Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Includes A Presumption That There Exists A Legally Enforceable Debt Or Liability : Supreme CourtJain P. Jose vs Santhosh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 979 | SLP(Crl) 5241 OF 2016 The Supreme Court reiterated that the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability.In this...
Jain P. Jose vs Santhosh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 979 | SLP(Crl) 5241 OF 2016
The Supreme Court reiterated that the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability.
In this case, the Trial Court dismissed a cheque bounce complaint on the ground that the complainant was not able to adduce sufficient evidence that he was in a position to advance a loan of Rs. 9 lakhs to the accused. The Kerala High Court upheld the Trial Court order relying on a decision in John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014) 2 SCC 236.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs JSW Energy Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 981 | CA 8714 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that a contract can be said to be concluded only when parties are ad idem on all the essential terms of the contract.
The three judges bench of the Apex Court observed thus while partly allowing the appeal filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited against the Karnataka High Court that had set aside orders passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission.
TATA Power Company Limited Transmission vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 987 | CA
In a judgment pronounced on Wednesday, the Supreme Court directed all State Electricity Regulatory Commissions to frame regulations under 181 of the Electricity Act 2003 on the terms and conditions for determination of tariff within three months.
The Court further directed that while framing these guidelines on the determination of tariff, the Commission shall follow the principles prescribed under Section 61 of the Electricity Act 2003, which also include the National Electricity policy and the National Tariff Policy. Where the State Commissions have already framed such regulations, they shall be amended to include provisions for criteria for choosing the modalities to determine the tariff, in case they are not included.
Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs Balak Capital Pvt Ltd | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 982 | SLP(C) 7019/2017
The Supreme Court reiterated that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal lies only before the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the assessing officer is located.
As per Section 260A of IT Act, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal before the date of establishment of the National Tax Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
Period During Which The Interest Is Payable U/Sec 39(5)(a) ESI Act Cannot Be Reduced : Supreme Court
Regional Director/ Recovery Officer vs Nitinbhai Vallabhai Panchasara | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 983 | SLP(C) 16380/2022
The Supreme Court observed that ESI Court has no authority to restrict the period during which the interest is payable under Section 39(5)(a) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
Section 39(5)(a) provides that if any contribution payable under this Act is not paid by the principal employer on the date on which such contribution has become due, he shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the regulations till the date of its actual payment.
Sarita Swami vs State of Rajasthan | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 985 | CrA 2019/2022
The Supreme Court set aside some observations made by Rajasthan High Court against a Trial Court judge who had passed a bail order.
" Such an approach which discourages the trial Courts in granting bail resulting in huge volume of litigation before the High Court and this Court.", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka said.
High Courts Are Not Subordinate ; But SC Judgments Has To Be Dealt With Due Respect : Supreme Court
Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K. vs State of Telangana | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 986 | SLP(Crl) 10356/2022
The Supreme Court observed that its judgments have to be dealt with 'due respect' even though High Courts are not subordinate to it.
The judgments of this Court are binding on everyone under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath observed.
Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K. vs State of Telangana | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 986 | SLP(Crl) 10356/2022
The Supreme Court on November 21 quashed the directions passed by the Telangana High Court on November 15 which allowed the Telangana Police Special Investigation Team to proceed with the investigation in the alleged TRS MLAs poaching case under the monitoring of the High Court.
Allowing a petition filed by three accused in the case -Ramachandra Bharti, Kore Nandu Kumar and D. P. S. K. V. N. Simhayaji- the Supreme Court requested the single bench to consider the writ petition filed by them seeking the probe to be transferred to the CBI on its own merits and in accordance with the law expeditiously within a period of 4 weeks. The Court noted that the writ petition filed by the accused is pending before the single bench and is posted on November 29.
TATA Power Company Limited Transmission vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 987 | CA | 23 Nov 2022
The Supreme Court observed that State Electricity Commissions possess full autonomy in the determination and regulation of tariff.
