JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Employee Can't Claim Change Of Date Of Birth As A Matter Of Right : Supreme CourtCase Title: Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja & Ors.| Civil Appeal No.5720 Of 2021Citation : LL 2021 SC 612The Supreme Court has observed that application for change of date of birth by an employee can only be as per the relevant...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
1. Employee Can't Claim Change Of Date Of Birth As A Matter Of Right : Supreme Court
Case Title: Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja & Ors.| Civil Appeal No.5720 Of 2021
Citation : LL 2021 SC 612
The Supreme Court has observed that application for change of date of birth by an employee can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable. The Court reiterated change of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna was considering an appeal filed by Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited ("Corporation") assailing the Karnataka High Court's order directing the Corporation to reconsider the decision of its employee with respect to change of date of birth in service records.
The Top Court while allowing the appeal observed that, "application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation."
2. Mental Health Of A Person Can't Be Compressed Into A One Size Fits All Approach' : Supreme Court In Abetment To Suicide Case
Case Title: Mahendra KC v State of Karnataka and Others| Criminal Appeal No. 1238 of 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 611
Stressing that the "mental health of a person cannot be compressed into a one-size fits all approach", the Supreme Court has criticized a High Court judgment for terming a person who died by suicide a "weakling".
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna in the present matter was considering an appeal against the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in which the Court had quashed an FIR registered against Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s 306 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 on the ground that continuation of the prosecution "would [be] a travesty of justice and be a sheer waste of time", besides requiring the accused-respondent "to undergo the rigors of a lengthy trial".
3. Suit For Permanent Injunction In Respect Of Waqf Property Maintainable Before Wakf Tribunal And Not Civil Court: Supreme Court
Case name: Rashid Wali Beg vs. Farid Pindari
Citation: LL 2021 SC 604
The Supreme Court held that a suit for permanent injunction in respect of a waqf property has to be filed before the Wakf Tribunal and not the Civil Court.
"To say that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction only if the subject property is disputed to be a waqf property and not if it is admitted to be a waqf property, is indigestible in the teeth of Section 83(1)", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
4. SC/ST Act - Notice To Victim Under Section 15A In Court Proceedings Against Accused Is Mandatory : Supreme Court
Case name: Hariram Bhambhi vs Satyanarayan
Citation: LL 2021 SC 607
The Supreme Court observed that requirement under Section 15A of SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent is mandatory.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed that, as per this requirement, a reasonable and timely notice must be issued to the victim or their dependent.
The court noted that Section 15A was introduced to protect the rights of the victims and witnesses whose rights as equal beneficiaries of the criminal justice system are often overlooked due to their weak social position. The bench referred to a Gujarat High Court judgment in Hemal Ashwin Jain v. Union of India.
5. National Security Act: Failure To Communicate Rejection Of Detenu's Representation In Time Bound Manner Will Vitiate Detention Order : Supreme Court
Case name : Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur
Citation: LL 2021 SC 608
The Supreme Court observed that failure of Government to communicate rejection of a detenu's representation in a time-bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention passed under National Security Act.
The three judges bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud said that the detenu has right to have his representation considered expeditiously- failing which the detention order would be invalidated. This right would ring hollow without a corollary right of the detenu to receive a timely communication from the appropriate government on the status of its representation- be it an acceptance or a rejection, the bench also comprising Justices Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna said.
6. Appointment Of Special Teachers For Divyang Children: Supreme Court Issues Directives To Centre, States
Case name: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India
Citation: LL 2021 SC 602
The Supreme Court issued directives in the matter of appointing special teachers to teach Children/Child with Special Needs.
The bench was considering a writ petition alleging illegality being committed by authorities in employing such teachers in recognised schools on contract basis without any certainty of tenure .
The court said that these directives will operate across the country (all States and Union Territories). The State Commissioners appointed under Section 79 of the 2016 Act in the concerned States/Union Territories have been directed to forthwith initiate suo motu enquiries regarding compliance and then make recommendation to the appropriate authority (of the concerned State/Union Territory), as may be necessary, so that the authority will be obliged to submit compliance report to the State Commissioner within three months from the date of receipt of recommendation, as mandated under Section 81 of the 2016 Act.
7. UAPA - If Chargesheet Does Not Reveal Prima Facie Case, Embargo For Bail Under Sec 43D(5) Won't Apply : Supreme Court
Case name: Thwaha Fasal vs. Union of India
Citation: LL 2021 SC 605
The Supreme Court has held that the embargo for grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act will not be attracted if the chargesheet does not reveal a prima facie case.'
"The stringent conditions for grant of bail in sub-section (5) of Section 43D will apply only to the offences punishable only under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act...The embargo will apply when after perusing charge sheet, the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. Thus, if after perusing the charge sheet, if the Court is unable to draw such a prima facie conclusion, the embargo created by the proviso will not apply", a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay Sreeniwas Oka stated.
8. Motor Accident Claims - Loss Of Earning Capacity To Be Fixed As 100% When Claimant Is Incapacitated For Life: Supreme Court
Case name: Jithendran vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. |
Citation: LL 2021 SC 597
The Supreme Court has held that the loss of earning capacity must be fixed as 100% when a claimant-motor accident victim is incapacitated for life and is confined to home.
A person therefore is not only to be compensated for the injury suffered due to the accident but also for the loss suffered on account of the injury and his inability to lead the life he led, prior to the life altering event the bench of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed. The court added that the extent of economic loss arising from a disability may not be measured in proportions to the extent of permanent disability.
