Home
/

Round Ups
/

Weekly
/
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up:...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: December 02, 2024 To December 08, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

9 Dec 2024 5:32 PM IST

Reports/Judgments

'Legal Aid Must Be Effective; Prosecutors Must Ensure Fair Trial': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To Legal Aid Lawyers, Prosecutors

Case Details: Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 941

The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions regarding the role of the Public Prosecutor and the appointment of Legal Aid Counsels in upholding procedural fairness and the fundamental rights of the accused in criminal trials.

The Court said that the Public Prosecutor must assist the Trial Court in recording the accused's statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, ensuring all incriminating material circumstances are presented to the accused. While ensuring offenders are punished, the Prosecutor must also prevent infirmities in the trial that could prejudice the accused, the court added.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih issued the following directions while overturning the conviction of a person accused of raping and murdering a minor girl who was not afforded proper legal aid during the trial and was not provided incriminating evidence during recording his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

'Soldier's Widow Should Not Have Been Dragged To Court': Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 50K Cost On Centre For Challenging Pension Order

Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. Saroj Devi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 942

The Supreme Court dismissed Union of India's appeal against order of Armed Forces Tribunal granting a Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) and other benefits to the widow of a soldier who died while on an Area Domination Patrol along the Line of Control.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant, observing that the widow of Naik Inderjeet Singh (deceased), should not have been dragged to court in such a case.

“In our view, in a case like this, the respondent ought not to have been dragged to this Court, and the decision making authority of the appellants ought to have been sympathetic to the widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness. Therefore, we propose to impose costs quantified as Rs.50,000/-, which will be payable to the respondent”, the Court observed.

Charge Sheet Can't Be Filed When There Is Interim Order Restraining Coercive Action Against Accused: Supreme Court

Case Details: Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(SC) 943

The Supreme Court observed that a charge sheet cannot be filed after a court passes an interim order restraining the state from taking coercive action against the accused in a criminal case.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih discharged contempt notices issued to three officers of the Jharkhand Police after they apologised for filing charge sheet despite the Court's interim order restraining further action.

The Court examined affidavits filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) Deepak Kumar, Investigating Officer (IO) Tarkeshwar Prasad Kesari, and Station House Officer (SHO) Dayanand Kumar. The Court accepted their apology and directed the State to modify a 2011 letter by the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) that contributed to the filing of the charge sheet.

“They have relied upon a letter dated 15th April, 2011 addressed by the Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand to all Police Officers in the State. It is stated in the letter that even if court passes an order that no coercive action shall be taken as against the particular accused, there is no prohibition on filing charge-sheet against the accused. If a charge sheet is filed by relying upon clause 3 of letter dated 15th April, 2011 against an accused in whose favour there is an order directing not to take coercive action, the concerned officer will expose himself to contempt jurisdiction”, the Court observed.

'Need To Preserve Temples With Utmost Care': Supreme Court Appoints Retired HC Judge For Election Of Kerala's Oachira Temple Management

Case Details: Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 13708 - 13709 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 944

In a plea related to the management and administration of Oachira Parabrahma Temple in Kerala, the Supreme Court appointed a former Kerala High Court Judge as an Administrator to conduct a fresh election for the administration and management of the subject temple and its allied institutions, in a free and fair manner.

The bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna, and Justices Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan considered the temple to be a unique, and historical one and said that it is imperative to preserve and protect the temple and its properties. The Court underscored the importance of free and fair elections in the temple administration under judicial oversight.

Arms Act | Prohibition On Buttondar Knife Applies Only If Knife Was For 'Manufacture, Sale Or Possession For Sale Or Test': Supreme Court

Case Details: Irfan Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 945

The Supreme Court quashed the Arms Act case against the person accused of possessing a buttondar knife.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta heard the case, in which the appellant was accused of possessing a buttondar knife (having dimensions 31.5 cms in length (blade length of 14.5 cms and handle of 17 cms) and width of 3 cms), violating the Arms Act, 1959, and a 1980 DAD Notification. The FIR and charge sheet were challenged because the knife did not meet the specifications for violation.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, Mehta J. in the judgment observed that "the notification whereby, a buttondar knife having blade dimensions of 7.62 cms or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth has been brought under the mischief of the Arms Act, would be applicable only when the recovered knife is meant for the specified reasons i.e., 'manufacture, sale or possession for sale or test' as indicated in the DAD notification.”

NGT Cannot Outsource Its Opinion To Committees & Base Its Decision On Such Opinions: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/s Grasim Industries v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 946

The Supreme Court criticised the National Green Tribunal for 'outsourcing' its opinion to a committee and basing its opinion only on the findings of the committee.

"The NGT is a tribunal constituted under the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010. A tribunal is required to arrive at its decision by fully considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it. It cannot outsource an opinion and base its decision on such an opinion," observed the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanatan.

In this regard, the bench cited the 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others which held that NGT's adjudicatory functions cannot be delegated to expert committees.

In this case, the NGT had imposed penalties on M/s Grasim Industries based on the report of a joint committee. However, the company was neither added as a party in the case nor was issued any notice before passing the order.

Plaintiff Seeking Specific Performance Of Agreement To Sell Must Also Show Availability Of Funds: Supreme Court

Case Details: R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 947

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision denying Specific Relief to the plaintiff because he was not able to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that for the contract to be concluded, the plaintiff shall not only aver about his readiness and willingness to perform the contract but “is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time.”

S. 148 NI Act | Signatory Of Cheque Issued By Company Can't Be Directed To Pay Compensation For Suspension Of Sentence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bijay Agarwal v. M/s Medilines

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 948

The Supreme Court reiterated that the official signatory of the company does not assume the status of a 'drawer of a cheque' to attract the liability for payment of compensation under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“N.I. Act”).

The Court clarified that liability for payment of compensation as well as deposit to suspend the sentence pending the appeal could only be fastened upon the drawer of the cheque, and not on the company's official who acted as an authorized signatory of the company.

“To wit, as in the case of the position qua Section 143A, NI Act, merely because an officer of a company concerned is the authorised signatory of the cheque concerned by itself will not make such an officer 'drawer of the cheque' under Section 148, NI Act, so as to empower the Appellate Court, in an appeal against conviction for an offence under Section 138, NI Act, to direct to deposit compensation of any sum under Section 148(1), of the NI Act.”, the Court held.

The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol heard a criminal appeal filed by the company's authorized officer who challenged the High Court's decision approving the trial court's direction to the appellant to deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount for suspension of sentence in a cheque dishonor case.

