Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK

1. Supreme Court Expands Definition Of 'Vulnerable Witnesses'; Directs HCs To Frame Vulnerable Witness Deposition Scheme

Case Title: Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Noting that "the need for and importance for setting up special facilities which cater to the creation of a safe and barrier-free environment for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses has been engaging the attention of this court over the last two decades", the Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions in this regard.

The bench of Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant was hearing a Miscellaneous Application as to the wider issue on the need to set up vulnerable witness court rooms in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu. In 2019, notices were directed to be issued to all the High Courts through the Registrars of the respective High Courts, for status report with regard to the establishment of the vulnerable witness deposition court rooms in compliance of the directions of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu [(2018) 11 SCC 163]. 

2. Leniency Can't Be Shown For Drunken Driving Merely Because No Major Accident Occurred : Supreme Court

Case Title: Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (Dead) & Thr LRs vs Sanya Sahayak & Ors

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 81

While dealing with the case of an employee's dismissal from service after being found guilty of driving under influence of alcohol, the Supreme Court of India has observed that merely because no major accident occurred leneincy can't be shown for the micconduct of drunken driving.

The Court stated that driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also. "Nobody can be permitted to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol" Supreme Court said.

A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in a civil appeal filed by an employee charged with causing an accident under influence of alcohol, against Allahabad High Court's judgement dismissing a writ petition refusing to set aside the order of his dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

3. Voluntariness And Animus Necessary For Execution Of Valid Gift Deed ; Donee To Discharge Burden Of Proving That He Exerted No Influence: Supreme Court

Case name: Keshav vs Gian Chand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82

The Supreme Court observed that voluntariness and animus are necessary for the execution of a valid gift deed.

"When a person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.

4. High Court While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 401 CrPC Cannot Convert Acquittal Into Conviction: Supreme Court

Case name: Joseph Stephen vs Santhanasamy

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

The Supreme Court observed that a High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

"If the order of acquittal has been passed by the trial Court, the High Court may remit the matter to the trial Court and even direct retrial. However, if the order of acquittal is passed by the first appellate court, in that case, the High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.

5. Mandamus Cannot Be Issued To Provide For Reservation: Supreme Court

Case name: State of Punjab vs Anshika Goyal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84

The Supreme Court observed that no mandamus can be issued to the State Government to provide for reservation.

The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while quashing a direction issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court to provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges in the State of Punjab.

In this case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed writ petitions and directed the State to issue a notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab. The court further directed that the said reservation/quota shall apply to management quota seats as well. It further directed that the fresh notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges. The State of Punjab challenged this judgment before the Apex Court.

6. Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Murder Accused; Says Patna High Court Ignored Gravity, Nature & Seriousness of Crime

Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 85

The Supreme Court pulled up the Patna High Court while hearing a challenge to a decision of the High Court granting bail to the accused. Setting aside the decision and quashing the bail granted, a Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that the High Court did not record reasons for the grant of bail, not considering the gravity nature and seriousness of the offences alleged against the accused.

In the present matter, the Patna High Court had released the respondent accused on bail in connection with alleged charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307, and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

7. Family Court's Finding Regarding Previous Marriage Can Be Relied On To Quash Complaint About Bigamy Under Section 494/495 IPC : Supreme Court

Case Title: Musst Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 86

The Supreme Court recently observed that a High Court's decision to allow the criminal proceeding to proceed for offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code - which deal with bigamy - despite the Family Court's finding that the wife did not have a subsisting prior marriage, would constitute an abuse of the process.

The Cout observed reference to the Family Court's conclusive findings will not amount to relying on evidentiary materials which are subject matter of trial.

The observation was made considering that in the present case, the appellant wife and her husband (second respondent) were parties to the decision of the Family Court and no contentious material or disputed issues of evidence arise.

8. GST Evasion Can't Be Presumed Merely Because Goods Were Delivered After Expiry Of E-Way Bill Due To External Factors Like Traffic Block: Supreme Court

Case Name: Assistant Commissioner (ST) And Ors. v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 87

The Supreme Court has observed that non-extension of e-way bill would not automatically amount to evasion of tax, especially when the non-delivery of goods within the validity period of the e-way bill was due to external factors, like, traffic blockage.

A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue Department assailing the order of the Telangana High Court, which had set aside the order, imposing tax and penalty passed by a Deputy Sales Tax Officer, with cost.

9. Gravity And Nature Of Offences Are Relevant Considerations While Considering Bail Applications, Reiterates Supreme Court

Case name: Manno Lal Jaiswal vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88

The Supreme Court reiterated that the gravity and nature of the offences alleged against the accused are relevant considerations while considering his bail application.

