Home
/

Round Ups
/

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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: September 30, 2024 To October 6, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

7 Oct 2024 5:35 PM IST

Judgments

S. 173(8) CrPC | No Further Investigation Be Ordered If Application Was Filed Without Any Fresh Material: Supreme Court

Case Details: K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757

The Supreme Court observed that the courts should refrain from ordering further investigation when the party requesting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has not whispered about anything new in its evidence and has based its application for further investigation without averring fresh materials.

“Where fresh materials come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused or where it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may be the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the genuineness of the same and submit a report to the court. However, the further investigation cannot be permitted to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the police had already filed a charge-sheet and the very applicant for further investigation, in this case respondent no. 1, has not whispered about anything new in her evidence as is now sought to be averred in the application. There must be some reasonable basis which should trigger the application for further investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that ends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further investigation.”, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said.

Supreme Court Upholds Punishment of Censure On UP Police Sub-Inspector For Not Completing Investigations On Time

Case Details: Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., C.A. No. 010894 / 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 758

The Supreme Court upheld a penalty of censure imposed on a Sub-Inspector of Police in Uttar Pradesh for not performing his duties and not completing the assigned investigations within the specified time frame. The Court rejected the Appellant's argument that no opportunity was offered to him before handing down of penalty by the SP. It recorded that an order issued by the Additional DGP based on which SP decided to penalize the Appellant was based on an explanation offered by the Appellant.

HC Must Say Why State Police Investigation Is Unfair Before Ordering CBI Probe: Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC Order

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal and Ors., SLP(C) No. 9628/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 759

The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order directing preliminary investigation by the CBI, holding that such directions can be passed only in very rare cases, and that too, after the High Court records reasons for deeming State investigation to be unfair or impartial.

"The High Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can entrust investigation to the CBI. However, for doing so, it has to come to a reasoning as to why it finds that investigation by State police is not fair or is partisan. Merely, on the basis of some letters, such exercise is not warranted. It has also been held that such an exercise of entrusting the investigation by the High Court has to be done in very rare cases. A perusal of the order passed by the learned single judge would reveal that there is not even a whisper as to why it finds the investigation by the state to be unfair or impartial so as to find it necessary to direct an enquiry to be conducted by CBI. For the very same reasons, the order passed by the learned Division Bench is also not sustainable in law", said the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

'We Can't Let Such A Talented Boy Go Away:' Supreme Court Directs IIT To Admit Dalit Student Who Lost Admission Due To Delay In Paying Fee

Case Details: Atul Kumar v. Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) and Ors| Writ Petition (Civil) No. 609/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 760

The Supreme Court granted relief to a Dalit student who lost his admission to the Indian Institute of Technology(IIT) because he was late in paying the online admission fee of Rs 17,500/- by a few minutes.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra directed that the petitioner should be admitted to the seat at the Electrical Engineering course at IIT Dhanbad which was allotted to him.

The Court stated that a supernumerary seat be created for him to accommodate him so that the admission of no other student is disturbed.

Supreme Court Sets Aside HC's Condition That YouTuber Must Shut Down YouTube Channel For Bail

Case Details: Felix Jerald v. State | SLP(Crl) No. 11762/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 761

The Supreme Court set aside the condition imposed by the Madras High Court that YouTuber Felix Jerald should shut down his YouTube channel “RedPix 24x7” for getting bail in the criminal case over alleged scandalous remarks in the interview of 'Savukku' Shankar uploaded on the channel.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that such a bail condition was extraneous to the issue and was unnecessary. The bench confirmed its September 6 order which stayed the High Court's condition.

Changes To Government Order Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively To Alter Established Seniority Rankings: Supreme Court

Case Details: V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India and Others, Civil Appeal No. 8617 of 2013

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 762

The Supreme Court observed that the seniority of the entire cadre working in an establishment could not be disturbed via a subsequent modification in the Government Order (G.O.) fixing the seniority of an employee in an establishment.

The bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan said that giving a retrospective effect to the modification made in the G.O. (based on which the seniority was determined in an establishment) would have a catastrophic effect on the seniority of the entire cadre.

“if a Government Order is treated to be in the nature of a clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be made applicable retrospectively. Conversely, if a subsequent Government Order is held to be a modification/amendment of the earlier Government Order, its application would be prospective as retrospective application thereof would result in withdrawal of vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may also entail recoveries to be made.”, the court observed.

'Strange': Supreme Court Slams NCPCR For Filing Petition Seeking 'Vague & Omnibus' Directions Against Missionary Organisations

Case Details: National Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 763

The Supreme Court criticised the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for filing a writ petition seeking "vague and omnibus" directions against alleged illegal child trade by missionary organisations.

The Court termed the NCPCR's petition "strange" and said that a statutory organisation could not have filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for such reliefs. Article 32 is intended to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and a statutory body cannot invoke it to seek relief against private citizens, the Court added.

The petition was filed in 2020 alleging illegal sale of children in the charity homes run by the Missionaries of Charity. The NCPCR sought a court-monitored timebound investigation of all "such organizations" in the State of Jharkhand. It also sought the formation of a Special Investigation Team in every State to investigate "similar organisations." Apart from Jharkhand, the NCPCR added the States of Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh as respondents.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathana and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the petition after finding the reliefs "vague and omnibus."

Supreme Court Criticizes Finance Ministry For Treating Debts Recovery Tribunal As “Subordinate Department”, Seeks Explanation

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 764

The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the Ministry of Finance treating the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Visakhapatnam as its subordinate department after a report revealed that DRT staff had been diverted to carry out tasks assigned by the Finance Ministry.

The report, which was submitted by the Presiding Officer of the DRT, detailed that staff members had to devote substantial time and efforts to collate data requested by the Ministry, which significantly hindered the tribunal's ability to conduct its proceedings.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih issued notice to the Section Officer (DRT) of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services seeking explanation as to why the DRT was being treated like a department of the central government. The officer was directed to appear before the Court on October 21, 2024, to provide a full explanation.

Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Implement Centre's Guidelines On School Safety and Security

Case Details: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 765

The Supreme Court directed all State Governments and Union Territories to implement the “Guidelines on School Safety and Security, 2021” issued by the Union Government to fix responsibility of school management to protect children from natural disasters, health hazards, abuse, violence, and accidents.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh stated –

“Consequently, the State Governments as well as the Union Territories are expected to adopt the guidelines and to implement the same with suitable modifications as and when necessary… Respondent No.2 (NCPCR) to also coordinate with the respective State Governments and Union Territories for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Guidelines referred to above.”

The Court passed this order in a public interest litigation filed by 'Bachpan Bachao Andolan' seeking several reliefs to ensure the safety and security of children in schools, both government and private.

Supreme Court Orders Centre to Pay Interest on 1971 Indo-Pak War Veteran's Disability Pension Arrears

Case Details: Colonel Mahinder Kumar Engrs (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 767

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to pay interest on the arrears of disability pension to a retired army officer who lost his right leg below the knee during the 1971 Indo-Pak war.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Pankaj Mihal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah partly allowed an appeal by the veteran seeking interest on arrears of his disability pension after it was enhanced by the Armed Forced Tribunal.

“Learned ASG appearing for the respondent submits that though the appellant was not entitled to get the relief prior to 01.01.2016, it is only because the appellant has sustained injuries in the Indo-Pak war that the respondent did not challenge the impugned judgement. The fact remains that the entitlement of the appellant as granted by the Tribunal was not challenged by the respondent. It is true that the Original Application was belatedly filed on 16th March 2022. In our view, appellant ought to have been granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the differential amount as directed to be paid in terms of paragraph 8 of the judgement for a period of 3 years starting from 17th March 2019 till the date of payment of arrears in terms of paragraph 8 of the impugned judgement. We grant time of 3 months to the respondent to pay the interest amount. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms”, the Court observed.

