Home
/

Round Ups
/

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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: November 4, 2024 To November 10, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

13 Nov 2024 10:15 AM IST

Judgments

Supreme Court Validates Different Grade Pay For Artificers III To I; Promotional Hierarchy Justifies Pay Distinction In Navy's Pay Grade

Case Details: Manish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 849

Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed appeals challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's order regarding grade pay disparity between Navy Artificers and Chief Petty Officers. The Court held that despite equivalence in seniority ranking, the difference in grade pay was justified due to the promotional hierarchy within the Navy's technical branch. The judgment reaffirms that promotional avenues and command structure can validly determine pay grades even when positions share equivalent ranks for seniority purposes.

Supreme Court Deprecates Practice Of Litigant Engaging New Lawyer To Reargue Case After Court Expressed Dissatisfaction On Merits

Case Details: Pintu Madanmohan Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 850

The Supreme Court criticized a litigant who, through a newly engaged lawyer, tried to reargue a case despite the Court having previously expressed dissatisfaction with the case's merits after hearing arguments but allowed the lawyers to seek further instructions.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih observed –

“It is not the case that the learned senior counsel who argued the matter and who took time to take instructions are not available. There are cases and cases when we are not satisfied about the merits, instead of dismissing the petitions, we grant time to the counsel to take instructions. Members of the Bar very well know what instructions the advocates are supposed to take. Therefore, we do not endorse this practice adopted by the petitioner. Even if due to exigencies, a new counsel is engaged, he ought to state the instructions received. He cannot re-argue the case.”

Supreme Court Recalls Its Judgment Which Struck Down Sections 3 & 5 Of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988

Case Details: Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd | R.P.(C) No. 359/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 851

The Supreme Court on recalled its 2022 judgment in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd which struck down Sections 3(2) and 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 as unconstitutional.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra recalled the judgment allowing a review petition filed by the Union Government against the judgment.

The bench noted that the Constitutionality of the provisions of the unamended Benami Transactions Act was never raised in the original proceedings. The only question which was framed by the bench which originally heard the matter was "whether the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 , as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, has a prospective effect."

However, the bench in its conclusion held that the provisions (Sections 3 and 5) of the unamended Act were unconstitutional.

Government Entity Can't Be Given Differential Treatment While Staying Operation Of Arbitral Award: Supreme Court

Case Details: International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd v. Kamarajar Port Limited, Civil Appeal No 12097 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 852

The Supreme Court disapproved of a High Court's decision to exempt a government entity from depositing other amounts in addition to the arbitral award amount as a condition precedent for seeking a stay on the enforcement of the award just because the government entity was not a flight risk.

The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the law qua arbitration proceedings cannot be differently applied merely because of the status of the respondent-entity as a statutory undertaking.

'Public Service Commission Must Not Resort To Falsehoods': Supreme Court Slams KPSC's Inconsistency On LDC Post Qualification

Case Details: Anoop M. and others v. Gireeshkumar T.M. and others ETC.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 853

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) for its inconsistent stances which led to prolonged litigation impacting the hopes and aspirations of nearly twelve hundred candidates who appeared for the recruitment exam for the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) post in the Kerala Water Authority.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar expressed displeasure with the varying stand of the KPSC in ascertaining the essential qualification for the post of LDC. Initially, the KPSC was adamant on its stand that Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) would not be a qualification to be considered eligible for appointment to the subject post, however later on it changed its earlier stand and notified that DCA certificate holder would be eligible for the LDC post.

Disapproving KPSC's inconsistent stand, the Court observed that, when dealing with careers of a large number of candidates, the Public Service Commission's stands have to be consistent.

“We, therefore, have no hesitation in placing the blame for this entire imbroglio on the KPSC as it laid the genesis for this litigation owing to its changing stances at different points of time. A State instrumentality seized of the solemn responsibility of making selections to public services must maintain a high standard of probity and transparency and is not expected to remain nebulous as to its norms or resort to falsehoods before the Court, contrary to what it had stated in its earlier sworn affidavits. We can only hope that the Kerala Public Service Commission learns from this experience and desists, at least in future, from trifling with the lives, hopes and aspirations of candidates who seek public employment.”, the court said.

Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of UP Madarsa Education Act Except Its Provisions Regulating Higher Education Degrees

Case Details: Anjum Kadari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 14432-2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgement which had struck it down earlier.

The High Court erred in striking down the Act on the ground that it violated the basic structure principle of secularism, the Supreme Court held. A statute can be struck down only if violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution or violates provisions regarding legislative competence. "The Constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. In a challenge to the statute for the violation of the principles of secularism, it must be shown that the statute violates provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism. The High Court erred in holding that the statute is bound to be struck down if it is violative of the basic structure," the Supreme Court held.

However, the Court held that the Madarsa Act, to the extent it regulates higher education in relation to 'fazil' and 'kamil' degrees, is in conflict with the UGC Act and to that extent it was unconstitutional.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the challenge to Allahabad High Court's March 22 judgment striking down the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as unconstitutional.

Not All Private Property Is 'Material Resource Of Community' Which State Must Equally Distribute As Per Article 39(b): Supreme Court

Case Details: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (CA No.1012/2002) & Other Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855

The Supreme Court held by a majority of 7:2 that all private properties cannot form part of the 'material resources of the community' which the State is obliged to equitably redistribute as per the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

The Court held some private properties may come under Article 39(b) provided they meet the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community'.

The 9-judge bench comprised Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.v. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.

The majority opinion was authored by the CJI, while Justice BV Nagarathna partially concurred and Justice Dhulia dissented.

Maintainability Of Second Protest Petition Depends On How First Complaint Against Negative Final Report Was Dismissed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 856

The Supreme Court held that there's no bar on the maintainability of the second complaint against the negative Final Report/Charge Sheet if the magistrate believes that the core of both complaints is different.

The Court in Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. settled a position of law that if the earlier disposal of the complaint was on merits, the second complaint on “almost identical facts” that were raised in the first complaint would not be maintainable.

