Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [8th February to 13th February 2021]
Nupur Thapliyal
14 Feb 2021 7:49 PM IST
![Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [8th February to 13th February 2021]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2020/11/03/750x450_384058-weekly-roundup-sc.jpg "Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [8th February to 13th February 2021]")
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Dishonour Of Cheques- Blank Cheque Would Attract Presumption U/s 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Admitted: Supreme CourtCase: M/s. Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 123 of 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 75Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed that 'reverse onus' clauses under Section 118 and Section...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
Case: M/s. Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 123 of 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 75
Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed that 'reverse onus' clauses under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act become operative once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque are established.
The Court went ahead to observe that even a blank cheque leaf would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when signatures are admitted by the accused.
"Though the presumptions raised under Section 118 and Section 139 are rebuttable in nature, a probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet the standard of "preponderance of probability", and not mere possibility." The bench observed.
Case: Pravat Chandra Mohanty v. State of Odisha [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 80
A division bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Ajay Rastogi held that grant of leave as contemplated by Section 320(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not automatic nor it has to be mechanical on receipt of request by the accused which may be agreed by the victim.
The observation came while the bench rejected a plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case. Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Chaudhary were convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It was found that both the accused 'mercilessly beaten the deceased in the premises of the Police Station. This incident occurred in the year 1985. Before the Apex Court where they challenged their conviction, the accused made a prayer to compound the offence in view of the settlement reached between them and the legal heirs of the deceased.
3. More Clarity And Certainty Has To Be Brought In SEBI Mutual Fund Regulations: Supreme Court
Case: Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited v. Amruta Garg [C.A. 498-501 OF 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 81
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, while upholding the validity of e-voting process for winding up of six mutual fund schemes of Franklin Templeton, observed that more clarity and certainty has to be brought in the Mutual Fund Regulations.
"We would neither hesitate in stating the obvious, that modern regulatory enactments bear heavily on commercial matters and, therefore, must be precisely and clearly legislated as to avoid inconvenience, friction and confusion, which may, in addition, have adverse economic consequences. The legislator in the present case must, therefore, reflect and take remedial steps to bring about clarity and certainty in the Mutual Fund Regulations." The bench said in the judgment.
The Court held that, for the purpose winding up Mutual fund schemes, the 'consent of the unitholders' stipulated under Regulation 18(5)(c), would mean consent by majority of the unit holders who have participated in the poll, and not consent of majority of all the unitholders of the scheme.
Case: Laxmibai Chandaragi B v. State Of Karnataka [WRIT PETITION [CRIMINAL] NO.359/2020]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 79
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock.
A father of a girl lodged 'missing persons complaint' after she eloped and married a person, without informing him. Even after knowing about their whereabouts and the factum of marriage, the Investigating officer insisted that the girl should appear before the Murgod police station to record a statement so that the case can be closed.
"The investigating officer must be sent for counseling as to how to manage such cases." The bench said that while criticizing the conduct of the IO in adopting these tactics. The court also said that the police authorities shall formulate guidelines and training programmes how to handle 'socially sensitive cases'.
Case: Vikash Kumar v. UPSC [Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 76
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna observed that the decision in V Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu would "not be a binding precedent", after the coming into force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. The Bench in the same judgment also held that facility of scribe can be provided for persons with disabilities other than those having benchmark disabilities.
In Surendra Mohan, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post of a judicial officer is a legitimate restriction.
The court had dismissed the appeal filed by a V. Surendra Mohan, who was held ineligible for the post of judicial officer (civil judge) as it was found that he was having 70% disability on account of blindness.
"The principle of reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society. The concept of reasonable accommodation is developed in section (H) below. For the present, suffice it to say that, for a person with disability, the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to equality, the six freedoms and the right to life under Article 21 will ring hollow if they are not given this additional support that helps make these rights real and meaningful for them." The bench held.
Case: Daddy's Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava [SLP CIVIL No. 1240 of 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 78
A bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah reiterated that Consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days.