In this case, the accused persons allegedly attacked the deceased by sword, hockey, stick and rod and killed the son of the complainant. Taking note of this, the Sessions Court rejected their bail application. The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application by making the following observation:

"The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail."

Case name: Sunil Kumar vs State of Bihar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 89

The same bench, in another judgment, allowing an appeal against the Patna High Court order granting bail to murder accused, made similar observations. In this case, the younger brother of the deceased Shardanand Bhagat lodged F.I.R against the accused named in the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for having assaulted them and killed his elder brother Shardanand Bhagat, who succumbed to the bullet injury. The High Court granted bail to the accused.

10. MRTP Commission Can Grant Compensation Only When Loss Or Damage Is Due To Monopolistic, Restrictive Or Unfair Trade Practice: Supreme Court

Case name: B.B. Patel vs DLF Universal Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90

The Supreme Court observed that Section 12-B of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 Act empowers the MRTP Commission to grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice

The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna noted that there are five ingredients to constitute an offence of unfair trade under the MRTP Act.

11. 'Suspension For One Year Worse Than Expulsion': Supreme Court Quashes Maharashtra Assembly's Resolution To Suspend 12 BJP MLAs

Case Title: Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr.| W.P.(C) No. 797/2021 & Connected Cases

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91

The Supreme Court has quashed the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's resolution of July 5, 2021, which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for alleged disorderly behaviour in the house.

The Court held that the resolution to suspend the MLAs beyond the session is "unconstitutional", "illegal" and "beyond the powers of the assembly". It held that such suspension could be limited only to the ongoing session, which was the Monsoon Session of 2021(case :Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr).

"...we have no hesitation in allowing these writ petitions and to declare that the impugned resolution directing suspension of the petitioners beyond the period of the remainder of the concerned Monsoon Session held in July 2021 is non-est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational. The impugned resolution is, thus, declared to be ineffective in law, insofar as the period beyond the remainder of the stated Session in which the resolution came to be passed."

12. Document Of Partition Which Provides For Effectuating Division Of Properties In Future Is Not Compulsorily Registrable: Supreme Court

Case name: K. Arumuga Velaiah vs P.R. Ramasamy

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 92

A document of partition which provides for effectuating a division of properties in future is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the Supreme Court has observed.

The bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that a document which does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence.

13. Externment Is Not An Ordinary Measure ; Must Be Resorted To Sparingly And In Extraordinary Circumstances : Supreme Court

Case name: Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre Vs State Of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93

The Supreme Court observed that externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances.

The effect of the order of externment is of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India and therefore the restriction imposed by passing an order of externment must stand the test of reasonableness., the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.

In this case, a resident of District Jalna was directed to remove himself outside the limits of District Jalna within 5 days. Invoking powers under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, the competent authority had passed this order of externment on the ground that his activities are very dangerous and the offences registered against him under the Indian Penal Code are of grave and serious nature which are causing disturbance to the public at large. The Bombay High Court dismissed his writ petition challenging this order.

14. Reservation in Promotions: Supreme Court Holds Cadre As Unit For Collecting Quantifiable Data On Adequacy Of Representation; Collection Of Data On Entire Service Meaningless

Case Title: Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Other Connected Matters, SLP(c) No.30621/2011

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

The Supreme Court has delivered the judgment in the issue relating to reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Centre and States had urged the Supreme Court to settle the confusion regarding the norms for reservation in promotions saying that several appointments have been stalled due to ambiguities.

A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.Gavai had reserved judgment on October 26, after hearing the matter following the reference answered in 2018 by a 5-judge bench in the case Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta.

The bench made the following pronouncements:

- Court cannot lay down any yardstick to determine inadequacy of representation.

- State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding adequacy of representation.

- Cadre should be unit for collection for quantifiable data for reservation. The collection cannot be with respect to the entire class/class/group, but it should be relatable to Grade/Category of post to which promotion is sought. Cadre should be the unit for collecting quantifiable data. it would be meaning less if collection of data is w.r.t the entire service.

- Nagaraj judgment of 2006 would have a prospective effect.

- The conclusion in BK Pavitra (II) approving the collection of data on the basis of groups and not cadres is contrary to the dictum in Jarnail Singh.

Also Read: Before Providing Reservation In Promotions To A Cadre, State Obligated To Collect Quantifiable Data Regarding Inadequacy Of Representation Of SC/STs : Supreme Court

Also Read: Supreme Court Refuses To Express Views On Discontinuation Of Reservation; Moots Periodical Review Of Data On Inadequate Representation

Also Read: Reservation In Promotion- Supreme Court Declares That Its Judgment In M. Nagaraj Shall Have Only Prospective Effect

15. High Courts With Original Civil Jurisdiction Can Also Execute Foreign Decrees Under Section 44A of CPC : Supreme Court

Case Name: M/s. Griesheim GmbH (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95

The Supreme Court held that a High Court of Delhi, having original civil jurisdiction, can entertain a petition for executing a money decree(in excess of Rs.20 lakhs)of a foreign Court which is notified as a superior Court of reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The term "District Court" referred under Section 44A of the Code refers to the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction and it includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court.

A Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that High Courts have no jurisdiction to execute foreign decrees under Section 44A even when it falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court, as Section 44A is an independent provision distinct from execution of domestic decrees.

16. State Cannot Dictate What Decisions Can Or Cannot Be Taken By A Public Trust: Supreme Court

Case Name: Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow v. The Sub-Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts And Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 96

The Supreme Court held that self-governed organisations, such as public trusts, cannot be subjected to overarching state control in derogation of principles of autonomy and democratic decision making. The Apex Court was of the view that public control cannot be expanded even by law, to the extent that it renders freedom of association, envisaged in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950, meaningless.

"The aim of public control is to ensure that the trust is administered efficiently and smoothly. The state interest is that far, and no more; it cannot mean that the state can dictate what decisions can or cannot be taken."

17. "Equal Pay For Equal Work" Not A Fundamental Right Vested In Any Employee, Though A Constitutional Goal To Be Achieved By Govt: Supreme Court

Case name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. RD Sharma

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97

"Equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government, the Supreme Court remarked in a judgment.

The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary. Therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, the court added.

IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES 

1. Pegasus Spyware: Supreme Court Urged To Take Cognisance Of New York Times Report Alleging Pegasus Purchase By Indian Government

While referring to the recent New York Times report that in July 2017 Modi government purchased Pegasus from an Israeli firm, Advocate ML Sharma has moved the Supreme Court of India seeking probe into the alleged Pegasus purchase.

Sharma, who is also one of the petitioners in the Pegasus case before the Supreme Court, has filed an application seeking directions to register F.I.R for investigation to recover public money paid for the impugned deal.

He has also sought a direction to prosecute concerned persons including Prime Minister Nagendra Modi.

2. Motor Accident Claims : Supreme Court Asks ASG To Examine Proposal To Deposit MACT Awards In Current Accounts Instead Of Savings Account

The Supreme Court has asked the Central Government to examine a suggestion to deposit the compensation amount awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the current account with initial deposit in FDR for 90 days instead of savings accounts.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh asked Additional Solicitor General Jayant K Sud to examine the issue in the light of certain concerns expressed by amicus curiae N Vijayarghavan regarding the direction to keep the award deposited in savings bank account. The amicus told the bench about the difficulties faced by MACTs in handling the savings bank accounts. He also brought to the attention of the Court regarding certain instances of misuse of funds of Tribunals, on which the Madras High Court has ordered an investigation.

3. 'This Isn't The Way To Run Airlines': Supreme Court To SpiceJet While Staying Publication Of Madras HC's Winding Up Order

The Supreme Court has stayed the publication of the winding-up order passed by the Madras High Court against airline company SpiceJet Ltd. However, a bench led by the Chief Justice of India also made certain critical remarks against SpiceJet.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for SpiceJet, sought for three weeks time saying that they are working out things with the creditor Credit Suisse AG, a Switzerland based Stock Corporation, on whose petition the High Court passed the order.

4. PMLA Interpretation - Laundering Proceeds Of Crime Can't Have Severe Penal Consequences Than Generating Such Proceeds: Sibal To Supreme Court

The Supreme Court this week continued hearing the batch of petitions on the interpretation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Appearing before a Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Kabil Sibal made submissions about the lacunae in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA'), without directly assailing the amendments brought about in the year 2019 through the Finance Act for the time being.

5. Supreme Court Asks BJP MLA Nitesh Rane To Surrender In Attempt To Murder Case; Grants Protection From Arrest For 10 Days

The Supreme Court has directed BJP MLA Narayan Rane to surrender before the concerned Court and seek regular bail in connection with the attempt to murder case registered against him at Sindhudurg and protected him from arrest for 10 days.

With the above direction, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli disposed of the special leave petition filed by Rane, son of Union Minister Narayan Rane, challenging the Bombay High Court's order refusing pre-arrest bail to him.

6. Vaccination For Persons With Disabilities: Supreme Court Asks Social Justice Ministry To Invite Suggestions From Stakeholders And Domain Experts

As regards vaccination for persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that the Department for Empowerment of PWD(which is under the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerement) invite suggestions from stakeholders and domain experts as regards existing facilities and proposals for further upgradation, and place the same before the Health Ministry which may consider whether any modifications are required in the existing pattern to make it more effective.

The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna was hearing a plea by Evara Foundation seeking ease of access to vaccination to persons with disabilities.