Taking a cue from Samta Naidu's case, the bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal clarified that there's no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances i.e., where the earlier dismissal order suffers from any infirmity.

Supreme Court Directs NMC To Issue Fresh Guidelines To Admit Persons With Disabilities Into Medical Courses

Case Details: Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21942/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 857

In a significant stride towards social recognition of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), the Supreme Court stressed the need to give opportunities to PwDs in the medical sector and devise qualitative standards for testing disabilities in the procedure for medical course admissions.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in its judgement allowed a candidate suffering from muscular dystrophy to participate in the ongoing counselling for NEET-UG 2024. In doing so, the Court underlined that Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) needed to be perceived not with an element of sympathy but as an essential part of the society we live in today. It is imperative to further the cause of inclusion of the PwDs to achieve the national project of eradicating all forms of discrimination that the Country is scarred with.

'IBC Prevails Over SEZ Act', Supreme Court Rejects Noida SEZ's Claim

Case Details: Noida Special Economic Zone Authority v. Manish Agarwal & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 5918-5919 of 2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 858

The Supreme Court dismissed the Noida Special Economic Zone's (NSEZ) plea challenging the NCLAT's decision to approve a resolution plan that granted Rs. 50 Lacs against NSEZ's admitted claim of about Rs. 6 Crore.

The NCLAT reduced the claim amount, partly due to penalties related to the renewal of the sub-lease and transfer charges.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih ruled that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) prevails over the SEZ Act due to Section 238 of IBC's overriding effect, rejecting NSEZ's argument for exemptions from such payments.

Holder Of LMV Driving License Can Drive Transport Vehicle With Unladen Weight Less Than 7500 KG: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 841/2018

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 859

The Supreme Court held that a person holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle(LMV) can, without any specific endorsement, drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg.

If the gross weight of the vehicle is within 7500 kg, the driver with an LMV license can drive such a transport vehicle. The 5-judge Constitution Bench noted that no empirical data has been brought before it to show that LMV license holders driving transport vehicles are a significant cause of road accidents.

The additional eligibility requirement to drive transport vehicles will apply to only those transport vehicles which weigh more than 7500 kgs.

Adopting a harmonious interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court endorsed the decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663. The Court also approached the issue from the perspective of livelihood issues of transport vehicle drivers.

Sessions Courts Must Order Victim Compensation In Cases Of Sexual Offences Against Minors And Women: Supreme Court

Case Details: Saibaj Noormohammad v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 860

The Supreme Court mandated that, in cases involving bodily harm, especially in sexual assault cases involving minors or women, Sessions Courts should order victim compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC(396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

The Court observed that the lack of a compensation order by the Sessions Court delays benefits to victims. This direction must be implemented swiftly by legal services authorities, with provision for interim compensation when appropriate, the Court held.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed this direction while granting bail to the appellant, convicted under Sections 376-D, 354 of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Press Release Of Govt Not 'Law' As Per Power Purchase Agreement: Supreme Court

Case Details: Nabha Power Ltd and another v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 861

The Supreme Court held that a press release issued by the Government of India about certain changes in the mega power policy did not constitute 'law' and 'change in law' in terms of a Power Purchase Agreement.

"The press release of 01.10.2009 certainly does not fulfil the meaning of the word “order” as understood in legal parlance," the Court observed.

"In our considered opinion, the press release did not alter/amend/repeal the existing law as on 01.10.2009. It was at best the announcement of a proposal approved by the Cabinet which had to be given shape after fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein...The press release summarizing the Cabinet decision and beset with several conditions created no vested rights on any party to the power purchase agreement vis-a-vis the other party on 01.10.2009. In fact, the press release itself contemplated certain contingencies," the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan held.

S. 56 Electricity Act 2003 | 2 Year Limitation Period Not Applicable To Dues Incurred Before Enforcement Of 2003 Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Bapuna Alcobrew Private Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1095 of 2013

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 862

The Supreme Court held that the liability arising out of the electricity bill dues which accrued before the enforcement of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“2003 Act”) would not be barred by the 2-year old limitation period prescribed under Section 56 of the 2003 Act.

The Court held that once a liability is judicially crystallised and remains unchallenged, the person is bound by the principle of estoppel.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal heard a challenge related to the electricity consumption in which Respondent no. 1 had challenged the due raised by the Appellants but the same was held against him by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and then in a miscellaneous petition. However, ignoring the order, the petition was withdrawn and a second round of litigation was invoked on the same issue which ended in his favour as the division bench of the High Court applied the law of limitation.

Doctor Following Accepted Medical Practices Not Liable For Complications That Arise Post-Surgery: Supreme Court

Case Details: Neeraj Sud and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 863

The Supreme Court held that a Doctor who follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the discharge of duties would not be liable for the patient's post-surgery complications.

“In other words, simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.”, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said.

The Court clarified that so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the discharge of his duties, no liability for medical negligence could be imposed on him.

Eligibility Criteria Can't Be Changed After Commencement Of Recruitment Process Unless Rules Permit So: Supreme Court

Case Details: Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. C.A. No. 2634/2013 and connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 864

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed midway after the selection process for posts has begun unless the relevant rules expressly permit so.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra had reserved its judgment on July 18, 2023.

Sexual Assault Under POCSO Can't Be Quashed Based On 'Compromise', Offence Is Heinous & Not Of Private Nature: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 865

The Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which quashed the 'sexual assault' complaint against a teacher (accused of rubbing the victim's breast). The High Court had quashed the matter based on a 'compromise' between the victim's father and teacher.

"We are at a loss to understand how the High Court arrived at the conclusion that in the case on hand a dispute to be resolved exists between the parties and further that to maintain harmony the FIR and all further proceedings thereto should be quashed," the Supreme Court observed.