Free Copy Of NCLT Order & Copy Of Order Obtained On Paying Cost Are 'Certified Copies' For Filing NCLAT Appeal: Supreme Court

Case Details: State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 768

The Supreme Court set aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which refused to condone delay in filling an appeal because of the filling of a 'free copy' of the impugned order.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra held that there was no difference between a free certified copy of the order and a certified copy which is obtained after paying cost under Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016.

"Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as "certified copies" for the purpose of Rule 50".

Supreme Court “Showing Magnanimity” Closes Contempt Proceedings Against UP Official For False Affidavit, Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Cost On State

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 770

The Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against the former Principal Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Prisons Administration Department for making false statement in his affidavit filed to explain delay in deciding remission plea of a convict.

“We can go deep into the matter and fix the responsibility, but we are facing huge pendency of cases and therefore we do not feel it appropriate to waste time on such matters especially when notwithstanding grant of opportunity to the officers to come clean, they have not chosen to come clean. If magnanimity has to be shown, it is to be shown by persons occupying the highest judicial office and therefore to save time of the court we have decided to show magnanimity and close the proceedings including notice of contempt…However we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay cost of Rs. 5 lakhs to the UP State Legal Services Authority within one month. As the petitioner has been granted order of premature release, nothing further is required to be disposed of.”

End Caste-Based Allotment of Work To Prisoners, Delete Caste Column In Prison Registers: Supreme Court

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771

The Supreme Court laid down crucial guidelines for the prevention of segregation and division of labour solely on the basis of the caste of the prisoners in Prisons.

The Court struck down the provisions of the Prison Manuals of several States as per which jobs were assigned to prisons based on their castes. The Court held that assigning cleaning and sweeping to the marginalised castes and assigning cooking to higher-caste prisoners is nothing but a direct caste discrimination and a violation of Article 15.

TOLA Extends Income Tax Reasssment Timelimit; Notices Can Be Issued After 2021 Under Old Regime: Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal C.A. No. 8629/2024 and 726 connected cases

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 772

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Courts which held that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions Act) (TOLA) 2021 will not extend the time limit for issuing notices for re-assessment under the Income Tax Act.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment allowing a batch of 727 appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against the various orders passed by the High Courts.

'No Special Circumstance To Justify Law Affecting Single Entity': Supreme Court Strikes Down Khalsa University (Repeal) Act 2017

Case Details: Khalsa University and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 773

Observing that it would be impermissible for the legislature to single out one entity from other entities without a reasonable classification, the Supreme Court struck down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 (“Repeal Act”) as unconstitutional which sought to single out the Khalsa University amongst 16 private Universities in the State.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan declared the Repeal Act as unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the constitution because no reasonable classification was pointed out to discriminate the Khalsa University against the other private Universities.

GST Input Tax Credit On Construction Costs Can Be Claimed If Building Construction Was Necessary For Renting Out Service: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Ors v. M/S Safari Retreats Private Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 774

The Supreme Court held that if construction of a building is essential for supplying services such as renting out, it could fall into the "plant" exception to section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act which provides that Input Tax Credit cannot be claimed for construction material (other than plant or machinery) for immovable property construction.

“If the construction of a building was essential for carrying out activity of supplying services such as renting or giving on lease or other transactions in respect of the buildings or part thereof which are covered by clauses 2 and 5 of the Schedule 2 of the CGST Act, the building could be held as a plant. Functionality test will have to be applied to decide whether building is a plant”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol held that the functionality test will have to be applied to the facts of each case to decide whether a building is a plant.

Criminal Cases Having Overwhelmingly Civil Character Should Be Quashed When Parties Settled Dispute: Supreme Court

Case Details: K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 775

The Supreme Court observed that criminal cases arising out of civil transactions should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

“It could thus be seen that this Court reiterates the position that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.”, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said.

