Home
/

Round Ups
/

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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: December 9, 2024 To December 15, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

16 Dec 2024 4:52 PM IST

Reports/Judgments

S. 300 IPC | Lacking Intention To Commit Murder Irrelevant If Bodily Injury Is Caused With Lethal Weapon, Likely To Cause Death: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 964

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an individual for committing murder who, out of a scuffle, inflicted serious injury on vital parts of the deceased body with lethal weapons.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale rejected the accused-appellant's argument that his act to commit murder was not intentional and premeditated, hence he cannot be punished for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder.

Supreme Court Rejects Claim For Promotion In NHAI Based On Service Rendered On Deputation

Case Details: National Highways Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others, Civil Appeal No. 14100 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 965

The Supreme Court observed that a deputation service could not be treated as a regular service for promotion if there was no continuity or a gap in the employee's deputation service.

The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) against the High Court's decision directing the NHAI to consider an employee's (respondent no.1) un-continued deputation service for promotion.

Hindu Succession Act | Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench Conflicting Opinions On Female Hindu's Rights Under S.14

Case Details: Tej Bhan (D) Through Lr. & Ors. v. Ram Kishan (D) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 966

The Supreme Court highlighted the inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations surrounding the interplay between Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”) which deals with the rights of Hindu females in property inherited or possessed by them.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta dealt with the inconsistencies occurred in the judicial precedents where one line of precedents advances the cause of the female Hindu, recognizing her absolute right to ownership over the property received by her in recognition of her pre-existing right in the property under Section 14(1) of the HSA, and on the contrary, another line of precedents, basing its reliance on Section 14(2) of the HSA, do not recognizes her absolute ownership over the property received in recognition of her pre-existing right unless the property received by her was before or at the time of the enactment of HSA.

S. 58(c) TPA | Mere Possession Of Property By Mortgagor Wouldn't Make 'Mortgage By Conditional Sale' A 'Simple Mortgage': Supreme Court

Case Details: Leela Agrawal v. Sarkar & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 967

The Supreme Court observed that allowing a mortgagor to stay in possession does not make the transaction a 'simple mortgage' if the deed specifies that the mortgagor's default in redeeming the property within the stipulated time would lead to transfer of the mortgage property to the mortgagee under 'mortgage by conditional sale' as per Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”).

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was deciding a civil appeal filed by the defendant against the High Court's decision affirming the Trial Court's decision allowing the respondent-plaintiff's suit seeking redemption of the mortgaged-suit property.

S.498A IPC Often Used Against Husband & His Family To Meet Wife's Unreasonable Demands, Growing Tendency Of Misuse: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 968

While quashing a Section 498-A IPC (cruelty) case against a husband and in-laws of the wife, the Supreme Court again cautioned about the tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord.

Also, the Court criticized the growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family.

Last month also, the Court expressed a word of caution to the Courts to ensure that distant relatives of a husband are not unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases filed at the instance of a wife alleging domestic cruelty.

The bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh noted that the provision of Section 498-A IPC has become the legal weapon for the wives/ her relatives to settle scores with the husband/ his family without understanding the true purpose of the provision brought to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State.

Permanent Alimony Shouldn't Penalize Husband But Should Ensure Decent Living For Wife: Supreme Court Lists Out Factors

Case Details: Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 969

The Supreme Court directed a husband to grant permanent alimony of Rs. 5 Crores to the wife as a one-time settlement upon dissolution of the marriage.

While directing the same, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale stressed the father's obligation to maintain and care for his child and directed the husband to make a provision of Rs. 1 Crore for his major son's maintenance and financial security.

S. 14 Limitation Act Applicable To Arbitration & Conciliation Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kirpal Singh v. Government of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 970

The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for the exclusion of the time spent in pursuing bona fide proceedings in a wrong forum from the computation of the period of limitation.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Limitation Act liberally as there is only a limited window to challenge an arbitral award.

'Contempt Power Can't Be Used To Execute Orders': Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Contempt Jurisdiction

Case Details: Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P Ravikumar and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 971

The Supreme Court held that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to execute a decree or implement an order. The contempt power can be invoked only if it is established that there was a wilful disobedience.

Even while exercising such power, the Court has to restrict the scope of its enquiry to the directions which are explicitly specified in the judgment/order, a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar observed.

POSH Act | Inquiry Report Copy Must Be Given To Complainant; Supreme Court Imposes Penalty On BSF

Case Details: Ms. X v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 284/2020

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 972

The Supreme Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the Border Security Force (BSF) for failure to provide a copy of the inquiry report to a complainant who initiated proceedings against an officer under the the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act (POSH Act), 2013.

The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the BSF constable, who complained of sexual harassment would fall under the term 'concerned parties', under S.13(1) of the POSH Act.

Supreme Court Prescribes Declaration To Be Made By Applicant To List Miscellaneous Applications In Disposed-Of Matters

Case Details: Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 973

The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of filing the Miscellaneous Application in the disposed of Proceedings based on the fresh cause of action arising subsequently having a remote connection with the main proceedings.

The Court directed “the Registry to not circulate any miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings unless and until there is a specific averment on oath that the filing of the miscellaneous application has been necessitated as the order passed in the main proceedings being executory in nature and have become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments.”

The Court asked the Registry to insist every litigant who wishes to file the Miscellaneous Application in a disposed of matter for such a declaration as above on solemn affirmation.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard the matter where the applicant wanted to revive the proceedings in the disposed of writ proceedings and filed a Miscellaneous Application.

S. 19 PC Act | Irregularity In Sanction Order No Ground For Acquittal Unless Failure Of Justice Is Shown: Supreme Court

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram, Criminal Appeal No. 4964 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 974

The Supreme Court clarified that an irregularity in obtaining sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("Act"), does not justify an acquittal unless it causes prejudice to the accused.

A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra was hearing a criminal appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision. The High Court had overturned the conviction of a public servant, citing procedural lapses by the CBI, including their failure to examine the official who granted the sanction for prosecution.

The Court took note of Section 19(3)(a) of the Act which says that no finding, sentence, or order by a Special Judge shall be reversed by a court of appeal on the ground of absence, error, omission or irregularity in the sanction.

Caste-Based Insult In Backyard Of Private House Not "Within Public View", No Offence Under S.3 SC/ST Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 975

The Supreme Court held that alleged caste-based insult or intimidation that occurred in the backyard of a private house does not qualify as being “within public view” under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh discharged a man from the charges alleged against him under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 observing –

“The place of occurrence of the alleged offence was at the backyard of the appellant's house. Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view. The persons who accompanied the second respondent (complainant) were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant's house. They cannot also be termed as public in general.”

Specific Performance Decree For Agreement To Sell Can Be Executed Without Separate Relief For Possession: Supreme Court

Case Details: Birma Devi & Ors. v. Subhash & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 976

The Supreme Court reiterated that it would not be necessary for the decree-holder seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell simpliciter to file a separate application under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1962 (“SRA”) for claiming possession of suit property.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the civil appeal filed by the subsequent purchasers of the suit property challenging the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which held in favor of the plaintiff noting that the executing court committed an error in denying the possessory right to the plaintiff when a specific performance suit was decreed in plaintiff's favor.

The short question that falls for the Court's consideration was whether the executing court could grant possession if a decree only orders specific performance without explicitly mentioning possession of the property.

Answering positively, the court said that the decree-holder of the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell need not be required to file a suit seeking possession of the suit property under Section 22 of the Act.

The legal position as flowing from the aforesaid observation is that when the transfer of property's possession is implicit upon execution of the sale deed, then there's no need to separately claim relief of possession under Section 22 of the Act.

Maintenance Right Of Wife & Children Overrides Creditors' Claims Under SARFAESI/IBC On Husband's Assets: Supreme Court

Case Details: Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 5148-5149 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 977

While giving precedence to the maintenance rights of a man's wife and children over the rights of creditors under recovery proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that right to maintenance is equivalent to a fundamental right and shall have an overriding effect over statutory rights of creditors, etc. under business laws.