"When an incident of the aforesaid nature and gravity allegedly occurred in a higher secondary school, that too from a teacher, it cannot be simply described as an offence which is purely private in nature and have no serious impact on the society," the Court added.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed that matters related to sexual assault cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing. The Court emphasized the societal impact of such crimes and mandated that proceedings continue in the interest of justice.

Supreme Court Orders Liquidation Of Jet Airways On Failure Of Resolution Plan

Case Details: State Bank of India and Ors. v. Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.| C.A. No. 5023-5024/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 866

The Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the liquidation of Jet Airways in view of the "peculiar and alarming" circumstance that the resolution plan has not been implemented for five years.

The Court set aside the NCLAT Order which allowed the cash-strapped Jet Airways' ownership transfer to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) without complete payment in accordance with the resolution plan.

The Court directed the NCLT Mumbai Bench to appoint a liquidator forthwith and commence proceedings for the liquidation of the corporate debtor. The amount of Rs 200 crores already infused by the SRA, Jalan KalRock Consortium (JKC), stands forfeited. The lenders and creditors are entitled to encash the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs 150 crores furnished by the SRA.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had reserved the judgment on October 16. The NCLAT order was challenged by SBI-led lenders of the cash-strapped Airlines.

DRI Officers Can Issue Show-Cause Notices Under Customs Act: Supreme Court Allows Review Against 'Canon India' Judgment

Case Details: Commissioner of Customs v. M/S Canon India Pvt. Ltd. | R.P.(C) No. 000400 - / 2021

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 867

The Supreme Court held that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI) have the power to exercise powers under the Customs Act, 1962 to issue show-cause notices and recover duties

The Court held that DRI officers are "proper officers" to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

"Subject to the observations made in the judgment, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Commissionates of Customs-Preventive, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, and Commissionates of Central Excise and other similarly situated officers are "proper officers" for the purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act and are competent to issue show-cause notices," the Court held.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra allowed the review petition filed by the Customs Department against the 2021 Supreme Court Judgment in Canon India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which had held that officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence do not have powers under the Customs Act ,1962.

Arbitral Tribunal May Impose Costs On Party Abusing Referral Court's Limited Jurisdiction To Compel Another's Participation In Arbitration: Supreme Court

Case Details: Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 868

The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, the Arbitral Tribunal may impose costs on the Party who abused the process of law constraining another party to participate in the Arbitral Proceedings by taking advantage of minimal judicial interference at the referral stage.

“In order to balance such a limited scope of judicial interference with the interests of the parties who might be constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the party which the Tribunal ultimately finds to have abused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other party to the arbitration.”, the court said.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra recognized the concerns of the party who is constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings due to the court's limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). According to the Court, “some parties might take undue advantage of such a limited scope of judicial interference of the referral courts and force other parties to the agreement into participating in a time-consuming and costly arbitration process.”

Aligarh Muslim University: Minority Status Not Lost Merely Because Institution Was Created By Statute- Supreme Court

Case Details: Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 869

In the case relating to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court (by 4:3 majority), overruled the 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union Of India to the extent it held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution.

The issue whether Aligarh Muslim University is a minority institution as per Article 30 of the Constitution is now left to be decided by a regular bench based on this view of the majority.

In Azeez Basha, the Court had ruled that AMU cannot claim minority status as it was established by a statute. The majority led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud overruled Azeez Basha and held that an institution will not lose its minority status merely because it was created by a statute. The majority held that the Court must examine who established the University and who was the "brain" behind it. If that enquiry is pointing towards a minority community, then the institution can claim minority status as per Article 30. For this factual determination, the Constitution Bench relegated the matter to a regular bench.

"The view taken in Azeez Basha that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute is overruled," the majority stated.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, on his last working day, pronounced the judgment on behalf of the majority (comprising himself, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra)

Justices Surya Kant partially dissented from the majority on certain aspects, however agreed that Azeez Basha view required to be modified and clarified to a certain extent. Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma dissented.

Supreme Court Recalls Judgment Which Held 2018 Amendment To Specific Relief Act Prospective

Case Details: M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt Ltd v. Katta Sujatha Reddy and Ors. | Review Petition (Civil) No 1565 of 2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 870

The Supreme Court recalled its 2022 judgment which held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, will apply only prospectively to transactions effected after the date when the amendment came into force (01.10.2018).

The Court recalled the judgment in the exercise of its review jurisdiction. The judgment was reviewed on factual points.

The reveiw bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that the original judgment erred in not granting the discretionary remedy of specific performance of the sale agreement.

Determining 'Seat' In International Arbitration: Supreme Court Takes Shift From 'Closest Connection Test', Says Express Designation Of Place Matters

Case Details: M/S Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/S Micromax Informatics Fze, Arbitration Petition No. 31 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 871

In a key ruling on International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement grants non-exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign court, that court is considered the "seat of arbitration." The Court reaffirmed the BALCO principle that Indian courts lack supervisory jurisdiction under Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for arbitrations seated abroad.

Taking a shift from the 'Close Connection Test' to determine the seat of the arbitration, the Court observed that “the more appropriate criterion for determining the seat of arbitration in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court is that where in an arbitration agreement there is an express designation of a place of arbitration anchoring the arbitral proceedings to such place, and there being no other significant contrary indicia to show otherwise, such place would be the 'seat' of arbitration even if it is designated in the nomenclature of 'venue' in the arbitration agreement.”

In essence, the Court held that when an arbitration agreement grants non-exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign court without specifying any other court, that foreign court effectively gains exclusive jurisdiction to supervise the arbitration proceedings i.e., it effectively becomes the 'seat of the arbitration'.

High Court Judges Can't Be Discriminated Based On Source Of Appointment, All Entitled To Same Service Benefits: Supreme Court

Case Details: Justice Shailendra Singh and Ors. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 232/2023 and connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 872

The Supreme Court held that High Court Judges elevated from the district judiciary would be entitled to service conditions at par with those judges appointed from the bar and that the Constitution does not differentiate between the High Court Judges on the basis of the source of their recruitment.