Delay In Forwarding FIR To Magistrate Wouldn't Be Fatal To Prosecution's Case If No Prejudice Caused To Accused: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rama Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors., Crl.A. No. 2623-2631/2014 (and connected case)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 776

The Supreme Court observed that a mere delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate would not be fatal to the prosecution's case unless it is shown by the accused that the delay had caused prejudice to his case.

“This Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan (2016), has examined the case law on the subject and held that when there is a delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate and the accused raises a specific contention regarding the same, they must demonstrate how this delay has prejudiced their case. Mere delay by itself is not sufficient to discard and disbelieve the case of the prosecution.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, and R. Mahadevan held so while reversing the Patna High Court's decision which had acquitted the accused persons in connection with former Bihar Minister Brij Bihari Prasad's Murder case.

'You Can't Call Any Part Of India As "Pakistan"': Supreme Court Disapproves Of Karnataka HC Judge's Comments, Accepts Apology

Case Details: In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings [SMW (C) No(s). 9/2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 777

The Supreme Court cautioned that judges should avoid casual comments which are misogynistic and prejudicial to any community.

A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the suo motu matter relating to the viral clippings of the controversial comments made by Justice V Srishanandan of Karnataka High Court during hearings.

"Casual observations may well reflect a certain degree of individual bias particularly when they are likely to be perceived as being directed against a particular gender or community. Courts therefore have to be careful not to make comments in the course of judicial proceedings which may be construed as being misogynistic or prejudicial to any segment of our society," the bench observed in the order.

Tirupati Laddu Row: Supreme Court Forms SIT To Probe Ghee Adulteration Allegation

Case Details: Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, W.P.(C) No. 622/2024 (and connected cases)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 778

The Supreme Court constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the allegations about the use of adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus offered as prasadam at Tirumala Tirupati Temple.

Saying that an independent body will inspire confidence, the Court substituted the SIT which was formed by the Andhra Pradesh Government.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of petitions seeking court-monitored investigation into the controversy relating to Tirupati laddus.

Govt Should Act Fairly In Tender Matters, Deviations From Essential Contract Term To Apply To All Bidders: Supreme Court

Case Details: Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 779

While dealing with a Mega project tender matter, the Supreme Court observed that though a Court cannot sit in appeal over government authorities' decision to enter into contracts, they shall act fairly, reasonably and in a transparent manner. If they exercise authority to deviate from an essential term of a contract, the same shall apply across all bidders and not a selective few.

"Government bodies being public authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner", said a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.

Supreme Court Criticises HC Order Which Allowed Provisional College Admission Despite SC Staying Similar Order of Previous Year

Case Details: National Commission For Indian System of Medicine v. Veena Vadini Ayurved College and Hospital, C.A. No. 010938 / 2024 (and connected case)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 780

Dealing with the issue of colleges being permitted to participate in admission process on the strength of interim judicial orders, the Supreme Court called out the Madhya Pradesh High Court for passing an order akin to the one stayed by the top Court last year, saying that the practice was not in conformity with "judicial propriety".

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan observed that inspite of several orders passed by the Supreme Court deprecating the practice of High Courts permitting colleges to participate in admission process by interim orders, the MP High Court again passed an interim order permitting respondent No.1-college to participate in the admission process.

Final Select List Can't Be Scrapped For Fresh Appointment Process As Per New Rules: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others, SLP (C) No. 7257 of 2023.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 781

The Supreme Court held that the action of the Bihar Government to scrap the entire selection for the post of Junior Engineer issued through a 2019 notification by the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) is not permissible after the whole selection process has already taken place.

S. 389 CrPC | Suspension of Sentence Can't Be Denied Merely Because Another Trial Is Pending Against Accused : Supreme Court

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 782

The Supreme Court observed that a pendency of trial against the accused in one case cannot be a ground to deny him the benefit of a suspension of sentence.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra granted a relief to the accused who were convicted in a murder case but denied the benefit of the suspension of sentence by the High Court.