The State and the Central Government only have an advisory role in the regulation of tariff, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala noted.
The court also observed that the Electricity Act do not prescribe one dominant method to determine tariff. The court rejected the contention that Tariff Based Competitive Bidding route under Section 63 is the dominant route.
Revenue Divisional Officer vs Ismail Bhai | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 984 | CA 8727-28 OF 2022
In a relief to the land owners who are yet to get compensation for their lands acquired 40 years ago, the Supreme Court directed the authorities to pay compensation within two months.
In this case, the land was acquired for the purpose of extension of the Nehru Zoological Park in 1981. Despite taking possession, award was not passed and no amount of compensation was paid which made the land owners approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 1996. The High Court directed the authority to pass an award within a period of three months. Following this, an award was passed in 1997 and a meagre compensation @ Rs. 6 per sq. yard was awarded to the land owners. Later, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 250 per sq. yard with solatium and interest. Thereafter, in the year 2017, appeal filed by the Revenue Department was allowed by High Court reducing the compensation to Rs. 100 /- per sq. yard.
Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. vs Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 988 | CA 8818 OF 2022
The Supreme Court reiterated that while considering an application seeking appointment of arbitration, the Court cannot go into question of novation of contract and merits of any claim involved in arbitration.
In this case, as the High Court dismissed the application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicant approached the Apex Court in appeal. The applicant's contention was that the High Court's erred in concluding that the Share Purchase Agreement was novated and superseded by the Tripartite Agreement. The respondent contended that owing to novation of share purchase agreement, the arbitration clause no longer existed so as to resolve the dispute between the parties through arbitration.
Somai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) [Criminal Appeal No. 497/2022]
Once the court believes the statement of a survivor of sexual assault, it is sufficient to establish an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the failure of the police to send seized articles to the forensic science laboratory would not affect the outcome in such a case, held the Supreme Court in November, while confirming the conviction of a rape-accused. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka was hearing a criminal appeal arising out of a judgement of the Chhattisgarh High Court, in which the High Court, believing the testimony of the prosecutrix, held that the guilt of the appellant had been proved beyond reasonable belief.
State of Himachal Pradesh vs Angejo Devi | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 990 | CrA 959/2012
The Supreme Court observed that if the seized contraband is found to contain 'morphine' and 'meconic acid', it is sufficient to established that it is a 'opium poppy" as defined in Section 2(xvii) of the NDPS Act.
In this case, the Himachal Pradesh High Court had acquitted the NDPS accused by allowing their appeals on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish that the seized material is not the genesis of a plant of Papaver somniferum L or any other plant, which is notified by the Central Government under Section 2(xvii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
NEWS THIS WEEK
Bench Of CJI Chandrachud, Justices Ajay Rastogi & Ravindra Bhat To Hear Chhattisgarh NAN Scam Matter
Amid objections raised regarding the listing of the Chhattisgarh NAN Scam matter before Justice MR Shah, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Monday said that a bench comprising himself, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice S Ravindra Bhat will hear the matter.
The State of Chhattisgarh had taken objection to the matter getting listed before a bench presided by Justice MR Shah after the retirement of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit (who was presiding the 3-judge bench which had been hearing the matter). The State put forth a plea that the matter should be listed before the benches of the other two remaining members of the previous bench - Justices Rastogi or Justice Bhat.
Taking note of the fact that the Gujarat High Court has already taken suo motu cognisance of the Morbi bridge collapse which took place on October 30 leaving 141 people dead, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain two petitions which sought for independent probe into the tragedy.
The Court however granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court to raise their issues, either by filing an independent writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or by intervening in the suo motu case.
The Supreme Court of India issued notice to the Central Government in a plea challenging Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the said section discriminated against women by treating female members of a family incapable of accepting summons on behalf of the person summoned. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a petition filed by Dr. K Riji John challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment which set aside his appointment as the Vice-Chancellor of Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS).