The bench comprising the Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the batch of matters relating to the pending release of salaries of Patna High Court Judges.

'Provide Separate Cut-off': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Recruitment Of Persons With Disabilities In District Judiciary

Case Details: In Re Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services SMW(C) No. 2/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 873

The Supreme Court issued several general directions relating to the recruitment of persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) in judicial services. The direction issued would be followed for the selection of candidates to the District Judiciary across the country.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that till the pending orders, the directions issued ought to be adhered to by the High Courts or State Public Service Commissions, as the case may be while carrying out the recruitment exercises in the District Judiciary.

Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment Clauses In Public-Private Contracts Invalid; Can't Compel Selection Of Arbitrators From PSU's Panels: Supreme Court

Case Details: Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company C.A. No. 009486 - 009487 / 2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 874

The Supreme Court ruled against clauses allowing Public Sector Undertakings to unilaterally appoint arbitrators to decide disputes with private contractors.

The Constitution Bench held that while PSUs can maintain a panel of potential arbitrators, they cannot compel the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel.

The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was considering the validity of an arbitration clause which prescribes that the appointment of the arbitrator will happen from a panel of arbitrators curated by one of the parties, which is mostly a public sector undertaking (PSU) in majority of the cases.

Supreme Court Directs Union To Frame Mandatory Rules Under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act For Accessibility Of Public Spaces

Case Details: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 875

In a significant judgment boosting disability rights, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to frame mandatory rules as required under Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for ensuring that public places and services accessible to persons with disabilities.

The Court held that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the parent Act, since it does not provide mandatory guidelines on accessibility.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed the judgment in a PIL filed by Rajive Raturi, a visually challenged person, in 2005 seeking directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities. In 2017, the Court had passed a slew of directions to the Union and States for making public buildings accessible. In November 2023, while considering the compliance of the direction, the Court had directed the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law, to make a report on steps to be taken to make public buildings and spaces fully accessible to persons with disabilities.

Supreme Court Reinstates Candidates Who Had CCC Certificate In 2014 As Technical Grade-II (Electrical) Employees In UP Power Corporation

Case Details: Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9026 Of 2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 876

The Supreme Court found that Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited "grossly erred" in terminating the services of those Applicants who were duly selected and possessed the certificate for computer literacy at the time of interview as required in the advertisement dated 6th September 2014 issued for filling the vacancy of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited

As for those candidates who did not possess the certificate even on the date of the interview, the same cannot be accommodated.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.v. Vishwanathan was hearing the present appeal which prayed for a direction for the re-appointment of the applicants on the post of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (Respondent). It found that the Respondent had misinterpreted the judgment of the single judge of the Allahabad High Court, which directed the Respondent to redraw the Select List restricting it to those candidates who had brought the certificate at the time of the interview.

Courts Should Exercise Caution Before Passing Interim Orders Directing Colleges To Keep Seat Vacant: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., SLP (C) No. 11785 of 2024 (and connected case)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 877

Coming to the aid of two medical colleges, which were directed to keep a medical seat vacant pursuant to a High Court order but incurred loss as the said seat ultimately remained unfilled, the Supreme Court paved way for monetary restitution through adjustment of the colleges' proposed fees for successive batches.

"considering that it is a case of one seat in each college, we feel that ends of justice will be served if we grant liberty to the appellant colleges to make a representation to the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority of the State highlighting the vacancy caused due to the interim order of the High Court. If such a representation is made, the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority shall, while fixing the fees for college (for future batches) reckon the deficit in fees that has resulted due to the single vacant seat and fix the fees by adding such amount to the total fees proposed to be fixed which will restitute the colleges monetarily", said a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

'You Can't Bulldoze Houses Overnight': Supreme Court Directs UP Govt To Pay Rs 25 Lakhs Interim Compensation For Illegal Demolition

Case Details: In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash WP(C) No. 1294/2020

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 878

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the illegal demolition of residential houses for a road widening project.

The Court was hearing a suo motu writ petition registered in 2020 based on a letter complaint sent by Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, whose house in District Maharajganj was demolished in 2019.

During the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra expressed serious dissatisfaction with the conduct of the authorities, terming their acts "high-handed."

The Supreme Court while expressing discontent over the 'high-handed' approach of the Uttar Pradesh Government in illegally demolishing houses, laid down measures to be followed by state authorities for clearing areas in road widening projects.

Unconditional Withdrawal Of Arbitrator Appointment Application Bars Second Application On Same Cause Of Action: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. M/S Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, Civil Appeal No. 12233 Of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 879

The Supreme Court observed that when a party seeking appointment of an arbitrator unconditionally withdraws its application, then the subsequent application for an appointment of an arbitrator on the same cause of action would be barred.

The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala ruled that Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) would be made applicable to applications seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) to restrain the party from filing second arbitrator appointment application when it had abandoned (unconditionally withdrawn the application without leave to file fresh application) the arbitration in its first application.

Computation Of Royalty Within Executive's Domain, Courts' Interference Barred Unless Decision-Making Process Is Illegal: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited & Anr v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 715 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 880

Noting that the computation of royalty on minerals is purely a policy decision within the executive's domain, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea challenging the government's change in the royalty calculation method. The Court stated that unless the policymaking authority has overstepped its limits, such decisions cannot be challenged, as they require specialized expertise that judges do not possess.

“it is clear that the whether a particular policy is wise or that a better public policy can be evolved is purely the domain of the executive of the state. Matters such as computation of royalty or the levy of such royalty on different minerals is entirely a matter of policy making which is beyond the expertise and domain of the courts. It is no longer res-integra, that a question as regards the validity of a particular policy is concerned with reviewing not the merits of such decision or policy, but the very policy making process itself.”, the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held.

Orders

Supreme Court Directs All States, UTs To Promptly Convey Rejection Of Remission Plea To Convicts

Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail

The Supreme Court directed all states and union territories to inform convicts of any rejection of applications for permanent remission within one week and forward copies of these rejection orders to the respective District Legal Services Authorities to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to provide legal aid to affected convicts.

