Home
/

Round Ups
/

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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: October 14, 2024 To October 20, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

23 Oct 2024 10:40 AM IST

Judgments

S.52 TP Act | Once Transaction Is Hit By Lis Pendens, Bona Fide Purchase Or Lack Of Notice Of Agreement Not Defences : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shingara Singh v. Diljith Singh and another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 795

The Supreme Court has reiterated that once a transaction is found to be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, then the defences of being a bona fide purchaser and lack of notice regarding the sale agreement are not available.

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and PK Mishra was hearing an appeal against a High Court judgment, which directed the specific performance of a sale agreement, ignoring a subsequent sale deed executed during the pendency of the suit.

Sale Not A Contract; No Bar To Transfer Immovable Property To Minor : Supreme Court

Case Details: Neelam Gupta & Ors v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos.3159-3160 of 2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 796

The Supreme Court observed that there's no bar to transfer immovable property in favour of aminor by way of a sale deed.

According to the Court, the minor can become the transferee/owner by way of a sale deed and the conditions stipulated under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (persons competent to contract) would not come in the way of challenging the minor's capacity to contract because a sale can't be termed as a contract.

“Though an agreement to sell is a contract of sale, going by its definition under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, a sale cannot be said to be a contract. Sale, going by the definition thereunder, is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. The conjoint reading of all the aforesaid relevant provisions would undoubtedly go to show that they would not come in the way of transfer of an immovable property in favour of a minor or in other words, they would invariably suggest that a minor can be a transferee though not a transferor of immovable property.”, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed.

The Supreme Court observed that the period of limitation to prove title by adverse possession would commence from the date of the defendant's possession becoming adverse and not from when the plaintiff acquires the right of ownership.

High Court Must Apply Its Mind To Materials In Police Report Before Deciding To Quash FIR : Supreme Court

Case Details: Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 797

The Supreme Court held that a petition to quash criminal proceedings does not become infructuous on submission of a police report.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the Court "must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report" before taking a call on whether the proceedings should be quashed or not.

"No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173 (2) of the CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the Court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused."

Order XXI Rule 99 CPC | Pendente Lite Transferee Being Stranger To Suit Can File Application: Supreme Court

Case Details: Renjith KG & Ors. v. Sheeba, Civil Appeal Nos. 8315 – 8316 Of 2014

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 798

The Supreme Court observed that a pendente lite transferee, being a stranger to the suit, can file an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) against dispossession from the suit property.

Order XXI Rule 99 CPC comes to the rescue of the person who being a stranger to the suit was dispossessed by the decree holder upon the execution of the decree. It says “where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, or where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession."

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan heard a case where the predecessor of the respondents was not a party to the suit and was dispossessed from the property, in execution of the decree passed in the suit.

S. 108 Electricity Act | State Electricity Regulatory Commission Not Bound By Directions Of State/Central Government : Supreme Court

Case Details: Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v. Jhabua Power Limited and Others, Civil Appeal Nos 10046-10047 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 799

The Supreme Court observed that the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions are not bound by the Central/State Government's directions issued under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Act”).

“We are in agreement with the judgment of APTEL insofar as it holds that the directive which was issued by the State government under Section 108 could not have displaced the adjudicatory function which was entrusted to KSERC (Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission). The State government while issuing a policy directive in the exercise of its power under Section 108 cannot impinge on the adjudicatory discretion which is vested in an authority under the Act.”, the bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.

Giving literal interpretation to Section 108 of the Act, the Court observed as follows:

“That the state regulatory commissions are not 'bound' by the directions of the state government, or the Central Government is also evident from the text of Section 108. The provision reads: “In the discharge of its functions, the State Commission shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy …”. This indicates that the state commission shall only be 'guided' by the directions issued by the state government and is not automatically bound by them.”

In essence, the provision, in no manner, seeks to control the exercise of quasi-judicial power by the state commissions based on directions issued by the state government.

On Transfer Of Judge Who Convicted, No Need For Fresh Hearing On Conviction; New Judge Need Hear Only On Sentence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Harshad Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, Crl.A. No. 4080 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 800

In a case where the Trial Judge was transferred after pronouncing a judgment of conviction but prior to passing of the order on sentence, the Supreme Court held that the new Judge was not required to hear the case afresh on the point of conviction/acquittal. A hearing on the quantum of sentence alone remained to be afforded for compliance with Section 235 CrPC.

"The contention of the appellant, that with the transfer of the Presiding Officer post his conviction, the new Presiding Officer was obligated to hear him afresh even on the question of conviction, is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Once the judgment...was pronounced, the conviction of the appellant stood finalized within the meaning of Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., whereupon the Trial Court became functus officio for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. The only issue that survived thereafter was of the quantum of sentence for which, the procedure contemplated under sub-section (2) was to be complied with" said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Government Employee Can't Refuse To Join New Place Of Posting While Contesting Transfer : Supreme Court

Case Details: The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University & Anr. Etc. v. R. Agila Etc, SLP (C) No(s).13070- 13075/2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 801

The Supreme Court condemned frequent instances of transferred employees not joining new places of posting while legal or administrative challenges to their transfer are underway.

"It is not uncommon to see employees who challenge such orders of transfer before various forums, extending the litigation to several years, while choosing to not join the service and still seeking full salary, and often citing medical conditions as a ground for such inability to join. It is of utmost importance that, while the legal challenge runs its course, the needs of administration are treated paramount in comparison to the inconvenience faced by the employees in cases of transfer. In this regard, the Government employers should also take stern measures against such employees who fail to join the new places of posting without any rationale or an order of stay being in place", said a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale.

The Court opined that when a person works for the government, incidence of transfer becomes inherent in the terms of service unless it is specifically barred. As such, once relieved from a particular place of posting, the employee has no right to remain absent or to refute to join the new place of posting. He can join the new place of posting and continue to contest the transfer.

