Supreme Court Judgements 1. Parliament Must Provide Clarity On Reservation Benefits In Successor States After State Reorganization : Supreme Court Case Title: Akhilesh Prasad V. Jharkhand Public Service Commission And Ors.| Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18890 of 2021 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434 While deciding a dispute related to the reservation of...
Supreme Court Judgements
Case Title: Akhilesh Prasad V. Jharkhand Public Service Commission And Ors.| Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18890 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434
While deciding a dispute related to the reservation of an employee serving the State of Jharkhand after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for the Parliament to provide clarity on the rights of individuals after state reorganization. The observations in this regard were made in a separate but concurring judgment written by Justice S Ravindra Bhat while sharing bench with Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha.
Case Title: Widescreen Holdings Private Limited vs Religare Finvest Limited | SLP(C) 6826-6829/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 435
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that a Court or a Tribunal cannot impound a document for insufficient stamp unless and until the same is produced on record before it.
Case Title: Vivek Krishna vs Union of India | WP(C) 1034/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and A S Bopanna recently dismissed a writ petition to impose restrictions to prevent Civil Servants from contesting elections immediately after retirement or resignation from service, by imposing a "Cooling off Period".
Case Title: Kangaro Industries (Regd) vs Jaininder Jain | CA 5007 OF 2008
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 437
The Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and CT Ravikumar observed that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings.
Case Name: Thomas Daniel vs State of Kerala | CA 7115 OF 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438
The Supreme Court observed that the excess payment of emoluments or allowances to an employee are not recoverable if it was on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous.
This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath said.
6. Nobody Can Be Forced To Get Vaccinated; Vaccine Mandates Not Proportionate : Supreme Court
Case Details: Jacob Puliyel vs Union Of India| WP(C) 607 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai held that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the right to bodily integrity of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution include the right to refuse vaccinate.
The Court also held that the vaccine mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the context of COVID-19 pandemic are "not proportionate". The Court held so as no substantial data has been produced on record to show that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 virus from the unvaccinated persons are higher than from vaccinated persons.
Also Read: No Haste In Granting Emergency Use Authorization To Covaxin & Covishield: Supreme Court
Case Name: Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited vs Central Bureau of Investigation| MA 706 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 440
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy refused to apply the dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 to an order passed by High Court in writ proceedings.
In this case, a division bench of a High Court stayed operation of the order passed by the Single Judge in a writ petition. By filing a miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the writ petitioner sought clarification that the order passed in the said judgment would apply to the facts of this case.
Case Name: Pawan Kumar vs Union of India | CA 3574 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.
Case Name: Vipan Aggarwal vs Raman Gandotra | CA 3492 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 442
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that an application seeking recall of a compromise decree on the ground that it suffers from fraud and collusion can be filed before the Court which granted the decree.
Case Title:Narsingh Ispat Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr, CA 10671/2016
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 443
The Supreme Court has held that the terms in the exclusion clause in an insurance policy will govern the parties and that the insurer cannot rely upon definitions in external sources such as statutes to repudiate a policy.
"When the policy itself defines the acts of terrorism in the Exclusion Clause, the terms of the policy being a concluded contract will govern the rights and liabilities of the parties.Therefore, the parties cannot rely upon the definitions of 'terrorism' in various penal statutes since the Exclusion Clause contains an exhaustive definition of acts of terrorism" a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka held in the case Narsing Ispat Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Case Title: Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, directed that reassessment notices under Section 148 of the unamended Income Tax Act which were issued beyond 01.04.2021 (the effective date of amendment of the said provision by the Finance Act, 2021) to be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and be construed as show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b).
While deciding an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside the reassessment notices issued by the Revenue after 01.04.2021, under unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, a Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna passed a slew of directions in respect of such reassessment notices.
Case Details : Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd versus SP Velayutham and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian has held that a Registering Authority under the Registration Act 1908, while registering a sale deed executed by a Power of Attorney holder, is bound to verify if the Power of Attorney empowers the agent to sell the property.
The Court noted that the provisions of the Registration Act, particularly Section 34(3)(c), imposes an obligation on the Registering Officer to satisfy himself about the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign or agent.
Case Title: Dr. Jacob Thudipara v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2974 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 446
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that teachers in government aided private educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna rendered the observation while considering SLP assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated May 9, 2017 by which the High Court had dismissed the appellant's appeal and observed that teachers serving in the aided private educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.
Case Name: The Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department And Ors. v. James Varghese And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 447
The Supreme Court has held that the Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 to be unconstitutional as it had an effect of annulling the awards passed by the arbitrators and the judgments and decrees passed by the courts.