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli however refused to stay the High Court's judgment and posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.
Fake Pharmacists & Doctors : Supreme Court Expresses Worry About Conditions Of Hospitals In Bihar
The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on the Government of Bihar for allowing persons without the necessary qualifications to discharge the functions of a pharmacist in several state-run hospitals. The Bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, was hearing a petition highlighting the perils of entrusting untrained personnel with the responsibility of "medicine distribution-related work". Justice Shah categorically instructed the state government to ensure that "not a single hospital in the entire state" distributed any medicines without the help of registered pharmacists. "If an untrained person administers the wrong medicine or the wrong doses of a medicine, and this results in something serious happening, who will be responsible?" the judge asked, expressing his profound dissatisfaction. He added, "We cannot permit the state government to play with the lives of its citizens."
The State of Maharashtra on Monday withdrew its petition challenging the Bombay High Court's 2020 order which had stayed probe into two FIRs filed against Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami for allegedly making inflammatory comments. The petition had been listed before a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli.
The counsel for the State said that the order of the Bombay High Court was an interim order and thus, he had instructions to withdraw the said petition. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to withdraw the said petition.
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of Gujarat High Court judge Justice Vipul M Pancholi to Patna High Court.
The decision, which was taken at a Collegium meeting held on September 29, was uploaded on the Supreme Court website
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Ban On Movie "Thank God"
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea seeking ban on the release of the bollywood movie "Thank God" as a result of it becoming infructuous.
A bench of Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka dismissed the petition on account of being withdrawn as a result of becoming infructuous. The Counsel representing the Petitioner also submitted that the petition had become infructuous because the movie had already been released.
The Solicitor-General of India on Monday opposed a petition which sought independent probe into the 2013 Edesmetta encounter killings in Chhattisgarh and said that he will file an application seeking prosecution of the petitioner for making false statements.
Appearing for for the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Solicitor General urged a Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, to follow the precedent in Himanshu Kumar versus Union of India and others where the Court imposed 5 lakhs cost on the petitioner who alleged false encounter killings of tribals in Chhattisgarh by security forces and allowed investigation against the petitioner for perjury and fabrication of evidence.
"Affordability of a litigant is no reason to file multiple petitions", the Supreme Court observed on Monday while pulling up alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar for filing multiple petitions before the Court in a short span of time.
A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar made the comment shortly before issuing notices to the Central and Delhi governments in a fresh plea moved by the conman seeking to get himself transferred from Mandoli jail.
The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Punjab government over the inaction of the instruments of the state government in dealing with the large-scale manufacture and sale of illicit liquor. The Bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, revealed that they were not satisfied with the progress in the ongoing investigation by the police and the Department of Excise, Government of Punjab.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging FCRA Registration Cancellations
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs cancelling/refusing to renew the registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 of almost 6,000 non-governmental organisations to November 21.
A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, in the order, noted that the matter was substantially covered by the Judgement Noel Harper vs Union of India, which upheld the FCRA Amendment Act 2020.
"How can a structure built so recently collapse like this?", the Supreme Court asked, in surprise, on Monday while issuing notice in a plea moved by residents and owners of flats in Chintel Parideso Residential Housing Society, Gurugram.
The petitioners moved the Supreme Court after six structures had collapsed on February 2, this year on account of structural deficiencies.
Before a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, apprised of the factual matrix.
Supreme Court Will Have Special Bench For Tax Matters From Next Week : CJI DY Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Tuesday said that special benches will be set up from next week in the Supreme Court for hearing tax matters.
"There would a Special Indirect and Direct Tax Bench next week. We'll list it", CJI Chandrachud said when a counsel mentioned a tax case for urgent listing.
The National Investigation Agency has approached the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court order granting bail to Professor Anand Teltumbde in the Bhima Koregaon case.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for urgent listing on Thursday. While granting bail on November 18, the High Court had suspended the order for one week.