In this case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, confirmed the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejecting an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written version/written statement to the consumer complaint. The rejection was on the ground that the written version/written statement was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case: Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India [CIVIL APPEAL NO.150 OF 2021]
Citation : LL 2021 SC 74
Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy held that a heart ailment (Dilated Cardiomyopathy condition) is not covered within the definition of disability in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The observation was made while dismissing an appeal against Patna High Court judgment which upheld the order of a Shipping Corporation of India that rejected a seaman's Claim for disability compensation. In his appeal challenging this judgment, one of the contentions raised before the Apex Court was that his heart ailment should be understood as a disability under the Disability Act and consequential benefits be accorded to him.
"The dilated Cardiomyopathy condition of the appellant is neither a specified disability nor is the same relatable to the broad spectrum of impairments, which hinders his full and effective participation in society." The bench observed.
8. Bar Under Section 10A IBC Against Initiation Of CIRP Retrospective; Applies To Applications Filed From 25 March 2020
Case: Ramesh Kymal vs. M/s Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 4050 of 2020]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 71
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah held that held that Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code barred filing of applications for the commencement of the CIRP in respect of a corporate debtor for a default occurring on or after 25 March 2020, even if such application was filed before 5 June 2020 (the date on which the amendment came into force).
The bench also observed that that the retrospective bar on the filing of applications for the commencement of CIRP during the stipulated period does not extinguish the debt owed by the corporate debtor or the right of creditors to recover it.
9. Even A Trespasser In Established Possession Can Obtain Injunction: Supreme Court
Case: A. Subramanian v. R. Pannerselvam [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9472 of 2010
Citation: LL 2021 SC 71
The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, while upholding a Madras High Court judgment decreeing an injunction suit, held that even a trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction.
The bench observed that the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration will not apply when the plaintiff's possession over the property is 'admitted and established'.
10. Detailed Reasons Not Required In Disciplinary Authority's Order Imposing Punishment: Supreme Court
Case: Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank [C.A.No.4394 of 2010]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 70
The Supreme Court observed that detailed reasons are not required to be recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in an order imposing punishment by accepting the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
Merely because a show cause notice is issued by indicating the proposed punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has taken a decision, the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed.
In this case, a manager of Lakhimi Gaolia Bank was imposed with a punishment of 'compulsory retirement'. The Disciplinary authority had accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer, that he has sanctioned and disbursed loans without following the due procedure contemplated under law and also there are allegations of misappropriation, disbursing loans irregularly in some instances to (a) units without any shop/business; (b) more than one loan to members of same family etc. The Gauhati High Court upheld the 'compulsory retirement' order.
The court, taking note of the records, observed that applicable procedure was followed by the Disciplinary authority in this case.
11. 'Sudden Provocation Without Premeditation': Supreme Court Orders Release Of Murder Accused Farmer Who Spent 18 Years In Jail
Case: Pardeshiram v. State of M.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1730 OF 2015
Citation: LL 2021 SC 73
A bench comprising of Justices Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat while directing therelease of a murder accused farmer who spent 18 years in jail, held that he is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 IPC.
Pardeshiram was accused of murdering one Kartik Ram in an incident which occurred on 30.5.2002. Pursuant to a dispute between them over construction of a wall, Pardeshiram had allegedly assaulted the deceased with a spade and hit him with a stone on his head and as a result, the deceased died. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed his appeal.
The Supreme Court sentenced him to the sentence already undergone taking note of the period of custody undergone (eighteen years); the relationship between the accused and the deceased and the background in which the injuries were caused.
Case: Harshit Agarwal vs Union of India [Writ Petition (C) No.54 of 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 69
The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Krishna Murari directed that the vacant seats in first year BDS course for the year 2020-2021 shall be filled up from the candidates who have participated in the NEET (UG) courses for the year 2020-2021 after lowering the percentile mark by 10 percentile.
The bench observed that lowering the minimum marks and reducing percentile for admission to the first-year BDS course would not amount to lowering the standards of education.
