Home
/

Round Ups
/

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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: October 21, 2024 To October 27, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

29 Oct 2024 9:25 AM IST

Judgments

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.”

Smaller Land Sales Can Be Considered For Determining Fair & Just Land Acquisition Compensation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 007963 - / 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 818

The Supreme Court observed that there's no bar to take into account the sale of smaller pieces of land as an exemplar for determining the fair and just land acquisition compensation.

“In the instant case, there are multiple sale deeds of smaller plots, and these represent the best available evidence for estimating compensation. Since there is no legal impediment to considering such sale deeds, the logical progression in the compensation estimation process would be to identify the most suitable sale deed(s) for determining the market value and subsequently, to apply adequate deductions on the same.”, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

Conditions For Remission Must Be Reasonable; No Automatic Cancellation Of Remission On Breach Without Prior Notice: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 819

The Supreme Court held that while the State has the discretion to impose conditions on a convict while granting permanent remission, such conditions must be reasonable.

The Court held, "The power under subsection (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. Therefore, conditions imposed while exercising the power under subsection (1) of Section 432 must be reasonable. The conditions must stand the test of scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the conditions imposed are arbitrary, the conditions will stand vitiated due to violation of Article 14. Such arbitrary conditions may also violate the convict's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution."

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that principles of natural justice must be followed before cancellation of remission due to breach of conditions.

The mere registration of a cognizable offence would not automatically result in cancellation of remission, the Court held. The Court added that State must follow natural justice principles, issuing a show-cause notice and providing the appellant with an opportunity to respond.

"The show cause notice must contain the grounds on which action under sub section (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or subsection (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS is proposed to be taken. The concerned authority must give the convict an opportunity to file a reply and of being heard. After that, the authority must pass an order stating brief reasons. The principles of natural justice must be read into subsection (3) of Section 432 and subsection (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS. The convict whose remission has been cancelled can always adopt a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India", the Court held.

If Judges Pronounce Only Operative Part, Then Reasons For Decision Should Be Given In 2-5 Days: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 820

In an important judgment, the Supreme Court urged the High Court judges to ensure that if they are pronouncing only the operative part of the judgment by saying that reasons will follow, then they should endeavour to give the reasons within 2-5 days.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that if a judge feels that the reasons can't be given within 5 days due to work pressure, then it would be prudent to reserve the judgment.

S. 294 CrPC | Defence Can't Be Given Chance To Discredit Prosecution Documents Which Were Admitted As Genuine By Them: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of U.P. & Anr. Etc.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 821

The Supreme Court observed that when the defence admits the genuineness of the prosecution documents and dispenses with its formal proof then, such evidence may be read as substantive evidence under Section 294 of Cr.P.C.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale said that after the prosecution's documents were admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. by the defence without formal proof, then the only job left for the courts is “to appreciate, analyse and test the creditworthiness of the evidence led by the prosecution which was available on record and if such evidence beyond reasonable doubt established the charges, the conviction could be recorded.”

Eviction Order Under Public Premises Act Doesn't Bar Arbitration For Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court

Case Details: Central Warehousing Corporation & Anr. v. M/S Sidhartha Tiles And Sanitary Pvt. Ltd., C.A. No. 011723 / 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 822

The Supreme Court observed that an eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act would not come in the way while invoking the arbitration clause upon filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for appointment of an arbitrator to decide contractual disputes.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when the agreement entered between the parties specifically contains an arbitration clause saying that the dispute arising out of an agreement (especially renewal of the agreement) would be resolved by the arbitration then the order of the estate officer under the Public Premises Act ejecting the party being in unauthorized possession after the expiry of the agreement would not restrain the dispossessed party to invoke the arbitration clause to decide the dispute arising out of the agreement.

'Bank Juristic Person, No Mens Rea': Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against HDFC Bank & Officials For Violating Income Tax Dept Order

Case Details: HDFC Bank Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 823

The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case registered against HDFC Bank Ltd. for violating the notice issued by the Income Tax Department to stop the operation of bank accounts, fixed deposits, and lockers of an income tax assessee.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set aside the High Court's decision which refused to quash the case registered against officials of the HDFC Bank Ltd. for violating the IT Department order and allowing the assessee to operate the bank locker when the prohibitory order regarding operation of the bank locker was in operation.

Supreme Court Orders ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Air Force Official Who Faced Unnecessary Litigation For Overtaking Senior's Vehicle

Case Details: S. P. Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 824

The Supreme Court ordered payment of Rupees One Lakh compensation to an Airman of the Indian Air Force who was foisted with unnecessary litigation for overtaking a Squadron Leader's vehicle at a railway crossing.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a case where the Air Man-appellant was reprimanded and an admonition order was passed against him for overtaking his senior's vehicle (Squadron leader) at the railway crossings. However, the appellant was granted relief by the Armed Forces Tribunal but denied compensation for the harassment he faced while contesting the unnecessary litigation into a trivial dispute that could be mutually settled.

IBC | No Compulsion To Specify Names Of Creditors In Balance Sheet, General Entry Acknowledging Debt Sufficient To Initiate CIRP: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vidyasagar Prasad v. Uco Bank & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 825

Observing that there's no compulsion for the companies to specify the names of every secured/unsecured creditor in their balance sheet, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea of a corporate debtor's suspended director against the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

In other words, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta observed that when debt entries exist in the corporate debtor's balance sheet, the debtor could not deny its liability merely on the ground that there were no specific entries of the particular creditor in their balance sheet regarding the debt owed to that creditor.

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Order Closing Insolvency Process Against Byju's Based On Settlement With BCCI

Case Details: Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran | Diary No. - 35406/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 826

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which closed the insolvency proceedings against ed-tech company Byju's (Think and Learn Pvt Ltd) accepting a settlement between it and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for about Rs 158 crores.

The Court held that the NCLAT erred in allowing the withdrawal of the insolvency application by invoking its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016. When there is a specific procedure provided for the withdrawal of insolvency applications, the NCLAT cannot invoke its inherent powers.