Supreme Court Relaxes Bail Condition That Journalist Siddique Kappan Should Report At UP Police Station Every Week

Case Details: Sidhique Kappan v. State of Uttar Pradesh MA 1929/2024 in MA 1929/2024 in Crl.A. No. 1534/2022

The Supreme Court relaxed the bail condition that Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan should record his presence at the police station in Uttar Pradesh every Monday in connection with the alleged Hathras conspiracy case.

A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta allowed an application filed by Kappan seeking relaxation of the bail condition.

'Why Only Hindi?We Hear Appeals From All States': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Hearings In Hindi

Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Anr. WP (C) No. 701/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking hearings in the Apex Court to be in Hindi while challenging the validity of Article 348(1) of the Constitution.

Notably, Article 348(1) provides that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and all High Courts be done in English Language. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.

'Air Pollution At All-Time High During Diwali, Explain Steps Taken To Enforce Firecracker Ban': Supreme Court To Delhi Govt & Police

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Government and the Police Commissioner of Delhi to file affidavits stating steps taken to implement the ban on firecrackers in Delhi as well as proposed steps to ensure compliance with the ban next year.

“There cannot be any dispute that the ban was hardly implemented. Moreover, the effect of non-implementation of the ban is very apparent from the report of CSE which shows that the pollution level in Delhi in this Diwali of 2024 was at an all time high. It was much higher than Diwali of 2022 and 2023. Moreover, the report indicates that even farm fires were on rise during Diwali days”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning air pollution in the Delhi NCR region from sources such as firecrackers, stubble burning, waste burning, vehicular emissions, industrial pollution etc.

“We direct the Delhi government to file a detailed affidavit placing on record the orders banning the use of firecrackers and the steps taken by the Delhi government to implement the same. We issue notice to the Commissioner of Police Delhi calling upon him to file an affidavit indicating the steps taken by the police to enforce the complete ban on the use of firecrackers in Delhi. While filing affidavits, Delhi Government and police must also state what effective steps they propose to take next year to ensure that the ban on the use of firecrackers is fully implemented. This will also include the measures to be taken for public awareness”, the Court directed.

“Even Basic Amenities Are Lacking”: Supreme Court Directs Assam Government To Provide All Facilities In Transit Camp Within One Month

Case Details: Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr.

The Supreme Court criticized the Assam government over the poor conditions at the Matia Transit Camp, which houses foreign nationals in Goalpara, Assam, and directed it to provide all facilities within one month.

“To say the least, the condition of the transit camp is far from being satisfactory. Even basic amenities are lacking, as can be seen from the detailed report submitted by the team constituted by the State Level Services Authority. We direct the secretary in charge of the concerned department of the state to immediately make a visit to detention camp, hold a meeting with all concerned authorities and ensure that all facilities are in place in detention camp within maximum period of one month from today. Even the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority shall be invited to the meeting”, the Court stated in its order.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that the transit camp lacked basic amenities, as revealed by a detailed report submitted by the Assam State Legal Services Authority (SLSA).

'We Need Green Spaces For Our Children': Supreme Court Rejects CIDCO Plea To Shift Sports Complex From Navi Mumbai

Case Details: City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Indian Institute of Architects and Ors.| SLP(C) No. 21953/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by CIDCO (City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra) against the Bombay High Court's order quashing the shifting of 20 acres of Sports Complex from Navi Mumbai to Raigad for commercial constructions.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Bombay High Court which quashed the decision of the State Government to shift the 20 acres sports complex from Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai to Nanore Village in Raigad, Maharashtra.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Former SP MLA Kishore Samrite Who Was Sentenced To 5 Yrs Imprisonment For Attacking SDM, Burning His Vehicle

Case Details: Kishore Samrite v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Slp(Crl) No. 9251/2024

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to former Samajwadi Party MLA Kishore Samrite, who was convicted and sentenced to 5 yrs' imprisonment for attacking a Sub-Divisional Magistrate and setting fire to his vehicle.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in Samrite's appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment, which partly modified the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court.

Pune Porsche Car Accident: Supreme Court Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Father Of Minor Passenger

Case Details: Arunkumar Devnath Singh v. State of Maharashtra SLP(Crl) No. 15128/2024

The Supreme Court denied bail to Arunkumar Devnath Singh, father of a minor co-accused sitting next to the main accused - a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), who allegedly was driving the car on May 19, 2024, in a high speed and killed two youth after mowing them down in Pune's Kalyani Nagar Porsche accident.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah upheld the October 23 order of the Bombay High Court which dismissed Singh's anticipatory bail application.

Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Challenge To Quashing Of LOC Against Late Actor Sushant Singh Rajput's House Help-Samuel Miranda

Case Details: Union of India v. Samuel Miranda, Diary No. 46240/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed Union of India's challenge to a Bombay High Court order whereby Look-Out-Circular opened in respect of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput's house help-Samuel Miranda was quashed.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, considering that none appeared for the Union despite the matter being called out twice, as well as on merits.

'Bar Associations Must Address Issue Of Mental Health', Says Supreme Court While Refusing To Entertain Plea For Lawyers' Wellness

Case Details: Chhavi Singh v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 50482-2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking to constitute a platform to address the mental health grievances of lawyers in the profession. The Court noted that while the present matter was not amenable to judicial parameters, liberty was given to make representations before the Bar Council of India.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a petition filed by behavioural coach Chahavi Singh from a family of lawyers.

Supreme Court Warns Chief Secretaries Of 5 States For Not Filing Counter-Affidavit In PIL Against Mob Lynching

Case Details: National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 719 of 2023

While hearing a PIL filed by National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) raising alarm over the alleged increase in cases of lynching and mob violence, particularly by 'cow vigilantes', the Supreme Court issued a warning to 5 states - Assam, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Maharashtra and Bihar- to file their counter-affidavits by the next date.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan ordered that the counter-affidavits shall be filed by the Chief Secretaries of the five states, failing which, the Chief Secretaries shall themselves remain present before the Court and show cause as to why action should not be taken against them.