National Eligibility-cum Entrance Test (NEET) examination 2020 for admission to the first year of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) conducted on 13-09-2020. Dental Council of India, recommended the lowering of qualifying cut off percentile for admission to BDS course for the academic year 2020-2021. The candidates who did not obtain the minimum marks prescribed by Sub-Regulation (ii) of Regulation II of the Dental Council of India, Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 approached the Apex Court aggrieved by non-acceptance of their representation seeking a lower cut-off.
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES
A three judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari dismissed the review petition filed against the Shaheen Bagh Judgment in which it is held that the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.
Dismissing the review petition, the bench held that the right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere.
"We have considered the earlier judicial pronouncements and recorded our opinion that the Constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties. The right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of public place affecting rights of others." The Court said.
2. UPSC Extra Chance For Last Attempt Candidates : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi has reserved judgment on the petition, which seeks an additional chance for those candidates who had exhausted their last attempt in the Civil Service Examination held in October 2020.
While opposing a plea for an extra chance for last attempt candidates in the civil service exams, the Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju submitted before the Supreme Court that the UPSC prelims is "not an exam which requires more than one month's preparation".
Earlier, the Centre had agreed to give an extra chance to such last attempt candidates but with a condition that the concession will be subject to age-bar.
The Bar Council of India this week submitted before the Supreme Court that the BCI Rules abolishing One Year LLM Programme will not be implemented this year .
"The BCI rules to abolish One Year LLM are proposed to be brought into force from the academic year 2022-2023", BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra submitted before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde this week stayed the arrest of Shashi Tharoor MP, journalists Rajdeep Sardesai, Vinod K Jose, Mrinal Pande, Zafar Agha, Anant Nath and Paresh Nath over multiple FIRs registered against them over their tweets/reports about a farmer's death during tractor rally.
The order was passed while the bench issued notice on the writ petitions filed by them. The bench will consider the petitions after two weeks.
Live Updates can be read here.
A bench headed by Justice Rohinton Nariman this week stayed the Kerala High Court order restricting activist Rehana Fathima from printing, posting or publishing her views on any medium of the media.
The Court was was hearing the SLP against the order of November 23, 2020 vide which the High Court Single Bench had imposed strictures on Fatima who had uploaded a video of a cookery show on social media in which she was cooking "Gomatha Ularth"
6. Supreme Court Stays Release Of Koodathayi Murder Accused Jollyamma Joseph In Bail
A bench comprising Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran this week stayed the release of Koodathayi Murder case accused Jollyamma Joseph, while granting leave in an SLP filed by State of Kerala against the High Court order which granted her bail.
Jolly Joseph, a native of Koodathayi village of northern Kerala, is accused of murder of six of her family members over a span of 17 years by administering them cyanide. While granting bail in this case, the High Court had noted that the prosecution case is based on the alleged extra judicial confession, which is made after 17 years of the alleged murder. In a connected crime, the High Court had dismissed her bail plea.
7. Supreme Court Grants Protection From Arrest To AAP Leader Sanjay Singh In 'Hate Speech' Cases
The bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan granted Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh protection from arrest in all FIRs against him (in connection with 'hate speech' at his press conference in Lucknow, UP in August last year) and issued notice on why FIRs should not be clubbed.
While granting protection, the bench also observed that the UP state government can approach the Chairman, Rajya Sabha for sanction for prosecution under section 196 CrPC, considering that Singh is a Rajya Sabha member.
A bench led by CJI SA Bobde this week stayed a Delhi High Court judgment which directed private unaided as well as government schools like 'Kendriya Vidyalayas' to provide gadgets and internet packages to students from economically weaker section (EWS) or disadvantaged group so that they have access to online classes.
A division bench of the high court had directed that cost of gadgets and internet package are not a part of tuition fee and have to be provided free of cost to these students by the schools, subject to the right of private unaided schools to claim reimbursement from the state in accordance with provision of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Concluding the submissions on behalf of Committee on Peace and Harmony of Delhi Assembly in the Supreme Court today, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan submitted that dissemination of hate speech and disinformation being spread on Facebook is a global concern.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari continued hearing the challenge made by Facebook India Vice President Ajit Mohan to the summons issued by the Delhi Assembly panel to enquire into the role of social media behind Delhi riots.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R. Subhash Reddy this week heard a plea filed by the State of U.P. seeking transfer of Mukhtar Ansari currently lodged in the Ropar Jail, Punjab to Ghazipur Jail in the State of UP.