Card Issuing Bank Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Interchange Fee When It Is Already Paid On MDR: Supreme Court

Case Details: Commissioner of GST & Central Excise vs. CITIBANK

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 827

The Supreme Court ruled that a card issuing bank is not liable to separately pay service tax on the interchange fee when the said tax already stands paid on the Merchant Discount Rate (MDR).

The Three Judge Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that “the entire amount of the service tax payable on the MDR has been paid to the Government and there is no loss of revenue”.

'Legal Aid To Poor Should Not Be Poor Legal Aid: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Prisoners Get Free & Timely Legal Aid

Case Details: Suhas Chakma v Union of India & Ors. WP (C) No. 1082/2020

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 828

The Supreme Court pronounced the judgment on a petition filed by human rights activist Suhas Chakma seeking measures to ensure free and timely legal aid to prisoners.

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court asked the High Courts to consider issuing practice directions to all Courts to append a coversheet to all judgments on conviction and dismissal including bail applications informing the convicts of their right to free legal aid facility for pursuing higher remedy.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Delhi HC's “Strange” Bail Condition That Accused Must Arrange Accommodation & Reside In Delhi During Trial

Case Details: Akbal Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 829

The Supreme Court struck down a bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court in a murder case that required the accused to arrange accommodation in Delhi and reside there during the trial.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, while dealing with an SLP filed by the accused against the bail conditions, found this condition to be “strange”

Investigation Transfer To CBI Cannot Be Ordered While Rejecting Bail Application: Supreme Court

Case Details: Abhishek and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 830

The Supreme Court held that Court cannot transfer the investigation to another agency while dealing with bail application filed under Section 439 of the CrPC.

“Suffice it to say that while rejecting the bail application file by the appellant the High Court ought not to have transferred investigation to CBI. The direction is virtually to make de novo investigation. Such a direction could not have been issued while rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside Rajasthan High Court's decision to transfer the investigation in a murder case to the CBI while rejecting the bail application of the accused.

Govt Counsel Should Have Written Instructions From Authorities; Court Should Act Against Officials Who Misrepresent: Supreme Court

Case Details: KC Kaushik and others v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 831

In a notable observation, the Supreme Court underscored the necessity for parties, especially government authorities, to provide truthful and accurate information in writing. It emphasized that written instructions are crucial to prevent factual errors and misrepresentations, which can compromise the integrity of the judicial process. Relying on oral submissions alone can lead to misunderstandings, affecting not only the parties involved but also public trust in the judiciary

The Court advised that judicial orders should be based solely on written instructions to ensure that liability is appropriately assigned to the responsible officials in cases of wrongful representations. Officials and counsel appearing before the Court on behalf of government authorities must be properly equipped with written instructions from the competent authorities. The Court also warned that any misrepresentation, especially by government authorities, would be met with strict action, including imposing costs on the responsible officials.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan made these observations while deciding cases of Lecturers / Principals in the Government Aided Private Colleges in the State of Haryana seeking parity in pension with the Lecturers/Librarians of the Government Colleges. While dismissing their claims, the Court noted that there were some lapses on the part of the officials representing the State in furnishing instructions about the case to the Cour; however that by itself will not give any room for the appellants to get unjust enrichment.

Supreme Court Upholds Power Of States To Regulate Industrial Alcohol Under Term 'Intoxicating Liquor'; Justice Nagarathna Dissents

Case Details: State of U.P. v. M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish C.A. No. 000151 / 2007 & Other Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 832

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, held by 8:1 majority, held that the States have the power to regulate 'denatured spirit or industrial alcohol'.

The majority concluded so by holding that the term "intoxicating liquor" in Entry 8 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution will include industrial alcohol.

The majority held that the term "intoxicating liquor" cannot be interpreted narrowly to include only alcohol which is fit for human consumption. It was held that liquids which contain alcohol which can be used or misused for human consumption can be included within the term "intoxicating liquor".

Justice Nagarathna, in her dissent, held that 'industrial alcohol' means alcohol which is not fit for human consumption. An artificial interpretation cannot be adopted to give a different meaning to the term 'intoxicating liquor' which is contrary to the intention of the framers of the Constitution.

The 9 Judge Constitution bench comprised CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, B.V. Nagarathna, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma And Augustine George Masih. The Court was essentially tasked to examine whether the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, of 1951 gave complete regulatory power to the Union on the subject of industrial alcohol.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Doordarshan Channel In Sindhi

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 833

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 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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 834

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.

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.

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

Case Details: Badshah Majid Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 835

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).

The Supreme Court relied on the judgment in the case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary, which held that the beneficial provisions of Section 436A of the CrPC, would apply to prosecutions under the PMLA since Section 436A was introduced after the enactment of the PMLA. Therefore, the Court ruled that the corresponding provision, Section 479(1) of the BNSS, would similarly apply to prosecutions under the PMLA.

Take Proactive Steps To Release Deserving Undertrial Prisoners Under S.479 BNSS: Supreme Court To States/UTs

Case Details: In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 836

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the inadequate implementation of Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which the maximum period for which undertrial prisoners can be detained.

“A cursory examination of the reports from few of the states and the union territories would indicate that the process of identification of the undertrial who are entitled to benefit under section 479 of BNSS is somewhat deficient”, the Court observed.

“In order to make the process of identification of the deserving undertrials efficient, the Undertrial Review Committee present in each district must play a proactive role by co-ordinating with the Jail Superintendents...The District Legal Services Authority and the State Legal Services Authority should mobilize their panel advocates and para legal volunteers so that the release information of the under trials can be updated. This is necessary as a particular under trial may cross the threshold bar of one third or 50% of the sentence the very next day after the information is collected or thereafter. Therefore this has to be an ongoing process, and steps must be taken to ensure the release of deserving under trials under section 479 BNSS in a proactive way.”

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti was dealing with a writ petition concerning overcrowding in the prisons across India. The Court on August 23, 2024 had held that the beneficial provision of Section 479 of BNSS would apply retrospectively to the undertrials across the country, i.e., to all undertrials in cases registered before July 1, 2024.