Also Read - Why Maternity Benefit Available To Adoptive Mothers Only If Adopted Child Is Below 3 Months Old? Supreme Court Asks Centre

The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to communicate the order to the concerned Chief Secretaries and the matter listed after 4 weeks.

NCRB Can Collect Caste Data Of Prisoners, Supreme Court Clarifies

Case Details: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1404/2023

The Supreme Court clarified that its previous directions on deleting 'caste column' in prison registers would not come in the way of the data collection on the demographics of prisoners by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the order clarified :

" Therefore without prejudice to the generality of the directions or their implementation as issued by this Court, we clarify that direction 4 will not impede the collection of data by NCRB."

The order was passed in an application filed by journalist Sukanya Shanta (the petitioner) seeking a clarification of the directions issued on October 3.

Supreme Court Refuses To Reconsider Judgment Which Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act, Says Reference Was Unnecessary

Case Details: Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Sigh Malik v. D.K. Gandhi Ps National Institute of Communicable Diseases., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007

The Supreme Court refused 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).

The Court disposed of a reference made against the decision, saying that it was unnecessary.

On May 14, a two-judge bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, while holding that legal professionals are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, observed that the 1995 judgment in VP Shantha(which held that doctors are covered under the Consumer Protection Act) required reconsideration.

A 3-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.v. Vishwanathan held that the reference was not necessary. It also questioned what was the necessity of making a reference in respect of another profession since the Court already held that the legal profession is sui generis.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Christian Nuns & Priests Against TDS Application To Their Salaries

Case Details: Institute of the Fransican Missionaries of Mary and Ors v. Union of India SLP(C) No. 10456/2019 and connected cases.

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of 93 appeals challenging the application of the Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on the salaries given to nuns and priests of the Catholic Church who are working as teachers in aided institutions.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the judgment of Madras High Court which held that Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) must be applied with respect to the the salaries given to nuns and missionaries.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Kapil Sibal Over Statement Issued As SCBA President On RG Kar Rape-Murder

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992-2023

The Supreme Court refused to entertain an application filed by Senior Advocate Dr Adish C Aggarwala (former Supreme Court Bar Association President) assailing the issuance of a statement by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, as the current SCBA President, in connection with the RG Kar Medical College rape and murder case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed as withdrawn Aggarwala's application, remarking that the Court looks at all SCBA Presidents as leaders of the Bar and there should not be any sort of groupism or fighting among the members.

Supreme Court Makes Interim Protection Granted To Telangana BSP Leader Vatti Janaiah Yadav Against Arrest Absolute

Case Details: Vatti Janaiah v. State of Telangana | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12098/2023

The Supreme Court made the interim protection granted to Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Vatti Janaiah Yadav against arrest, in connection with the 2023 FIR pertaining to forcibly taking away fish weighing 5 tonnes from the pond, absolute.

While Yadav had approached the Court seeking protection from arrest alleging that alleged criminal prosecution by the then Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) led Government in Telangana after Yadav made a political switch from BRS to BSP, the matter took a U-turn when the Court found that the Telangana Government could not properly assist the Court.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti on October 1 had asked for specific filing dates of the chargesheet but the counsel for the State of Telangana was unable to provide this information. The court expressed surprise at this lack of knowledge and summoned the Director General of Police (DGP), due to the lack of communication between the prosecution and the Government counsel.

Show Materials Indicating Authenticity Of Audio Clips Against Manipur CM: Supreme Court To Kuki Organization

Case Details: Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 702/2024

The Supreme Court heard a petition filed by a Kuki organization seeking a court-monitored investigation into certain leaked audio clips which allegedly implicate Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh for instigating ethnic violence in the State.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwal and Justice Manoj Misra asked the petitioner to produce materials indicating the authenticity of the audio clips.

After Kejriwal, Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Another PMLA Accused For Contesting Elections; Clarifies Order Not To Be Treated As Precedent

Case Details: Subhash Prasad Yadav v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 15145/2024

After granting similar relief in Arvind Kejriwal's case, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to one Subhash Prasad Yadav - accused in a money laundering case - for the purpose of contesting Jharkhand Assembly elections. The election being scheduled for November 13, Yadav has been directed to be released till November 14, on which date he shall surrender before jail authorities by 5 pm.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in Yadav's challenge to a Patna High Court order.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Separate State For Tirupati

Case Details: Dr. K. A. Paul v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 657/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by evangelist Dr KA Paul seeking CBI probe into the Tirupati Laddu controversy as well as declaration of Tirupati city as a separate state/Union Territory.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order after hearing Paul, who appeared and argued in person.

Supreme Court Directs Former MLA Girraj Singh Malinga To Surrender After Raj HC Cancelled Bail In A Post-Bail Assault Case

Case Details: Girraj Singh Malinga v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 9528/2024

The Supreme Court ordered former BJP MLA Girraj Singh Malinga to surrender after the Rajasthan High Court on July 7 cancelled his bail in the assault case filed against him by the assistant engineer at JVVNL, Harshadhipati (“complainant”) in 2022.

The Court has agreed to consider his bail plea on the grounds that he would surrender within 2 weeks.

The Rajasthan High Court Court found him to be misusing his liberty to showcase his strength of power by organizing a rally soon after getting released on bail and intimidating or threatening the witnesses and the complainant. The Court found that the complainant had filed the case alleging that the respondent came to his office in 2022 and started assaulting and abusing him over the accusations that the complainant removed electricity transformers from the respondent's area.

'What Procedure Followed In Tree Felling?': Supreme Court Issues Notice To Delhi Tree Authority & Officers

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

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Tree Authority and the Tree Officers appointed under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, in a plea seeking to prevent the Delhi government from permitting tree felling under the Act without prior permission from the court.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the plea that also seeks the constitution of an expert committee to evaluate the current tree protection measures in Delhi and submit recommendations for preserving existing trees and forests.