Appointment Process For 15 NCLT Vacancies Complete : Centre Tells Supreme Court
The Central Government on Tuesday informed the Court that the process for appointments against 15 vacancies in the National Company Law Tribunal is complete and letters of appointments have been sent. The Centre further stated that the selection process for the remaining 19 vacancies is under way.
Taking note of this, a bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and S Ravindra Bhat stressed that the filling up of vacancies must be done with importance.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned a batch of petitions seeking to allow nearly 20,000 Indian students who had to return from Ukraine due to Russian attack to complete their medical education in India.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath has posted the matter to November 29 after the advocates for the petitioners pointed out that the Union had not served upon them its latest affidavit dated November 21.
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Petitions Challenging State Laws On Religious Conversion
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, agreed to hear the petitions challenging the Freedom of Religious Acts introduced by some States Legislatures in the name of 'love jihad' against religious conversions for the sake of marriages.
Senior Advocate, Mr. C.U. Singh, appearing on behalf of social activist Teesta Setalvad's NGO 'Citizens for Justice and Peace', one of the petitioners, mentioned the pleas before a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, for urgent listing.
In a petition on seeking rehabilitation of thousands of mentally ill patients who are languishing in hospitals or mental asylums, the Union Government, on Tuesday, informed the Supreme Court that the online dashboard where State Governments can feed in the information with respect to mental health facilities available, capacities for half-way homes would be ready and functional within a month's time.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, it is not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution
The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice Hima Kohli has dismissed the special leave petition of the department challenging the decision of the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court has held that any sum paid by a member of a club to acquire the rights of a club is a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Wednesday said that the Supreme Court will have specialised benches for hearing criminal appeals, land acquisition cases, motor accident claims and tax matters from next week.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it wants to see the files related to the recent appointment of Arun Goel, a former bureaucrat, as the Election Commissioner on November 19.
The bench, which is hearing petitions seeking an independent mechanism to appoint Election Commissioners, observed that it would have been appropriate had the appointment not been made when the matter was being heard. The bench asked the Attorney General to produce the files tomorrow.
Congress Leader Dr. Jaya Thakur has filed a Review petition before the Supreme Court against the recent judgement in the case Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India which upheld the validity of 103rd Constitution Amendment dealing with 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections [EWS Reservation].
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to conduct State Mop-Up Round of Counselling for NEET-PG courses afresh. The order was passed in a plea alleging that the State of Madhya Pradesh has declared the result of the State Mop-up Round for admission to Postgraduate Medical courses before the AIQ Mop-Up Round result was declared.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday(November 22) adjourned the plea moved by the former Chief Minister of Uttarakhand Trivendra Singh Rawat challenging the High Court order which had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into corruption allegations against him.
The Uttarakhand High Court order had directed the CBI to file an FIR and investigate the allegations of corruption levelled against Rawat by an investigative journalist, Umesh Sharma. The former CM was accused of getting money transferred to his relatives' bank account for backing a candidate in Gau Seva Ayog when he was BJP's Jharkhand in-charge.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, agreed to list a 2018 plea preferred by Centre for Public Interest Litigation seeking direction to the Centre to notify appointment of those whose candidature for judgeship has been reiterated by the collegium.
Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan appearing before a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice J.B. Pardiwala mentioned the matter for urgent listing.
Supreme Court judge Justice KM Joseph, who is heading the Constitution Bench which is hearing petitions seeking independent mechanism to appoint Election Commissioners, expressed disagreement with the stand of the Election Commission of India that the right to vote is a mere statutory right and not a constitutional right.
During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India submitted that the right to vote is a statutory right.
West Bengal's Suit Against CBI's FIRs : Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing To December 13
The Supreme Court on Friday will take up the suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the raids by the Central Bureau of Investigation in relation to the post-poll violence in the State on December 13.
The State government had alleged that CBI is going ahead with investigation in cases of post-poll violence without securing the per-requisite sanction from the State under the law.