Bail Should Not Be Granted Ordinarily In Serious Offences Like Rape & Murder Once Trial Starts: Supreme Court

Case Details: X v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 949

The Supreme Court has observed that in serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc., bail applications of the accused should not be ordinarily entertained by the Trial Courts and the High Courts.

"Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused," observed a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.

"It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed," the bench added.

Supreme Court Allows West Bengal BJP Leader Kabir Shankar Bose's Plea For CBI Probe Of Assault Cases Against Him

Case Details: Kabir Shankar Bose v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 950

The Supreme Court ordered a CBI investigation into two assault and sexual harassment cases arising from an incident on December 6, 2020, against West Bengal Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kabir Shankar Bose.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal delivered its judgment in the writ petition filed by Bose alleging that false criminal charges were filed against him due to political rivalry.

The "politically charged atmosphere" of West Bengal and the fact that the petitioner belonged to a rival political party may not be conducive for a fair investigation, the Court observed.

Suit For Specific Performance Of Sale Agreement Be Filed In Court Having Jurisdiction Over Property: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 951

The Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell must be instituted in the Court within whose local jurisdiction the property -which is the subject of the agreement- was situated as per Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court rejected the argument that a specific performance decree can be enforced by the personal obedience of the defendant and hence such a suit was maintainable at the place where the defendant resided/carried out business in terms of the proviso to Section 16 CPC.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the proviso to Section 16 was not applicable.

'Pendency Of Criminal Appeals In MP HC Quite High, Early Hearing Unlikely': Supreme Court Suspends Sentence

Case Details: Abhay Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 952

Citing the high pendency of criminal appeals in the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the unlikelihood of an early hearing of an appeal filed in 2024, the Supreme Court suspended the sentence of a convict who was sentenced to five years imprisonment in a cheating case.

The convict, convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 407, 420, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, appealed to the Supreme Court aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to suspend the sentence.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the maximum term of punishment for the offences committed by the convict was 5 years and he has already undergone eight months' custody.

Penalize Govt Officers Who Cause Delay In Filing Of Appeals: Supreme Court Directs All States

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 953

The Supreme Court directed all States to fix liability on government officers who cause delay in the filing of appeals/cases on behalf of the government and thereby cause loss to the public exchequer.

The Court observed that in many cases, he filing of appeals are delayed due to the failure to communicate the decisions to the higher authorities in time. Thus, appeals get dismissed by the Courts on the grounds of delay, although the subject matter is highly valuable.

Exasperated with such instances, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan asked the States to streamline their machinery on litigation, fix responsibility on the officers, and penalize them for the value of loss caused to the government.

Supreme Court Rejects State's Argument That It Has No Liability To Pay Retiral Benefits To Employee Of Aided Institution Whose Dismissal Was Set Aside

Case Details: Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith v. Government of Gujarat and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 954

In a recent case, the Supreme Court rejected the Gujarat Government's argument that it has no liability to pay the Retiral Benefits to the employee of an aided educational institution whose dismissal was set aside. The Court ruled that the payment of the pensionary and retiral benefits to the employee of an aided private educational institution rests with the State Government, not the educational institution.

The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal heard the appeal filed by the Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapeeth, an aided private educational institution situated in Gujarat against the High Court's decision directing the appellant, along with the State, to pay the retiral benefits to the respondent no.2-employee. The respondent-employee was initially dismissed from the teaching service but subsequently was directed to be reinstated with payment retiral benefits after his superannuation.

S. 197 CrPC | Once Denied, Sanction to Prosecute Public Servant Cannot Be Granted Again On Same Material: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Telangana v. C. Shobha Rani

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 955

The Supreme Court held that once a sanction to prosecute a public servant has been denied, it cannot be granted again unless new material is presented to the competent authority justifying the subsequent sanction.

“The subsequent sanction was given based on the same material, therefore, in the absence of any other contra material which weighed in the mind of the sanctioning authority, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law”, the Court said.

The bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar heard a criminal appeal filed by the State of Telangana against the High Court's decision quashing criminal proceedings against the respondent (C. Shobha Rani), who had been charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Intent Of S.50 NDPS Act Is To Inform Suspect Of Right To Be Taken To Officer Who Isn't Part Of Search Party: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Jabir| Crl.A. No. 004931 / 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 956

The Supreme Court has observed that the intent behind Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is to inform a suspect who is about to be searched of the right to be taken to a Gazetted Officer who is not part of the raid team.

"It is obvious that the intent behind the provision is to ensure that the person about to be searched is made aware of the option to be taken before a third person other than the one who is conducting the search," the Court observed.

"Use of the expression “nearest” refers to the convenience as the suspect is to be searched. Delay should be avoided, as is reflected from the use of the word “unnecessary delay” and the exception carved in sub-section (5) to Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Nothing more is articulated and meant by the words used, or the intent behind the provision, " the Court added.

A bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing Govt. of NCT Delhi's challenge to Delhi High Court order which granted bail to a person allegedly accused of purchasing and possessing 500 grams of Heroin. An FIR u/s 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused.

Complete Police Verification Of Candidates Selected For Govt Service Within 6 Months Of Their Appointment: Supreme Court Directs All States

Case Details: Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 957

The Supreme Court warned against the careless and indifferent approach of the Police Authorities in failing to submit the Police Verification Report of candidates selected for government service appointments within the required timeframe, affecting the regularization of candidates.

In this regard, the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice R Mahadevan issued a direction to “the police official(s) of all the States to complete the enquiry and file report as regards the character, antecedents, nationality, genuineness of the documents produced by the candidates selected for appointment to the Government service, etc., within a stipulated time provided in the statute / G.O., or in any event, not later than six months from the date of their appointment.”

The Court clarified that to avoid future complications, the candidate's regularization has to be done only after verification of the candidate's credentials.

The Supreme Court cited the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 while allowing the citizenship claim of an individual who migrated from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to India in 1969.

The bench referred to the proviso added to Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 ("Act") by the 2019 Amendment to state that the appellant (belonging to the Hindu religion) would not be treated as an 'illegal migrant'.

UGC/AICTE Retirement Age Regulations Not Binding On State University-Affiliated Institutions Without State Adoption: Supreme Court

Case Details: P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 958

The Supreme Court held that amended UGC or AICTE regulations raising the retirement age to 65 years do not apply to institutions affiliated to State Universities where the State Government opts not to adopt those regulations. Such institutions must follow the retirement age followed in the State.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard the civil appeal filed by one P.J. Dharmaraj who was initially appointed as Lecturer, and Reader in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (“JNTU”) and subsequently retired from the position of Director of Church of South India Institute of Technology (“CSIIT”) affiliated to JNTU, Telangana.