During the proceedings, Justice Abhay Oka stated, “What we propose to do is, we want to hear the tree officer and tree authority, what is the procedure they follow? What kind of checks and balances are there in the procedure they follow in tree felling. And then we propose to pass some order.” He added, “Some mechanism will have to be worked out; otherwise, indiscriminately powers are exercised.”

Other Developments

'No Interim Relief Without Hearing': Supreme Court Adjourns Balwant Singh's Plea To Commute Death Sentence In Punjab CM Assassination Case

Case Details: Balwant Singh v. UOI & Ors, W.P.(Crl.) No. 414/2024

The Supreme Court deferred the plea filed by Balwant Singh Rajoana, 57 years, Babbar Khalsa terrorist and a death row convict, to November 18.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.v. Viswanathan stated that they would only consider for relief after having heard the matter.

The Court had issued notices on September 27 in a petition filed by Rajoana, 57 years, Babbar Khalsa terrorist and a death row convict, in a petition under Article 32 seeking commutation of the death sentence on the grounds of 'extraordinary' and 'inordinate delay' of 1 year and 4 months in deciding his mercy petition, which remains pending before the President of India.

Domestic Violence Act Meant For Quick Remedy, Yet Cases Drag On Like Other Family Court Matters: Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court orally expressed concerns at the slow pace of progress in cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), saying that they are moving like regular Family Court cases.

The bench comprising Justices B.v. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal observed that though the PWDVA Act was supposed to be a "quick remedy", the cases filed under it are being dragged on.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by NGO 'We The Women of India', in which it had earlier issued directions for the effective implementation of the Act.

How Will Investors Have Confidence If Courts Are Defunct Due To Lawyers Strikes? Supreme Court

Case Details: Faizabad Bar Association v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19804-19805/2024

Expressing dismay at the 'culture' of lawyers' abstention from work in Uttar Pradesh, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court underlined that judicial work should not suffer even for an hour and the practice of lawyers' strikes in UP should be tackled to prevent undue agony to litigants.

"We want some effective mechanism where their grievances are also timely addressed. At the same time, the judicial work is not to be affected even for an hour. We are an emerging economy...investments are coming in...people believe in rule of law and an effective mechanism to enforce the rule of law. Otherwise, how will investors have confidence? You come here and find that lawyers are abstaining from work, court will be defunct...how can anybody have faith in the system? It's a national responsibility on everybody...See the disappointing happenings in the state of Uttar Pradesh...the Registrar General of High Court has sent his report", said the judge.

The observations came while a bench, comprising Justices Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, was dealing with Faizabad Bar Association's plea against an Allahabad High Court judgment, whereby an Elders Committee was constituted to take over its affairs and ensure that the elections to its Governing Council are held by December 2024.

The matter is next listed on 20th December.

ED Moves Supreme Court Against Madras HC Order Restraining Probe Under PMLA Into Alleged Illegal Sand Mining

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

The Enforcement Directorate has approached the Supreme Court against a Madras High Court judgment which restrained it from carrying out investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against private contractors in connection with alleged illegal sand mining.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar which, without issuing notice at this stage, asked the parties to file their notes on the aspect of provisional attachment under PMLA in absence of a predicate offense, as dealt with in Vijay Madanlal Choudhury v. Union of India.

Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute : Supreme Court To Examine If Intra-Court Appeal Is Maintainable In Allahabad HC Against Rejection Of O7R11 Plea

Case Details: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. | SLP(C) No. 20074-20088/2024

On hearing the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, the Supreme Court called on the parties to furnish brief synopsis on the question of maintainability of an intra-court appeal against rejection of an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plea before the Allahabad High Court.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar was dealing with the Mosque Committee's grievance against the Allahabad High Court judgment dated August 1, whereby its plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC challenging the maintainability of 18 suits preferred by the deity (Lord Krishna) and Hindu worshippers was dismissed.

Supreme Court To Hear Ex-Indian Army Officer's Plea To Quash Criminal Proceedings In Rape Case

Case Details: Rakesh Walia v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 14850/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by ex-officer of the Indian Army, Rakesh Walia, seeking quashing of the FIR and other consequential proceedings against him on grounds of malicious prosecution and abuse of law under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah has agreed to consider the SLP which pertains to the impugned judgment and final order of the Delhi High Court dated July 31, 2024.

Delhi High Court Bar Association Decides Against Reservation For Women Lawyers, Informs Supreme Court About GBM Decision

Case Details: Aditi Chaudhary v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42332-2024

In pleas seeking reservation for women lawyers in Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), the DHCBA has filed a response stating that it is an "association" of lawyers and there can be no reservation in a private association.

"the ideology of the DHCBA and its members, is borne out of merit and inclusion. The members of the DHCBA believe that the selection of the candidates should be purely merit-based and that there should be no reservation for any class of members", says the Association in its affidavit.

It may be recalled that in September, the Supreme Court asked the DHCBA to consider reserving post of Vice-President for women lawyers in the upcoming elections. The bench further found it disappointing that since the year 1962, there had not been even a single woman President of the Bar.

NCP Dispute In Supreme Court: Ajit Pawar Agrees To Publish Within 36 Hours Disclaimers In Newspapers Regarding Clock Symbol

Case Details: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024

Nationalist Congress Party(NCP) chief Ajit Pawar assured the Supreme Court on November 6, that within 36 hours, he will publish a disclaimer in prominent sections of newspapers, including Marathi dailies, stating that the use of the clock symbol by the NCP remains a sub-judice matter.

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh made this undertaking on behalf of Ajit Pawar in response to an oral direction given by the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with an application filed by the Sharad Pawar group seeking to restrain the Ajit Pawar group from using the 'clock' symbol in the upcoming Maharashtra Assembly Elections. Through this application, Sharad Pawar sought to direct Ajit Pawar to apply for a new symbol to contest the Vidhan Sabha elections.