"..an employee has no right to remain absent or refuse to join the new place of transfer once relieved from their current place of posting. The employee is entitled to avail all available remedies for redressal of grievances, but it does not entitle them to not comply with the transfer orders. The employee is well within his rights to join the transferred place of posting and still continue to avail the remedies available under the law for redressal of his grievances against the transfer."

Supreme Court Affirms Bail Granted To Kashmir Journalist Fahad Shah, But Holds HC Judgment On UAPA Wrong

Case Details: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Peerzada Shah Fahad

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 802

The Supreme Court declared as bad in law the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court which held that an accused can be granted bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 if he does not present any "clear and present danger" to the society.

The High Court judgment, which granted bail to Kashmir-based news journalist Peerzada Shah Fahad, also held that lowering of India's global reputation cannot be held to be a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of the UAPA.

While declaring the High Court judgment to be per incuriam and directing that it should not be cited as a precedent, the bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma however did not interfere with the bail granted to Fahad Shah.

Motor Accident Claims | Duty Of Court To Assess Fair Compensation Not Limited By Claimant's Rough Calculation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain And Another, Civil Appeals Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3050 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 803

The Supreme Court held that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and High Court awarding more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be "just and reasonable."

It added that the court has a duty to calculate fair compensation, as held in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto (2022).

"It is a settled proportion of law, that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable. It is the duty of the Court to assess fair compensation. Rough calculation made by the claimant is not a bar or the upper limit," the Court stated.

'Role Limited To Signing' : Supreme Court Upholds Discharge Of Ex-Central Bank Chairman In Corruption Case Over Credit Facility Misuse

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Srinivas D Sridhar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 804

The Supreme Court upheld the discharge of the former Chairman and Managing Director of the Central Bank of India from a cheating and corruption case for allegedly causing undue loss of over Rs. 436 Crores to the bank by hastily approving a loan.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed an appeal filed by the CBI challenging the judgment of the Gujarat High Court that had discharged the respondent, Srinivas Sridhar from the case.

“After perusing the entire material and taking it as correct, perhaps the only material that creates suspicion is the speed with which the proposal of the Company was sanctioned. As far as the respondent is concerned, considering his position and the role ascribed to him in the grant of sanction to the loan proposal of the Company, mere suspicion against him is not enough to frame a charge against him”, the Court held.

'Lived Like Husband-Wife For 5 Years' : Supreme Court Quashes Case Alleging Rape On False Marriage Promise

Case Details: Lalu Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, Arising Out Of SLP (Crl) No.9371 of 2018

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 805

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against a man accused of raping a woman and impregnating her on the pretext of marriage. It found that the FIR reveals a case of long consensual sex where both the complainant and the respondent lived as husband and wife.

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal held that although a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed for quashing the charges of rape and causing miscarriage without women's consent, the same could have been treated as a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings.

'Royalty' Imposed By Municipal Corporation For Putting Hoardings/Advertisement Can't Be Termed 'Tax' : Supreme Court

Case Details: The Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. M/S Tribro Ad Bureau & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11117 Of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 806

The Supreme Court observed that the 'royalty' imposed by the Municipal Corporation on the advertising companies for putting up hoardings/advertisements could not be termed as 'tax'.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the Patna High Court's Division Bench decision which directed the Patna Municipal Corporation to refund the 'royalty' collected from the advertising companies on the note that the Corporation has no legislative competence to levy & collect 'royalty' under Article 265 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that imposition of 'royalty' by the Municipal Corporation could not be called as 'compulsory exaction' to term it as 'tax'. The Court referred to the recent nine judge bench decision in Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India to hold that royalty is not tax.

SARFAESI | Auction Sale Can Be Cancelled Only If Purchaser Defaults In Payment Of Balance Amount : Supreme Court

Case Details: IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Ramswaroop Daliya and Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 8159-8160/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 807

In a matter arising out of IDBI Bank's cancellation of an auction purchase, the Supreme Court held that an auctioneer cannot refuse to issue sale certificate if the auction purchaser has not defaulted in offering to deposit the balance auction amount.

“reason for the non-issuance of the sale certificate is solely attributable to the appellant-Bank and that there were no latches, negligence or default on part of the respondents in offering to deposit the balance auction amount. Since there is no default on their part, non-deposit of the said amount within the stipulated period would not be fatal within the meaning of sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 9 of the Rules”, said a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan.

Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of S.6A Of Citizenship Act Recognizing Assam Accord By 4:1 Majority

Case Details: In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 808

CJI DY Chandrachud in his judgment said that the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration and Section 6A was the legislative solution. The majority held that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the provision. The majority held that Section 6A was enacted to balance the humanitarian concerns with the need to protect the local population.

Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Death For Alleged Murder Of Mother, Wife & 2-Yr-Old Daughter

Case Details: Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No.213/2020

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 809

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and the death sentence of a man for the alleged murder of his mother, wife and two-year-old daughter noting that the prosecution was unable to prove an unbroken chain of events.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan delivered the verdict. Pronouncing the decision, Justice Gavai said:

"We have found that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the intervening circumstances...and since it's a case of circumstantial evidence, in no case the prosecution has been possible to prove an unbroken chain of events which can lead to [...] Therefore, we have allowed the appeal."

Reflecting on the brutality of the murder, the High Court observed that Masalkar committed planned, cold-blooded murder of his mother, wife and daughter. "By finishing the family, the accused has tried to shatter the basic foundation of the society" it said. As such, the case pricked at the judicial conscience of the Court.

In Motor Accident Claims, Preponderance Of Probabilities Must Be Applied; Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. v. Mini Babu George & Ors., CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7881 OF 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 810

The Supreme Court observed that in motor accident claim cases, the courts must apply the principle of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

While observing so, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the motor accident compensation claim of the kin of the bike rider who was killed in a road accident after a collision with a car coming in the opposite direction in an attempt to overtake a bus.