Supreme Court Issues Directions For Effective Implementation Of POSH Act

Case Details: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Ors., Diary No. 22553-2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 959

The Supreme Court passed comprehensive directions for the effective compliance of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

The Court particularly emphasised "decentralising" the POSH Act to take on board the private sectors, which the Union also pointed out is a "red flag" because they have been "very hesitant" in implementing the POSH Act especially in constituting Internal Complaints Committee for hearing complaints pertaining to allegations of sexual harassment.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh passed further orders in addition to the orders passed by this Court on May 12, 2023, and October 22, after it had observed that there are "serious lapses" in the implementation of the POSH Act.

It has stated that a copy of the Court's order shall be taken by the respective State counsel to the State Secretaries for compliance and a status report has to be filed in response to the same.

In Quashing Petition, Wider Challenge Is Available Than Discharge Petition: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mukesh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 960

The Supreme Court reiterated that an accused can still file a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) even after filing a charge sheet. It rejected the argument that the accused must wait for charges to be framed and then challenge an order framing charges through a revision application.

The Court explained that in a quashing petition, wider grounds of challenge would be available than in a discharge petition.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice AG Masih heard the criminal appeal filed by the accused against the Allahabad High Court's order dismissing the quashing petition declaring it as 'infructuous' after a charge sheet was filed against the accused.

Supreme Court Grants Permanent Commission to Woman Army Officer Who Was Denied Benefits Given To Similarly Situated Others

Case Details: Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 961

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a female Army Lieutenant Colonel, granting her permanent commission after she was unfairly left out while others in similar situations were extended the same benefit.

The appellant-Lt. Col, commissioned as a Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer in the Army Dental Corps in 2008, assailed the Armed Forces Tribunal's (AFT) decision which had not considered her case for permanent commissioning. The appellant along with other applicants was entitled to three chances to secure a permanent commission. However, following an amendment in 2013 in the original policy, the appellant was denied the third opportunity for permanent commission, which other officers similarly situated had been granted.

The AFT granted relief to other applicants by allowing them a one-time age relaxation. However, the appellant was denied benefit as she was not a party to the original case due to personal difficulties.

Setting aside the AFT's order, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that denying the benefit of permanent commission to the appellant when other similarly situated applicants were extended the benefits of the permanent commission shows discrimination with the appellant.

The Court said if other officers were given age relaxation and considered under the old policy, the appellant should have received the same benefit.

Subsequent Purchaser Of Imported Vehicle Cannot Be Asked To Pay Customs Duty; Liability On Importer: Supreme Court

Case Details: Nalin Choksey v. The Commissioner of Customs, Kochi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 962

The Supreme Court ruled that the 'subsequent purchaser' of an imported motor car cannot be called an 'importer' to attract the liability under the Customs Act, 1962 to pay customs duty on the import of the vehicle.

The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh heard the appeal preferred by the subsequent purchaser of a Porsche Car against the High Court's decision upholding the demand of custom duty of ₹17,92,847 from the appellant along with other individuals on the allegation of misdeclaration of the car's model, tampering with its chassis number, and undervaluation to evade customs duty.

When Is An Order Passed By HC Single Bench In Contempt Jurisdiction Appealable Before DB? Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: Deepak Kumar and Another v. Devina Tewari and Others | SLP(C) No. 10098 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 963

The Supreme Court held that an order passed by a single bench of the High Court declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, or initiating proceedings for contempt, or an order dropping the proceedings for contempt or an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable to the division bench under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Such an order can be challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea challenging the institution of an appeal in Allahabad High Court against the single bench order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings relating to a service matter.

Court observed that when possession of the immovable property is transferred implicitly upon execution of the sale deed, a separate suit seeking possession of the immovable property is not required under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”).

Orders

'We Grant Bail & Next Day You Become Minister!': Supreme Court To Examine If Witnesses Against TN Minister Senthil Balaji Are Under Pressure

Case Details: K. Vidhya Kumar v. The Deputy Director and Anr. MA 2454/2024 in Crl.A. No. 4011/2024

The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the fact that Senthil Balaji was appointed as Minister in Tamil Nadu soon after he was granted bail in the money laundering case related to the cash-for-jobs scam.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a plea seeking to recall the judgment which granted bail to Balaji on the ground that witnesses would be under pressure since Balaji was appointed Minister after his release.

The bench however said that it would not recall the judgment as the law laid down in there as it was benefitting several other persons. Saying that it would limit the scope of enquiry to whether the witnesses were under pressure, the bench asked Balaji's counsel to get instructions and posted the matter to December 13.

Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings In Gujarat High Court Against Judicial Officer

Case Details: AM Bhukharee v. Kshitijkumar Satishbhai Banker and Ors. SLP (C) 27304/2024

The Supreme Court stayed the contempt proceedings in the Gujarat High Court initiated against a judicial officer, an Additional Senior Civil Judge.

The judicial officer approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Gujarat High Court which allowed his addition as a respondent in a contempt petition filed by a person who alleged that he was illegally arrested in violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar case.

'We're Concerned No Voter Should Be Troubled': Supreme Court Seeks Election Commission's Explanation On Increasing Voters Per Polling Station From 1200 To 1500

Case Details: Indu Prakash Singh v. Election Commission of India and Anr., Diary No. 49052-2024

The Supreme Court sought an explanation from the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its decision to increase the voters per polling station from 1200 to 1500.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the PIL challenging Election Commission of India's communication(s) whereby the maximum number of electors per polling station have been increased from 1200 to 1500.

The CJI asked the ECI how the situation would be handled if more than 1500 people arrive at one polling station.

The bench then ordered the ECI to file a short affidavit within 3 weeks.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Journalist Mamta Tripathi In UP Police FIR Over Alleged Defamatory Video Report

Case Details: Mamta Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No.44584/2024

The Supreme Court granted interim protection against coercive steps to journalist Mamta Tripathi booked over an alleged defamatory video report dated September 23, 2023 published by Dainik Bhaskar.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, stating, "The matter stands deferred to...In the meantime, coercive steps should not be taken against the petitioner on account of FIR No. 281/2023".