Online RTI Portal For Supreme Court Ready, Announces CJI DY Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Thursday announced that the online portal for filing applications under the Right to Information Act in relation to the Supreme Court is operational.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, agreed to reconstitute a Constitution Bench for hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the practice of polygamy and Nikah Halala allowed by Muslim personal law.
Eight petitions challenging these practices were previously listed before a 5-judge bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, MM Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia. The bench had issued notices to the National Human Rights Commission, National Commission for Women and the National Commission for Minorities.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today enquired as to what was the criteria behind the shortlisting of four names by the Law Minister that were recommended to the Prime Minister for his approval for the appointment as the Election Commissioner.
The bench is hearing petitions seeking an independent mechanism to appoint Election Commissioners.
On Thursday, in open court, the Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud discussed his mission to make courts across the country accessible for lawyers/persons with visual disabilities.
In order to understand the difficulty faced by Advocates with visual disabilities in navigating courts on a daily basis, he asked Senior Advocate, Mr. S.K. Rungta (who lost his eyesight when he was about a year old) how does he follow the compilations referred to by the other Counsels.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today reserved judgment in petitions seeking an independent mechanism to appoint Election Commissioners. It has asked the parties to file brief notes, not exceeding 6 pages, within 5 days.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the Petitioner submitted that till today, Central Government has not appointed anyone who gets the prescribed 6 years tenure as the Election Commissioner (65 years upper age limit to hold the office). This, as per the Petitioners, keeps the EC on a leash and affects the independence of the institution.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, agreed to reconstitute a Constitution Bench for hearing the issue, whether the "rules of the game" can be changed after the selection process has started.
The issue had arisen in a batch of cases relating to the selection process of District Judges conducted by certain High Courts. The primary question is whether the selection criteria can be changed during the process.
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a college's professor and management could not be held liable for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for exercising legitimate disciplinary action and suspending a student for misconduct. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka.
Neither the Central Board of the Reserve Bank of India, nor the Union Cabinet had full information with respect to the monumental consequences of demonetisation, Senior Advocate and former Union Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram told the Supreme Court on Thursday.
"No one was told that 86% of the total currency would be withdrawn. This is not a guess, but an informed guess," he submitted before the Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Union Government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016. The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, is considering, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 circular that set the policy in motion, six years after it sent shockwaves through the nation.
The State of Tamil Nadu has recently filed its written submission before the Supreme Court in the Jallikattu matter (The Animal Welfare Board of India and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.) which is being heard by a 5-judge constitution bench.
The Constitution Bench is considering the validity of the amendment made by the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly to the Prevention of Cruelty Act in order to overcome the ban on jallikattu imposed by the Supreme Court in its 2014 judgment in the case Animal Welfare Board of India vs A Nagaraja.
A 5 judge Constitutional bench headed by Justice KM Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravi Kumar, on Thursday, commenced hearing a batch of petitions challenging constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
The Supreme Court Collegium today recommended the transfer of the following High Court judges Justice V. M. Velumani (from Madras high court to Calcutta High Court), Justice Battu Devanand (from Andhra Pradesh High Court to Madras High Court), Justice D. Ramesh (from Andra Pradesh to Allahabad High Court), Justice Lalitha Kanneganti (from Telangana High Court to Karnataka High Court), Justice D. Nagarjun (from Telangana High Court to Madras High Court), Justice T. Raja (from Madras High Court to Rajasthan High Court) and Justice A. Abhishek Reddy (From Telangana High Court to Patna High Court).
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday continued hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the controversial decision of the Union Government to demonetise currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000, effectively leading to 86% of the currency being pulled out of the economy in one fell swoop. The five-judge Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, is considering, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 circular that set the policy in motion, six years after it sent shockwaves through the nation.
A new PIL has been filed before the Supreme Court of India by two gay men living in Hyderabad, seeking recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice DY. Chandrachud will hear the matter today.