'Marriages Fixed During Minority Of Child Violates Free Choice' : Supreme Court Suggests Ban On Child Betrothals

Case Details: Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action and Anr. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1234/2017

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 811

The Supreme Court has suggested to the Parliament to consider outlawing child betrothals by amending the Prevention of Child Marriage Act(PCMA), 2006. Since that PCMA does not deal with child betrothals, the Court noted that it can be used to evade the penalties under the Act.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was delivering the judgment in a PIL filed by the Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action seeking steps to stop child marriages.

While issuing various guidelines for the prevention of child marriages, the Supreme Court refrained from deciding the issue whether the Prevention of Child Marriage Act, 2006 overrides personal laws which sanction such marriages.

Supreme Court Upholds Maintainability Of Appeals Filed By Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Against Orders Of TDSAT On Tariff Imposition

Case Details: Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport Ltd.| C.A. No. 003098 - 003099 / 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 812

The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of appeals filed by Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) assailing orders of the TDSAT under the AERA Act 2008 relating to tariff imposition on certain services.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra allowed the appeals to filed by AERA in the following order :

"The appeals by AERA against TDSAT order are held to be maintainable. Registry to list the appeals for hearing."

Specific Relief Act | In Agreement To Sell Property Under Joint Ownership, Onus Is On Plaintiff To Secure Consent Of All Co-Owners : Supreme Court

Case Details: Janardan Das & Ors. v. Durga Prasad Agarwalla & Ors, Civil Appeal No.613 Of 2017

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 813

The Supreme Court observed that when the plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement to sell a property (being jointly owned by multiple persons), then the onus is on the plaintiff to ensure that all necessary consents and participations are secured to prove his readiness and willingness towards the performance of the contract.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Prasanna B. Varale heard a matter where the plaintiff claimed specific performance of the agreement to sell a property that was jointly owned by five persons (two brothers and three sisters). Despite knowing that the sisters (co-owners) haven't consented to the sale of the suit property, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on the oral assurance of the brothers that they will procure the sisters for the execution of the sale deed.

S. 319 CrPC | No Mandate To Decide Application To Summon Additional Accuded Before Cross-Examination Of Other Witnesses : Supreme Court

Case Details: Asim Akhtar v. State of West Bengal & Anr., Crl.A. No. 004247 / 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 814

The Supreme Court observed that there's no bar for the trial court to decide an application seeking the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. even after the cross-examination of the prosecution witness.

“Therefore, the complicity of any person sought to be arrayed as an accused can be decided with or without conducting cross-examination of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, and there is no mandate to decide the application under section 319 CrPC before cross-examination of other witnesses.”, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale said.

'Breaches Discipline Of Law Laid Down In IBC' : Supreme Court Disapproves Of HC Deferring CIRP Under Article 226

Case Details: CoC of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 815

The Supreme Court took exception to the Telangana High Court ordering the deferring of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud , Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, held that the High Court was not justified in deferring the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) when the main relief sought in the writ petition uto consolidate the CIRP of two companies was refused.

Children Of Those Who Acquired Foreign Citizenship Can't Resume Indian Citizenship Under Section 8(2) Of Citizenship Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 816

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih pronounced an important judgment dealing with various provisions relating to Indian citizenship.

The Court clarified that when a person acquires a foreign citizenship, the cessation of Indian citizenship happens by operation of law by virtue of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. Hence, such cessation of citizenship cannot be regarded as voluntary. Therefore, children of such persons cannot seek to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act. As per Section 8(2), children of persons who have voluntarily renounced Indian citizenship can seek Indian citizenship within one year of attaining majority. The Court interpreted that this option is not available for children of those who acquired foreign citizenship.

The Court also clarified that a person who was born outside India after the commencement of the Constitution cannot seek citizenship under Article 8 of the Constitution on the ground that his grandparents were born in the undivided India.

The Court held that allowing such an interpretation would lead to "absurd results", as foreign nationals born long after the independence, by claiming that their grandparents were born in the undivided India.

Banks Can Claim Tax Deductions For Broken Period Interest On HTM Securities If Held As Trading Assets: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 817

The Supreme Court held that banks can claim tax deductions for broken period interest on held to maturity (HTM) government securities if they are held as trading asset.

“Therefore, on facts, if it is found that HTM Security is held as an investment, the benefit of broken period interest will not be available. The position will be otherwise if it is held as a trading asset”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that whether HTM securities are held as investments or stock-in-trade depends on the facts of each case. If a bank holds HTM securities until maturity and values them at cost, they may be considered investments, in which case the broken period interest would not be deductible. If held as trading assets, the deduction would be available.

“Whether the Bank has held HMT security as investment or stockintrade will depend on the facts of each case. HTM Securities can be said to be held as an investment (i) if the securities are actually held till maturity and are not transferred before and (ii) if they are purchased at their cost price or face value.”

Orders

'Land Leased To Azam Khan's Trust When He Was Minister' : Supreme Court Dismisses Jauhar Trust's Plea Against UP Govt Cancelling Lease

Case Details: Executive Committee Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust v. State of Uttar Pradesh | D No. 35624/2024

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Uttar Pradesh Government's decision to cancel the lease of the government land to Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust at Rampur.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed a petition filed by the Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust, founded by Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, challenging the cancellation of the lease deed dated February 4, 2015. The Trust approached the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court's judgment delivered on March 18, 2024, dismissing its plea against the Government's decision taken on March 31, 2023.

However, the bench requested the government authorities to ensure that the students of the school, which was functioning in the land leased to the trust, get admission to alternate suitable institutions.

However Strict PMLA Is, Sick & Infirm Accused Should Be Given Bail : Supreme Court

Case Details: Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani v. Directorate Of Enforcement and Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 11376/2024

Observing that 'sick and infirm' persons can be granted bail despite the stringency of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court granted interim bail to an accused in a money laundering case.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra granted interim bail to Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, the former Chairperson of Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank accused of the offence of money laundering.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Doordarshan Channel In Sindhi

Case Details: Sindhi Sangat v. Union Of India D No. 43504/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to direct the Union Government and the Prasar Bharati to run a 24-hour Sindhi language Doordarshan TV channel to preserve the language and cultural heritage of the Sindhi community, a linguistic minority in India.