Supreme Court Stays Arrest To YSR Congress Party's Social Media Head For 2 weeks, Asks him To Approach Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Details: S. Bhargav Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 476/2024

The Supreme Court granted protection from arrest to YSR Congress Party's social media head, Sajjala Bhargav Reddy to approach the Andhra High Court for appropriate remedy.

As per Reddy's writ petition, he has challenged Sections 111 and 113, BNS, which he argues has introduced the offences of the Organised Crime and Terrorist Act. He has also claimed that the ruling Chandrababu Naidu-led Telugu Desam Party is misusing these provisions against members of Jagan Mohan Reddy-led YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) to stifle dissent.

Various FIRs have been filed against the present petitioner under Section 111 of the BNS.

Before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Dave (for petitioner) submitted that in all First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against the accused, the incident took place prior to coming of the criminal laws. All three criminal laws were enforced from July 1 onwards.

'They Have To Be Given A Chance': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging SC/ST Reservations In Punjab's Gram Panchayat Posts

Case Details: Jagdish Chander and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. SLP(C) No. 28828/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes in Gram Panchayat elections in village in Ferozepur, Punjab.

The bench of CJI Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea challenging the two circulars issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Ferozepur through which the seat of the sarpanch of the village as three wards were reserved for the Scheduled Castes/Tribes.

Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To File Report On Suggestions Given By Petitioner For Effective Implementation Of Domestic Violence Act

Case Details: We The Women Of India v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1156/2021

The Supreme Court directed the States and Union Territories to file a status report in response to the suggestions filed by the petitioner 'We The Women of India', a non-governmental organisation, for the effective implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA).

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh passed the order after being informed by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta (for petitioner) that suggestions have been filed in response to the Court's last order.

Protest Peacefully, Don't Cause Inconvenience To Public: Supreme Court While Closing Habeas Petition Against Custody Of Farmers' Leader

Case Details: Jagjit Singh Dallewal Thr: Guninder Kaur Gill Next Friend of Jagjit Singh Dallewal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 491/2024

The Supreme Court disposed of a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal custody of farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal by Punjab police, noting that he has been released and joined the farmers' protest.

As per allegations, Dallewal was to begin a fast-unto-death on November 26 in support of farmers' demands. But he was forcibly removed from the protest site on Khanuari border and taken to a hospital in Ludhiana (from where he was released later).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order. Without commenting on whether the farmers' protests are right or wrong, the bench orally expressed, "In a democratic setup, you can engage in peaceful protests but do not cause inconvenience to people...the Khanauri border is a lifeline for Punjab".

It was also noted that the issues raised are pending before the Court in another matter.

Kerala Church Feud: Supreme Court Says Jacobite Members Are In Contempt, Asks Them To Hand Over 6 Churches To Malankara Group

Case Details: v. Venu and Ors. v. St. Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli) | SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024

The Supreme Court observed that the members of the Jacobite Syrian Church are in contempt for "wilfully disobeying" the judgments regarding the entrustment of Churches to the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church as per the 1934 Constitution.

The Court directed the members of the Jacobite church to hand over the administration of three churches each in Ernakulam and Palakkad districts in Kerala to the Malankara faction and file an affidavit to that effect. Failure to do so will result in initiation of contempt proceedings, the Court warned.

At the same time, the Court also directed the Malankara faction to ensure that the common amenities in these churches, such as burial grounds, schools, hospitals etc. can be enjoyed by the Jacobite faction in conformity with the 1934 Constitution. The Court posted these matters for further consideration on December 17

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed by the officials of the Kerala Government, Kerala Police and also certain members of the Jacobite Church against the directions passed by the Kerala High Court on October 17 to the District Collectors of Palakkad and Ernakulam to take possession of six churches under the control of the Jacobite faction.

Supreme Court Stays Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Rape-Murder Of Engineering Student

Case Details: Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Raj @ Raj Srivastava @ Rocky Raj @ Aryan @ Ankit v. State of Jharkhand, Diary No. - 56166/2024

The Supreme Court stayed the death sentence of a man convicted for the rape and murder of a 19-year-old engineering student in Jharkhand.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, in the convict's challenge to a Jharkhand High Court order whereby his death sentence was confirmed.

'You Deserve No Sympathy': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Advocate Who Contested Bar Elections While Under Suspension From Practice

Case Details: Akshaya Katiyar v. Ajay Kumar Sahu | C.A. No. 007313 - / 2022

The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the order of the Bar Council of India which suspended an advocate for 5 years over misconduct. The Court also took a serious view of the fact that the advocate contested Bar Association elections in Uttar Pradesh during the suspension period.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by an advocate who was suspended for 5 years by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India in an order dated March 11, 2022 on account of misconduct.

The bench noted that while the advocate was under suspension, he had participated and fought the Bar Association Elections. The CJI took a stern view of Katiyar's conduct.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere In Kerala HC Order Invalidating 'Compassionate Appointment' To Late MLA's Son

Case Details: R. Prashanth v. Ashok Kumar M. | SLP(C) No. 020871 - / 2021

The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the order of the Kerala High Court which had set aside the appointment of late MLA Ramachandran Nair's son in the State's Public Works Department under 'compassionate employment'.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge against the Kerala High Court order which cancelled the compassionate appointment of R. Prasanth, son of late CPI(M) MLA K.K. Ramachandran Nair in the Public Works Department, ruling that such appointments are only open to kith and kin of government servants, and not MLAs.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's View On Bihar Election Commission's Plea Against Election Of Nepali Citizen As Panchayat Mukhiya

Case Details: State Election Commission of Bihar, Patna & Anr. v. Biltu Ray @ Bilat Ray @ Bilat Prasad Yadav & Ors., SLP(C) No. 27280/2024

The Supreme Court called for Union's response on Bihar State Election Commission's plea challenging a direction that citizenship issue of a Mukhiya in the state be referred to the Union. The said Mukhiya was disqualified by the Bihar SEC on a view that he was a Nepali citizen when the elections took place.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order for impleadment of Union of India, taking into account a submission that it is the competent authority to grant citizenship.

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Supreme Court Urges Punjab Govt To Consider Relief For 39 Families Unable To Prove They're Genuine Riot Victims

Case Details: Harbhajan Singh (Dead) & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors., SLP (C) 9948/2018

The Supreme Court directed the Punjab State to explore the possibility of providing alternative accommodation to 39 families occupying flats in SAS Nagar Mohali Phase-XI for the last 40 years, meant for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots victims, as they do not have red cards given to identify the genuine victims of the riots.