"the right to maintenance is commensurate to the right to sustenance. This right is a subset of the right to dignity and a dignified life, which in turn flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a way, the right to maintenance being equivalent to a fundamental right will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants encompassed within the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or similar such laws", said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Motor Accident Leaves 7-Year-Old Girl Mentally Disabled: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To Rs 50.8 Lakhs

Case Details: Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 978

The Supreme Court awarded Rs 50,87,000/- as compensation to a claimant for the mental and physical disabilities suffered by her due to a motor vehicle accident that occurred when she was just 7 years old.

The accident occurred in 2009 when a high-speed car, which was driven negligently, hit her when she was crossing a zebra-crossing with her mother and brother. As a result of the accident, she suffered head injuries, which led to moderate mental retardation and difficulties in walking.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5,90,750 in 2009, which the Delhi High Court enhanced to Rs 11,51,000 in 2017. The Supreme Court further enhanced the compensation allowing the appeal of the claimant.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan took into account the deposition of a doctor who stated that due to the retardation, the victim can only learn skills up to the level of a 2nd Standard child and can live only under adult supervision throughout her life. Although as per the disability certificate, her disability was to the extent of 75%, the Court said that her functional disability should be treated as 100% for all practical purposes.

Merely Because Wife Didn't File Complaint Under S.498A IPC For Many Years Doesn't Mean There Was No Cruelty By Husband: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 979

The fact that a wife did not make any complaint regarding cruelty for many years would not make a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code unsustainable, held the Supreme Court while rejecting the plea of a husband for discharge.

In this case, the wife killed herself after 12 years of marriage, following which her father filed a complaint under Section 498A and 306 IPC against the husband. It was alleged that a year before her suicide, the husband had sold off her gold ornaments, given as streedhan and that she was physically and mentally tortured when she demanded them back.

The Supreme Court noted that there were sufficient averments in the complaint to the effect that the wife had complained of cruelty by her husband on many occasions.

"The appellants' argument that the deceased had not made a single complaint for cruelty or harassment against the appellants in the twelve years of marriage cannot be sustained. Merely because she did not file any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment," observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, held the Court while discharging the husband in a case related to the suicide of his wife.

"Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life.Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide," held the Court.

"If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation," the Court stated.

"For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide," the judgment authored by Justice Nath stated.

Gift Deed Condition Requiring Donee To Give Perpetual Services Without Remuneration Is Forced Labour & Unconstitutional: Supreme Court

Case Details: Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 980

The Supreme Court has held that a gift deed which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services, without any remuneration would amount to a “begar” or forced labour, even slavery and therefore it is not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional.

A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B Varale while considering an oral gift deed of 1953, which had a condition requiring donees and their successors to render services. In 1998, the successors of the donors filed a suit to reclaim the possession of the property on the ground that the donees (and their successors) had stopped rendering the services.

The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the decree passed by the trial court allowing the suit. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Disputes Falling Exclusively Within Jurisdiction Of Statutory Authorities Aren't Arbitrable : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/s Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 981

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that disputes falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities are not arbitrable.

While holding so, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the dispute related to wages and termination of an employee were non-arbitrable and would be exclusively dealt with by the statutory authorities established under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (“PW Act”) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).

Preventive Detention A Harsh Measure, Permissible Only When 'Public Order' Disturbed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Arjun S/O Ratan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 12516/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 982

While quashing a preventive detention order, the Supreme Court observed that preventive detention is a harsh measure, which cannot be invoked against every alleged breach of peace. Rather, the power can be invoked only when the act of the proposed detainee had a tendency of disturbing "public order".

"The distinction between public order and law and order has been succinctly discussed by Hidayatullah J (as his Lordship then was) in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar...Constitution Bench of this Court has held that every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder. It has been held that when a person can be dealt with in exercise of powers to maintain law and order, unless the acts of the proposed detainee are the one which have a tendency of disturbing the public order, resort to preventive detention, which is a harsh measure, would not be permissible", said a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

S. 197 CrPC | Sanction For Prosecution Needed When Alleged Offence Was Connected To Discharge Of Official Duties: Supreme Court

Case Details: Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta & Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 983

The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case and summoning order against a District Town Planner, ruling that no prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was obtained for prosecuting her demolition actions, which were part of her official duties carried out under senior's instructions.

“we observe that the first respondent herein ought to have sought sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC in the instant case. The same, not having been done vitiated the initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant herein. Consequently, the summoning order and the consequent steps taken by the Trial Court pursuant to the said summoning order are liable to be quashed and are thus quashed. Insofar as the very initiation of the complaint is concerned, we observe that since there was no prior order of sanction passed under Section 197 of the CrPC, the initiation of the complaint itself, is non-est.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh heard the criminal appeal filed by one Gurmeet Kaur, a District Town Planner (as then she was) against the High Court's refusal to quash the criminal case and summoning order issued against her for carrying out demolition exercise of a private college based on the instructions of the superior officials.

'Land A Precious Resource, State Must Be Transparent In Distribution': Supreme Court Quashes Maharashtra Govt's Land Allotment To Pvt Doctors

Case Details: Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 984

Citing arbitrariness in the allotment process, the Supreme Court (Dec.12) set aside the allotment of land made by the Maharashtra Government in favor of the Medinova Regal Co-operative Housing Society (“MRCHS”) to provide housing facilities to the doctors working at Tata Memorial Hospital.

While doing so, the Court underscored the need to maintain transparency in the distribution of 'land' by the State where it is recognized as a precious community material source.

“Land is a precious material resource of the community and therefore the least which is required from the State is transparency in its distribution. In our opinion, therefore there has been a complete arbitrariness in the allotment in favour of MRCHS. As far as the present appellant is concerned, its case for allotment of a plot is a matter which is yet to be decided by the authorities, but the allotment of the plot in favour of MRCHS is not proper, as it is violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria.”, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed.

Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Only Remedy Against Compromise Decree Is Recall Application Before Court Which Recorded Compromise: Supreme Court

Case Details: Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 985

The Supreme Court ruled that if the compromise entered between the parties was not adhered to, there is no bar to filing a recall application seeking restoration of the proceedings under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). The Court emphasized that the validity and legality of a compromise agreement can be challenged even after a decree is passed.

The Court rejected the argument that recording the compromise does not grant liberty to restore the appeal. Instead, it said that the right to file a restoration application is a statutory right under the CPC which cannot be curtailed merely because the compromise doesn't grant liberty to restore the appeal.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the appeal filed against the Rajasthan High Court's decision wherein the recall application seeking restoration of the compromise proceedings challenging the compromise recorded between the parties in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC was dismissed by the High Court noting that recording the compromise does not grant liberty to restore the appeal.

S. 58 NDPS Act | Proceedings Against Police Officials For Alleged Misconduct In Investigation Ought To Be Tried Summarily: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bharti Arora v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 986

The Supreme Court granted relief to a retired IPS Officer, quashing a summons issued by a Special Judge and the subsequent proceedings under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (“NDPS”) Act, 1985 over allegations of misconduct during her tenure as SP, Kurukshetra, in a narcotics case investigation.

The Court said that the Special Judge is not empowered to issue a notice under Section 58 of the NDPS Act because the proceedings commenced under Section 58 are summary in nature and ought to be presided over by the judicial magistrate.

In this regard, the Court took note of Section 36-A (5) of the NDPS Act which provides that the offences punishable under the NDPS Act with imprisonment for a term of not more than three years may be tried summarily to be presided over by a judicial magistrate.

Partha Chatterjee's Bail: Supreme Court Sets Deadline For His Custody In ED Case As Feb 1, 2025; Expedites Trial

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 987

The Supreme Court directed that former West Bengal Education Minister and MLA Partha Chatterjee can be released on bail on or before February 1, 2025, in the money laundering case arising out of a recruitment scam.

