Despite the ongoing summer vacations, plenty has happened in the Indian Supreme Court. From AAP leader Satyendar Jain being granted interim bail on medical grounds to the Supreme Court refusing to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction that the inauguration of the new Parliament building should be done by the President of India and not the Prime Minister of India, the...
Despite the ongoing summer vacations, plenty has happened in the Indian Supreme Court. From AAP leader Satyendar Jain being granted interim bail on medical grounds to the Supreme Court refusing to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction that the inauguration of the new Parliament building should be done by the President of India and not the Prime Minister of India, the vacation bench of the Supreme Court has been quite active this week. Live Law has collated all important developments in the Supreme Court from judgements to news updates in its Weekly Digest.
Judgements/Orders
[Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452
The Supreme Court, in its judgement accepting various recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) on pay, pension, gratuity, age of retirement etc. of judicial officers, remarked that the functions of District judges were essentially the same as High Court judges. Hence, the increase in the salary of the High Court judges should reflect in the pay scale of district judges in the same proportion.
[Case Title: M/s Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v Union of India]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459
The Supreme Court, while adjudicating an application for appointment of arbitrator, has held that a contract entered into in the name of the President of India, does not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement, when the Government chooses to enter into a contract.
[Case Title: Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors.|SLP(C) No. 16428 of 2022| 18th May, 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw SC 460
The Supreme Court delivered split judgment in a matter pertaining to Rajasthan High Court denying appointment of applicants to the post of Civil Judge on the ground that they had submitted the category certificate beyond the cut-off date.
[Case Title: Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461
The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence and life imprisonment imposed on a convict under Section 302 and 376 of IPC for allegedly raping and killing a six year old minor girl, on the ground that there were yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances establishing to the guilt of the accused and there were several irregularities and illegalities on the part of the agencies examining the case.
[Case Title: Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors.]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 462
The Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Bombay High Court which had discharged two murder accused persons, on the ground that the High Court did not refer to the evidence, in its entirety, collected by Investigating Agency produced along with charge-sheet.
Magistrate Can Direct Collection Of Voice Samples Of Accused : Supreme Court Reiterates
[Case Title: Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan v. State Of Gujarat]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 463
Upholding the Gujarat High Court order to refuse interference in the order of the session judge directing the accused to give a voice sample to the police, the Supreme Court recently said that a Magistrate has the power to order the collection of a voice sample for the purpose of investigation.
[Case Title: Santhakumari & Ors. v State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 465
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Manoj Misra, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Santhakumari & Ors. v State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., has reiterated that a proposed accused has a right to be heard in the revisional proceedings under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).
[Case Title: M/s B and T AG v Ministry of Defence]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466
The Supreme Court has held that the cause of action to appoint an arbitrator would commence from the “Breaking Point” at which any reasonable party would abandon efforts for at arriving at a settlement and contemplate referral of the dispute for arbitration. “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose for the purpose of limitation.
Courts Should Not Ordinarily Interfere In Matters Relating To Tender Or Contract: Supreme Court
[Case Title: Tata Motors Limited v The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) And Ors]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467
The Supreme Court has held that the Court should not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. A writ court should refrain from imposing its decision over the employer with respect to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer, unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out.
When Can A Provision Be Held To Be Clarificatory With Retrospective Effect? Supreme Court Explains
[Case Title: Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Vs. Dr. Manu]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468
The Supreme held that for a subsequent order/provision/amendment passed to be considered a clarification to the original provision, it must not expand or alter the scope of the original provision and that the original must be sufficiently vague or ambiguous so as to require such clarification.
[Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452
The inability of a judicial officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or not satisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of the career need not be viewed seriously.
[Case Title: M/s B and T AG v Ministry of Defence]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466
The Supreme Court while adjudicating an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator, has held that the limitation period of three years for filing such application would commence from the date when the cause of action arose.
[Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Anr.| SLP(Crl) No. 1249/2023| 19th May, 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw SC 469
Before subjecting an accused to a trial for alleged commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is desirable that the caste related utterances are outlined either in the FIR or, atleast, in the chargesheet, said the Supreme Court recently.
[Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452
Accepting a recommendation made by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission, the Supreme Court has directed that the increment which becomes due to the judicial officer on the day after his retirement may be notionally included in the calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/.
[Case Title: The State of Karnataka & Ors. v Smt. Bharathi S.]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 472
The Supreme Court has held mere publication of a candidate’s name in the Additional List (waiting list) for the purpose of recruitment as a Primary School Teacher, will not create any right to be appointed in favour of such candidate.
[Case Title: Arti Dixit & Anr vs Sushil Kumar Mishra & Ors]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 472
The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court that the security furnished by the judgment debtor in the form of a rented shop belonging to a third party, of which the surety was a tenant, cannot be accepted as a security in law.
[Case Title: Senthilbalaji V. vs A.P. Geetha & Ors.]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 471
The Supreme Court has ruled that failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to the election petition. The top court observed that when allegations of corrupt practice is made against an elected representative in an election petition, the proceedings virtually become quasi-criminal.
[Case Title: Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand and Shabbir v. State of Uttarakhand]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of two murder convicts under Sections 302, 34, 201 of IPC and Sections 4, 25 of Arms Act, on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused near the spot at the relevant time.