"He is vociferously defended by the State of Punjab. State of Punjab is supporting a terrorist." Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta appearing on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted before the Supreme Court today.
The bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan allowed the impleadment of the state of Chhattisgarh as respondent-party in the plea by the CBI for transfer of the trial in the 'fake obscene CD case' that had rocked Chhattisgarh politics in October 2017 to Delhi or at other place outside of Chhattisgarh.
The Court was hearing an application by former BJP leader Kailash Murarka, a co-accused and respondent no. 1 in the transfer petition.
12. OTT Regulation : Centre Seeks Transfer Of Cases Pending In High Courts To Supreme Court
The Central Government has filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court seeking transfer of cases pending in different High Courts for regulation of Over The Top(OTT) platforms like Netflix, Prime Video, Disney Hotstar etc., to the Supreme Court.
The move is significant as it comes amidst various indications given by the Centre that it will bring guidelines to regulate the content streamed in OTT platforms, which are outside the regulatory framework of the Central Board of Film Certification under the Cinematograph Act.
Amazon has moved the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which had stayed a Single-Bench direction of status quo in favour of Amazon.
On 2nd February 2021, in a plea by Amazon Inc. against Future Retail Ltd. (FRL) and Reliance Industries' retail stake sale deal worth Rs. 25,000 crore approved by a Board Resolution of FRL last year, a Delhi High Court Single-Judge Bench headed by Justice JR Midha had granted interim relief to Amazon directing all authorities and parties to maintain status quo on the deal until a detailed interim order on the case.
Citizens for Justice and Peace has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to challenge Love-jihad laws passed by Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh in its plea challenging the laws made by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand against religious conversions for the sake of marriages.
The petitioner seeks to make the inclusion after being informed that the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019 and the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2020 have also been passed along the lines of the laws being challenged.
SIGNIFICANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE WEEK
A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Ajay Rastogi reiterated that mere absence of doctor's certification as to the fitness of the declarant's state of mind would not ipso facto render the dying declaration unacceptable.
The contention of the accused in this case was that the conviction is solely based on the dying declaration of the deceased which finds no corroboration. It was contended that the doctor's certificate was not there at the time of recording the dying declaration hence without there being certificate of doctor the dying declaration could not have been relied.
Dismissing the appeal, the bench observed that the dying declaration of the deceased was promptly recorded and has been proved to be genuine.
The bench headed by Justice N. V. Ramana this week agreed to determine the question whether in the matter of awarding costs, the procedure and rules framed under the Constitution, CPC and the Rules made thereunder, for `Courts', could be resorted to by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal "which is apparently, not a `Court'".
The observation came while the bench was hearing a SLP preferred by ICICI Lombard General Insurance against the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala upholding the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in favour of the injured respondent.
The bench of Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari opined that once it has been established that the home buyers have in fact made payments to the two builders, they are also entitled to interim compensation and cannot be deprived merely for the reason that no sale deed has been executed.
"We are of the considered opinion that once it has been established that the aforesaid 13 home buyers have in fact made payments to the two builders, they are also entitled to interim compensation and cannot be deprived merely for the reason that no sale deed had been executed, the facts not being in dispute", said the bench.
KEY NOTICES ISSUED BY THE APEX COURT
1. 'Skin To Skin' Judgment : Supreme Court Issues Notice On NCW Plea Challenging Bombay HC's POCSO Acquittal
A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India this week issued notice on a petition filed by the National Commission for Women challenging the controversial judgment of Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) which held that groping over clothes without actual 'skin to skin' touch will not amount to 'sexual assault' under the POCSO Act.
The bench also issued notice on another petition filed by the State of Maharashtra against the High Court verdict.