The Court dismissed the petition filed by Sindhi Sangat observing that no citizen can make a claim based on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution that the government should start a separate channel in their language.

"The right which is claimed under Article 29 for preserving the language of the Sindhi population cannot result in an absolute or indefeasible right for the commencement of a separate language channel for a particular language," observed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in its order dismissing the petition.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Restrain J&K LG From Nominating Members To Assembly, Asks Petitioner To Approach HC

Case Details: Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., Diary No. 46862-2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition against the Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor's proposed move to nominate 5 members to the J&K Assembly. The petitioner, however, was granted liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief.

"We are not inclined to entertain the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and give liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits", said the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar.

As per the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, 90 seats are reserved for Jammu and Kashmir divisions and 5 are those to which the LG can nominate MLAs.

'Because Of Covid Vaccines, We're Able To Deal With Outbreak' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Vaccine Side Effects

Case Details: Priya Mishra and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 22945-2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation alleging health side effects to the Covid Vaccines.

The counsel for the petitioners stated that allegedly the vaccines induced side effects like blood clotting. He mentioned that class action suits have been filed in foreign countries like the United Kingdom on the same concerns.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.

At the outset, the CJI stressed that vaccines had globally aided in overcoming the pandemic crisis and that filing such petitions now would not be appropriate.

CJI said that if the petitioners were really aggrieved, then they should file class action suits instead of filing Article 32 petitions.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Criminalise Sexual Offences Against Men, Trans Persons & Animals In BNS

Case Details: Pooja Sharma v. Union of India and Anr. W.P.(Crl.) No. 398/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions under Article 142 to include sexual offences against men, trans persons and animals under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the Indian Penal Code.

The petition was filed contending that the new BNS omitted the erstwhile S. 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalised 'unnatural sex' and carnal intercourse with a man, woman or animal. Notably, the provision was struck down in the landmark decision of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India by the Apex Court insofar as it criminalised consensual sexual acts of adults. Hence, non-consensual homosexual acts were punishable as per Section 377.

Presently, the BNS does not contain any provision criminalising sexual offences against men, trans persons and animals.

During the hearing, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the Court cannot direct the Parliament to create an offence.

Lawyer's Statement During Judicial Proceedings Protected By Privilege: Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Defamation Suit Against Advocate

Case Details: Pankaj Oswal v. Vikas Pahwa, Diary No. 19381-2024

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a defamation suit filed against Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa over a statement made by him in course of judicial proceedings at Patiala House Courts, Delhi on the briefing counsel's instructions.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, dealing with Indian businessman Pankaj Oswal's challenge to Delhi High Court's dismissal of the defamation suit on a view that Pahwa's statement was protected by doctrine of absolute privilege.

Delhi Liquor Policy Case: Supreme Court Grants Regular Bail To Hyderabad Businessman Abhishek Boinpally

Case Details: Abhishek Boinpally v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9038 of 2023

The Supreme Court granted regular bail to Hyderabad businessman Abhishek Boinpally in the Delhi Liquor Policy case in parity with other accused persons.

Although a plea was raised before the Court by senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary to allow Boinpally to travel within the country as against the conditions imposed on travel in the interim bail order, the Court said that the trial Court shall decide the same. But orally clarified that the conditions so far imposed were only for interim bail.

The bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar was hearing a special leave petition filed by Boinpally against a Delhi High Court judgment of July 2023 denying him bail.

What Legal Authority To Recruit Civic Volunteers In Police? Supreme Court Asks West Bengal Govt In RG Kar Case

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 Supreme Court while hearing the Suo Motu RG Kar Case directed the State of West Bengal to disclose information on the details of recruitment process for hiring civic volunteers in the State Police force. The Court also expressed apprehension of 'Political patronage' given to unverified civil volunteers.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the suo motu case of the brutal rape and murder of a doctor in RG Kar Hospital in Kolkata that occurred on August 9

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the National Task Force (NTF) - which was constituted by the Court to make recommendations on enhancing the security for medical professionals across the country- has not made substantial progress.

The Court expressed dismay that the NTF, which was constituted by the order passed on August 20, has not held any meeting after September 9.

"Why no meeting after September 9?", Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta. The Court directed that the NTF should hold regular meetings and complete its task within a period of three weeks.

The Court directed in the order that the State Government shall ensure that the referral system refers those hospitals which have adequate beds, availability of expertise in the medical field; doctors with specializations.

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Plea Against Ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi; Calls Security To Drive Out Litigant After Agitated Hearing

Case Details: Arun Ramchandra Hublikar v. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Ors., Diary No. 38245-2023

The Supreme Court declined to hear a man's plea against ex-Chief Justice of India and now Rajya Sabha MP Ranjan Gogoi, alleging that the judge "unwarrantedly" interfered with a judgement passed in his favor over illegal termination from service.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order, on hearing petitioner-Arun Hubilkar, who appeared in person. A heated exchange took place between the petitioner (who became an advocate post-filing of his writ petition in 2018) and Justice Trivedi, before the judge finally called upon the security to escort him out and dismissed the plea.

Perplexed At Life Convict Given Remission After 2.5 Years Imprisonment, Supreme Court Seeks UP Authorities' Explanation

Case Details: Surendra @Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) arising out of Diary No. 28783 of 2023

While setting aside an order for the premature release of a life convict having spent only 2 years, 5 months and 12 days of imprisonment, the Supreme Court took a strong view against the Uttar Pradesh jail authorities for recommending his name for remission despite the State's remission policy mandating 14 years of imprisonment before a life convict could be considered eligible for remission.