The Court directed the trial court to decide on framing of charges before the commencement of winter vacations or before December 31, 2024, whichever is earlier. The Court further directed the trial court to record the statements of prosecution witnesses who are most material and vulnerable in the second or third week of January 2025. Subject to the completion of these steps, Chatterjee can be released on bail. In any case, he cannot be kept in custody beyond February 1, 2025.

Husband's Girlfriend Or Romantic Partner Can't Be Made Accused In S.498A IPC Case: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dechamma IM @ Dechamma Kaushik v. . State of Karnataka

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 988

The Supreme Court held that a criminal case for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained against a woman with whom the husband had an extra-marital affair. Because, such a woman would not come within the ambit of the term "relative" under Section 498A IPC.

Holding so, a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan quashed a criminal case against a woman who was named as an accused on the allegation that she was a romantic partner of the husband of the complainant-wife.

The bench observed that "a girlfriend or even a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative."

Courts Must Avoid Premature Staying Or Quashing Of Criminal Trials At Preliminary Stage: Supreme Court

Case Details: Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 989

The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should avoid prematurely staying or quashing criminal trials, as this could harm the evidence that needs to be presented during the trial.

“Courts must avoid the premature staying or quashing of criminal trials at the preliminary stage since such a measure may cause great damage to the evidence that may have to be adduced before the appropriate trial court.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra overturned the MP High Court's decision to quash the criminal case against police officials accused of fabricating alibi documents to shield the accused in a murder case. The High Court quashed the case noting that prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not obtained before prosecuting the respondent-police officers.

The Court held that a police official who is accused of lodging a false case cannot claim that he cannot be prosecuted without the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The protection of Section 197 CrPC is available only for acts discharged in the course of official duties.

The Court summarised the principles relating to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which hold that public servants cannot be prosecuted in respect of acts done in the discharge of their official duties without sanction from the government.

UAPA | Error In Order Extending Time For Investigation No Ground For Default Bail When Chargesheet Has Been Filed: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 990

The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated May 12, 2023, for granting default bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967 (UAPA) on grounds that the accused persons should benefit from default bail in the absence of lack of competent order whereby time was extended for the investigation agency to file chargesheet.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale observed that although the High Court was right in holding that the order for extension was passed by a Court which was not jurisdictionally competent, however, since the application for default bail was preferred 4 months after the chargesheet was filed, no such right sustained.

It held: The benefit of default bail can only be conferred before a chargesheet is filed, which was not applicable in this case. Therefore, the High Court had wrongly granted such benefit to the accused-Respondents by blatantly ignoring the fact of presentation of chargesheet being much prior in time to the application for default bail."

Though S.52 TP Act Doesn't Make Pendente Lite Transfer Void, Court Can Invalidate Such Sale Exercising Contempt Power: Supreme Court

Case Details: Celir LLP v. Ms Sumati Prasad Bafna and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 991

The Supreme Court has held that the Courts can set aside a sale transaction, which was carried out in violation of its directions, as void in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.

The Court held that although a sale transaction carried out during the pendency of court proceedings (pendente lite) would not become void due to the operation of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Court can reverse such a sale transaction if it was done in contempt of judicial directions.

Accordingly, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra the assignment deed executed by a borrower transferring a secured asset in favour of a third party ignoring a judgment of the Supreme Court which confirmed the auction sale of the very same property under the SARFAESI Act.

The Court observed that contempt jurisdiction is not confined only to violation of express judicial directions but also extends to acts which are intended to frustrate court proceedings or bypass the eventual judgment.

The Supreme Court explained the circumstances under which a sale of property by auction or other means under the SARFAESI Act can be set-aside after its confirmation.

The Court held that mere procedural irregularities or deviation from rules are not grounds to set aside a confirmed sale unless such errors are fundamental in nature, such as fraud, collusion, inadequate pricing or underbidding.

ED Can Instruct Prosecutors On Facts, But Cannot Instruct How Prosecutors Should Act In Court: Supreme Court

Case Details: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 992

The Supreme Court held that while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its director can give instructions related to facts of a case to prosecutors, they cannot dictate the prosecutors' actions in court.

“We may also note here that the Enforcement Directorate and its Director can give instructions to public prosecutors on facts of the case. However, the Enforcement Directorate or its Director cannot give any instructions to the public prosecutor about what he ought to do before the court as an officer of the court”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih clarified the trial court's order directing the Director of the ED issue instructions to public prosecutors not to oppose bail applications when trial delays were caused by the ED's actions.

The Court clarified that this order should not be interpreted to prevent public prosecutors from opposing bail applications when delays are not the fault of the ED.

“However, this observation will not prevent public prosecutors from opposing a bail petition on the ground that act or omissions on the part of Enforcement Directorate are not responsible for delay of trial. Therefore, this order cannot be read to mean that the public prosecutors are not entitled to oppose the bail petitions”, the Court held.

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 993

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 Refuses To Give Scheduled Caste Benefit To 'Tanti' Caste Person In Bihar

Case Details: Union of India v. Rohit Nandan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 994

The Supreme Court refused to extend the benefit of Scheduled Caste reservation to a Central Government employee who belonged to the 'Tanti' caste, which is notified as Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in Bihar.

Land Acquisition Act 1894 | Re-determination Of Compensation Under S. 28A Can Be Sought Based On High Court's Enhacement: Supreme Court

Case Details: Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 995

The Supreme Court ruled that a claim for re-determination of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be denied merely because it was based on the High Court's decision to enhance compensation instead of the Reference Court's decision under Section 18 of the Act.

The Court clarified that to claim re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A, it is not necessary to rely solely on the Reference Court's decision. A party can also seek re-determination based on a High Court decision that increases the compensation.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision dismissing the appellant's claim for enhanced compensation. The bench noted that an application for enhanced compensation was not based on the Reference Court's decision but the High Court's decision making him ineligible to claim enhanced compensation.

Arbitration Can't Be 'Optional' When Agreement Provides Arbitration Clause: Supreme Court

Case Details: Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 996

The Supreme Court held that there cannot be an 'optional' arbitration, where parties are required to mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause.

Setting aside the MP High Court's decision, the Court said that there is nothing like 'optional arbitration' that could be invoked after both parties mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause. According to the Court, arbitration is not 'optional' in practice.

“In our view, it cannot be said that the arbitration clause is optional in the sense that the arbitration clause is non-existent or that the matter would be referred to arbitration only if all the parties to the dispute agree to refer the dispute to arbitration.”, the court said.

The bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard the appeal filed against the M.P. High Court's decision refusing to appoint an arbitrator on the note that the invocation of the arbitration clause was 'optional', and the matter would be referred to the arbitration after both the parties mutually agree to resolve the dispute via arbitration.

Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Death Penalty Execution & Mercy Petitions To Avoid Delay In Process

Case Details: State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade and Anr. with connected case

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 963

The Supreme Court directed all states and union territories to constitute a dedicated cell for the prompt processing of the mercy petitions by death row convicts within the timeline laid down by the respective governments.

“A dedicated cell shall be constituted by the Home Department or the Prison Department of the State Governments/Union Territories for dealing with mercy petitions. The dedicated cell shall be responsible for the prompt processing of the mercy petitions within the time frame laid down by the respective governments”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih also held that Sessions Court on receiving order confirming death penalty must immediately issue notice to the public prosecutor seeking information on pending appeals, review/curative petition or mercy plea and periodically monitor pending proceedings to ensure timely issuance of execution warrants once all legal avenues are exhausted.

The Court held that inordinate delay in execution of death sentence have a dehumanizing effect on convicts and when such delays are caused by factors beyond the prisoners' control, the death sentence must be commuted to life imprisonment.