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Kerala against a Kerala High Court judgment which had held the law to be unconstitutional.
Case Title: Ms P vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448
In a case where posters saying "Bhaiya is back" was put up to celebrate the release of a rape-accused on bail, the Supreme Court set aside the bail, observing that "brazen conduct of the accused has evoked a bona fide fear in complainant's mind that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains enlarged on bail and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses".
Case Name: State of Bihar And Ors. v. Shyama Nandan Mishra| Civil Appeal No 7364 of 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 449
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy have opined that when substantive legitimate expectation, which is not ultra vires the power of the State, has been induced, then State cannot be allowed to change course against such expectation. The Apex Court further noted that upsetting such expectation in absence of any compelling public interest amounts to abuse of power by the State.
Case Title : Muzaffar Hussain versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 450
The Supreme Court has upheld the disciplinary action taken against a judicial officer in Uttar Pradesh for passing orders to unduly favour certain parties.
A division bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi observed that "showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct".
"A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law", the Court stated in the case Muzaffar Hussain versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others.
Case Title : Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 451
While assessing applications for senior advocate designations, the High Courts should allocate one mark each for each year of practice from 10 to 20 years, instead of allocating 10 marks flat for the counsel who has put in 10-20 years practice, clarified the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 2022 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4901 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452
The Supreme Court has held that the power of the arbitral tribunal to award interest is subject to an agreement between the parties to the contrary. The Court held that the tribunal cannot award interest if the parties have agreed otherwise.
The Division Bench of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai held that when the parties have an agreement between themselves that governs the issue of interest, the arbitrator would lose its discretion and will be guided by the agreement between the parties.
Case Title: THE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE HEALTH CARE & ORS. v. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED & ORS. | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3464 OF 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 453
The Supreme Court has observed that once the statute has fixed the condition of pre-deposit before filing an appeal, such condition is required to be satisfied.
The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian rendered this observation while considering SLP assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated October 27, 2016 wherein the High Court had held that the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 45-AA of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is not mandatory.
Case Title: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal versus Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454
The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a difference between the arbitrator appointed under Section 11(5) and under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) and failing any written agreement between the parties on the procedure for appointing an arbitrator (s) under Section 11(2), application for appointment of arbitrator (s) shall be maintainable under Section 11(5) and not under Section 11(6).
The Bench of Justices M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held that once the dispute is referred to arbitration and the sole arbitrator is appointed by the parties by mutual consent, the arbitration agreement cannot be invoked for the second time.
22. "Group Of Companies" Doctrine Needs Relook, Says Supreme Court; Refers Issues To Larger Bench
Case Name: Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 455
The Supreme Court has referred various aspects regarding the application of the doctrine of 'Group of Companies', which is often utilised to bind non-signatories to an Arbitration Agreement, to a larger Bench.
"There is a clear need for having a relook at the doctrinal ingredients concerning the group of companies doctrine", observed a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna.
Supreme Court Updates
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the continuation of the interim order passed by the Kerala High Court which directed the Lakshadweep administration to include non-vegetarian food items meat and chicken in the midday meals for school children and to continue the functioning of dairy farms in the region.
2. NEET PG 2021: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Further Reduction Of Cut-Off By 5 Percentile
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a Miscellaneous Application seeking further reduction of the cut-off for NEET-PG 2021 by 5 percentile,
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant in their order said, "This court would not be inclined to interfere unless there is any manifest arbitrariness. The Union Government took the decision after due consideration of reducing the percentile of 15. Reduction of 5 percentile would be trenching upon the academic/ policy domain. Hence we find no merit in this MA".
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant any interim relief to the Overseas Citizen ("OCI") NEET-UG 2022 aspirants seeking permission to be treated at par with Indian Citizens in the general category for admission and counselling for the academic year 2022 for all professional courses in government and private colleges.
While hearing the matter pertaining to the virtual recording of testimonies of child victims/witnesses in cases of inter-state child trafficking, the Supreme Court, on Monday, directed the Trial Courts to give preference to recording of evidence of children at the remote point through video conferencing, especially in those child trafficking cases which have been identified to be pending before them.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued notice in a plea challenging the order of the Delhi High Court which had upheld that discharge orders passed by the National Medical Commission (erstwhile Medical Council of India), cancelling the admission of students, alleging backdoor entry in medical college.
While issuing notice, a Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai noted that institutions flout the legal framework pertaining to admissions with impunity and then use the students as a shield to approach the Courts.
While dealing with a matter related to the eviction of slum dwellers in Sarojini Nagar in New Delhi, the Supreme Court on Monday made certain observations on the need for vigilant and immediate action against encroachments, so that people can't claim rights over public lands years later.