Aadhaar Card Not Suitable As Proof Of Date Of Birth: Supreme Court

Case Details: Saroj & Ors. v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Ors., C.A. No. 012077 - 012078 / 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 837

The Supreme Court set aside a High Court's decision to accept the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar Card to determine the age of the victim in a motor accident compensation case.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Ujjal Bhuyan was not inclined to accept the suitability of the Aadhaar Card as proof of age. The Court observed that instead of referring to the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar Card for determining the age of the deceased, the age of the deceased can be more authoritatively determined from the date of birth mentioned in the school leave certificate having statutory recognition under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

'Procedural Irregularity Can't Defeat Substantive Right': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Dismissing Objections To Decree Due to Misapplication of Provisions

Case Details: Joginder Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs v. Dr. Virinderjit Singh Gill (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 838

Observing that procedural irregularity cannot defeat substantive rights, the Supreme Court provided relief to the decree objector whose objection plea was refused by the High Court on the grounds of misapplication of the provisions in filing his objections towards execution of the decree.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sanjay Karol observed that irrespective of the fact that the appellant had misapplied the provision while objecting to the decree, he can't be denied his substantive right in a suit property because of the rights accrued to him by virtue of first partition suit.

When Title Declaration Suit Seeks Possession Recovery Also, Limitation Period For Possession Recovery Applicable: Supreme Court

Case Details: N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi And Village Industries Board, Civil Appeal No. 6333 of 2013

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 839

The Supreme Court observed that when along with a suit for declaration of title, a further relief is sought, the limitation period would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief.

In other words, the bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan explained that if in a suit for declaration of title, a further relief of recovery of possession is also sought, then the limitation period for filing the suit would be governed by the limitation period prescribed for filing a suit for recovery of possession (i.e., 12 years as per Article 65 of Limitation Act) and not the one prescribed for seeking declaration of title (i.e., 3 years as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act).

“In the case at hand, the suit is not simply for the declaration of title rather it is for a further relief for recovery of possession. It is to be noted that when in a suit for declaration of title, a further relief is claimed in addition to mere declaration, the relief of declaration would only be an ancillary one and for the purposes of limitation, it would be governed by the relief that has been additionally claimed. The further relief claimed in the suit is for recovery of possession based upon title and as such its limitation would be 12 years in terms of Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.”, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal said.

Impossible Condition To Deposit Money Shouldn't Be Imposed To Suspend Sentence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 840

The Supreme Court held that if a condition to deposit an amount imposed by the appellate court while suspending sentence of a convict is impossible for the appellant to comply with, it may defeat the right to appeal and violate appellant's right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Whenever a prayer is for suspension of the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court must consider whether the sentence of fine can be suspended unconditionally or subject to conditions. However, the Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of the deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it. Such a condition may amount to defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal by the CBI challenging the suspension of sentence granted by the Delhi High Court to a man convicted for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs.

Employee In Supervisory Capacity, Drawing Wages Exceeding 10k Per Month Not 'Workman' Under Industrial Disputes Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: The Management, M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd v. Lenin Kumar Ray, Arising out of SLP (C) 12876 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 841

The Supreme Court held that an employee did not come within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended on 2010) because he was employed in a supervisory capacity and drew wages exceeding Rs. 1,600 (now Rs.10,000/- per month as per 2010 amendment). The Court applied the pre-amended provision since the employee's service was terminated in 2003, before the amendment.

S. 498A IPC | Courts Must Identify Instances Of Over Implication Of Persons In Cases & Avert Undue Suffering To Them: Supreme Court

Case Details: Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Crl.A. No. 004278 / 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 842

The Supreme Court expressed dismay over the tendency to over-implicate the persons and to present an exaggerated version in Section 498-A IPC domestic cruelty cases.

“We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons.”, the bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar said.

S.106 Evidence Act | Accused Has Duty To Offer Explanations When Offence Was Committed Within Privacy Of Their House: Supreme Court

Case Details: Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 843

The Supreme Court observed that when the offence was committed in the presence of the accused in the privacy of their house, then their failure to offer explanations can be treated as an adverse circumstance against them as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”).

The bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the decision of the High Court overturning their acquittal in a murder case. It was alleged that the appellant-accused were present in the house when the deceased died. However, the accused in their Section 313 Cr.P.C. defence statement tried to take a plea of alibi and offered an explanation that they went to a particular place to attend some function.

Oral Dying Declaration Made To Close Relatives Requires Cautious Assessment Before Being Used To Convict Accused : Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 844

The Supreme Court that when the conviction was based on the deceased's oral dying declaration to a close relative, the courts must exercise due caution in believing the testimony of the close relative to convict the accused.

The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia heard a case where the prosecution tried to prove the guilt of the accused based on the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to her mother. The trial court convicted the accused in a murder case based on the deceased's mother's testimony deposing that her son (deceased) had made an oral dying declaration pointing out the names of the accused.

Orders

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Replace Term 'Hindutva' With 'Bharatiya Samvidhanatva'(Indian Constitutionalism)

Case Details: Dr SN Kundra v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 567/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking to replace the term 'Hindutva' with Bharatiya Samvidhanatva (or Indian Constitution).

The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed the petition.

Supreme Court Stays NCPCR's Recommendation To Close Madrassas Not Compliant With RTE Act

Case Details: Jamiat Ulema I Hind v. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 660/2024

The Supreme Court restrained the Union Government and the States from acting upon the communications issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to withdraw the recognition of Madrassas which are not compliant with the Right to Education Act 2009 and to conduct an inspection of all Madrassas.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrahcud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the interim order hearing a writ petition filed by Islamic clerics' body Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind challenging the NCPCR's action.

Supreme Court Dismisses Arvind Kejriwal's Plea Against Gujarat University's Criminal Defamation Case For Comments On PM Modi's Degree

Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal v. Piyush M. Patel |D No. 11230/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's petition challenging the criminal defamation case filed by the Gujarat University Registrar against him over his remarks about the educational degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

He approached the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court's order dismissing his petition which challenged the summons issued in the defamation case.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti dismissed the petition pointing out that the Supreme Court had in April this year dismissed a petition filed by co-accused Sanjay Singh challenging the same proceedings.

'Finance Ministry Can't Treat DRT Officers As Subordinates': Supreme Court Reprimands Centre For Asking DRTs To Collect Data

Case Details: Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court sought the explanation of the Ministry of Finance for asking the Debts Recovery Tribunals to collect data on various aspects, including the amount recovered on the basis of their orders.