The bench of Justices J.K. Maheswari and Rajesh Bindal has sought a response from the Principal Secretary (Home) and Principal Secretary (Prison) of the State of Uttar Pradesh as to how the jail authorities recommend this case for remission and why the State has not sought custody of the petitioner and other convicts despite the order of the full bench.

Punjab & Haryana Extremely Reluctant To Act Against Stubble Burning : Supreme Court Expresses Dismay, Summons Chief Secretaries

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court pulled up the States of Haryana and Punjab over their failure to take action against farmers who are indulging in stubble-burning, which results in the deterioration of the air quality in the Delhi-National Capital Region.

Coming down heavily on the States, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih directed that the Chief Secretaries of both States to be present before the Court on the next hearing date(October 23).

Supreme Court Asks Delhi LG To File Personal Affidavit On Illegal Tree Felling In Ridge Forest, Seeks Action Against Erring Officials

Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024

The Supreme Court directed the Chairperson of the Delhi Development Authority, who happens to be the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi V K Saxena, to file a personal affidavit making a "full disclosure" on various aspects relating to the illegal felling of the trees in the Delhi's ridge forest in February 2024.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the order in the contempt case initiated by the Court against the Vice Chairman of the DDA, Subhasish Panda, over the felling of about 1100 trees purportedly for the widening of the road to CAPFIMS hospital.

The Court also said that it expected the Delhi LG to take steps to fix accountability on the part of erring officials, be it in the form of disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution, by the next date of hearing (October 22), without waiting for any directions of the Court.

Whether Establishment Of Gram Nyayalayas By States/UTs Is Mandatory? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1067/2019

The Supreme Court expressed that it would consider the question as to whether establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas by States/UTs is mandatory under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 ("2008 Act").

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan was dealing with a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas in the country as per the mandate of the 2008 Act. Upon hearing Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta (acting as Amicus in the matter), it ordered:

"We direct the state governments to give information in the format annexed alongwith the present order. Needless to state that the said information will be given by the states after consulting Registrar Generals of the High Courts...to be furnished to the Court with a copy to the Amicus within a period of 6 weeks from today. The ld. Amicus is requested to prepare a chart giving specifications of the responses of the state governments. The question as to whether it is mandatory for the state governments to establish Gram Nyayalayas or not or as to whether it is optional would be considered separately. However, insofar as the states which are agreed to establishing Gram Nyayalayas, we will examine as to whether the state governments have acted in a positive manner in order to achieve the object of the enactment of providing speedy and affordable and efficient justice to the citizens living in remote areas."

Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Former MANUU Chancellor, Asks Him To Pay Rs1 Lac To Complainant & Publish Apology

Case Details: Firoz Bakht Ahmed v. State of Telangana, SLP(Crl) No. 9236/2024

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal defamation case against former Chancellor of Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU), Firoz Bakht Ahmed, and directed him to publish an unconditional apology in "bold letters" in first page of local daily newspaper in connection with the “sexual predator” remark he made against Dean of the School of Mass Communication and Journalism of the MANUU, Professor Ehtesham Ahmad Khan. The Court has ordered Firoz Bakht to pay 1 lac token damages for the "mental agony" caused to Professor Ehtesham on account of "wild allegations" within 4 weeks.

'What Kind Of Petition!' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Re-Election In 20 Haryana Assembly Seats

Case Details: Priya Mishra & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Anr.

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking re-election in 20 assembly seats in Haryana.

"What kind of petitions are these?", Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressed surprise at the matter before dismissing it.

When the petitioner mentioned the matter for urgent listing this morning, CJI took exception to the prayers sought in the petition. "You want an elected govt to be restrained from taking the oath? We are putting you on guard...we will dismiss the matter with costs," CJI warned the petitioner's counsel. After the counsel insisted that he wanted to argue the matter, CJI said that it would be taken up and asked him to circulate the papers.

Later, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra took the matter after the marital rape case hearing, shortly before the bench was about to rise at 4 PM.

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

The Supreme Court 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."

Supreme Court Dismisses Karnataka's Plea Against Anticipatory Bail Granted To Bhavani Revanna In Kidnapping Case

Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Bhavani Revanna, SLP(Crl) No. 8386/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Karnataka's plea challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna in a case involving allegations of kidnapping of a woman.

Bhavani Revanna is the mother of Janata Dal (United) leader Prajwal Revanna, who is accused of committing sexual offences against several women.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the accused (Bhavani Revanna) is a woman aged 55-56 years and the allegations pertain to abetment of a kidnapping committed by her son. It further observed that the principal accused has been arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation.

'Proceedings Can't Be To Malign Institutions' : Supreme Court Closes Habeas Corpus Petition Against Sadhguru's Isha Yoga Centre

Case Details: Isha Foundation v. S. Kamaraj and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 13992/2024

The Supreme Court closed the habeas corpus petition filed by a father alleging that his two daughters were being illegally confined at Sadhguru's Isha Yoga Centre at Coimbatore, because of the categorical statements made by the two women, who are presently aged 42 and 39 years, that they are staying at the Ashram out of their free choice.

While closing the matter, the Supreme Court took exception to the Madras High Court passing directions for police enquiry on other allegations against Isha Yoga Centre in the habeas corpus petition. "Since both of them are adults and the purpose of habeas corpus was fulfilled, no further directions were needed from the High Court," the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted in the order.

Supreme Court Stays HC Order Which Stopped Trial Of Dera Sacha Sauda Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim In 2015 Sacrilege Cases

Case Details: State of Punjab v. Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Ors., Diary No. 43184-2024

The Supreme Court stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order which stayed trial of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim in the 2015 cases relating to sacrilege of holy book Shri Guru Granth Sahib.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order in Punjab government's plea challenging the stay imposed on Ram Rahim's trial by Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To UP MLA Abbas Ansari In Case Over Alleged Unauthorised Jail Meetings & Threats To Witnesses

Case Details: Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 10235/2024

The Supreme Court granted bail to Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari in a case involving allegations that his wife made unrestricted visits to him in Chitrakoot jail and he used her mobile phone to threaten witnesses and officials.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in Ansari's challenge to an Allahabad High Court order whereby he was denied bail. Notice was issued on the plea on July 25, calling for the UP government's response.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To UP MLA Abbas Ansari In Money Laundering Case

Case Details: Abbas Ansari v. Directorate of Enforcement, Allahabad, SLP(Crl) No. 10598/2024

The Supreme Court granted bail to Abbas Ansari, MLA from Mau from Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party in a Money Laundering case.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Pankaj Mithal however did not make any observation on merits.

