Investigation Team would be constituted to investigate the issue, if the State fails to adhere to the timeline.
Case Title : Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun
Citation: C.A. No. 2844/2011 and connected cases
In the matter pertaining to the issue of whether children born out of a void or voidable marriage had a right in parents' ancestral property as per the Hindu law, the Supreme Court discussed whether in case of a notional partition before the death of a father, a child born to the said father from a void or voidable marriage would be entitled to the property inherited by the father in the said notional partition.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a reference of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1 regarding the scope of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Supreme Court Issues Alert About Fake News Falsely Quoting CJI; Says Legal Action Being Taken
The Supreme Court has issued a statement alerting the public about a social media post which is being circulated falsely quoting the Chief Justice of India. The fake post uses the image of CJI DY Chandrachud with a false quote which urges public to come out in protests against the government
Case Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy V. Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. And Anr
Citation: SLP (C) No. 16477-16478/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in an appeal by former MP Dr. Subramaniam Swamy against a Madras High Court order that allowed Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited to proceed with a defamation suit against in the High Court of Singapore.
A division bench Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, while issuing notice in the matter, orally stated that the Singapore entity would not proceed against Swamy in the meanwhile, on the submission of the counsel for the foreign entity who appeared on caveat