The petitioners Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, have been a couple for almost 10 years. The pandemic brought the frailty of life home to both partners and their families. They both got COVID during the second wave. When they recovered, they decided to have a wedding-cum-commitment ceremony on their 9th anniversary to celebrate their relationship with all their loved ones. They had a commitment ceremony in December 2021, where their relationship was blessed by their parents, family and friends.
Another couple has moved a PIL before the Supreme Court seeking recognition for all members of the LGTBQ+ community, the fundamental right to marry any person of their choice, irrespective of gender identity and sexual orientation.
They pray that the Special Marriage Act, which was meant to be a secular legislation for institution of marriage, be made gender-neutral by reading down any gender or sexuality based restrictions.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday came down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government for filing an 'inadequate' affidavit while hearing a Public Interest Litigation which highlighted the lack of special educators in the state for teaching students with special needs.
During the hearing, the advocate appearing for the UP government submitted that they were looking at appointing 12000 regular teachers and that the budget for it had been allocated.
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed an order passed by the Calcutta High Court which directed the CBI to investigate who was the brain behind the application filed by the West Bengal School Service Commission seeking to save the services of illegally appointed candidates by creating supernumerary posts.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stayed the High Court's order- which also directed the personal appearance of the Principal Secretary of West Bengal Education Department Manish Jain- after hearing a petition filed by the State of West Bengal.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices on two PILs filed by gay couples seeking recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has directed notices be issued to Attorney General for India in addition to the Central government, returnable in four weeks.
The Supreme Court on Friday said it is contemplating to have an independent platform for live-streaming court proceedings so as to institutionalize the whole process for generations to come.
While hearing an application moved by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising for live-streaming of matters having public and constitutional importance, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud orally said,
"Most of the High Courts are doing it on YouTube. We now thought we can have our own platform for carrying out live-streaming...We want to have an institutionalised process. During pandemic, we "had to" do it in an ad-hoc manner. Now, what we do is going to be for posterity. It is a complex and large country with different degrees of access to interest. We have to also keep that in mind."
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the special leave petition filed by the National Investigation Agency challenging the Bombay High Court order granting bail to Professor Anand Teltumbde in the Bhima Koregaon case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli however added that the High Court's observations will not be treated as conclusive final findings at the trials.
'Called A Judge Terrorist': Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice Against A Petitioner
The Supreme Court, on Friday, directed the Registry to issue a show cause notice for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against a petitioner-in-person, who had made bald allegations against a judge of the Apex Court in an early hearing application filed by him. The notice has been made returnable in three weeks' time.
"…the Registry shall issue show cause to the petitioner as to why he should not be prosecuted for criminal contempt for scandalizing a Judge of this Court. Notice shall be made returnable in three weeks."
Lakhimpur Kheri Case: Supreme Court Asks Trial Court To Frame Charges In Case Against Ashish Mishra
While hearing the bail plea of Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, in connection with the farmer killings in Lakhimpur Kheri on Friday, the Supreme Court on Friday asked the Trial Court to fix the matter for framing of charges.
The crime took place on October 3, 2021, when several farmers were holding protests against the visit of Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya to Lakhimpur Kheri district, and four protesting farmers were killed after they were allegedly mowed down by an SUV which was part of the convoy of Ashish Mishra.
The Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India cannot be allowed to ignore the assurances made to the nation by the Prime Minister on the eve of demonetisation that the window for exchanging old notes would be kept open till March 2017, and deprive a person of their fundamental and constitutional rights, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan told the Supreme Court on Friday. "The Indian prime minister, when he made this very important policy announcement, made certain assurances and representations. This provides a suitable benchmark for any measure of reasonable conduct. Now, to depart from it is highly improper," he submitted before the Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016. The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, is considering, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 circular that set the policy in motion, six years after it sent shockwaves through the nation.
The Election Commission of India has told the Supreme Court that there is no express statutory provision under the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 which bars the registration of political parties with names having religious connotations.