Rajasthan Civil Judge Exam 2024 : Supreme Court Seeks Production Of English Essay Papers With Low Scores, Issues Notice To HC

Case Details: Sonal Gupta And Others v. Registrar General Rajashtan High Court Jodhpur And Another | Diary Number 47205/2024

The Supreme Court while issuing notice in the pleas challenging the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre, 2024 has directed the production of those answer sheets where candidates have been marked below 15 marks for English essays.

As per the pleas, the common contention is that while the candidates had performed well overall, it is alleged that they have been marked unjustly low in the range 0 to 15 marks out 50 in the English Essay Writing Paper, thus denying them fair eligibility for the final interview stage.

'Frivolous SLP' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Jharkhand, Says Govt Can Enquire Which Officer 'Ill-Advised' Filing

Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Rabindra Gope, Diary No. 42056-2024

The Supreme Court imposed an exemplary cost of 1 lac on the State of Jharkhand for filing a frivolous special leave petition and granted the State liberty to initiate an inquiry against the officer responsible for advising the filing of an "ill-advised" SLP to recover the costs.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V Viswanathan recalled that it has repeatedly insisted against the filing of frivolous SLPs by the State Governments in the last six months but the issue continues to persist.

'With These Kind Of PILs, We Don't Get Time To Deal With Genuine PILs' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For OTT Regulation

Case Details: Shashank Shekhar Jha and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 669/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking constitution of a board for regulation of content and release of films on the OTT Platform.

The petitioner mainly contended that there is no regulation for monitoring the OTT Content and the release of the films of OTT.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to entertain the petition stating the matter falls in the domain of public policy.

Krishna River Water Dispute: Justice Sanjay Kumar Recuses, Bench Refers Matter To CJI For Relisting

Case Details: State of Telangana v. Union of India and Ors, W.P.(C) No. 666/2024

The Supreme Court sought the relisting of a writ petition filed by the State of Telangana against the Andhra Pradesh Government and Krishna River Management Board after Justice Sanjay Kumar recused from the hearing.

Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Plea Of UP MLA Abbas Ansari Under Gangsters Act, Asks To Approach High Court

Case Details: Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P.(Crl.) No. 380/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari's plea for bail in a case registered under the UP Gangsters Act. It however granted him liberty to approach the High Court for bail, with a request to the High Court that it decide the bail plea within 4 weeks of filing.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Ansari), who submitted that he had information about substances being administered to Ansari in the jail and conveyed an apprehension that Ansari might meet the same fate as his father-Mukhtar Ansari (who allegedly died due to poisoning while in judicial custody).

BNSS Provision Capping Maximum Undertrial Term Applies To PMLA : Supreme Court Grants Bail

Case Details: Badshah Majid Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court granted bail to Badshah Majid Malik, an alleged red sanders smuggler, in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail on the ground that he had served more than one-third of the maximum sentence for the offence as per the first proviso to Section 479(1) (Maximum Period for Detention of Undertrial Prisoners) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Steps Taken For Two New Solid Waste Management Projects : Delhi Municipal Corporation Tells Supreme Court

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

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi told the Supreme Court that it expects two solid waste management projects to go ahead within two weeks which will result in MCD surpassing the required waste management capacity by 3,000 metric tons daily by 2026.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice A.G. Masih directed the MCD to file an affidavit regarding steps taken by the MCD.

Supreme Court Seeks Expert's View On MBBS Admission For Candidate With 88% Muscular Dystrophy

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

The Supreme Court while hearing a plea by a medical candidate suffering from muscular dystrophy observed that there are no specific guidelines to assess disability with assistive devices as per the GOI gazette (March 2024) on assessing specified disabilities.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing by a candidate facing 88% muscular dystrophy and was disqualified from pursuing MBBS on the ground that the NMC Guidelines require bringing down the disability to less than 80% for those with petitioner's condition to pursue MBBS.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Stall Release Of Alia Bhatt's Movie 'Jigra' Over Alleged Trade Mark Infringement

Case Details: Bhallaram Choudhary v. Dharma Production Private Limited SLP(C) No. 24581/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a trade mark infringement plea seeking to injunct the use of term 'Jigra' for the Alia Bhatt starrer film which has been released in theatres.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge to the order of the Rajasthan High Court which lifted a stay imposed by a commercial court, temporarily restraining the release of Alia Bhatt's starer “Jigra”.

'Nothing To Suggest Speeches Were Disturbing Public Order' : Supreme Court Quashes Detention Of Maulana Mufti Salman Azhari In Gujarat

Case Details: Salman @Mufti Mohammad Salman Azhari v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11682 of 2024

The Supreme Court directed the release of prominent Muslim cleric and scholar Maulana Mufti Salman Azhari who was detained over alleged hate speech under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (“PASA”).

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale granted relief to Azhari while setting aside the Gujarat High Court's order validating the detention order

'Where Is The Money?': Supreme Court Cancels Bail To MD Of Heera Gold On Failure To Raise Rs.580 Crores To Settle Claims

Case Details: State of Telangana and Ors. v. M/S Heera Gold Exim Private Limited and Ors., Crl.A. No. 761-762/2021

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to Nowhera Shaikh, the Managing Director of Heera Gold Exim Private Limited, on the failure to raise 580 crores to settle the claims of investors despite repeated chances given by the Court to do so.