[Case Title: Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461
The Supreme Court recently while setting aside a death sentence imposed on a convict for allegedly sexually assaulting and killing a minor girl, observed that the samples when collected shall be sent to the laboratory without any delay so that the possibility of contamination and the concomitant prospect of diminishment in value can be ruled out.
No Adverse Observations Against Judicial Officers Without Due Opportunity: Supreme Court Reiterates
[Case Title: Ashvini Vijay Shiriyannavar v State Of Karnataka]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 458
The Supreme Court reiterated that orders making adverse observations with regard to the manner in which a judicial officer has exercised discretion in any matter should not be made without opportunity to the person concerned whose career and esteem will be affected.
[Case Title: Central GST Delhi – III vs Delhi International Airport Ltd]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457
The Supreme Court has ruled that “user development fee” (UDF) levied and collected by the airport operation, maintenance, and development entities from passengers departing the concerned airports, is a statutory levy, and thus, it is not subjected to levy of service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.
[Case Title: Dhanraj Versus Vikram Singh & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 3117/2009]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456
The Supreme Court of India recently said that in the absence of specific pleadings, a writ court can't get into the issues of repugnancy or lack of legislative competence. It added that unless the statutory provision is declared unconstitutional, its implementation cannot be stopped.
Conducting Survey Is Prerequisite Before Declaring Property As Wakf: Supreme Court
[Case Title: Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v.State of Tamil Nadu]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 454
While dismissing the appeal seeking recognition of the land as wakf property,the Supreme Court observed that conducting the survey under Section 4 of the Wakf Act,1954 before declaring a property as “wakf property” is a sine qua non.
Remedies Against Third-Parties Not Available Under Section 66 Of IBC: Supreme Court
[Case Title : Glukrich Capital Pvt Ltd vs The State of West Bengal]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 464
The Supreme Court affirmed that the remedy against third party is not available under Section 66 of IBC, and in such circumstances, it is for the Resolution Professional or the successful resolution applicant to take such civil remedies against third party for recovery of dues payable to corporate debtor, and the civil remedies which may be available in law are independent of the said Section.
News Updates
The Supreme Court has stayed the Rs.100 Crore penalty imposed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on the water resource department of Andhra Pradesh for obtaining Environmental Clearance for the construction of Avulapalli reservoir in Chittoor district in violation of environmental norms.
Poly Centric Nature Of Supreme Court One of Its Biggest Strengths: CJI Chandrachud
Speaking at the farewell function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association in honour of retiring judges of the Supreme Court Justice K M Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice V Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said that the poly centric nature of the Supreme Court was one of its biggest strengths.
The Supreme Court agreed to list on May 26 an appeal filed by TMC leader and MP Abhishek Banerjee against Calcutta High Court's order dismissing his plea to recall the order passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay on April 13 giving liberty to the CBI and ED to interrogate him in the West Bengal School Job Scam case.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court order for demolition of illegal constructions in Vishwas Nagar area. However, it has asked the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to stop the demolitions for 7 days so that the dwellers can voluntarily leave the place.
Supreme Court To Hear On May 26 Bail Plea Of AAP Leader Satyendar Jain In Money Laundering Case
The Supreme Court decided to hear on May 26 the plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader and former cabinet minister in Delhi government Satyendar Jain seeking bail in a money laundering case.
The Supreme Court directed the Telangana High Court to place the plea for anticipatory bail filed by Lok Sabha member YS Avinash Reddy, accused in murder case of YS Vivekananda Reddy a member of the Indian National Congress and brother of the late Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy, before the vacation bench of the High Court on 25.05.2023.
The Supreme Court refused to permit Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi to mention a matter before it. A vacation bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol said that as per vacation bench norms, only instructing counsel should make mentionings, not senior counsel.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud complaining about the sudden listing of fresh miscellaneous matters which were neither mentioned nor requested for listing before the vacation benches of the Supreme Court. The SCAORA members were ensured that in case counsels do not appear, the matters listed would be adjourned after vacation.
Amidst the political controversy regarding the new Parliament building being inaugurated by the Prime Minister, a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction that the inauguration should be done by the President of India.
The Supreme Court granted interim bail on medical grounds to Aam Aadmi Party leader and former cabinet minister in Delhi government Satyendar Jain who has been under custody since May 2022 as an undertrial in a money laundering case.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a special leave petition filed by Trinamool Congress leader leader and MP Abhishek Banerjee against Calcutta High Court's order dismissing his plea to recall an order passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay which allowed the CBI and ED to interrogate him in the West Bengal School Job Scam case.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction that the inauguration of the new Parliament building should be done by the President of India and not the Prime Minister of India.
The Supreme Court stayed the Telangana High Court order which directed that T Gangi Reddy, accused in the YS Vivekananda Reddy murder case, be released on bail from July 1.
Jharkhand District Judge Selection | Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea Challenging Viva-Voce Norms
The Supreme Court directed the Jharkhand High Court to communicate to petitioners and impleaders, who are candidates for the post of District Judge in the State the marks obtained by them in the viva voce examination. The same was directed to be done within a period of four weeks.
Jamia Violence Case : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of 4 Accused Against Framing Of Charges
The Supreme Court on May 19 dismissed the special leave petition filed by four accused persons against the Delhi High Court direction to frame charges against them in relation to the 2019 Jamia Violence case.