"There is no express provision which bars associations with religious connotations to register themselves as political parties under Section 29A of the RP Act, 1951", the ECI stated in its affidavit filed in response to a PIL which seeks cancellation of political parties having religious symbols and names.
The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of a suo motu case taken on regular appointments of judicial members in Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).
A Bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh had noted that at the relevant time, the top Court had taken suo motu cognizance for not appointing judicial members in the AFT which resulted in denial of justice. And also, in the absence of judicial members, even orders passed were by the Tribunal were not being executed.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday adjourned the hearing of writ petition which sought the ban of political parties which use names and symbols with religious connotations to January 31.
Before a Bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) submitted that the petitioner was selectively impleading certain parties. The petitioner had impleaded IUML and AIMIM.
The Supreme Court, on Friday, issued notice in National Investigation Agency's plea challenging the bail granted, by the Karnataka High Court, to one Saleem Khan, an alleged member of the Al-Hind Group, which is allegedly reported to be involved in terrorist activities.
While granting bail, the High Court had held, "In the absence of any prima facie case, restrictions imposed by sub-section (5) of section 43-D per se do not prevent a Constitutional Court from granting bail on the grounds of violation of part III of the Constitution." The High Court had further observed that merely attending the meetings of Al-Hind, which is not a banned organization, or meetings of jihadi organizations will not amount to offence of "terrorist activity" under the UAPA.
President Nominates Supreme Court Judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul As Executive Chairman Of NALSA
The President of India has nominated Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, judge of the Supreme Court, as the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority.
Justice Kaul is the second senior judge of the Supreme Court. The present Chief Justice of India, Justice DY Chandrachud, was the previous Executive Chairman of NALSA.
As per convention, the post is occupied by the second senior judge of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, on Friday, dismissed a plea seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus on the apprehension that the petitioner's son is not being afforded proper medical care by his spouse. The Court refusing to issue directions to the son to seek regular check-up as implored in the petition. However, while dismissing, it noted the petitioner's submission that being an 80 year old mother, the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was instituted, as she had genuinely concern for the well-being of her son, who had suffered a stroke in 2020 and is on a wheel-chair.
During the hearing of the pleas challenging demonetisation, the Supreme Court on Friday orally said that the Reserve Bank of India should consider the genuine applications made by persons who missed the deadline for exchanging the demonetised currency notes.
The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, is considering, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 decision of the Union Government to demonetise the currency notes of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 denominations.
The bigger picture of modern monetary challenges in an increasingly complex economy was considered when demonetisation was announced, and therefore, the good intentions and policy perspectives of the government should not be written off as off-kilter, the Attorney-General for India, R. Venkataramani told the Supreme Court on Friday. "The petitioners have argued that the government has failed in achieving their stated objectives, which is why the government's policy perspective is completely wrong. No well-meaning person would say that our intentions were flawed. Very loudly it has been suggested that we should have had specific surveys, empirical data, et cetera. We are talking about the nation's economy. Demonetisation should not be looked at in isolation because it was not a standalone measure. It has larger ramifications", Venkataramani submitted before a Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Union Government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016. The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, is considering, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 circular that set the policy in motion, six years after it sent shockwaves through the nation.
Why No Delimitation Held In North-Eastern States? Supreme Court Asks Centre, ECI
The Supreme Court on Friday said that the matter pertaining to conducting delimitation exercise in the 4 North Eastern states (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Nagaland) as per the Representation of People's Act, 1950 is one of "sensitive" nature.
During the hearing, Advocate G Gangmei told a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy that the urgency in the matter was owing to the fact that elections are coming up in the four states.
The Central government of India has filed a reply to the petition filed by a group of academicians and researchers seeking directions to govern investigating agencies regarding seizure, examination and preservation of personal digital and electronic devices and their contents. While objecting to the return of personal digital and electronic devices belonging to academics, the Centre has stated that there can be no blanket orders to return seized devices which are under investigation.