The Court ordered Shaikh to surrender within 2 weeks and all FIRs registered against Shaikh in different States shall now be proceeded in accordance with law. It clarified that the present order shall not come in way of the respondent-accused to apply for bail afresh.

Supreme Court Affirms Uttarakhand HC Judgment On Regularisation Of UNPL Workers

Case Details: State of Uttarakhand & Ors. v. Kundan Singh & Anr, SLP (C) No. 2388 of 2019

The Supreme Court upheld the 2018 judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court which directed that the Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (UPNL) workers are employees of the State.

On November 12, 2018, the High Court passed several directions including regularisation of the UPNL employees, who have served for 10 years or more, in a phased manner within 1 year as per various regularisation schemes framed from time to time. It held that the UPNL workers were entitled to get a minimum pay scale with dearness allowance along with arrears to be paid within 6 months.

For context, the present-day UPNL was established by the State Government in 2004 to employ ex-servicemen and their dependents.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale passed the order affirming the rights of UPNL workers.

Supreme Court Stays HC Judgment Which Refused To Quash Case Against Person For Calling Congress President Kharge 'Ayogya'

Case Details: Mithun Chakravarty Devidas Shet v. State of Karnataka Diary No. - 46413/2024

The Supreme stayed the operation of the Karnataka High Court judgment which allowed investigation against a person accused of calling the President of All India Congress Committee (AICC) Mallikarjun Kharge as 'Ayogya'.

The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petitioner's special leave petiton.

The High Court had in its order quashed the charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act u/s 3(2)(v-a) but dismissed the challenge against offences under Sections S.153-A, 153-B, 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court allowed the investigation to continue with respect to these offences.

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Father For Pregnant Daughter's Murder Over Inter-Caste Marriage, Commutes Death Sentence

Case Details: Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the father who committed the gruesome daylight murder of his pregnant daughter also leading to the death of the child in the womb.

While holding so, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and KV Viswanathan rejected the appellant's/father's contention that the non-examination of the independent witnesses by the prosecution would prove fatal to the prosecution's case. The Court said that non-examination of the independent witnesses by the prosecution would not affect its case when the eyewitness testimony was unquestionable and credible.

Other Developments

Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Premature Listing Of Bail Plea In PMLA Case

Case Details: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court raised concerns over the listing of a bail plea in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the scheduled date, in violation of its prior order.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih focusing on how the case was listed earlier than directed by the court.

Justice Oka remarked, “Somebody in custody makes an attempt to get matter listed in this manner, we have to be very careful about it.”

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Disability Rights Activist's PIL To Strengthen Right Of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016

Case Details: Satendra Singh v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 636/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice in a PIL seeking the establishment of centres across the states for the assessment of disabilities as well as adequate reforms to strengthen the framework of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) and State Commissioners (SCPDs) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to consider the issues raised in the PIL.

The plea has been filed by Dr. Satendra Singh, a prominent disability rights activist, licensed medical professional, and advisor to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (SCPD), New Delhi.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pleas Seeking Monthly Stipend For Foreign Medical Graduates At Govt Colleges In Kerala, AP

Case Details: Association of Doctor and Medical Students v. Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 632/2024 (and connected case)

The Supreme Court issued notice on pleas seeking regular monthly stipend for foreign medical graduates (FMGs) pursuing compulsory internships at different government medical colleges, teaching and non-teaching institutes in Kerala and Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the matter and tagged it alongwith similar cases pending adjudication.

Notify River Conservation Zones, Prevent Illegal Constructions On River Banks : PIL In Supreme Court

Case Details: Ashok Kumar Raghav v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 621/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice in a writ petition filed under Article 32 against the illegal constructions and encroachments on flood plains and catchment areas.

The PIL highlights the severe consequences of these illegal constructions, including widespread devastation, loss of lives, and damage to property caused by floods. It also points out the collapse of vital infrastructure such as roads and bridges due to these unauthorized developments.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to consider the issue.

Won't Stay Punjab Panchayat Elections, Says Supreme Court While Agreeing To List Plea Challenging Polls

The Supreme Court agreed to list a petition challenging the Punjab Panchayat elections but said that it won't stay the elections, which are taking place today.

A petition challenging the elections on the grounds of alleged irregularities was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India for an urgent hearing. Though CJI agreed to list the petition, he said that the elections cannot be stayed once the process has commenced

CJI DY Chandrachud was of the view that staying the elections after the polling has commenced will have grave consequences and may lead to chaos.

Half-Yearly Public Exams For Classes 8, 9, 10th Withdrawn, Says Karnataka Govt; 'Why Harass Students?', Asks Supreme Court

Case Details: Organisation For Unaided Recognised Schools ® (Our Schools) v. State of Karnataka and Ors, SLP(C) No. 8142/2024

The Supreme Court was informed that the Karnataka Government has withdrawn a notification for conducting half-yearly Public Exams for Classes 8, 9, 10th in districts Kalaburagi, Bidar, Raichur, Ballari, Yadgiri, Koppal of Karnataka, which was alleged to be in defiance of the Court's interim order.

Based on this, the Court has asked Advocate KV Dhananjay (for petitioners) to take instructions. On the last occasion, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed petitioners to file a contempt application against the Karnataka Government's proposal of conducting Board Exams where question papers will be set by the administrative office.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation Of Three Advocates As Andhra Pradesh High Court Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended the names of the three Advocates for appointment as Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Supreme Court Gives Final Chance To HCs, Centre & States/UTs To Comply With Directions To Prevent Unnecessary Arrests & Remand

Case Details: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MA 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021

The Supreme Court has yet again given one last opportunity to the Union, High Courts, States, and Union Territories to report compliance with the directions issued in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation within 4 weeks.

The Division Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar was hearing an application, filed in the main matter of Satender Kumar Antil, for compliance with the directions issued.