The Court orally said that the Ministry cannot treat the judicial staff of the DRT as its subordinates. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih came across this issue while hearing a matter related to lawyers' strike at DRT Vishakhapatnam. Earlier, the DRT Vishakhattanam had informed the Court that certain applications were adjourned since the staff were occupied with the data collection work mandated by the Ministry. Taking serious exception to this, on September 30, the Court had asked the Finance Ministry to file an affidavit.

After Blame Game Between Senior Advocate & AoR On False Statement, Supreme Court Mulls Guidelines On Conduct Of Advocates-on-Record

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

In a case where false statements were found to have been made to seek remission for a client, the Supreme Court decided to lay down guidelines on the conduct of Advocates on Record.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih appointed Dr. S Muralidhar, Senior Advocate, as the amicus curiae in the matter for assistance.

Rajasthan Civil Judge Exam: Supreme Court Seeks To Know Marks Of Law Papers Of Candidates Who Scored Low In English Essay

Case Details: Ms Sonal Gupta and Ors. v. Registrar General Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur and Anr. | Diary Number 47205/2024 and connected matters

In the matter concerning the Rajasthan Civil Judge Exam, the Supreme Court asked the Rajasthan High Court to furnish a tabulated chart indicating the scores of two Law papers obtained by those candidates who got low scores (0-15) in the English essay paper.

"We direct that a tabulated statement be placed before this Court indicating the marks which were secured in Law Papers 1 and 2 respectively by those of the candidates who scored between zero to fifteen marks in the Mains English Essay and who have not qualified for the interview stage," ordered the Court. The bench clarified that the statement need to cover only the marks of the candidates who attempted the law papers in English.

The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the pleas challenging the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre, 2024 for alleged arbitrary markings in the English Essay Papers.

'Intervening Now Would Lead To Chaos': Supreme Court Refuses To Postpone Telangana State Civil Services Exams

Case Details: Pogula Rambabu v. State of Telangana and Ors. Diary No. 48483-2024

The Supreme Court refused to postpone the conduct of the Telangana Civil Services Exams for the Group-1 category. The Court noted that intervening at the present stage would invite 'chaos'.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was informed that the exam is to take place at 2 PM and candidates have already arrived at the examination halls.

Supreme Court Stays Results Declaration Of Half-Yearly Board Exams Of Classes 8-10 In Karnataka

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

The Supreme Court directed the State of Karnataka to file a counter-affidavit clarifying whether they have rescinded the notification for conducting a half-yearly public examination for Class 10th in 24 districts out of the 31 districts. The Court stayed the results declaration across the State for half-yearly public exams for Classes 8, 9 and 10th, if any were conducted.

This development comes after the Court on October 15 was informed by the Karnataka Government, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, that the Government has withdrawn a notification for conducting half-yearly public exams for Classes 8, 9 and 10 in districts of Kalaburagi, Bidar, Raichur, Ballari, Yadgiri, Koppal of Karnataka, which was alleged to be in defiance of the Court's interim order.

Supreme Court Extends Interim Protection To YSRCP Leaders In Cases Over Alleged Attack Of TDP Office & Naidu's Residence Till December 17

Case Details: Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 12659-12662/2024

The Supreme Court extended interim protection to YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) Vijayawada East coordinator Devineni Avinash till December 17.

Special Leave Petitions were filed by Avinash and others after the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected his anticipatory bail for allegedly ransacking the NTR Bhavan, the central office of ruling Telugu Desam Party, at Mangalagiri during YSRCP regime in October 2021.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah extended interim protection till December after Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul (for Ramesh) informed the Court that he had received a counter filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh last night and he would require some time to file a reply.

State Must Answer Why There Is No Sincere Effort To Pay Dues Of Tea Garden Workers: Supreme Court Summons Assam Chief Secretary

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

The Supreme Court ordered the Chief Secretary of Assam to appear before the Court on November 14, 2024, to provide an explanation for the lack of sincere effort in settling the long-pending dues of the workmen employed in the state's tea gardens.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed concern over the unpaid dues of tea estate workers in Assam and criticized the Assam government and Assam Tea Corporation Limited (ATCL).

Grossest Violation Of Article 21: Supreme Court Pulls Up State of Haryana For Handcuffing & Chaining An Accused To Bed In ICU

Case Details: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.

The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Haryana over an accused in a cheating case being handcuffed and chained to the bed while he was admitted in the Intensive Care Unit (MICU) of PGIMS, Rohtak.

“What is your explanation for this? There is the grossest violation of Article 21. Affidavit records that he was handcuffed while he was admitted to the ICU. How do you justify this?”, the Court asked Haryana's Additional Advocate General (AAG), Deepak Thukral.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing an SLP filed by the accused Vihaan Kumar against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting the challenge to his arrest.

Supreme Court Permits Teesta Setalvad To Travel To Amsterdam For International Documentary Film Festival

Case Details: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, MA 2121/2024 in Crl.A. No. 2022/2023

The Supreme Court permitted human rights activist Teesta Setalvad to travel to Amsterdam for the upcoming world premier of her documentary "CycleMahesh."

NEET-UG | Supreme Court Extends Time For High-Level Expert Committee's Report On NEET Exam Reforms

Case Details: Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 335/2024 (and connected matters)

The Supreme Court extended by two weeks the deadline for the submission of a report by the High-Level Committee of Experts constituted by the Union to propose measures to enhance the security for the NEET exam.

The Court extended the time till November 4, 2024.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra that while the report is ready and was to be submitted, the committee has requested some more time to submit the same.

Allegations Of Fake Encounters In Assam Are Serious, Human Rights Commission Should Take Proactive Approach: Supreme Court

Case Details: Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 7929/2023

While hearing a plea raising the issue of 'fake' encounters in Assam, the Supreme Court expressed that there is a legislative mandate behind establishment of Human Rights Commissions and they are expected to act pro-actively in civil liberty matters.