Orders

In Plea To Apply POSH Act To Political Parties, Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Approach Election Commission

Case Details: Yogamaya MG v. Union of India | Diary No. 48246/2024

The Supreme Court disposed of a PIL seeking the application of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) to political parties by asking the petitioner to first approach the Election Commission of India.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Manmohan passed the order on a PIL filed by Supreme Court lawyer Yogamaya M G.

Manipur Crisis | Supreme Court Asks State To Furnish Details Of Buildings Burnt, Looted & Trespassed And Action Taken Against Violators

Case Details: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei | Diary No. - 19206/2023

The Supreme Court asked the Manipur Government to furnish in a seal cover a list of properties which have been burnt, looted or encroached upon amidst the ongoing ethnic clashes in the State.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the matter relating to the Manipur Ethnic Violence Crisis.

CLAT-PG 2025| Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging CLAT-PG 2025 Results; Asks Candidates To Move HC

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

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging the CLAT-PG 2025 Results. The Court however granted liberty to the petitioners to move the High Court.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a petition challenging the provisional answer key released for the held Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) for PG admissions.

The CJI, seemingly declined to issue notice in the matter, noted that the Apex Court cannot be made the Court of first instance and the petitioners should first move the High Court. He also flagged how intervention by the Top Court has led to immense delays in the release of exam results.

'No Fresh Petition For Same Issue': Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Raising Grievances Related To Farmers' Protest

Case Details: Gaurav Luthra v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 802/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation raising grievances related to farmers' protests, observing that another case on the same issue is pending before the Court, wherein certain initiatives have been taken.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Manmohan passed the order, with liberty to the counsel for petitioner to assist the court on the next date fixed in the pending case.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad HC's Imposition Of Rs.1 Lakh Cost On Advocate Mehmood Pracha, Expunges Adverse Remarks Made Against Him

Case Details: Mehmood Pracha v. Election Commission of India, SLP(C) No. 24577/2024

The Supreme Court set aside Allahabad High Court's imposition of Rs.1 lakh cost on Advocate Mehmood Pracha over a petition filed by him concerning videography during the electoral process. Personal remarks made against the counsel in the impugned High Court order were also expunged.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Manmohan passed the order, upon Election Commission of India taking a stand that the aspects for which notice was issued (ie imposition of cost and adverse remarks) were between the Court and Pracha.

Supreme Court Seeks Responses From 6 States & HCs In Suo Motu Case Over Stay Orders Affecting Trials & Delay In Prosecution Sanctions

Case Details: In Re: Adverse Effect of Stay Orders Granted By Appellate Courts On The Pace of Trials, Despite Parameters For Grant of Such Stays, Laid Down By This Hon'ble Court | W.P.(Crl.) No. 494/202

The Supreme Court sought the response of 6 State Governments and their High Courts on the issue of adverse effects of stay orders in criminal trials and the delay in granting sanctions for criminal prosecution.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar was hearing the Suo motu case regarding the adverse effect of stay orders passed by appellate courts on criminal trials.

The Court noted that the present matter is on two aspects, (1) the sanction to prosecute not being granted on time; (2) stay orders passed by High Courts on criminal trials.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To DoPT Secretary For Not Appointing Blind Candidate As Per Judgment

Case Details: Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava

The Supreme Court issued a show cause notice to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for non-compliance with its judgment directing the appointment of Pankaj Srivastava, a 100 percent visually impaired candidate who cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2008.

“There is hardly any compliance made by the Union of India with the judgement of this court dated 8th July, 2024. We direct the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi to file his personal affidavit showing cause why action against the under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 should not be initiated against him. Affidavit to be filed on or before 19th of December”, the Court ordered.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih pulled up the Union of India for its failure to implement the court's direction within three months. In its July 8 ruling, the Supreme Court had noted that the Union of India had failed to implement reservations under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act), in civil services between 1996 and 2009.

Will Pay Tea Garden Workers' Dues Of Rs. 70 Crores Within Two Years: Assam Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: International Union of Food Agricultural & Ors v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed the Assam government to file an affidavit detailing its plan to pay the balance dues of Rs. 70 crores to plantation workers employed in the 15 tea estates managed by the Assam Tea Corporation Limited (ATCL), a state-owned entity.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih recorded the statement of the counsel for Assam that the payment will be made in two yearly instalments. This decision comes after the Court expressed its intention to liquidate the assets of ATCL to pay the dues.

WB Universities' VC Appointments | '11 Appointments Approved By Governor', AG Says; Supreme Court Gives 3 Weeks' Time For The Remaining

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

In the matter pertaining to appointment of Vice Chancellors for certain West Bengal Universities, the Supreme Court was informed that the Chancellor (Governor) has cleared the names of 6 VCs and 5 more names shall be cleared (taking the number to 11).

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Manmohan adjourned the matter to January 8, in light of Attorney General R Venkataramani's request to grant some more time to the Chancellor (West Bengal Governor) to clear the names of Vice-Chancellors for remaining Universities.

Supreme Court Rejects Claim For Promotion In NHAI Based On Service Rendered On Deputation

Case Details: National Highways Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others, Civil Appeal No. 14100 of 2024

The Supreme Court observed that a deputation service could not be treated as a regular service for promotion if there was no continuity or a gap in the employee's deputation service.

Supreme Court Criticizes Delhi Government's Green Cover Efforts, Proposes to Appoint External Agency To Suggest Measures

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Delhi government's progress in implementing measures to enhance green cover in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih decided that it will appoint an external agency to suggest and oversee necessary measures. The amici curiae were asked to suggest appropriate agencies for the task.

Ayurvedic/AYUSH Doctors Can't Seek Parity With Medical Doctors: Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Details: Dr. Solamon A v. State of Kerala, SLP(C) No. 3946/2023

While dismissing a special leave petition, the Supreme Court reiterated that Ayurvedic/AYUSH doctors cannot seek parity with medical doctors. The order was passed noting the qualitative distinction between the academic qualifications and standard of imparting of the respective degree courses.

"we are satisfied on facts that the Ayurvedic or AYUSH doctors serving in the State of Kerala, having regard to the qualitative distinction in the academic qualifications and the standard of imparting respective degree courses, cannot seek parity with medical doctors", said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.

'Can't Waste Court's Time': Supreme Court Dismisses FCI's Petition With Rs 50K Cost

Case Details: The Food Corporation of India and Anr v. Namita Paul Diary No. 50350-2024

The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and Divisional Manager each, while dismissing its special leave petition. It also orally remarked that the filing of SLP should not have been advised.

The SLP came before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma which at the outset remarked that they would impose a cost on the petitioners. The Court found the present petitioners had sought a review of the common impugned order dated October 19, 2023, passed by the High Court of Tripura, Agartala, which was earlier challenged by the petitioners before this Court by filing SLP.

Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Plea Against Setting Aside Of Chhattisgarh IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh's Compulsory Retirement

Case Details: Union of India v. Gurjinder Pal Singh and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24779/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed Union of India's challenge to the setting aside of an order of compulsory retirement against Chhattisgarh IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh, who faced allegations of corruption, extortion and sedition.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order in Union's challenge to a Delhi High Court order, whereby the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside Singh's compulsory retirement was upheld.

RG Kar Rape-Murder Case Trial Likely To Be Over In One Month, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital Kolkata and related issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2024

The trial in the case relating to the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at the RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata is likely to be over within a month, observed the Supreme Court, after taking note of the latest status report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The Court noted that the trial is being conducted on a day-to-day basis from Monday to Thursday at the Special CBI Court at Sealdah and that the statements of 43 witnesses have been recorded. A total of 81 witnesses are to be examined from the prosecution side.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar recorded these observations in the order passed in the suo motu case taken over the rape-murder case.