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES
The Supreme Court this week issued a series of directions to ensure the strict implementation of its earlier orders banning the use of barium-based chemicals in fire crackers and allowing only the use of "green crackers".
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna held that that if it was found that any banned firecrackers are manufactured, sold and used in any particular area, the Chief Secretary of the concerned State(s), the Secretary (Homes) of the concerned State(s) and the Commissioner of Police of the concerned area, District Superintendent of Police of the concerned area and the SHO/Police Officer in-charge of the concerned police station shall be held personally liable.
2. FCRA Amendments Impose Blanket Restrictions, Disproportionate & Harsh : Petitioners Argue Before Supreme Court
The Supreme Court this week started hearing arguments in petitions filed challenging the Foreign Contributions Regulation (Amendment) Act 2020 and Ministry of Home Affair's notification dated May 18, 2021 extending the date for compliance of specific provisions of the Act.
A Bench comprising Justice Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar heard arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan on behalf of petitioners and Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain for Union of India in the case.
At the outset, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan informed the Court that he is appearing for petitions which challenge the provisions of FCRA and not the one which supports it.
3. Central Vista - North & South Blocks Proposed To Be Converted Into 'National Museums' : Centre Tells Supreme Court
The Central Government has informed the Supreme Court that as per the Central Vista Redevelopment project, the North and South Blocks are proposed to be converted into national museums.
The Centre further submitted that all the Central Government Ministries will be relocated in the Common Central Secretariat buildings which are being developed on two sides of the Rajpath on the current footprints of different buildings.
The Centre was responding through an affidavit to a petition which challenged a notification for the change in land use of Plot 1. The petitioner Rajeev Suri argued that the notification allowed the conversion of 'recreational plot' into 'residential plot'. The petitioner has sought judicial scrutiny arguing that the subject Plot 1 takes over open spaces of a Children's Recreational Park and Bus Terminal.
4. Mullaperiyar Dam Case : Supreme Court Asks Kerala & Tamil Nadu To Abide By Committee Decision On Water Level; Next Hearing On Nov 11
Asking the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to abide by the decision taken by the Supervisory Committee regarding the appropriate water level in the Mullaperiyar dam, the Supreme Court this week adjourned the hearing in the case till November 11.
"It has been agreed that parties for the time being will abide by the water level suggested by the Supervisory committee. It will be open to the committee to review its decision on hourly basis", a bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar directed.
5. Supreme Court Temporarily Restores Senior Designation Of Yatin Oza For 2 Years
With the caveat that it is the High Court which will watch and can best decide how he behaves and conducts himself as a senior counsel "without any further opportunity", the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that the ends of justice would be served by temporarily restoring the designation of advocate Yatin Oza for a period of two years from January 1, 2022.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy passed the order in an appeal filed by Mr. Oza challenging the decision of the Gujarat High Court to revoke his senior designation on account of certain comments made by him against the High Court registry. The High Court had also held him guilty of contempt of court for his public comments. The adverse comments were made by Oza while he was the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association.
6. Gujarat Riots- Two Ministers Of State Cabinet Positioned In City Control Rooms to Directly Interfere With Police Functioning: Kapil Sibal To SC In Zakia Jafri's Plea
The Supreme Court this week continued hearing Zakia Ahsan Jafri's plea challenging the SIT report giving clean chit to the then-Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other high functionaries in the Gujarat riots of 2002.
At the outset, the bench of Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C. T. Ravikumar told Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, "Mr Sibal, the best course would be to not go backwards. The history of 2009 and 2010 may not help us today. We have to start from the 2011 order when this Court required the SIT to submit its final report. There was an option to file a protest petition. Show us what the report presented and what was the protest plea filed in reference to the report. Show us what ingredients of the protest plea were not taken into account by the magistrate"
7. Supreme Court Constitutes Independent Expert Committee To Probe Pegasus Snooping Allegations
The Supreme Court this week ordered the constitution of an independent expert committee to look into the allegations of widespread and targeted surveillance of politicians, journalists, activist etc using the Pegasus spyware.
The functioning of the committee will be overseen by retired Supreme Court judge Justice RV Raveendran.
The Court has asked the committee to investigate the matter expeditiously. The matter will be listed after 8 weeks. The Union Government's prayer to allow it to constitute a committee was rejected by the Court observing " that 'justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done'. Allowing the Centre to probe the allegations by itself will violate the judicial principles against bias.
8. Come Up With Policy On Community Kitchens Scheme After Interacting With States : Supreme Court Directs Centre
The Supreme Court this week directed the Central Government to come up with a scheme for establishing pan-India community kitchens, after interacting with the state governments.
A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli has directed the five states with highest number of hunger deaths including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Odisha and Maharashtra to file their responses in the matter.
9. Lakhimpur Kheri Case : Supreme Court Directs UP Police To Provide Protection To Witnesses, Record Statements Of Relevant Witnesses under Sec 164 CrPC
The Supreme Court this week directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to provide protection to the witnesses of the Lakhimpur Kheri violence of October 3, which claimed the lives of 8 people, four of them being farmers protesters who were allegedly mowed down by the vehicles in the convoy of Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister and BJP MP Ajay Kumar Mishra.
The Court also directed the State of UP to ensure that the statements of relevant witnesses are recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If there's any difficulty in recording of the witness statements due to the unavailability of Magistrate, the bench directed the concerned District Judge to ensure that the statements can be recorded by the nearest available Magistrate.