A special leave petition has been filed claiming that 39 families have been evicted by the authorities. It is their case that they were the residents of Jahangir Puri, Delhi and had to flee from there due to the riots.

On the other hand, the authorities claim that the families are not genuine riots-affected victims but have trespassed into the premises and have been in unlawful occupation for 40 years. It is there case that there are many other genuine families of the economically weaker section group, who need shelter.

Can NCDRC Technical Member Sitting Singly Preside Over Bench? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: S S v. Rajat Gupta & Ors., Civil Appeal No.13447/2024

The Supreme Court stayed proceedings in a consumer case pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, on challenge to an order passed therein by a Technical Member alone.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta granted stay upon hearing Senior Advocate Trideep Pais for the appellant, who contended that the impugned order suffered from the vice of "corum non judice". Pais conceded that the ground had not been raised in the petition, however, he referred to a recent order passed by another bench of the Court (Ref: State of Rajasthan v. Kamal Travels Kokks International), wherein Rajasthan High Court's view that a technical member sitting singly cannot preside over a bench of the NCDRC was upheld.

Supreme Court Asks 6 Women Navy Officers Granted Permanent Commission To Approach Armed Forces Tribunal For Promotion-Related Reliefs

Case Details: Union of India v. Lt. Cdr. Annie Nagaraja, Executive Officer, Diary No. 23843-2023

While disposing of Indian women navy officers' plea seeking promotion-related reliefs consequent to the grant of permanent commission to them, the Supreme Court said that the Armed Forces Tribunal would be the appropriate forum to address the mixed questions of fact and law involved. It granted liberty to the officers to move the Tribunal which, considering that the officers' have been agitating the issues for about 2 decades, shall preferably decide their applications within 4 months of filing.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in miscellaneous applications filed by 6 Indian Navy women officers in the Union of India v. Lt Cdr Annie Nagaraja case, seeking promotion-related reliefs.

Supreme Court Awards Rs.5 Lakhs Honorarium To 83-Yr Old Ex-Constable Who Saved Lives By Killing Dacoit In 1986

Case Details: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26568/2023

The Supreme Court awarded Rs. 5 lakhs as honorarium to an 83-year-old retired Constable, who approached it seeking direction to UP authorities to act on his Gallantry Award recommendation. Reportedly, the retired cop saved members of public by killing a dacoit 38 years ago.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with petitioner-Ram Autar's challenge to an Allahabad High Court order, which denied his prayer on the ground that he had approached belatedly.

Supreme Court Stays Criminal Trial In Case Where Allahabad HC Failed To Pronounce Decision After 14 Months Since Reserving Orders

Case Details: Ramdular Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., SLP(Crl) No.11919/2024

The Supreme Court stayed criminal trial against an accused, taking into account his grievance that the High Court reserved judgment on his plea for quashing but did not deliver the same despite lapse of 14 months since the orders were reserved.

"We do not know the exact reason as to why the learned Judge of the High Court, despite lapse of 14 (fourteen) months since judgment was reserved, could not deliver the judgment and dispose of the petition one way or the other...we request the roster bench of the High Court to dispose of the petition in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within three months from date upon hearing all the parties", said a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta.

'What Is Defamatory In Saying MLAs Were Ready To Switch Parties?' Supreme Court Rejects AIADMK MLA's Plea Against TN Speaker

Case Details: R.M. Babu Murugavel v. Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M. Appavu, SLP(Crl) No. 16265/2024

While refusing to entertain AIADMK's Babu Murugavel's challenge to quashing of a defamation complaint against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu, the Supreme Court observed that imputation in respect of political leaders crossing-over from one party to another can't be said to be defamatory.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was dealing with Murugavel's challenge to a Madras High Court order, whereby the defamation complaint against the TN Speaker over his alleged statements in respect of MLAs crossing-over from AIADMK to DMK, was quashed. The High Court quashed the complaint on the ground that Murugavel, who was not an 'aggrieved person', filed the complaint in his personal capacity and not in a representative capacity.

'Didn't Intend To Lower Murasoli Trust's Reputation': Union Minister L Murugan Says; Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Him

Case Details: Dr. L. Murugan v. Murasoli Trust, SLP (Crl) No. 12091-12092/2023

The Supreme Court quashed the defamation case filed by the trust managing DMK mouthpiece Murasoli against Union Minister and former Tamil Nadu BJP Head Dr L Murugan over his alleged defamatory statements during a press conference in 2020.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, upon Murasoli Trust's expression of intention to not continue the prosecution, after Murugan made a statement that he did not intend to hurt the sentiments of the Trust and/or cause harm/injury to its reputation.

Supreme Court Adds ASI, INACH As Parties In Plea To Restore Mysuru's Heritage Buildings

Case Details: G. Satyanarayana Gouri Satya v. State of Karnataka., SLP(C) No. 26848/2023

The Supreme Court on December 4 impleaded Archaeological Survey of India and the UNESCO's Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) in a plea filed by journalist G. Satyanarayana Gouri, a veteran journalist based in Mysuru, for the restoration of two heritage buildings in Mysore city.

The Special Leave Petition challenges the order of the Karnataka High Court whereby on August 8, 2023, the Court dismissed a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus against the Karnataka authorities from demolishing or reconstructing 19th-century Devaraja Market building and Lansdowne Building of Mysore city. Reportedly, the buildings are to be demolished for the purpose of redevelopment project.

A bench of Justices Sudhandhu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanuallah stated that the structures were not colonial-era buildings but those that belonged to the princely State of Mysuru. An attempt must be made to restore it.

Medical Negligence: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Of Doctor Held Liable For Surgery On Wrong Leg

Case Details: Rahul Kakran v. Ravi Rai | C.A 13659/2024

The Supreme Court on December 2 dismissed an appeal filed by a doctor challenging an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding him liable for medical negligence for conducting the surgery on the wrong foot of a patient.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra dismissed an appeal filed by Dr Rahul Kakran, who worked as an Orthopaedic Surgeon at the Fortis Hospital in 2016.

The consumer complaint was based on the allegation that the surgery was performed on the patient's left leg instead of his injured right leg.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Manipur HC's Direction To CBI To Trace Absconding Rape Convict Within 3 Months

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Manipur., SLP(Crl) No. 9379-9380/2024

The Supreme Court set aside suo moto directions passed by the Manipur High Court in October 2023 directing the Central Bureau Investigation (CBI) to speedily track and produce Timothi Changsang, a Northeast child-home Administrator convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for raping minor girls within 3 months before the High Court.