Supreme Court Expresses Concerns At Several Temples In UP Coming Under Receivership Of Advocates, Seeks Report From Mathura District Court

Case Details: Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors., Diary No. 52096/2024

Taking note of issues surrounding temple administration in Uttar Pradesh, and the "vested interest" of Advocates appointed as Receivers in keeping litigations around such issues pending, the Supreme Court called for a report from Principal District Judge, Mathura.

The report sought from the District Judge shall specify the following:

i. List of Temples in the District of Mathura in respect of which the litigations are pending and in which the Receivers appointed by the Courts.

ii. Since when such litigations are pending and the status of such proceedings.

iii. The names and status of the persons, particularly of the Advocates appointed by the Courts as Receivers.

iv. The remuneration, if any, being paid to the Receivers appointed in such proceedings.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order, while dealing with the plea of petitioner-Ishwar Chanda Sharma, appointed by a Mathura Court as member of a Committee for management and operation (ie Receiver/Manager) of a temple. His grievance is that the Mathura Court order was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and the matter remitted back for fresh consideration.

'Circular Relied Upon By DK Shivakumar Not Applicable', IT Dept Says In Tax Evasion Case; Supreme Court Calls For Formal Affidavit

Case Details: D.K Shivakumar v. The Income Tax Department, SLP(Crl) No. 3128/2020 (and connected cases)

In the plea filed by Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar seeking dismissal of charges against him in a tax evasion case (and connected matters), the Supreme Court called on the Income Tax Department to file a formal affidavit with regard to its claim that the circular(s) relied upon by Shivakumar is not applicable to the case.

For context, the Congress leader relies on a Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular of 2019, wherein it is stated that prosecution for concealment of income may be initiated only if a penalty for concealment has been imposed and that penalty has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, on hearing Additional Solicitor General N Venkatraman (for the IT Department), who submitted that the Circular relied upon by the Assessee (Shivakumar) is inapplicable.

BCI's Draft Rules Inadequate In Preventing Advocates' Strikes: Common Cause Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Common Cause v. Abhijat and Ors., CONMT.PET. (C) No. 550/2015 In W.P.(C) No. 821/1990

The Supreme Court directed that suggestions on the Draft Rules submitted by the Bar Council of India in regard to preventing and prohibiting advocates' strikes could be made by the petitioner along with the amicus and Chairperson of the BCI. After a report is submitted within 4 weeks, the same will be finalised by the Court.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a contempt petition filed by Common Cause inter-alia alleging that the BCI is not taking steps to prevent advocate's strikes and is not looking effectively into its disciplinary control side. It was hearing on the Draft Rules which was submitted by the BCI's Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra in January this year. While submitting, he stated that any suggestions upon the same shall be accepted without any condition.

Supreme Court Directs All States/UTs To Furnish Data On Vacancies In Prison Staff Posts

Case Details: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013

The Supreme Court called on States/Union Territories in the country to furnish cadre-wise information on the strength of officers and staff meant to take care of exigencies in jails. Further, the Court sought information on the number of vacancies (in jail posts) and whether any steps have been taken, or are underway, to fill-up those vacancies.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, while dealing with the matter pertaining to overcrowding of prisons in India. Time of 8 weeks has been granted to the states/UTs to file the requisite affidavits.

Delhi Excise Policy Case: Supreme Court Deletes Bail Condition Requiring Manish Sisodia To Appear Before CBI & ED Twice A Week

Case Details: Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, MA 2344/2024 in Crl.A. No. 3295/2024 with Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MA 2345/2024 in Crl.A. No. 3296/2024

In a relief to Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia, the Supreme Court deleted the bail condition imposed on him in the Delhi Excise Policy case requiring appearance before the Investigating Officers of the ED & CBI twice a week.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, clarifying that Sisodia shall regularly attend the trial. "We do not find the said condition necessary", it said.

'Pooja Is For Deity, How Can It Be Stopped For Public Convenience?': Supreme Court Issues Notice To Guruvayoor Temple Dewaswom

Case Details: PC Hary v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging the decision of the Guruvayoor Sri Krishna Temple administration not to conduct 'Udayasthamana Pooja' on Vrishchikam Ekadasi day, citing public convenience. This decision was earlier upheld by the Kerala High Court in its judgment dated December 7, 2024.

The Court questioned whether the pooja can be stopped on the ground that it will cause inconvenience to the public. Justice Maheshwari observed, “Pooja has been stopped on the pretext of causing inconvenience to the public. Pooja is for the deity. For increasing the divinity of the deity. So, this cannot be as per the public. Management may find a way to manage things. How far this reason is justified, we have to examine this point.”

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal issued notice to the respondents, including the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee, Thantri and the State of Kerala, returnable in 4 weeks.

Meanwhile, the Court directed that there should not be any change in the scheduled daily poojas.

No Interim Stay On Bar Association Elections Being Held Strictly As Per Bye-Laws, Policies: Supreme Court Clarifies

Case Details: Re: Strengthening and Enhancing The Institutional Strength of Bar Associations v. The Registrar General and Ors., SLP(C) No. 3950/2024

During the hearing of the case concerning strengthening of Bar Associations across the country, the Supreme Court clarified that there is no impediment against Bar Associations holding elections strictly in accordance with their constitutions/bye-laws/policies/rules.

"It is clarified that there is no interim stay passed by this Court against holding of elections of the Bar Associations strictly in accordance with their respective constitutions/bye-laws/policies/rules", said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, dealing with the application of an advocate practicing at the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Supreme Court Asks BCI To Allow Visually Challenged Students To Give Answers In Computer For All India Bar Exam

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

The Supreme Court warned that if the 5 visually impaired law students, who wish to appear in the upcoming All India Bar Examination scheduled on December 22, are not given adequate facility to answer the questions on a Word document on the computer, it will not let the exam take place. The Court warned the Bar Council of India, the organising body, of contempt action in case of any violation of the direction.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of three law students who wanted to appear for the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT)- Postgraduate exam 2024-25, and AIBE respectively.

Plea Seeking Measures To Mitigate Climate Change: Supreme Court Appoints Amici Curiae To Examine Laws Regulating Carbon Emissions

Case Details: Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India & Anr.

Recognizing the importance of the issue of carbon emissions and their impact on the environment, the Supreme Court appointed Advocates Jay Cheema and Sudhir Mishra as Amici Curiae to examine the existing legal framework governing emissions.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra further directed Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi for the Union of India to submit a compilation of all relevant rules and regulations related to carbon emissions.

“The issue arising for consideration is of some importance as it relates to Carbon Emissions affecting the environment which require examination of the legal regime regulating such Carbon Emissions”, the Court observed.

The case stems from an appeal filed by 11-year-old Ridhima Pandey, highlighting the failure of the Government of India to adequately address climate change through effective and science-based measures. The Court kept the case for hearing on December 17, 2024.

Supreme Court Says Centre Can Respond To Plea Seeking Direction To Specify Side Effects Of Covishield Vaccine

Case Details: Rachana Gangu and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1220/2021

The Supreme Court on December 10 said the Union Government may file its response to an amendment application seeking that possible adverse effects of Oxford–AstraZeneca's Covishield should be specified in the vaccines including the treatment for those effects.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale was hearing the amendnment application in the pending writ petition filed by a mother of two daughters who died allegedly after receiving dose of Covishield COVID-19 vaccine. The writ petition states that after taking the vaccination, the deceased girls suffered from severe Adverse Effects Following Immunization ('AEFI').

Supreme Court Stays Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Killing Mother

Case Details: Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi v. State of Maharashtra, Diary No. 57476-2024

The Supreme Court stayed the death sentence of a man convicted for brutal killing of his own mother and eating her organs.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, issuing notice to the State of Maharashtra.

'You Have So Many Panel Counsels, But No Appearance For Union Of India On Many Occasions': Supreme Court To Centre

Case Details: Anmol v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 27632/2024

Expressing displeasure at the frequent lack of appearance of the Union in different matters, the Supreme Court inquired why the Union Government has not appointed specific counsels for different benches despite having so many panel lawyers.