The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Ravindra Bhat has issued notice to the Uttarakhand High Court on the plea of an Additional District Judge in Uttarakhand for non-admission in evidence of a case diary in his disciplinary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer being a sitting judge of the High Court.
While issuing the notice, the bench also stayed the inquiry from being proceeded with.
The petitioner was aggrieved of the February 1 decision of the High Court wherein the High Court, on the one side, admitted the fact that the Petitioner filed the case dairy, the certified copy of which was received by him under RTI, and the same was denied to be admitted by the Presenting Officer, and on the other side, neither passed any direction to the Presenting Officer to admit it or verify the genuineness of the said the document.
A division Bench of Justice Nageswara Rao and Ravindra Bhat issued notice on a writ petition seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India to submit its opinion to the Governor of Manipur to enable the expeditious disposal of the petition regarding the disqualification of 12 Members of the Manipur Legislative Assembly have incurred disqualification under Article 192 of the Constitution of India for holding Offices of Profit.
According to the petitioner, the Election Commission has a constitutional duty to submit its opinion to the Governor of Manipur and failure to discharge the constitutional duty by a constitutional authority cannot be sustained. The Election Commission should therefore, be directed to perform its duty and submit its opinion to the Governor expeditiously, in the interest of justice and for maintaining the purity of the Manipur Legislative Assembly.
PETITIONS DISMISSED BY THE APEX COURT THIS WEEK
1. "Not At This Stage": Supreme Court Rejects Bail Application Of Akhil Gogoi In UAPA Case Relating To Anti-CAA Protests
A three Judge Bench of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose dismissed plea by peasants' rights activist Akhil Gogoi, challenging the Gauhati High Court order rejecting his bail plea.
"Cannot consider bail in light of the allegations as of now. Maybe later, you can file an application. " Justice Ramana stated.
The Gauhati High Court rejected the bail plea of peasants' rights activist Akhil Gogoi, in connection with a case registered against him under Sections 120B, 124A, 153B IPC and Sections 18 (Punishment for conspiracy, etc.) and 39 (Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation.) of the UA(P) Act.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India dismissed a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) petition which sought the imposition of President's Rule in the State of Uttar Pradesh after dissolving the state government led by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
The petition filed by a lawyer named C R Jaya Sukin who sought a direction upon the Central Government to impose State Emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
The Supreme Court this week refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation petition filed seeking to direct the Central Government to issue directions under the Disaster Management Act to prevent the sale of counterfeit COVID-19 vaccines.
"You file a case with concrete facts. We cannot issue general directions. We are not the legislature", the Chief Justice of India told the petitioner Advocate Vishal Tiwari.
A division Bench of Justice Nageswar Rao and Justice Ravindra Bhat dismissed as withdrawn a petition seeking criminal prosecution of Rakesh Asthana, the present Director General of BSF under section 7 & 7 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Dhawan's plea has alleged that while serving as Special Director of CBI, Asthana hijacked the entire criminal justice system in connivance with other police officers of Chandigarh and conspired to obtain undue advantage, for himself and his close family friends, thereby performing his public duty improperly and dishonestly.
A three-Judge Bench comprising CJI SA Bobde, Justice Bopanna and Justice Ramasubramanian dismissed a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) filed by a group of advocates challenging the constitutionality of the offence of sedition under Section 124A IPC on the ground that the petitioners have no cause of action.
While dismissing the PIL, the bench observed that as per the precedent in the Kusum Ingots case, a law cannot be challenged without a cause of action.
The Supreme Court this week refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) petition which sought directions to ensure that police strictly followed the guidelines laid down in the 'Arnesh Kumar judgment' while arresting persons.
Citing a nation wide survey report, the PIL filed by law researchers Ameya Bokil and Srujana Bej stated that indiscriminate arrests carried out by police during the lockdown period ignoring the 'Arnesh Kumar' judgment led to high increase of undertrial population in prisons, nullifying the efforts taken by the Supreme Court and High Powered Committees of States to reduce prison density amid COVID-19 pandemic by grant of emergency parole or interim bail.