In the context of Assam, it called on for data regarding enquiry, if any, initiated by the Assam Human Rights Commission into cases where allegations of 'fake' encounter were levelled.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a special leave petition filed against a Gauhati High Court order, whereby the petitioner's PIL raising the same issue was dismissed. Reportedly, the High Court was of the view that no separate probe into the alleged incidents was required, as state authorities were conducting investigation in each case.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Remission For 89 Yr Old Pakistani National Convicted In Terror Case

Case Details: Ghulam Nabi Guide v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 18738-2024

The Supreme Court dismissed an Article 32 petition filed by an 89-year-old Pakistan national seeking remission for his unconditional release to go back to his home country.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan heard this matter and dismissed the petition as withdrawn not before adding that had the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Government recommended remission, it may have led to a different conclusion.

Supreme Court Directs Independent Investigation In Haryana Village Where Social Boycott Call Against Dalits Was Allegedly Made In 2017

Case Details: Jai Bhagwan & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No . 293/2019

The Supreme Court directed two former DGPs of the State of Uttar Pradesh to conduct an independent investigation into the situation prevailing at a village in Haryana's Hisar district, in relation to which allegations of social boycott of Dalit persons were levelled in 2017.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar passed the order, requesting Shri Vikram Chand Goyal, former DGP, 1975 UP and Mr. Kamlendra Prasad, former DGP, 1981 UP to make the investigation and file a status report before the Court within 3 months about the prevailing situation as well as any steps required to be taken.

Section 67 CGST Act | Whether Cash Can Be Seized During GST Search ? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: Commissioner Of CGST Delhi West & Ors. v. Gunjan Bindal & Anr., Diary No(s). 44061/2024

Taking into account conflicting views of the Delhi High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Supreme Court is set to consider the issue as to whether authorities can seize "cash" under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The development comes as a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on a petition filed by tax authorities assailing Delhi High Court's direction for refund of seized cash to the respondents.

Supreme Court Defers Marital Rape Case Hearing Citing Improbability Of Decision Before CJI Chandrachud's Retirement

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

The Supreme Court deferred the hearing of the pleas seeking to criminalise marital rape considering the fact that the matter is unlikely to be decided before the retirement of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who is presiding the bench which started hearing the matter.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra had started hearing the matter on October 17.

Supreme Court Dismisses Swami Shraddhanand's Challenge To Imposition Of Life Sentence Without Remission For Murder Of Wife

Case Details: Swamy Shraddananda@Murali Monahar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, R.P.(Crl.) No. 512/ 2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed by Swami Shraddhanand alias Murali Manohar Mishra, seeking reconsideration of a judgment which imposed on him a life sentence (without remission) for the murder of his wife Shakereh Khaleeli (granddaughter of Dewan of Mysore, Sir Mirza Ismail).

The 84-yr-old self-styled godman has been in jail since about 30 years and claims that he is suffering from health issues. The trial Court and the High Court had sentenced him to death but the sentence was commuted by the Supreme Court in 2008 to one of imprisonment until death.

The order was passed by a bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan.

No Uprooting/Transplantation Of Trees For Kolkata Metro Rail Without CEC Permission: Supreme Court

Case Details: People United For Better Living In Calcutta (Public) v. State of West Bengal and Ors. SLP(C) No. 20499/2024

The Supreme Court ordered the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of India to examine the issue of felling and transplantation of trees for the Kolkata metro construction. Until then, no felling or transplantation of trees shall take place without the permission by CEC.

A three-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Prashant Kumar Misra is currently hearing a Special Leave to Appeal filed under Article 136 challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court which declined to halt the construction work for a metro station in Kolkata's Maidan area requiring the uprooting of around 700 trees in the area adjoining Victoria Memorial.

Environment Protection Act Rendered Toothless Due To Centre's Inaction: Supreme Court

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court observed that the section 15 of the Environment Protection Act has been rendered “toothless” due to the Centre's inaction after the 2023 Jan Vishwas Amendment which replaced punishment for violation of the Act with penalties.

“This provision has been rendered completely ineffective due to inaction on the part of Government of India…In the absence of machinery created by the government of India, Section 15 as amended has become toothless and there is nothing in the hands of law enforcement authorities to strictly enforce the provisions of EPA. Therefore, those who violate the laws are now scot-free as no action can be taken against them. Learned ASG assures the court that within two weeks, entire machinery will be in existence”, the Court observed in its order.

The Court also criticised the Commissioner of Air Quality Management (CAQM) for merely sending show cause notices to officers that have violated its orders regarding stubble burning instead of prosecuting them under section 14 of the CAQM Act.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning air pollution in Delhi NCR, specifically focusing on stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana.

The Supreme Court emphasized that stubble burning is not merely an issue of breach of law but it constitutes violation of citizens' fundamental right to live in a pollution-free environment, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Allows ED Officer Accused In Bribery Case To Travel Outside Tamil Nadu

Case Details: Ankit Tiwari v. Inspector of Police | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3342-3343 of 2024

The Supreme Court allowed Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer Ankit Tiwari, who was arrested by Tamil Nadu authorities in a bribery case but later granted interim bail, to travel to Madhya Pradesh in order to meet his relatives.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on an application moved by Tiwari seeking the court's permission to travel outside Tamil Nadu. The same was filed as, while granting Tiwari interim bail, the Court had imposed a condition that he shall not leave Tamil Nadu without its permission.

'Casting Aspersions On Judge': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For Inquiry Into Reasons For HC Judge's Recusal

Case Details: Chandraprabhav. Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking an inquiry into the recusal of Justice M Nagaprasanna of Karnataka High Court after reserving an order in a case, observing that the petition cast aspersions on the judge.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih however granted the petitioner to withdraw the petition and file a fresh petition restricting itself to the prayer seeking guidelines on the recusal of judges.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Journalist In UP Police FIRs Over Article On Caste Discrimination

Case Details: Mamta Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P.(Crl.) No. 441 / 2024

The Supreme Court granted interim protection to another journalist booked over her article(s) alleging caste discrimination in the administration of the Uttar Pradesh government.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan passed the order in favor of journalist-Mamta Tripathi, against whom 4 FIRs are stated to have been registered. The Court further called for the response of the UP government on Tripathi's plea for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against her.