This oral observation was made by a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and KV Viswanathan while hearing a matter pertaining to the admission of a student, belonging to the OBC category and with locomotive benchmark disability coupled with speech impairment by birth, to the MBBS Course.

Although notice in this matter was issued on November 25, Union failed to appear. On the previous date, when the matter came up in the afternoon, the Union's counsel failed to appear. This compelled the Court to pass an order: "It is unfortunate that in the matter concerning admission of the petitioner belonging to the Persons with Disability category, in spite of notice being duly served, none appears. Though normally we do not direct the presence of the officers of the Government to remain present in the Court, in view of the casual approach of Respondent No.2, we are compelled to direct the personal presence of the Director General, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi in this Court on 12.12.2024 at 10.30 A.M."

When the matter was taken up at 10:45 am, Additional Solicitor General Vikram Banerjee appeared for the Union. The Director General of Health Services also appeared as per the Court's order on the last day. In the order, the Court observed that it does not take pleasure in summoning the officers to the court" but was constrained to do so since there was no representation. The Court passed an order allowing the student to be admitted for MBBS course in a college in Rajasthan.

Supreme Court Stops Registration Of New Suits Against Places Of Worship, Bars Passing Of Final/Survey Orders In Pending Suits

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

The Supreme Court ordered that no further suits can be registered in the country against places of worship till further orders from the Supreme Court.

The Court also ordered that in pending suits (such as those concerning Gyanvapi mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, Sambhal Jama Masjid etc.), the Courts should not pass effective interim or final orders, including orders for survey. The interim order was passed while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and also a petition seeking the implementation of the Act.

The crucial intervention of the Court came amidst rising concerns about the filing of multiple suits in the country claiming ownership of medieval mosques and dargahs. A survey order passed by a trial court against a 16th-century mosque in Sambhal (UP) had triggered violence in November, killing at least four persons.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the following order.

'No Stay On Bar Association Elections', Supreme Court Reiterates; Asks DHCBA To Resolve Issue Of Women Reservation Amicably By Next Week

Case Details: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)

Hearing the pleas seeking reservation for women lawyers in Delhi Bar bodies, the Supreme Court reiterated that no stay has been imposed on the elections of Bar Associations across the country (High Court or District). In the context of Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Court asked DHCBA President Mohit Mathur to see that the issue of women reservation is resolved "immediately and amicably".

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and listed it on December 19, stating,

"Mr Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel and President of the DHCBA, assures that various options in order for amicable solution will be put up before senior members of the Bar representing the petitioners by Tuesday. Such options, alongwith suggestions that may come forward from the petitioners' side, will be considered on the date fixed on Thursday."

Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Directs GRAP Stage-II With Certain GRAP-III Measures In Delhi

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to continue the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) Stage-II restrictions in Delhi along with certain measures from GRAP III such as water sprinkling, mechanized road sweeping, enhancing public transport and restricting entry of interstate buses.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the CAQM's proposal to implement GRAP Stage-III measures within Stage-II to takle air pollution. The Court issued an order stating that the directions in its previous order dated December 5, 2024, would remain in effect until further orders.

Muzaffarnagar School Slapping | No Quality Education If Students Aren't Taught Values Of Equality, Secularism & Fraternity: Supreme Court

Case Details: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court underscored the significance of inculcating constitutional values such as equality, secularism, and fraternity in students while dealing with a PIL filed by activist Tushar Gandhi concerning the 2023 Muzaffarnagar student slapping incident.

“The state cannot ignore the fact that ultimate object of rendering quality education is to ensure that the children become good citizens in true sense, who are aware about ethos and values of Constitution of India. The state needs to concentrate on this aspect, especially when we have completed 75 long years of existence of our Constitution. We grant time of one month to the state to take appropriate decisions and to place the same on the record six weeks in form of an affidavit”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih questioned why UP government had not complied with its directions in the second paragraph, page four of its order dated September 25, 2023, on the aspect of inculcating the importance of constitutional values in children.

“In our order, we have observed that the object of the state act is to provide quality education. Unless there is an effort made to inculcate the importance of constitutional values in the students, especially the core values of equality, secularism and fraternity, there cannot be any quality education. The state's response is silent on this aspect”, the Court stated.

Year-Round Ban On Firecrackers Required Not Just To Curb Air Pollution But Also To Curb Noise Pollution: Supreme Court

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed Delhi government and NCR states to decide on a complete year-round ban on firecrackers, including manufacture, storage, sale, distribution, and use.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that the ban was necessary to curb both air and noise pollution. It ordered states to place their decisions on record and kept the matter for issuing directions on next Thursday at 2:00 p.m.

Shambhu Border Blockade: Supreme Court Raises Concerns About Health Of Fasting Protester; Committee To Persuade Farmers To Shift/Suspend Protest

Case Details: State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024

In the matter related to farmers' protest at the Shambhu border between Punjab and Haryana, the High Power Committee constituted by the Supreme Court agreed to persuade the farmers to temporarily shift the protest venue and clear the National Highway for smooth traffic or temporarily suspend their agitation.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh agreed with the Committee's proposal to persuade the protesters.

The Court also urged the Punjab and Union Governments to ensure proper medical aid to protest leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, whose health was reported to be deteriorating due to his fast unto death.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed concerns about the health of Dallewal and said that he should be given medical aid, without forcing him to break his fast. During the hearing, the bench was handed over newspaper reports about the hunger fast of Dallewal, a senior citizen.

Plea To Verify EVMs Used In Haryana Polls: Supreme Court Bench Places Matter Before CJI To Decide Appropriate Bench

Case Details: Karan Singh Dalal & Anr. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 822/2024

Hearing the plea filed by Karan Singh Dalal (former Haryana Cabinet Minister and 5-time MLA) and Lakhan Kumar Singla (a candidate in the Haryana Assembly elections) seeking verification and checking of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in the elections, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be placed before Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for listing before appropriate bench.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale passed the order and refused to consider the prayer for interim relief (including retention of storage units, etc.). The order was dictated thus:

"To our understanding, the relief claimed by means of this petition would require interpretation/modification/implementation of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 26 April 2024 passed in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India. As such, Registry may place the papers before Hon'ble CJI for passing appropriate orders as to whether this petition be listed before the same Bench or before another appropriate Bench".

'Don't Ask Us To Direct Parliament To Enact Law': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Over Voting Rights Of Expatriate Citizens

Case Details: Savya Sachi Krishnan Nigam v. Election Commission of India and Anr., Diary No. 45679/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) related to voting rights of expatriate citizens, noting that the petitioner was essentially seeking a direction to the Parliament to enact a law.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan disposed of the matter, suggesting that the petitioner approach the appropriate forum. The order was dictated thus:

"The petitioner, after arguing for some time, seeks and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum."

'They Are In Contempt': Supreme Court Pulls Up P&H HC Bar Association Members For Opposing Undertaking Against Strikes

Case Details: M/S M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court pulled up members of the Executive Committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association who opposed a resolution to tender an unconditional undertaking that the Bar Association will not indulge in boycott of court work in the future.

“Those who play with litigants must be dealt with firm hands. This must stop. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court every day 5000 to 7000 cases are listed. One day boycott by the lawyers destroys the system. These members who have the audacity to oppose the resolution must learn a lesson of a lifetime…What is this going on? 75 years of existence of Constitution, blatantly lawyers go on strike. This is the third of fourth contempt notice we are continuing to issue to the members of the High Court bar. If High Court Bar Associations are doing this what others must be doing? This must stop. Time has come to send at last one member of the bar to the place which he deserves so that signal will be given loud and clear.”

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal stated that the members who opposed the resolution appear to have no respect for the law laid down in Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India prohibiting lawyers' strikes.