Orders

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Assam Govt On Plea Against Sonapur Demolition Drive, Orders Status Quo

Case Details: Faruk Ahmed and Ors. v. State of Assam, Diary No. 44449-2024

The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Assam on a contempt petition filed by 47 residents of Assam, alleging willful violation of the Court's interim order dated September 17, 2024, whereby it was directed that no demolition should take place across the country without the Court's prior permission.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, while issuing notice returnable within three weeks, also ordered that the status quo shall be maintained by the parties in the meantime.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Malayalam Actor Siddique In Rape Case

Case Details: Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP(Crl) No.13463/2024

The Supreme Court granted interim anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the State while granting interim relief. The court stated that the interim relief is for two weeks and is subjected to conditions set by the trial court and his cooperation with the investigation.

Tirupati Laddu Row: 'Lab Report Doesn't Show Impure Ghee Was Used' Supreme Court Slams AP CM For Public Comments Before Probe

Case Details: Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 622/2024 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court criticized the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh N Chandrababu Naidu for making public allegations about the use of adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus offered as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple.

The Court questioned the propriety of the Chief Minister -a high Constitutional functionary - making such statements when the matter was under investigation. The bench also orally observed that the lab report prima facie indicated that it was the rejected ghee samples which were subjected to the test.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of petitions seeking court-monitored investigation into the controversy relating to Tirupati laddus.

It asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the Central Government on whether a Central Investigation is required and posted the matter to Thursday.

After an hour-long hearing, the bench observed in its order as follows:

"The petition pertains to sentiments affecting crores of people living in the entire world. The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh had gone in public making a statement that the animal fat was being used to make Tirupati laddus under the previous regime. However, some press reports also show that the Chief Executive Officer of the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam had also made a statement that such an adulterated ghee was never used. The petitions have been filed seeking various prayers including an independent enquiry and directions for regulating the affairs of the religious trusts and specifically the manufacture of prasadam.

"There are some disclaimers in the lab report. It is not clear, and it is prima facie indicating that it was rejected ghee, which was subjected to test. If you yourself have ordered investigation, what was the need to go to press?" Justice Viswanathan asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who was representing the State of Andhra Pradesh.

'Threshold For Criminal Defamation Higher For Political Discourse': Supreme Court Stays Case Against Arvind Kejriwal, Atishi

Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal and Anr. v. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi) and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13279/2024

In an interim relief to Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal and Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena, the Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar assailing their remarks over alleged deletion of Delhi voters' names from electoral rolls in 2018.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti granted the interim relief, while issuing notice on the plea filed by Kejriwal-Atishi seeking quashing of the defamation case.

Supreme Court Criticises Delhi Govt For 'Lacklustre Approach' In Enhancing Green Cover, Seeks Forest Secretary's Affidavit

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

The Supreme Court criticized the lacklustre approach of the Delhi government towards making efforts to enhance the green cover in Delhi NCR and directed the Secretary of thru Forest Department to appear before the Court on October 18, 2024.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih further pulled up the Delhi Forest Department for submitting a status report on green cover in the contempt case against DDA over illegal tree felling which was transferred to CJI's bench from the bench led by Justice Oka.

Entrust Trial of Corruption Case Against Senthil Balaji To Judge With Lesser Workload: Supreme Court Tells Madras HC

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

The Supreme Court asked the Madras High Court to hand over the trial of the corruption case against Minister Senthil Balaji in the cash-for-jobs scam to a judge with a lesser work load.

Noting that the present Sessions Judge handing the cases against MPs/MLAs has a heavy caseload, the Supreme Court suggested that one more Sessions Judge be appointed to handle such cases and the trial of Senthil Balaji be handed over to the judge with a lesser load.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih highlighted that the case involves over 2,000 accused persons and around 600 prosecution witnesses. The Court emphasized the need for early disposal of the case due to the nature of the allegations in the charge sheet.

MDS Seats In Govt Colleges 'Prestigious': Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To Fee Hike From 12K To 48K In Goa Dental College

Case Details: Praveen Kumar and Ors. v. State of Goa and Ors. SLP(C) No. 22831/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the fees hike by the Goa Dental College for MDS Course. The Court orally said that the increase from 12,000 Rs to 48,000 Rs was not excessive considering how prestigious government college seats are amidst the academic competition.