NCP Dispute: Declare That Clock Symbol Is Sub-Judice In Posters For Maharashtra Elections, Supreme Court Tells Ajit Pawar

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

The Supreme Court told Ajit Pawar that the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) should use the 'clock' symbol for the upcoming Maharashtra Assembly Elections with a disclaimer that its use is a matter of contest in Court and is subject to the final outcome of the petition filed by Sharad Pawar.

Issuing notice on an application filed by Sharad Pawar alleging violation of the conditions by the Ajit Pawar group, the Court asked the latter to file a reply along with a reiteration of earlier undertaking to the effect that directions in the previous orders "shall be meticulously complied with, even during the process of state assembly elections."

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with the 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 prays that the Court direct Ajit Pawar to apply for a new symbol to contest the Vidhan Sabha elections.

'Let Affected Parties Come': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain NGO's Plea Alleging Violation Of Order Staying Demolitions

Case Details: National Federation Of Indian Women v. Rakesh Kumar Singh and Ors., Diary No. 49497-2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation initiated by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) alleging contempt by certain state authorities of the Court's interim order staying demolitions without permission.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan declined to entertain the plea, noting that it was filed by a party not directly or indirectly affected by the alleged acts. "We do not wish to open a Pandora's box", orally remarked Justice Gavai.

Mismatch Between Statements On Delhi LG & DDA VC On Tree Felling: Supreme Court Seeks New Affidavits

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 observed that there was a discrepancy between the statements of the Chairperson of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Vice Chairperson of the DDA regarding the date on which the former was informed about the illegal felling of the trees in the Delhi's ridge forest.

The Court noted that as per the affidavit filed by the DDA Chairperson, who happens to be the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi VK Saxena, the information about the illegal tree felling was conveyed to him on June 10 by the DDA Vice Chairperson.

However, as per another letter issued by the DDA VC, the information about the tree felling was conveyed to the LG on April 12. Taking note of this mismatch, the Court asked both the Delhi LG and the then DDA VC Subhasish Panda (who was appointed as Additional Secretary in PMO) to file affidavits on the "above discrepancy."

'No Deliberate Low Marking': Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Evaluations In Rajasthan Civil Judges Exam

Case Details: Ms Sonal Gupta and Ors. v. Registrar General Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur and Anr. | Diary Number 47205/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed the batch of petitions challenging the evaluations of English essay paper in the Rajasthan Civil Judge Exams 2024. The Court noted that seeing the nature of answers, there appeared no deliberate discrepancies in the markings.

On the last hearing, the Court had asked the Rajasthan High Court to furnish a tabulated chart indicating the scores of two Law papers obtained by those candidates who got low scores (0-15) in the English essay paper.

Supreme Court Allows Candidate With Blindness To Attend Interview For Civil Judge Selection

Case Details: Siddharth Sharma v. High Court Of Judicature At Rajasthan | Writ Petition (Civil) No.710/2024

The Supreme Court passed an interim order allowing a candidate with blindness to attend the interview for the selection of Civil Judges in Rajasthan.

After the Court pronounced the order, the counsel for the Rajasthan High Court raised an apprehension that it might be used as a precedent by other candidates to seek appointments. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked what was the problem in that.

"Let more and more such candidates come to the judiciary," CJI said. CJI also wished the petitioner, who was present in the Court, all the best for the interview.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, referring to its previous decisions, noted that quota for Persons with Disabilities will be treated as under horizontal reservation.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Amandeep Singh Dhall In Delhi Liquor Policy Case; All Accused In Case Get Bail

Case Details: Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Central Bureau Of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 12036/2024

The Supreme Court granted bail to Amandeep Singh Dhall, businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, in the corruption case arising out of the alleged Delhi liquor policy 'scam'. With this order, all the accused in the liquor policy case -in which AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and BRS leader K Kavitha, are also accused- have got bail.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while dealing with Dhall's challenge to Delhi High Court's judgment dated June 4, 2024, whereby a Single Judge dismissed his plea for regular bail in the CBI case.

Somnath Lands Where Demolitions Were Carried Out Won't Be Allotted To Third Parties Till Next Hearing: Gujarat Govt Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Auliya-E-Deen Committee v. State of Gujarat | SLP(C) No. 24515/2024

The State of Gujarat undertook before the Supreme Court that the lands in Gir Somnath, where demolition of structures was carried out by the authorities recently, would remain with the government and not be allotted to any third parties till the next date of hearing in the matter before the Court.

The State made this submission while the Court was hearing a petition challenging the Gujarat High Court's order (October 3) which refused to order a status quo on the demolition of Muslim religious structures and houses in Gujarat's Somnath.

'Frivolous Petition': Supreme Court Dismisses CBI's Plea To Restore LOC Against Actor Rhea Chakraborty & Family

Case Details: The Addl. Superintendent Of Police and Anr. v. Showik Indrajit Chakraborty, Diary No. 43258-2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the State of Maharashtra and the Bureau of Immigration, challenging Bombay High Court's quashing of Look-out-Circulars (LOCs) issued against actress Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, her father (an army veteran) and her mother (an army school teacher) in the aftermath of the Sushant Singh Rajput death case.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan orally observed that the petition was "frivolous" and was filed merely because one of the accused persons was "high-profile."

Supreme Court Dismisses Former Jharkhand CM Madhu Koda's Plea To Suspend Conviction To Contest Assembly Elections

Case Details: Madhu Koda v. State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation, Diary No. 49236-2024

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda seeking suspension of his conviction and sentence in the coal scam case to contest the upcoming Jharkhand Assembly elections.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar dismissed the Special Leave Petition which was filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which rejected his plea to suspend the conviction.

Delhi HC Expected To Consider Sharjeel Imam's Request For Early Decision On Bail Application In UAPA Case: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sharjeel Imam v. State (NCT Of Delhi), W.P.(Crl.) No. 422/2024

The Supreme Court urged the Delhi High Court to consider the request for expeditious disposal of the petition filed by student activist Sharjeel Imam seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, which has been pending since April 2022.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, considering a writ petition filed by Imam seeking to direct the High Court to decide his bail matter soon, observed that the "petitioner shall be at liberty to request the High Court to hear the bail application as expeditiously as possible on the next date and it is expected that the High Court shall consider the said request." The bench noted that the matter was listed before the High Court on November 25.