“Prima facie it appears to us that opposing the resolution proposed itself indicates that the concerned members have no respect and no regard for the law laid down by this court”, the Court stated in its order.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Raising Issue Of Snake Bites In India

Case Details: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 48030-2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation assailing non-availability of treatment (anti-venom drugs, etc.) and lack of awareness related to snake bites in the country.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, calling for the response of Union of India as well as the States/Union Territories impleaded as party-respondents.

Supreme Court Stays HC Direction To Punjab & Haryana On VVIP/VIP Security Cover

Case Details: State of Haryana v. Rajan Kapur & Anr. Etc. | Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.14734-14736 of 2024

The Supreme Court stayed the direction issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to revoke the security cover given to IAS officers in Haryana dealing with civil administration responsibilities or quasi-judicial work.

The Court also stayed the High Court's direction which sought details of the Police security provided to VIPs and VVIPs in Punjab and Haryana.

The bench of Justices AS Oka and AG Masih was hearing a challenge to the order of the Punjab and Haryana High which observed that involving the police personnel in providing security cover to VIPs and IAS officers has a reverse impact on the condition of law and security in general.

Supreme Court Dismisses Rajasthan HC's Plea Against Judicial Service Appointment Of Candidate After FIRs Were Closed

Case Details: Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Jubair Bhati & Anr.

The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging a Rajasthan High Court judgment that directed the appointment of a candidate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services Examination 2021. The candidate had been denied appointment based on pending FIRs against him, which were subsequently closed without charges being filed.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti refused to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court's decision observing, “Having considered the basis for the impugned judgment of the Division Bench granting relief to the respondents, we see no scope to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”

Other Developments

'Reservation Can't Be On Basis Of Religion': Supreme Court On West Bengal's Plea Against HC Quashing OBC Classifications

Case Details: State of West Bengal and Anr. v. Amal Chandra Das Diary No. - 27287/2024

Reservation can't be given on the basis of religion, orally remarked the Supreme Court while hearing the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the decision of the Calcutta High Court to quash the Other Backward Class (OBC) classification of 77 communities, mostly belonging to Muslim religion.

Responding to the Court's observation, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the State, submitted that the reservation was granted not on the basis of religion but on the basis of the backwardness of the communities. He clarified that State of West Bengal has a minority population of 27-28 %.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing the matter.

'Places Of Worship Act Crucial To Maintain Communal Harmony': CPI(M) Seeks To Intervene In Supreme Court Plea Against 1991 Act

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India., W.P. (C) No. 1246.2020 & Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh v. UOI, W.P. (C) No.559/2020 and Dr. Subhramanian Swamy and Ors v. UOI., W.P. (C) No.619/2020

The Communist Party of India (Marxist), represented by Mr. Prakash Karat, Member Politburo, has filed an Intervention Application in the Supreme Court opposing the petitions which challenge the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

In its application, the CPI(M) stated that the Act has an important role in preserving India's secular fabric by prohibiting the alteration of the religious character of places of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947.

81.35 Crore People Getting Food Ration, Says Union; More Could Benefit Had 2021 Census Been Done, Petitioners Tell Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers MA 94/2022 in SMW(C) No. 6/2020

The Supreme Court heard the matter pertaining to giving free ration cards to "28 crore" migrant workers and unskilled labourers found registered under the e-Shram portal.

Before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Manmohan, intervenor Prashant Bhushan reiterated that 6 orders have been passed by the Court for providing rations to all those eligible under the e-Shram portal. He specially referred to the October 4 order passed by the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Amanullah that "all such persons who are eligible (entitled for Ration Cards/ foodgrains as per the NFSA) and have been identified as such by the respective States/Union Territories, must be issued Ration Cards before 19.11.2024."

MLA Jitendra Awhad Approaches Supreme Court Supporting Places Of Worship Act, Says It Fosters National Unity

Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad, a Member of Legislative Assembly in Maharashtra from Mumbra-Kalwa), has sought to intervene in the Supreme Court proceedings challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

Emphasising the Act's critical role in preserving secularism, fostering communal harmony, and preventing tensions that could disrupt national unity, the MLA belonging to NCP(Sharad Pawar) supported the constitutionality of the legislation.

Huge Pendency Of After-Notice Matters; Regular Matters Will Be Listed In January: CJI Sanjiv Khanna

The Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna said that regular matters will now be listed from January 2025 onwards considering the 'huge pendency in the after-notice matters'.

Doctors' Liability Under Consumer Protection Act Sought To Be Reviewed In Supreme Court

A review petition has been filed against the November 7 order of the Supreme Court refusing to reconsider the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha, which held that medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019).

In the review petition, it has been stated that removing doctors from the Consumer Protection Act will boost doctors' sinking morale, repair doctor-patient relationships, and prevent a healthcare delivery crisis in the near future.

Supreme Court Takes Note Of Justice Shekhar Yadav's Controversial Speech, Seeks Details From Allahabad HC

The Supreme Court has taken note of the reports about the controversial speech given by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, judge of the Allahabad High Court, at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The Court has sought details of the speech from the Allahabad High Court.

'By Now You Should Resolve It': Supreme Court To Union In Karnataka Govt's Plea Alleging Denial Of Drought Relief

Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 210/2024

In a writ petition filed by the Karnataka government alleging that the Centre was denying it financial assistance for drought management, the Supreme Court urged the Union of India to resolve the issue at its end.

The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which posted it to January, 2025, in the light of Attorney General R Venkataramani's request for time to file a reply to the state's objections to the Inter-Ministerial Central Team (IMCT) report.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Seeking Policy For Free Sanitary Pad Distribution To School-Going Girls

Case Details: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the pan-India implementation of the Union's national policy 'Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls' in Government and Government-aided schools for adolescent girl children from Classes 6-12.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan on November 12 had directed the Union Government through Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to formulate an action plan on the implementation of the national policy. Based on this, Bhati suggested the way forward which included that the Union Ministry shall coordinate with States and UTs for drawing up respective action plans.

She stated that special attention shall be given to sensitisation and awareness activities for promoting safe menstrual hygiene practices in schools.

Before reserving the judgment, Justice Pardiwala confirmed whether the free pads are currently being provided in schools or not and whether the school girls have to make a demand for the same. To this, Bhati responded that a national policy on the same has been framed and the same will have to be implemented by States and UTs. She added that the distribution will mostly take place through Schools and Anganwadis.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Filed By Transwoman Alleging Discrimination In Employment Due To Gender Identity

Case Details: Jane Kaushik v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1405/2023

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a plea filed by a transwoman teacher whose appointment was allegedly terminated in two different schools in both Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh upon the revelation of her gender identity.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing the matter in which the Court had issued notice on January 2. The Court has asked the parties to file written submissions within 2 weeks.

What Irreversible Harm If Road Widened For Medical Institute? Supreme Court Asks In Delhi Ridge Tree Felling Matter

Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda, Diary No. 21171-2024

The Supreme Court heard contempt cases against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in the Delhi Ridge Forest area matter, which pertains to the felling of trees in the forest area in violation of the TN Godavarman case (matter 1) and the rampant felling of trees in Delhi's Ridge Forest area in violation of the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors (matter 2).

While hearing both matters, the Court stated it was going to attempt to restore the damage caused. The Court asked what was the irreversible harm caused by felling the trees to widen the road to a medical institute (CAPFIMS).

On the next date (January 7, 2025), the Court has directed that the photos of the afforestation, and site plan of the area should be produced by both parties.

'Places Of Worship Act Necessary To Preserve Nation's Secular Character': RJD MP Manoj Jha Files Intervention In Supreme Court

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

Manoj Kumar Jha, Member of Rajya Sabha belonging to RJD, has filed an intervention before the Supreme Court in the pleas challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act 1991.

The application, filed through Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, states that the 1991 Act is not in contravention of any of the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution and in fact promotes the basic tenets of the Constitution.