The convict has been absconding since 2018 and is yet to be found.

Delhi Air Pollution: Supreme Court Allows GRAP-IV Restrictions To Be Relaxed Up To GRAP-II

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court allowed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to reduce the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) Stage-IV restrictions in Delhi to GRAP-Stage II in view of the betterment in the Air Quality Index (AQI).

The Court advised the CAQM to also consider adding certain measures under GRAP-Stage III. If the AQI crosses 350, GRAP-III should be imposed and if it crosses 400, GRAP-IV must be imposed, the Court said.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih took note of the submission of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that the average AQI levels have been below the 300 mark since November 30.

The Court directed the NCR states - Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana- to convene a meeting with all workers' Unions and appeal to them to get the workers registered in the online portal so that they become eligible to receive the subsistence allowance paid during the period when they remain unemployed due to the ban on construction activities.

Supreme Court Grants Relief To Disabled Candidates For AIBE; Express Surprise At NLU Consortium Having No Policy For CLAT

Case Details: Yash Dodani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 785/2024

After the Supreme Court allowed a 100 percent blind law student to avail the assistance of a scribe, as appointed by the Consortium of the National Law Universities, to appear for the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT)- Postgraduate exam 2024-25, the Court granted relief to the other two petitioners seeking the use of computers to write answers and soft copies of Bare Acts for the upcoming the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a petition filed by three law students with benchmark disabilities seeking reasonable accommodation to appear for CLAT-PG and AIBE respectively.

Supreme Court Asks Chief Secretaries Of States/UTs To Designate Senior Officer To Supervise Compliance With RPwD Act

Case Details: Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. U.O.I., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998

In a PIL seeking implementation of the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court called on non-compliant states/Union Territories to file by February, 2025 their response/affidavits on further steps taken to comply with the provisions of the Act.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti further asked Chief Secretary of each state/UT to designate a senior officer to supervise the process of compliance with the provisions.

'Nothing Wrong In Having Political Ideology': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea That Politicians Shouldn't Become Office Bearers Of Bar Bodies

Case Details: C.R. Jaya Sukin v. Union of India | W.P. (C) No. 795/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition which sought directions that persons who are members of political parties should not hold become the office-bearers of Bar Associations and Bar Councils.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan orally observed that there was nothing wrong in persons with political ideologies holding positions in the bar bodies.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To UP Police Officers Convicted For Hashimpura Massacre

Case Details: Sami Ullah and Ors. v. Zulfikar Nasir and Ors. Crl.A. No. 1547-1549/2018 and connected cases

The Supreme Court granted bail to the members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel who were convicted by the Delhi High Court in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre case.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih passed the order considering that the convicts have been undergoing imprisonment for over six years since November 2018. The bench directed that the convicts be produced before the Trial Court within a week for the execution of bail bonds.

Supreme Court Allows Medical Student With 70% Hearing Impairment To Appear For PG Admission Counselling

Case Details: Tina Sharma v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 735/2024

The Supreme Court issued a notice returnable 4 weeks in a petition filed by a medical student with a benchmark disability, having a 70% hearing impairment, challenging the disability clause under the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 whereby a person with a hearing disability of 40 % or more shall be ineligible for admission to Post-Graduate (PG) Medical Courses.

The petitioner has challenged the disability clause on grounds of being discriminatory and arbitrary in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution and Sections 3, 32, 33, 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

Supreme Court Seeks Details Of Shelter Homes For Urban Poor From States/UTs Amid Winter Season

Case Details: E.R. Kumar v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2003

While hearing the PIL seeking adequate shelters for homeless persons, the Supreme Court called for an affidavit from the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) which shall detail inter-alia the number of persons who can be accommodated in existing shelters and how the Board proposes to address deficits (if any).

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard the matter and ordered that the affidavit be filed through a Senior Officer giving following details:

(i) Facilities available with DUSIB for accommodating persons without shelter;

(ii) Number of persons who can be accommodated in such facilities;

(iii) The estimated number of persons requiring such facilities;

(iv) If there is any deficit in the facilities available, then the number of persons requiring such facilities and how DUSIB proposes to deal with such a situation.

As per the order, the DUSIB affidavit shall also specify as to whether the persons living in the temporary shelter at Yamuna Pusta and Sarai Kale Khan have been accommodated.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Plea Challenging Gujarat Gov's Extended Ban On Fishing Activities In Arabian Sea

Case Details: Manojbhai Varjangbhai Mori v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27622/2024

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the Gujarat High Court which dismissed a writ petition challenging the imposition of an extended ban on fishing activities in the Arabian Sea for 15 days under the State Rules. It granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government's appropriate department to seek relief.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing a challenge to the legality and validity of the Gujarat Fisheries (Amendment) Rules, 2024. It was brought into effect vide Notification dated July 31 issued by the Agriculture, Farmers Welfare and Cooperative Department.

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Supreme Court Seeks CBI's Response To Former Congress Councillor Balwan Khokhar's Plea To Suspend Sentence

Case Details: Balwan Khokhar v. Central Bureau of Investigation Crl.A. No. 1665-1666/2019

The Supreme Court on December 6 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file counter affidavits within 2 weeks on a plea filed by one of the former Congress Councillor Balwan Khokhar, one of the convicts in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, seeking suspension of life sentence.

In 2013, Khokar was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. In 2018, the Delhi High Court affirmed the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court in an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

UPSC Aspirants' Death | Supreme Court Seeks States/UTs Response On Draft Model Rules For Regulation Of Private Coaching Centres

Case Details: Coaching Federation of India v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., SLP(C) No. 18653/2024

In the suo motu case arising out of the tragic flooding incident at Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, in which 3 students lost their lives, the Supreme Court called for states/UTs response on Model Rules on Infrastructure, Safety and Regulation of Private Coaching Institutes, 2024 crafted by the Amicus Curiae in the matter.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, taking into account Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave's (acting as Amicus) submission that the draft rules have been circulated among the states/UTs.

Other Developments

'For Peace & Harmony': Plea In Supreme Court To Stop Surveying Of Religious Structures, Enforce Places Of Worship Act

In the wake of the controversies relating to Sambhal Jama Masjid and Ajmer Dargah, a writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to stop the execution of survey orders issued by Courts against religious structures in contravention of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.