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

“No Judge Expected To Work Without Salary”: Supreme Court Directs Bihar Govt To Release Pay Arrears of Sitting HC Judge

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

The Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar to immediately release the salary of sitting Patna High Court Judge, Justice RP Mishra, who had pending arears since the date of his elevation to High Court.

The Court passed the interim order considering the urgency as "no judge should be expected to work without a salary.."

The bench comprising the Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the batch of matters relating to the pending release of salaries of Patna High Court Judges as well as the issue on the fixation of pensions for judicial officers.

Supreme Court Raises Concern Over False Statements In Remission Pleas, Requests SCAORA President To Assist

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

The Supreme Court highlighted another instance of false statements being made in remission petitions and requested the President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) Vipin Nair to assist the court on this issue.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that several cases have surfaced in which false statements were made in writ petitions and SLPs seeking premature release. Given the recurring nature of such issues, the Court requested the President of SCAORA to appear and assist the Court at the next hearing.

BJP Councilor Withdraws From Supreme Court Contempt Plea Against MCD Mayor's Decision To Postpone Standing Committee Elections

Case Details: Raja Iqbal Singh v. Shelly Oberoi and Anr., Diary No. 44879/2024

BJP councilor Raja Iqbal Singh withdrew from the Supreme Court a contempt petition filed by him against Delhi Municipal Corporation Mayor Shelly Oberoi, raising allegations about delay in the conduct of elections to fill vacancy in the MCD Standing Committee.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the contempt petition as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Supreme Court Asks Special Court To Decide Bail Plea of TMC's Kuntal Ghosh In 10 Days

Case Details: Kuntal Ghosh v. Enforcement Directorate (Kolkata Zone), WP (Crl.) No. 397/2024

The Supreme Court directed a West Bengal Special Court to hear and decide in 10 days Trinamool Congress youth leader Kuntal Ghosh's bail plea in a money laundering case arising out of the alleged cash-for-jobs scam in West Bengal.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a writ petition filed by Ghosh, assailing fresh hearing of his bail plea by a new judge, after significant hearing had already taken place before the preceding judge.

Supreme Court Closes Contempt Case Filed By Ex-Air Force Officer Who Contracted HIV Due To Blood Transfusion At Military Hospital

Case Details: XYZ v. Col Sanjay Nijhawan and Ors., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1267/2023 in C.A. No. 7175/2021

The Supreme Court closed the contempt case filed by an ex-Air Force officer, aggrieved by the Armed Forces' failure to pay Court-ordered compensation for medical negligence at a military hospital that resulted in his contracting HIV.

The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan which, in the interest of the parties, modified its earlier order and directed that the respondents pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner (instead of payments on per-hospital-visit basis) for his treatment at an Anti-Retroviral (ART) Centre of his choice.

Supreme Court Seeks Personal Presence of Telangana DGP In View of 'Disconnect Between Prosecution & Govt Counsel'

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

The Supreme Court expressed surprise over the lack of communication between the prosecution and the Telangana's Government Counsel over the date of filling the chargesheets in a criminal cases.

Taking serious note of 'disconnect between the prosecution and the Government', the Court has directed the presence of the Director General of Police (DGP) of Telangana for the next hearing, either in person or through virtual means.

"The DGP, State of Telangana should be available to participate in the proceeding either physically or through virtual mode, on the next date."

The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was hearing a plea filed by Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Vatti Janaiah Yadav who had moved the Apex Court last year against the alleged criminal persecution by the then Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) led Government in Telangana after Yadav made a political switch from BRS to BSP .

Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Judgment Which Was Signed & Uploaded After Judge's Retirement

Case Details: State through the Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai v. S. Murali Mohan

The Supreme Court restored a quashing petition related to a corruption case to the file of the Madras High Court, noting that the judgment in the case was signed and uploaded after the judge, Justice T. Mathivanan, had retired.