Supreme Court Allows Car Owner To File Representation Against Ban On 10-Year-Old Diesel & 15-Yr-Old Petrol Vehicles In Delhi-NCR

Case Details: Nagalakshmi Laxmi Narayanan v. Union of India in MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court allowed an applicant to file a representation before the Delhi Government authority raising grievances against the ban on diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years in Delhi NCR.

The applicant, who challenged the ban, sought an alternative direction that it should not be given retrospective effect before April 7, 2015, the date on which the National Green Tribunal passed the order which forms the basis for the guidelines.

"Learned senior counsel appearing for applicant seeks to withdraw the applications with liberty to file appropriate representation to the concerned the authorities concerning the guidelines dated 20th February 2024 so far as prospective or retrospective operation is concerned. We therefore dispose of the application by granting liberty to the applicant to make representation which will be decided by appropriate authority in accordance with law", the Court stated.

The Court said that if the authority passes an adverse order, the applicant will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with the law.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing an Interlocutory Application filed in the MC Mehta case challenging the “Guidelines for Handling End of Life Vehicles in Public Places of Delhi, 2024” issued by the Delhi Government in February 2024 providing that diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years are not allowed to ply in Delhi NCR.

Supreme Court Allows Candidate With Muscular Dystrophy To Participate In NEET-UG 2024 Counselling

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

The Supreme Court permitted a candidate suffering from muscular dystrophy to participate in the ongoing counselling for NEET-UG 2024, considering that the expert report opined that the candidate could pursue the MBBS Course with the help of assistive devices.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a plea 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 Allows Candidate With Locomotor Disability To Appear For Rajasthan Civil Judge Interview

Case Details: Tishan Jangid v. High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan & Anr.

The Supreme Court allowed a candidate with locomotor disability to appear for the interviews for Rajasthan Civil Judge.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the plea of a petitioner who suffers from locomotor disability to the extent of 60% cleared the preliminary and main examinations with 111.5 marks.

Why Video Conferencing Facilities Not Used To Produce Accused? Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Home Secretary To File Affidavit

Case Details: Aftab Anwar Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra SLP (CrlP No. 8212/2024)

The Supreme Court asked the State of Maharashtra to explain why Video Conferencing facilities are not being used to produce the accused in Court for trial proceedings.

The Court has sought an affidavit from the Secretary of the Home Department of the Maharashtra Government. A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and R Mahadevan passed this order while noting that the trial in a case was adjourned on 30 occasions as the accused was not produced.

Supreme Court Stays HC's Imposition Of Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Adv Mehmood Pracha, Seeks ECI's Response On Why Remarks Against Him Be Not Expunged

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

The Supreme Court stayed an Allahabad High Court order to the extent that it imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on Advocate Mehmood Pracha for "wasting Court's time" by filing a petition concerning videography during the electoral process.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, issuing notice to the Election Commission for the limited purpose as to why the observations made by the High Court against Pracha be not expunged and why the order imposing cost be not set aside.

Other Developments

Secularism Always Part Of Constitution, Says Supreme Court While Hearing Plea Against Amendment To Preamble

Case Details: Balram Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2020, Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1467/2020

Secularism has always been held to be a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, orally said the Supreme Court, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble to the Constitution as per the 42nd Amendment.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar was hearing the matter.

Stockpile Of Evidence Against Malayalam Actor Siddique In Rape Case: Kerala Police To Supreme Court

A status report was filed by the Kerala Police opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.

It is claimed in the report that the petitioner is an extremely influential person in the Malayalam film industry, and the ongoing investigation reveals the "ill-intent" of the petitioner's attempt to destroy evidence and threaten witnesses.

'Deprives Right To Choose NOTA': RP Act Provision Allowing Election Of Uncontested Candidate Challenged In Supreme Court

Case Details: Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 677/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act ("RP Act"), which provides for direct election of candidates in uncontested elections ie without conduct of a poll.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who appeared and argued on behalf of petitioner-Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy

'Will Take ED Officers To Task': Supreme Court Frowns Upon ED's Overnight Questioning; Terms It 'Unpardonable'

Case Details: Anil Tuteja v. Union of India

The Supreme Court questioned the manner in which retired IAS Officer Anil Tuteja was interrogated by the Enforcement Directorate in the alleged liquor scam case in Chhattisgarh.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing petition filed by Tuteja challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal to quash corruption and money laundering charges against him in connection with the alleged liquor scam in the state.

UP Madarsa Education Act | Law Regulating Institution Of A Community Not Per Se Against Secularism :Supreme Court

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

The Supreme Court, while hearing the challenge to the striking down of the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004'. orally observed that laws regulating the educational institutions of a religious community cannot by that fact alone be considered a violation of secularism.

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

Coaching Centres Should Be A Safe Place, Can Have Tie-Ups With Nearby Hospitals: Supreme Court Mulls Need For Detailed Guidelines

Case Details: Coaching Federation Of India v. Government Of NCT Of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 30149-2024

While hearing the suo motu case arising out of the tragic flooding incident at Delhi's Old Rajinder Nagar, in which 3 students lost their lives, the Supreme Court called for an examination of the need for comprehensive guidelines/policy to ensure safe working of coaching centres.

"Learned Union/state counsels may also give their inputs to the learned Amicus, who shall meanwhile examine the desirability of comprehensive regulations/policy dealing with all necessary aspects for running of a safe coaching centre, initially [with respect to] NCR", said the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Supreme Court Issues Notice In PIL Seeking Virtual Hearings In Family Courts

Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 667/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice in PIL seeking hybrid hearings in Family Courts to ease the litigation process for the parties and their family members.

The petition was heard by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Mishra. The petition is filed by Advocate Kishan Chan Jain.

'Striking Down Madarsa Act Like Throwing Baby With Baby Water; Let's Preserve India As Melting Pot Of Religions': Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

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

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a batch of petitions filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court's March 22 judgment striking down the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as unconstitutional.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's March 22 judgment which struck down the UP Board of Madarsa Education, 2004 on the ground that it violated the principles of secularism. The Supreme Court had in April stayed the operation of the High Court's judgment.