'Implementation Of Places of Worship Act Could've Prevented Sambhal Incident': Muslim League Seeks Intervention In Supreme Court

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

The Indian Union Muslim League (represented by its General Secretary and Kerala MLA PK Kunhalikutty) and Lok Sabha MP ET Muhammed Basheer (Secretary of IUML) have filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court in the pleas challenging validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

The application states that the 1991 Act seeks to protect secularism and religious freedoms of all faiths in the country. Since secularism has been held to be a part of basic structure of the Constitution, even Parliament is prohibited from amending the Act.

State Chief Secretaries Advised To Follow 'Anuradha Bhasin' Judgment For Internet Shutdowns: Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Software Freedom Law Center, India v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 314/2022

The Supreme Court on December 10 heard a writ petition filed by the Software Freedom Law Center, a registered society, seeking to regulate internet shutdowns.

As per the writ petition, the official data denotes that there has been a total disruption of internet services of 12 shutdowns amounting to more than 71 hours for a large population, ostensibly to prevent cheating in exams, which is not based on any legislative mandate.

When the matter came up after a year before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale, Advocate Vrindra Grover appeared for the petitioner. Whereas, Advocate Kanu Agrawal(for Union) sought some time as the Solicitor General of India could not be present.

Aggarwal opposed this plea. He said: "The judgment in Bhasin clearly lays down the parameter, it lays down what the law is. Now orders are passed under a statutory regime. Bhasin itself says that individually the orders have to be challenged before the High Courts...We have issued specific letters to Chief Secretaries that there is a judgment of Anuradha Bhasin which lays down the law. Follow that law. Please ensure that it is not used outside the legislative parameters that have been provided...Petitioner's seeking an advance ruling."

WB Teacher Recruitment Scam | Will See If Entire Selection Be Cancelled Or Identify Wrong Appointments, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: Shahidullah and Ors. v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Ors. Diary No. 23851-2024

The Supreme Court adjourned to next Thursday the batch of petitions challenging the Calcutta High Court's order which set aside the appointments in over 24,000 teaching and non-teaching posts in government schools.

The bench of CJI Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was scheduled to hear the matter concerning the appointments made by the West Bengal School Selection Commission in 2016.

However, due to paucity of time, the CJI informed the counsels that the matter would be relisted for next Thursday. He also specified that the hearing would be narrowed down to whether it was correct to cancel the entire selection process, or can specific cases be identified where the candidates who got appointments through wrongful means.

Judges Should Not Go To Facebook At All, Can't Comment On Judgments: Justice BV Nagarathna

Case Details: Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 142/2024

The Supreme Court, while hearing a matter pertaining to the termination of 2 lady judicial officers by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, orally observed that judges should refrain from using social media and more particularly, they should not express any opinion about judgments on social media.

These observations were made by Justice BV Nagarathna in the context of a lady officer who had posted somethings on Facebook, which now forms a part of the material based on which she was terminated from service.

A bench of Justices Nagarathna and NK Singh is currently hearing a suo moto case against two lady judicial officers who were terminated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Ex-Haryana Minister Moves Supreme Court For Verification And Checking Of EVMs Used In Haryana Polls

Case Details: Karan Singh Dalal & Anr. v. Election Commission of India

Former Haryana Cabinet Minister and 5-time MLA Karan Singh Dalal has approached the Supreme Court seeking verification and checking of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in the Haryana Assembly Elections.

The petition filed by Dalal, alongwith Lakhan Kumar Singla (a candidate in the Haryana polls), seeks directions to the Election Commission of India to lay down a policy/memorandum for the checking and verification of the original burnt memory/microcontroller of the four components of the EVM (Control Unit, Ballot Unit, VVPAT and Symbol Loading Unit) in terms of the judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India & Anr.

Atul Subhash Suicide: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Reform Of Domestic Violence & Dowry Laws To Prevent Harassment Of Innocent Husbands

In the wake of the suicide of a man named Atul Subhash allegedly due to harassment by his wife through matrimonial cases, a PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to ensure that husband and his family members are not harassed in cases filed under domestic violence and dowry laws.

The Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari seeks directions to the Union to implement the observations made by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand(2010) and Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana(2024).

Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing For Plea Against Conferring MS Subbulakshmi Award To TM Krishna

The Supreme Court refused to urgently hear itself a plea challenging the Madras High Court order which has allowed the conferment of the prestigious Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award to musician TM Krishna.

'No Special Treatment': Supreme Court Refuses CCI's Plea To Transfer Amazon, Flipkart Cases Directly To Karnataka HC Division Bench

Case Details: Competition Commission of India v. Cloudtail India Private Limited

The Supreme Court on refused to transfer 24 writ petitions filed in various High Courts by Amazon and Flipkart associated sellers against the Competition Commission of India's probe into alleged anti-competitive practices to a division bench of the Karnataka High Court.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal directed Attorney General for India R. Venkatramani to take instructions on whether the CCI agrees to transfer all cases to a single judge bench, where some of the cases are already pending.

Justice Oka said that CCI could not be given special treatment by directing the petitions to be heard directly by the division bench instead of first being decided by a single judge as per the Karnataka High Court Rules. Parties aggrieved by the single-judge decision can appeal to the division bench.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against 'VIP Darshans' In Temples

Case Details: Vijay Kishor Goswami v. Union of India and Ors.| W.P.(C) No. 700/2024

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider in January 2025 a plea seeking to stop the additional fees charged by Temples to provide 'VIP Darshans' of deities.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a writ petition seeking the abolition of VIP darshan fees charged by temples across the country.

ASI To Submit Survey Report In Supreme Court On Religious Structures In Mehrauli Archaeological Park

Case Details: Zameer Ahmed Jumlana v. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) & Ors. | Diary No. 6711 of 2024

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) informed the Supreme Court that it would file within a week, the survey report of the religious structures inside the Mehrauli Archaeological Park in Delhi, in plea seeking their protection.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge against the Delhi High Court's order, which refused to pass specific directions for protecting centuries-old religious structures inside the Mehrauli Archaeological Park in Delhi, including the 13th-century Ashiq Allah Dargah (1317 AD) and Chillagah of Baba Farid.

Senthil Balaji Sabotaging Trial, Seeking Adjournments On Frivolous Grounds: ED Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: K. Vidhya Kumar v. Deputy Director and Anr.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Enforcement Directorate told the Supreme Court that the trial against Senthil Balaji in the alleged cash for jobs scam has been sabotaged.

“Trial is sabotaged. I have my affidavit”, Mehta said.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal allowed ED to file it affidavit in a plea seeking to recall its earlier judgment granting bail to Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case related to an alleged cash-for-jobs scam in Tamil Nadu.

The recall has been sought on the ground that Balaji's appointment as a Cabinet Minister in Tamil Nadu shortly after he was granted bail is causing undue pressure on the witnesses against him.

The ED in the affidavit has alleged that despite the Supreme Court's earlier direction to expedite the trial, Balaji's actions show a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings. The affidavit noted that PW4, a crucial scientific expert, was repeatedly summoned, cross-examined, and adjourned, resulting in a prolonged trial.

'We Will Go To Any Extent': Supreme Court Expresses Dismay At Govts Not Implementing Directions To Eradicate Manual Scavenging

Case Details: Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 324/2020

The Supreme Court on December 11 orally expressed that "it will go to any extent" to make sure the Court's order is complied with while hearing a Public Interest Litigation praying that the major provisions of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 as well as the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, remain unimplemented despite the mandate of the Statutes.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar expressed dismay at how the matter has progressed and even expressed its intentions to issue contempt for willful disobedience of the Court's order. Justice Dhulia on compliance with the orders, orally remarked: "These are low priority areas of the Government...One thing is sure, this we will not leave. This is a question of human dignity. This is something which is, I am sure, close to your heart...We will not leave it. Let me tell you, we will go to any extent to ensure compliance with the order come what may."