Justice Abhay Oka, after dictating the order, emphasized, “There should not be a single incident like this” referring to the issuance of the detailed judgment after the judge's retirement.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted the report of the Registrar General and the Joint Registrar of the Personal Assistance Section of the Madras HC that indicated that the detailed judgment was received from the judge after his retirement on May 26, 2017.

“Faced with this situation we have no option but to set aside the judgement dated 15th May 2017 and restore CRL OP No. 2245 of 2017 to the file of the High Court”, the Court stated in its order.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Jharkhand Police Officers For Filing Chargesheet Violating Interim Order

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

The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to three officers of the Jharkhand Police for filing a charge sheet in a case despite an interim order by the Court barring any further action in the FIR.

“It is a case of gross contempt of this Court. What oversight? Only reason is the husband of the first informant is IPS officer. That is the only reason”, Justice Oka remarked after the counsel for the state said that this happened due to an oversight.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with an SLP challenging the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court refusing to quash the FIR filed by wife (now deceased) of an IPS officer against her landlord.

Supreme Court Seeks Union's View On TDS Liability On Interest Accrued On Motor Accident Compensation

Case Details: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. UOI & Ors, W.P.(C) No. 534/2020

The Supreme Court sought the views of the Union and Income Tax Department on the applicability of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on the interest liability over and above Rs. 50,000 compensation awarded in Motor Accident Claims.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a writ petition which sought a slew of directions to facilitate the process of disbursement of compensation as well as expediting the matter before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT).

The Supreme Court suggested to the State Governments that the State Public Transport Corporations avail third-party insurance coverage to ensure that victims of the accidents caused by the State buses get timely compensation as per the Motor Vehicles Act.

Supreme Court Restrains TN Police Enquiry Against Sadhguru's Isha Yoga Centre, Transfers Petition From Madras HC

Case Details: Isha Foundation Petitioner(S) v. S. Kamaraj & Ors.

The Supreme Court restrained the Tamil Nadu police from conducting any further enquiry against the Isha Yoga Centre run by spiritual leader Sadhgur at Coimbatore pursuant to the directions issued by the Madras High Court.

The Court transferred the habeas corpus petition, in which the High Court passed the order, from the High Court to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court further asked the Police to submit the status report to it. The matter will be next heard on October 18.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the order after an urgent hearing requested by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the Isha Foundation.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused Charged Under PMLA In Relation To Mahadev Betting Scandal

Case Details: Sunil Dammani v. Directorate of Enforcement| SLP(Crl) No. 11755/2024

The Supreme Court granted bail to accused Sunil Dammani in relation to a money laundering case connected to the Mahadev Betting Scandal.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court which rejected the bail plea of Dammani. The accused was accused of the offence of money laundering under s.3 and 4 of PMLA.

Stubble Burning Increased Substantially In Some Punjab & Haryana Districts, Yet Only Mild Penalties Imposed: Supreme Court

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court pulled up the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Commission for Air Quality Management in Delhi NCR (CAQM) for not prosecuting persons who have violated CAQM orders to tackle stubble burning under stringent provisions of the CAQM Act and Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (EPA).

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Ammanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized the need for stronger punitive measures, questioning why action under section 14 of CAQM Act and Section 15 of EPA is not taken.

Supreme Court Asks Telangana DGP To File Affidavit On Plugging Communication Gaps Between Prosecution & Govt Counsel

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

The Supreme Court directed the Director General of Police (SGP), Telangana, to file an affidavit on the streamlining of communication and plug loopholes in gaps between the Counsel for State of Telangana and Prosecution regarding accessing information on criminal cases in court related matters.

The Court expressed that there is a "recurring" phenomenon witnessed from State of Telangana where there is often miscommunication between the prosecution and Telangana Government Counsel pertaining to information about criminal cases.

The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was hearing a plea filed by Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Vatti Janaiah Yadav who had moved the Apex Court last year against the alleged criminal prosecution by the then Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) led Government in Telangana after Yadav made a political switch from BRS to BSP.