SCBA And SCAORA Object To Proposed Workstations For New Lawyers In SC Building Expansion Plan

In a letter addressed to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have objected to the allocation of 1600 workstations for new lawyers in the upcoming Supreme Court expansion building.

The letter, signed by SCBA President Kapil Sibal and SCAORA President Vipin Nair urges reconsideration of the proposed space utilization to meet requirement of chambers for lawyers who have been waiting for years for chamber allotment.

Was Not Informed Of Need To Take Court's Permission Before Trees In Ridge Forest Were Cut : Delhi LG Tells Supreme Court

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

The Chairperson of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Lieutenant Governor of Delhi VK Saxena informed the Supreme Court that he was not made aware of the requirement to get permission from the Apex Court before the trees in the Ridge Trees were felled.

The affidavit of the LG comes after the bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed an order seeking LG's response 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.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Another Plea Challenging Punjab Panchayat Polls Over Alleged Prevention Of Candidates From Filing Nomination

Case Details: Sumandeep Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., SLP(C) No. 25243/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on another plea challenging the Panchayat elections held in Punjab over alleged prevention of candidates from filing nomination papers.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan passed the order. The matter has been listed next on 18.11.2024.

SCBA Executive Committee Objects To Changing Supreme Court Emblem, Lady Justice Statue Without Consulting Bar

The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association passed a resolution objecting to the 'unilateral' changes made to the emblem of the Supreme Court and the statute of lady justice without consulting the members of the Bar.

"We are equal stakeholders in the administration of justice but these changes when proposed, were never brought to our attention. We are totally clueless on the rationale behind these changes," the resolution read.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against HC Order To Register FIRs On Statements Of Malayalam Cinema Actors To Justice Hema Committee

Case Details: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala SLP(c) 25250-25251/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition challenging the Kerala High Court's direction to the police to register FIRs on statements made by women actors to Justice Hema Committee regarding the abuses faced by them in the Malayalam cinema industry.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale issued notice on a special leave petition filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil against the direction issued by the Kerala High Court on October 14.

'We Are Discontinuing This Practice': Supreme Court Says Won't Record Appearances Of Advocates Who Didn't Argue/Appear

The Supreme Court refused to mark the presence of an advocate in the order saying that she did not argue/appear though the Senior Advocate who argued the matter was engaged by her.

The counsel, a young woman, tried to reason why she wanted her appearance to be marked before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma. She said: "I engaged a senior advocate. It's a common practice [asking to be marked for appearance]. Client would think, I did not appear."

However, Justice Bela refused and added: "We will discontinue this practice [marking names of counsels who did not argue]."

Zakir Naik Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Seeking Clubbing Of Hate Speech FIRs

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

The Supreme Court allowed Islamic preacher Zakir Naik to withdraw his write petition seeking to club multiple FIRs registered against him in Maharashtra and Karnataka for hate speech under Section 153A of the IPC (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.).

A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the 2013 petition after Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi for Naik sought permission to withdraw with liberty to approach the concerned High Courts.

Centre Notifies Appointment Of Justice Sanjiv Khanna As Next Chief Justice Of India

The Union Government notified the appointment of Justice Sanjiv Khanna as the next Chief Justice of India.

"In exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution of India, Hon'ble President, after consultation with Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Judge of the Supreme Court of India as Chief Justice of India with effect from 11th November, 2024," said Arjun Ram Meghwal, Union Minister for Law & Justice.

Plea Filed In Supreme Court Against ECI Decision To Increase Number Of Electors Per Polling Station From 1200 To 1500

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

A public interest litigation has been initiated before the Supreme Court, challenging Election Commission of India's communication(s) whereby the maximum number of electors per polling station have been increased from 1200 to 1500.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan which, without issuing notice, directed that an advance copy of the petition be served upon the nominated/standing counsel for ECI, so they may obtain instructions on the factual position and appear in Court on the next date.

The matter has been listed in the week commencing 02.12.2024.

Only Parliament Can Decide If Indian Succession Act 1925 Can Be Extended To Muslims Who Are Non-Believers: Union Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Sufiya PM v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 135/2024

The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that it was only within the Parliament's domain to decide if Indian Succession Act, 1925 would extend to Muslims who are non-believers.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud ,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a plea by the petitioner Safiya PM who sought the inclusion of those Muslims who had renounced their faith into the Act of 1925 instead of the Muslim personal law in matters relating to succession and inheritance.

Final Year Law Students Now Allowed To Register For AIBE XIX: BCI Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Case Details: Nilay Rai & Ors v. Bar Council of India| W.P.(C) No. 577 of 2024

The Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that as per its recent notification dated September 25, it has allowed final year law students to appear for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE XIX). The Court also noted that fresh guidelines for next year's AIBE will soon be placed before the concerned stakeholders.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwal and Manoj Misra, was hearing the plea challenging the earlier BCI (Bar Council of India) notification which barred final semester law students from registering for the exam.

Senthil Balaji Corruption Case Assigned To District Judge With Reduced Caseload: Madras High Court Informs Supreme Court

Case Details: Y. Balaji v. Assistant Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch (Job Racketing) and Anr.

The Madras High Court informed the Supreme Court that the corruption and cheating cases arising out of the cash-for-jobs scam in which Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji is the prime accused have now been assigned to a district judge with a reduced caseload, who will only handle these specific cases.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih On September 30 had directed the Madras High Court to appoint another sessions judge to manage the trial due to the heavy workload of the judge overseeing cases involving MPs and MLAs. The Court had emphasized that the trial should be assigned to a judge who would not be overburdened, noting the large scale of this case, which involves over 2,000 accused persons and 600 prosecution witnesses.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Contempt Petition Filed Against Rajasthan Authorities Over Lack Of Steps To Tackle Air & Noise Pollution

Case Details: Bhagyashree Pancholy v. Ms. Aparna Arora & Ors., CONMT. PET. (C) No. 480/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a contempt petition filed against Rajasthan authorities over an alleged lack of steps to tackle air and noise pollution in the state, particularly in Udaipur, despite the Court's directives of November, 2023.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, dispensing with the appearance of the alleged contemnors - including Additional Chief Secretary, Dept. of Environment, State of Rajasthan. The matter is tentatively listed on December 10.