The petitioners, Alok Sharma and Priya Mishra, seek a direction to restrain States from executing orders issued by Courts to survey religious structures to purportedly ascertain claims that they were built over structures belonging to other religions.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Delhi High Court's Decision To Confer Senior Designations On 70 Advocates

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the recent communication by the Delhi High Court on Senior Advocate designation conferred to 70 lawyers.

When the matter was mentioned by the Counsel before the bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, the bench refused to allow oral mentioning and asked the lawyer to circulate a letter for listing.

Can ED Attach Property Without FIR For Predicate Offence? Supreme Court To Examine In TN Sand Mining Case

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. v. K. Govindaraj and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 14355/2024

The Supreme Court is set to examine the issue of whether the Enforcement Directorate can attach a property in the absence of any FIR in relation to the scheduled offence with which the property is allegedly related.

The bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the ED's challenge to the Madras High Court judgment which restrained the ED from carrying out investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against private contractors in connection with alleged illegal sand mining.

The bench, while issuing notice in the matter, verbally mentioned the need to give a harmonious interpretation to the 1st and 2nd provisos of S.5 of the PMLA

'Bar Not Consulted': SCAORA Requests CJI Sanjiv Khanna To Remove Glass Panels In Corridors, Relocate National Judicial Museum

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) on December 2, wrote to the Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna requesting for the removal of the glass panels installed in the corridors and relocation of the National Judicial Museum and Archive to a lower security zone area.

These infrastructural changes were introduced during the term of the previous CJI, Justice DY Chandrachud, who retired on November 10.

'Don't Dig Up Ghosts, Be Sensitive About Judiciary': Supreme Court In PIL Against Ex-Andhra CM Jagan Over Remarks On Justice Ramana

Case Details: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, W.P. (C) No. 1192/2020

While hearing a PIL filed against ex-Andhra Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy over his allegations of impropriety against former Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, the Supreme Court remarked that people should be sensitive at least towards the judiciary.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which disposed of an interlocutory application on account of it having become infructuous. In the context of the main matter, Justice Kant posed to the petitioner's counsel,

"who has advised you to unnecessarily rake up all these [things]...don't dig out the ghosts...about judiciary, you people should remain atleast sensitive." When the counsel replied that the case was filed in October, 2020 itself and there was no attempt to "dig-up" things, the bench adjourned the matter to January.

CJI Sanjiv Khanna Recuses From Hearing Petitions Challenging Law On Election Commissioners' Appointment

Case Details: Dr. Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024 and connected cases.

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna recused from hearing a batch of petitions which challenge the validity of the law relating to the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.

A bench of Chief Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the petitions challenging the constitutionality of Sections 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The petitions are directed to be listed in the week commencing on January 6, 2025, before another bench. The bench also asked the Union Government and the ECI to file their responses.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Validity Of Rule Excluded Visually Challenged Candidates From MP Judicial Service

Case Details: In Re Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services v. The Registrar General The High Court of Madhya Pradesh., SMW(C) No. 2/2024

The Supreme Court reserved the judgment on suo motu matter regarding a rule in the State of Madhya Pradesh that excludes visually impaired and no-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial services.

The Rule in question is Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rule 1994, which completely excludes visually impaired and no-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial service.

'If Men Had Menstruation, They'll Know': Supreme Court Questions MP HC Over Dismissal Of Lady Judge Following Miscarriage

Case Details: Aditi Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 233/2024

The Supreme Court expressed strong remarks against the criteria set by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in assessing the performance of lady judicial officers in which the High Court ignored to accommodate the mental and physical ailment suffered by the judge due to miscarriage.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh, while hearing a suo moto case against two lady judicial officers who were terminated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was informed that one of the lady officers, has consistently performed poorly. Her disposal rate of cases was cited as an example wherein it was pointed out that she had only disposed of two civil suits in a year.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Senior Advocate's Plea To Quash FIR Alleging That He Took Rs. 7 Crore From Client To Influence Judges

Case Details: Vedula Venkataraman v. State of Telangana & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice in an SLP filed by senior advocate Vedula Venkataramana seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for allegedly taking Rs. 7 Crores from a client to influence high court judges for favourable outcome in a case.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice in the SLP against the judgment of the Telangana High Court and kept the matter to be listed on January 24, 2025 for further hearing.

'You're A Corrupt Person': Supreme Court Says While Reserving Order On Ex-WB Minister Partha Chatterjee's Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case

Case Details: Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 13870/2024

The Supreme Court reserved order on the bail petition filed by former West Bengal Education Minister and now MLA Partha Chatterjee in the money laundering case arising out of the West Bengal cash-for-jobs scam.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Enforcement Directorate, opposed the grant of bail citing the role of the the accused in the case. "Even if he gets bail in this case, he is not coming out as he is in custody in the CBI case," ASG said. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Chatterjee, asked how could this be an argument to oppose bail. "This is just sadistic pleasure. Everybody else has got bail," Rohatgi said.

At this juncture, Justice Kant pointed out that other accused persons were not Ministers. When Rohatgi said that no recovery had been made from him, Justice Kant said that as a Minister, he would not keep money with him "obviously." When Rohatgi continued arguing, Justice Kant got displeased and commented in a raised voice, "On the face of it you are a corrupt person! What message you want us to send to society? That corrupt persons can get bail like this?"

Justice Manmohan Takes Oath As Supreme Court Judge

Newly elevated Judge, Justice Manmohan, took oath as a Judge of the Supreme Court on Thursday, December 5.

The oath was administered by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna in the first court in the presence of all judges.

On December 3, the Central Government notified the appointment of Justice Manmohan, Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, as a judge of the Supreme Court.

Plea In Supreme Court To Stay CLAT PG-2025 Results, Alleges Errors In Provisional Answer Key

Case Details: Anam Khan and Anr. v. Consortium of National Law Universities | Diary No. 56811/2024

Challenging the provisional answer key released for the held Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) for PG admissions, a writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court.

The petitioners, who appeared in the exam for LLM admissions in National Law Universities, allege various lapses in the conduct of the CLAT 2025 exam held by the Consortium of National Law Universities on December 1. They allege that the provisional answer key released on December 2 has various errors and as many as 12 questions have been given wrong answers. The petitioners state that only a day's time was given to the candidates to raise objections to the provisional answer key and the online portal was closed on December 3 at 4 PM.

SCAORA Urges CJI Sanjiv Khanna To Issue Revised Guidelines For Circulation Of Adjournment Letters

The Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association (SCAORA) wrote to CJI Sanjiv Khanna, requesting to formulate revised guidelines for circulation of adjournment letters by the AoRs.