"This is what happens when we allow political scores to be settled in courts", remarked the Supreme Court on Monday while coming down heavily on the Madras High Court for its order declining to provide a copy of the preliminary inquiry report to former Tamil Nadu Minister SP Velumani in relation to a corruption probe against him.
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central Government to decide the mercy plea of death row convict Balwant Singh Rajoana within 2 months, without being influenced by the fact that the appeals filed by other convicts in the Chief Minister Beant Singh assassination case are pending.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, directed the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to submit a response to the suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae with respect to the children who have dropped out of schools because of the adverse effects of the pandemic, though they might not have not lost their parents to COVID-19. The Apex Court also sought the response of the State Governments regarding their course of action to ensure that the education of such children can continue without any further hindrance.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere in a writ petition seeking modification of CoVID 19 policy to allow voluntary re- vaccination of persons who have received the Sputnik-V vaccine and are desirous of traveling abroad.
However, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant granted the petitioner liberty to move a representation before the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the Centre's explanation in a plea where an applicant had sought directions for his appointment to the post of Member of the Telecom Disputes and Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). A Bench comprising Justices D.Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela M Trivedi granted time to the Union to file a counter explaining the reasons for not appointing the applicant.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the holding of the Mains Examination of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch)- 2021 from May 6 to May 8 in view of the clash with the date announced for conducting the Preliminary Exam of Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) Exam-2021. Taking note of the fact that the MP Judicial Service exam is being held on May 6, a bench comprising Justice Vineet Saran and Justice JK Maheshwari passed the interim order to postpone the Haryana exam.
13. MediaOne Case : Will Decide Sealed Cover Issue, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted more time to the Union Government to file their counter in the plea challenging the telecast ban imposed on Malayalam news channel MediaOne.
A Bench comprising Justices D.Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela M Trivedi granted four more weeks to the respondents to file a counter affidavit in the case.
Expressing alarm at the pendency of criminal appeals in High Courts for over three to four decades, the Supreme Court, on Wednesday, sought suggestions from the Union Government to tackle pendency. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai was apprised that in Madhya Pradesh High Court there are appeals which are pending for 20-30 years and the oldest appeals pending before the Allahabad High Court are from the year 1980.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that it will hear the question of the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 on July 26, 2022.
A Bench comprising Justices D.Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela M Trivedi was adjudicating upon an application filed in the Madras Bar assailing the tenure of appointment of six persons to the post of member judicial in Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The application was filed in a writ petition filed by the Madras Bar Association challenging the Tribunal Reforms Act.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, asked the Union Government to trace the source of the power exercised by the Tamil Nadu Governor to refer the decision taken by the Council of Ministers of Tamil Nadu to grant remission to A.G. Perarivalan, the life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, to the President for his consideration. However, the Apex Court was curious as to why the Union Government was defending the reference made by the Governor, when according to the Constitutional scheme the Governor acts on behalf of the State.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, directed all State Governments that are yet to comply with its direction dated 05.04.2022 to enhance the pension of retired judicial officers as per the scheme elucidated in the order passed by the Apex Court, almost 10 years back, on 08.10.2012, to do so within a period of 4 weeks.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Maharashtra State Election Commission to announce the schedule for elections for around 2486 local bodies, whose term expired long ago, election within two weeks.
In the petitions challenging Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises sedition, a 3-judge of the Supreme Court on Thursday decided to consider the preliminary issue whether a reference to a larger bench is required, as a 5-judge bench in the Kedar Nath decision of 1962 had retained the section after reading it down.
20. Supreme Court Clears OTT Release Of "Jhund" Movie; Stays Telangana HC's Interim Order
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the decks for the OTT release of the film "Jhund" by staying an order passed by the Telangana High Court against the movie
A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna stayed the interim order of status quo passed by the Telangana High Court on April 29.
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved orders in the Special Leave Petition filed by NRI students seeking time for fresh registration in the NRI quota in Kerala before commencement of the Mop-Up counseling.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, after hearing the Counsels for the parties reserved judgment in a plea by 1993 Bombay Blast case convict Abu Salem that his sentence of imprisonment cannot exceed 25 years as per the undertaking given by India to Portugal.
As regards the blacklisting of almost 3500 persons in connection with the Tablighi Jamaat congregation, SG Tushar Mehta on Thursday told the Supreme Court that since 2003, Tablighi activities are prohibited in India, that the petitioners came on a tourist Visa and were found to be indulging in Tablighi activities and therefore, they are blacklisted.