Terror Convict Moves Supreme Court Challenging Govt Notifications Declaring ISIS Terrorist Organization

Case Details: Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1362/2023

The Supreme Court is set to hear a plea filed by terror convict Saquib Nachan seeking quashing of two government notifications which declared the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and others as terrorist organizations.

'Either State Grant Award With Money, Or We'll Direct': Supreme Court To UP Govt On 83 Yr Old Ex-Constable's Plea For Gallantry Award

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

In an 83-year-old retired Constable's plea for authorities to act on the recommendation for the Gallantry Award, the Supreme Court granted last opportunity to the State of Uttar Pradesh to confer Gallantry Award on the petitioner, coupled with a 'respectable' financial amount.

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

Hasdeo Forest | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Cancellation Of Mining Permission For PEKB, Parsa Coal Blocks In Chhattisgarh

Case Details: Sudiep Shrivastava v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 510/2023

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the Union of India to cancel all non-forest use and mining permissions granted for PEKB (Parsa East and Kente Basan) and Parsa Coal Block, Chhattisgarh.

The PIL further seeks a direction to the State of Chhattisgarh to notify entire Hasdeo Aranya Forest (including, PEKB, Parsa, Tara, Kente Extension coal blocks) as Conservation Reserve under Section 36A of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, on hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared and argued for petitioner-Sudiep Shrivastava. The Court also called for response on an interim application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of any further project activities including tree felling at the Parsa Coal Block during the pendency of the case.

'Vacation' Renamed As 'Partial Court Working Days': Supreme Court Amends Rules

The Supreme Court has amended its rules to substitute the term 'summer vacation/vacation' with 'partial court working days'. The amended rules were notified on November 5, in the last working week of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

The length of the partial Court working days and the number of holidays for the Court and the offices of the Court shall be such as may be fixed by the Chief Justice and notified in the Official Gazette so as not to exceed ninety-five days excluding Sundays. Earlier, this number was 103.

Supreme Court Refuses To Transfer Trial Of RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder Case From West Bengal

Case Details: In Re: Alleged Rape And Murder Incident Of A Trainee Doctor In R.G. Kar Medical College And Hospital, Kolkata And Related Issues

The Supreme Court refused to transfer the trial in the RG Kar rape-murder case from West Bengal to another State.

When an oral request was made before the Court to shift the trial out of West Bengal, the Court orally said that it was not going to pass any such order.

The development happened before the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwal and Manoj Misra which is hearing the suo motu case related to the rape-murder of a junior doctor of the RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata which happened in August.

Supreme Court 'Shocked' That Some Retired HC Judges Get Only Rs 6-15K Monthly Pension, Flags Differential Treatment To Judges Elevated From Service

Case Details: Justice Ajit Singh (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors., WP (Civil) No. 102/2024

The Supreme Court expressed shock in a case filed by a retired Allahabad High Court judge raising the issue of pension, when it was informed that some retired High Court judges across the country are getting pension amounts as low as Rs.6000-7000/- per month.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan was dealing with retired Judge-Justice Ajit Singh's plea, who is stated to be getting Rs.15,000/- per month as pension.

CJI DY Chandrachud Inaugurates National Judicial Museum & Archive At Supreme Court

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on November 7) inaugurated the National Judicial Museum and Archive.

The National Judicial Museum exhibits a detailed history of the Supreme Court of India, the ancient justice system and the historical developments as well an interactive AI Lawyer from the new age technology. Other sitting judges also attended the event.

Jharkhand Need Not Nominate Members To Committee Appointed By HC To Identify Illegal Migrants: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Danyaal Danish., SLP(C) No. 25454/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India returnable December 3 in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Jharkhand against order dated September 20, 2024, passed by the Jharkhand High Court, whereby the Court appointed a fact-finding committee comprising of officers of the Central Government for determining illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah has till then given liberty to the State to not nominate its members to the Committee.

'We Are Here Only As Pilgrims, Do Our Work & Leave': CJI DY Chandrachud Bids Farewell To Supreme Court

Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud in his parting remarks before demitting the office on November 10, expressed gratitude for his journey so far in Judicial System.

During the ceremonial bench proceedings held for his farewell on his last working day, the CJI said :

"We are here as pilgrims, birds for short passage of time, do our work and leave....but the work which we do can leave a mark in the institution. Of course, none of us is that important to feel that the Court will not survive without me. Great judges have come here in the past and passed on the baton to the succeeding generations...in that way, we sustain the institution, with different people with diverse viewpoints coming to the Court and passing the baton along" The CJI expressed.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On CBI's Plea Challenging Karnataka Govt's Withdrawal Of Consent For Probe Against Dy CM DK Shivakumar

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 14992/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on Central Bureau of Investigation's petition challenging Karnataka government's withdrawal of consent for probe against Congress leader and Deputy CM DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, tagging the case with another petition assailing the withdrawal of consent, filed by BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal. The matter is next listed on December 13.

To state briefly, the case arises out of Karnataka High Court's dismissal of two petitions filed by CBI and Yatnal challenging the withdrawal of consent, on a view that the dispute can be adjudicated only under Article 131 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court since it was between a State and the Union.

'Serious Cause': Supreme Court On PIL Against Live Broadcasting Of Medical Surgeries

Case Details: Rahil Chaudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1141/2023

While hearing a public interest litigation challenging live demonstration of medical surgeries to trainee doctors/professionals and in medical conferences, the Supreme Court expressed that the case pertains to a serious cause as well as state policy, and therefore, even if the petitioners' locus is suspect, it would not refrain from dealing with the issue.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard submissions briefly, but had to adjourn the matter as none was present on behalf of the Union of India and the National Medical Commission. Deeming representation of the two necessary, the bench directed that the order be communicated by the Registry to the Standing Counsel for NMC and to the Attorney General's office.