In the letter, the Hony. Secretary of SCAORA, Nikhil Jain has urged the CJI to issue revised guidelines for circulating adjournment letters in the Court. The SCAORA stressed that the earlier practise of allowing the circulation of adjournment letters aided in efficient functioning of the bench and the bar as it cut down on the burden on judges to read matters for which the counsels sought adjournments.

Supreme Court Initiates Suo Motu Case On Adverse Effects Of Stay Orders On Criminal Trials

The Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu case regarding the adverse effect of stay orders passed by appellate courts on criminal trials.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar will hear the suo motu case.

Documents Filed In Court Must Be Accessible To Persons With Disabilities: Lawyer Flags Issue Before Supreme Court

Case Details: Yash Dodani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 785/2024

While hearing the matter on the accessibility of computers and soft copies of bare acts for students with benchmark disability to appear for the upcoming All India Bar Examination (AIBE) on December 22, Advocate Rahul Bajaj informed the Court that the format in which the Union Government filed its counter on the suggestions is not in an accessible format.

Bajaj, appearing for the visually impaired law students wanting to appear for the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT)- Postgraduate and the AIBE, said: "Actually, I wanted to make a submission. Actually, it was not in an accessible format. It was not in an OCR-enabled format. So, on that, I wanted to make a submission that in cases involving litigants and lawyers with disability, there should be a mandate that at least the counter and the pleadings should be in an accessible format. That is not the case here. In this case, we were able to make it accessible on our own but the onus should not be on us."

On this, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed surprise why the same has not been done in the Supreme Court. Justice Kant said: "Definitely, the [onus] should not be on you. Those who want to give content, it is their responsibility."

'Consequences Of Striking Down Places Of Worship Act Bound To Be Drastic': Gyanvapi Mosque Committee To Supreme Court

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1246/2020 and connected matters

The Managing Committee of the Gyanvapi Mosque has filed an intervention before the Supreme Court in the pleas challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act 1991. It said that the consequences of the declaration sought by the petitioner that the Act was unconstitutional "are bound to be drastic."

The lead petition (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India) was filed in 2020 in which the Court issued notice to the Union Government in March 2021. Later, few other similar petitions were also filed challenging the statute which seeks to preserve the status quo with respect to religious structures as they stood on August 15, 1947, and prohibits legal proceedings seeking their conversion.

Sexual Harassment At Workplace | Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Security Of Tenure & Protection For ICC Members In Private Workspaces

Case Details: Janaki Chaudhry and Anr. v. Ministry of Women and Child Development and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 796/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice in a public interest litigation seeking security of tenure and protection from retaliation for members of Internal Complaints Committees [constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013] in private workplaces.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, seeking response of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and National Commission for Women.

Supreme Court Flags “Disturbing Features” In ED's Arrest Of Ex-IAS Officer In Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam

Case Details: Anil Tuteja v. Union of India

The Supreme Court highlighted “disturbing features” of the arrest of former IAS officer Anil Tuteja by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam and

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that Tuteja was taken by ED from the ACB office, interrogated throughput the night and then shown as arrested only at 4 am in the morning.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju informed the Court that remedial measures have been taken to prevent such practices. “The facts are glaring. However, learned ASG submits that remedial measures have been taken by the ED to ensure that such incidents are avoided. There is a press release to that effect issued on 29.10.2024”, the Court recorded.

Supreme Court To Hear Jharkhand IAS Officer's Plea Against HC Refusing To Hear Challenge To ECI Direction For Disciplinary Action

Case Details: Manjunath Bhajantri v. Election Commission of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 28775/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea involving the issue as to whether the Election Commission of India's direction to state government to take disciplinary action against a District Election Officer ought to be challenged before the jurisdictional High Court or the Central Administrative Tribunal.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal called for the response of the ECI (and others), on a challenge by Manjunath Bhajantr IAS to a Jharkhand High Court order whereby his plea challenging the ECI direction for disciplinary action was rejected on the ground of maintainability.

Senior Advocate Designation Must Not Become a 'Distribution Mechanism': Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while calling for a relook on Senior Advocate designation process, submitted before the Supreme Court that the process must not devolve into a “distribution” mechanism.

“We have nothing against any individual. When your lordships confer designation, your lordships confer responsibility on the person. Let that conferment not be converted into distribution”, he said.

Today, he stated that the system had become a subject of ridicule and highlighted the recent mass designation of senior advocates in Delhi High Court. This has also been challenged before the Supreme Court.

“All are competent and qualified, but I am sorry to say that the system has been subject to ridicule, fun, memes, and jokes. In Delhi High Court we have had 70 designations. All the advocates are floating. Judgements are always to be respected but judgement can always be revisited(referring to the Supreme Court's judgments laying down criteria for senior designations).”

Amicus S Muralidhar Suggests Amendments To Supreme Court Rules To Ensure Accuracy In Pleadings

Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Senior Advocate S Muralidhar suggested to the Supreme Court that amendments should be made to the Supreme Court Rules to delineate the responsibilities of different categories of lawyers involved in a case to verify the pleadings made in a petition.

“Supreme Court Rules could be amended to formally recognise and delineate the roles and responsibilities of various categories of lawyers typically involved in a case. This would include the local instructing Council, the AOR, the arguing Counsel, either a non AOR or a non-designated advocate, and the Senior Advocate. The scope and extent of responsibility in ensuring the veracity of pleadings and submissions should be clearly defined for every category of advocates”, he said.

He also submitted that that with the advent of hybrid hearings and online filings, the Supreme Court Rules might need a complete overhaul.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing a case concerning false statements in remission petitions filed through Advocates-on-Record (AoRs), particularly in matters associated with Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Muralidhar, appointed as amicus curiae, proposed –

Amend Supreme Court Rules to define responsibilities of AoRs, local instructing counsel, arguing counsel, and Senior Advocates regarding accuracy of pleadings.
Require written confirmation letters from clients, including incarcerated ones, verifying the contents of petitions.
Mandate that the Supreme Court Registry accept filings only with such confirmation letters attached.

Supreme Court Special Bench To Hear Petitions Challenging Constitutionality Of Places Of Worship Act On December 12

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India., W.P. (C) No. 1246/2020

The Supreme Court will hear a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutionality validity of the Places of Worship Act (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 on December 12 at 3.30 PM.

The challenge will be heard by a special bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar, and K.V. Viswanathan. The petitioners argue that the law is arbitrary and unreasonable and infringes the fundamental right to practice religion, leading to the violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.