He submitted that it is the plenary power of the Executive to disallow one's continued presence in the country or to refuse entry, and that Article 14 and principles of administrative law, reasoned order, hearing are not applicable in cases of visa violations; that a person who entered the country on a tourist Visa or a particular type of visa and who the country believes has engaged in some other activities may not approach a judicial forum in that country.
24. [Delhi Govt vs LG] Supreme Court Refers Questions On The Issue Of Services To Constitution Bench
A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Friday referred to a Constitution Bench limited questions pertaining to the legal dispute between the Delhi Government and the Central Government regarding the control over administrative services in the national capital.
The Supreme Court, on Friday adjourned to May 11 the application filed by MLA Samajwadi Party Mohammad Azam Khan, seeking bail. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai noted that Allahabad High Court has already reserved its order in Khan's application for bail.
The Apex Court asked the Registry to list the matter on Wednesday, to give time to the High Court to pass the order in Khan's bail plea, which was reserved on 05.05.2022.
Supreme Court on Friday made strong remarks in relation to the case of a 82 year old covid patient who allegedly went missing from a hospital in Uttar Pradesh last year.
"You don't comply with directions, last minute when contempt is sought you come. It is the habit of your state!" the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said while addressing the Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of UP.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a petition seeking stay on the impending retirement of all the existing Judicial/ Administrative Members of CAT, till all the vacancies which arose from 2019-2022 are filled by actual joining of candidates.
In a writ petition preferred by a NEET PG aspirant alleging impersonation in the Counseling by a candidate who took admission in her name in the State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court on Friday sought clarification from MS Ramaiah Medical College as to who was occupying the said seat.
Citing his involvement as amicus in one of the cases before his elevation to the bench, Supreme Court Judge Justice UU Lalit on Friday offered to recuse from hearing writ petition preferred by Adv Prashant Bhushan seeking consideration of his plea for intra court appeal before adjudication of review petitions in Contempt of Court matter.
30. Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Challenging The Vires Of Provisions Of Limitation Under NGT Act
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a writ petition challenging the vires of provisions of limitation prescribed under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
An affidavit has been filed before the Supreme Court by Brinda Karat, Politburo member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and former Rajya Sabha MP, in her petition challenging the demolition drive initiated by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation in the riots-hit Jahangirpuri area.
Karat has stated that the demotion drive using bulldozers was only a malafide exercise of power targeting a particular minority community, under the guise of removal of encroachment.
"It was a malafide action at the dictates of the political party which governs the Municipal Corporation," Karat has said.
The Delhi State Committee Communist Party of India (Marxist) has recently moved the Supreme Court challenging the 'illegal' demolition drive being undertaken in different areas of South Delhi.
The petition has alleged the demolition to be 'illegal', 'inhuman' and 'in total violation of principles of natural justice, statutes and the Constitution under the guise of encroachment removal programme'.
The Supreme Court has appointed Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan, former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and former judge of the Kerala High Court, to enquire about the involvement of Builder/Promoter/persons/officials responsible for the illegal construction of the buildings in Maradu, Kochi.
The Supreme Court has granted permission to Ernakulam Principal District and Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese to file a Special Leave Petition challenging a judgment of the Kerala High Court which allegedly made 'unwarranted' and 'unjustified' remarks about her. Justices Vineet Saran and J.K. Maheshwari issued notice in the matter and stayed the observations in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the impugned judgment.
In a new development in the hate speech case before the Supreme Court, the petitioners have filed an application against an event scheduled to be held in Delhi on Thursday where a resolution for "Hindu Rashtra" is proposed to be made.
The mother of a 4year old girl child has approached the Supreme Court seeking review of its recent Judgment commuting the death sentence awarded to Mohd Firoz, convicted for the rape and murder of her four-year-old daughter.
A review petition has been filed by the original complainant through Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava challenging the order dated 19th April 2022 passed by the Apex Court.
37. Postpone NEET-PG 2022 : Medical Students Association Moves Supreme Court
The All India Medical Students Association has filed a petition in the Supreme Court to postpone the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2022 exam scheduled on May 21 citing clash with ongoing counselling for NEET PG 2021.
In the suo motu case taken by the Supreme Court with respect to expeditious trial of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Amici Curiae reported that there has been an increase in pendency of 7,37,124 cheque dishonour cases in a period of just over 5 months.
The Amici informed that the pendency of cases under the Act has increased from 26,07,166 in last November last year to 33,44,290 as on April 13, 2022.
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea by a disability rights activist seeking directions to provide sign language interpreters during the press briefings by Ministers.
A bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Vikram Nath has issued the direction in PIL filed seeking directions to have in-frame Sign language interpreter in all the official press briefings conducted by the Prime Minister, other Ministers of the Union Government, Chief Ministers of all the States and other Ministers of the State Government, in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.