Fugitive Cannot Maintain Article 32 Petition: SG Objects To Zakir Naik's Plea In Supreme Court

Case Details: Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Supreme Court heard the writ petition filed in 2013 by Islamic preacher Zakir Naik seeking the clubbing of multiple FIRs registered against him in Maharashtra and Karnataka for hate speech under section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.) of the IPC.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the State of Maharashtra, raised objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, stating that Naik, as a declared fugitive by court order, cannot seek the remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Do Something As SCBA President To Streamline Filing & Arrangement Of Files : Justice Bela Trivedi To Kapil Sibal

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the lack of streamlining of case records while hearing an insolvency matter.

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal in the matter when Justice Bela faced some issues with the case records.

She orally remarked: "Mr Sibal, do something as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association to streamline the filing and arrangement of files and other things. It's really consuming and wasting time like anything."

Jet Airways Insolvency : Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On SBI Plea Against Transfer Of Ownership To Jalan KalRock Consortium

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

The Supreme Court reserved its decision on the challenge by lenders of the cash-strapped Jet Airways to the NCLAT Order which allowed the Airlines' ownership transfer to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the matter.

CJI DY Chandrachud Recommends Justice Sanjiv Khanna As Next Chief Justice Of India

As per convention, the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who is on the verge of retirement, has recommended the name of the second senior judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, as the next Chief Justice of India.

PMLA Review | Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing At Request Of Parties, Lists Matter On Nov 27

Case Details: Karti P Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement | RP(Crl) 219/2022

The Supreme Court adjourned the review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgement, which upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Next date given in the matter is November 27.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, CT Ravikumar and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, at a request made by the parties. While the petitioners submitted that Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal was on his legs in a part-heard, ED counsel Zoheb Hossain responded that ED was not opposing the request.

Application Seeking Statehood For Jammu & Kashmir Mentioned In Supreme Court For Listing:

An application seeking directions to restore the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir in a time-bound manner within two months was mentioned in the Supreme Court for listing.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud seeking a listing of the application. "There is an MA in the Article 370 matter, the implementation for conferring statehood...it has to be time-bound," Sankaranarayanan said. CJI agreed to consider the request.

Plea To Criminalise Marital Rape | 'If Wife Says No, Husband's Only Option Is To File For Divorce?' Supreme Court Askse

Case Details: Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 4063-4064/2022

The Supreme Court commenced the hearing of a batch of petitions seeking the criminalization of marital rape. The petitioners represented by Senior Advocate Karuna Nandy stressed that the Exception no.2 under the definition of Rape as per the old and new penal provisions violated the fundamental rights of a woman under Articles 14, 21 and 19 of the Constitution and reduced her to a mere sexual object.

The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Whether Alimony Can Be Granted Under Hindu Marriage Act If Marriage Was Void

Case Details: Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the issue of whether alimony can be granted under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) when a marriage has been declared void.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih heard arguments on this question.

During the hearing, the bench criticised the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bhausaheb @ Sandhu S/o Raguji Magar v. Leelabai W/o Bhausaheb Magar, which used the term "illegitimate wife" in the context of void marriages. Justice Oka criticized this terminology, saying that it is against the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Whether Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA Ought To Have One Judicial Member? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: The Joint Director v. Eastern Institute For Integrated Learning In Management University, SLP(Crl) No. 265/ 2024

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court passed an order directing that 6 cases, raising the issue whether Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) ought to have one Judicial Member, be placed before the Chief Justice of India so that they can be listed before one Bench.

The order was passed by a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih in a special leave petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, assailing an order of the Sikkim High Court whereby modification of a direction to the Union of India to take steps for appointment of a Judicial Member to the AA was declined.

Trust Not Disqualified From Filing Consumer Complaint: Centre To Supreme Court

Case Details: Administrator Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur v. Managing Director Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd & Ors.

The Union of India submitted before the Supreme Court that merely being a trust does not disqualify a legal entity from filing a consumer complaint if it meets other conditions of being a consumer.

Bar Association Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Validity Of 4 BNSS Provisions

Case Details: Mannargudi Bar Association v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 625/2024

The Mannargudi Bar Association has approached the Supreme Court challenging 4 provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These include: Sections 43(3) [Handcuffing], 107 [attachment, forfeiture of property], 223 [non-taking of cognizance in a complaint case without opportunity of hearing to accused] and 356 [trial in absence of accused].

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which heard arguments restricted to Section 43(3) and noted that it is limited in scope to only very serious offenders and though a possibility of misuse of the provision may need to be addressed, the whole provision can't be said to be bad.

Supreme Court Issues Notices To Union & FRRO On Plea Against Detention Of Nigerian National In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: Yoti Tobi Jones v. The Additional Secretary To The Government and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 12912/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of Indian and Foreigners Registration Office in a special leave petition filed by the Indian wife on behalf of a Nigerian national detained in Special Camp (Foreigners), Tiruchirappalli for allegedly committing various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act.

Service As Fast Track Judge Not Counted For Pension : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Of Deceased Judicial Officer's Wife

Case Details: Purnima Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea preferred by the wife of a deceased judicial officer who was denied his pensionary and retiral benefits despite over 10 years of total service as a Judicial Officer.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Punjab Panchayat Polls Over Alleged Irregularities

Case Details: Sunita Rani and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., Diary No. 47900-2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea alleging irregularities in the conduct of the Panchayat Elections in Punjab, held on October 15.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar passed the order, seeking response from the Punjab government and State Election Commission. The matter is tentatively listed on November 19.

Plea Filed In Supreme Court Seeking Urgent Relief Against Demolitions Proposed Following Bahraich Violence

Case Details: Swaliha & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.

Three persons alleged to be related to the incident of violence that took place at Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh on 13.10.2024 have approached the Supreme Court seeking urgent relief against demolition action proposed to be taken against their houses on 20.10.2024.

The development comes in the form of an intervention application filed in the "bulldozer matter", during the hearing of which the Court expressed that house of a person cannot be demolished merely because he is an accused.