Judges of Bombay High Court Overburdened, Can't Fix Timeline For Disposal: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bharat Udyog Limited v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

Observing that the judges of the Bombay High Court are "overburdened", the Supreme Court turned down a prayer to fix a time-line for the disposal of an execution matter.

"Considering the fact that the judges of the Bombay High Court are overburdened such a direction cannot be issued especially when there may be older execution applications which are pending," observed a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih.

During the hearing, Justice Oka, whose parent High Court is the Bombay High Court, spoke about the case load of the judges there.

'No Error': Supreme Court Refuses To Review Judgment Allowing Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes

Case Details: Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Punjab

The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petitions against its decision holding that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SC) is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories.

"Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed," stated the order passed by the bench in chambers.

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions Against Judgment Allowing States To Tax Mineral Rights; Justice Nagarathna Dissents

Case Details: Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturers Association v. Mineral Area Development Authority and Ors

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions seeking review of its judgment which upheld the power of the States to levy tax on mining rights and mineral-bearing lands.

On July 25, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 8:1 majority, in Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority of India, delivered the judgment.

The majority of 8 judges dismissed the review petitions filed by the Union Government, Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturers Association and other saying that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment.

However, Justice BV Nagarathna held that a case for review is made out. "Having perused the review petitions, a case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is made out," Justice Nagarathna observed ordering the issuance of notice on the review petition to the respondents returnable within eight weeks.

'Criminal Cases Can't Be Slapped Against Journalist For Criticising Govt': Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To UP Journalist

Case Details: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 402/2024

The Supreme Court granted interim protection to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, directing that no coercive steps shall be taken against him in connection with his article on the caste dynamics in the Uttar Pradesh State Administration.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was dealing with Upadhyay's petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against him by the UP police, over his journalistic piece. Issuing notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench posted the matter on November 5.

In its brief order, the bench made certain pertinent observations regarding journalistic freedom.

"In democratic nations, freedom to express one's views are respected. The rights of the journalists are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Merely because writings of a journalist are perceived as criticism of the Government, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer," the Court observed in the order.

Supreme Court Seeks BCI's View On Dispute Over Recognition of Bar Association of Delhi's Rouse Avenue District Court

Case Details: Rouse Avenue District Court Bar Association v. Bar Council of Delhi

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) in an appeal against a Delhi High Court order that recognized the Central Delhi Court Bar Association as the official bar body of the Rouse Avenue District Court.

“Issue notice to the Bar Council of India as the issue involved would require assistance of Bar Council of India. Notice is made returnable on 18th November”, the Court stated.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was healing an appeal filed by Rouse Avenue District Court Bar Association in a dispute with the Central Delhi Court Bar Association for recognition for the Rouse Avenue Court.

'Hungry Cannot Wait': Supreme Court Gives Last Chance To Union/States To Implement Directions On Migrant Workers' Ration Cards

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

The Supreme Court on October 4 restrained itself from issuing contempt notices and granted one last window to the Union and the States to comply with the orders of the Court to verify and give ration cards to those migrant workers and unskilled labourers found eligible under the e-Shram portal and also to those already verified, irrespective of States upper ceiling of food distribution under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA).

The Court said that failing to comply with this order would force it to call the Secretary of Food or concerned authority from States to explain the reason for non-compliance. It has directed States to file an affidavit where identification of eligible persons has been done but are yet to be ration card.

Supreme Court To Lay Down Law On High Court's Power To Recall Pronounced Order and Rehear Case

Case Details: MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court said that it will lay down the law on whether a High Court can recall an order pronounced in the court and rehear the case.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had expressed strong disapproval of the Madras High Court's decision to rehear a quashing petition in a money laundering case involving former Director General of Police (DGP) Jaffar Sait, despite having previously allowed the petition.

“The prayer in the Criminal OP was for quashing ECIR. Several issues will have to be gone into including the issue of the manner in which order has been passed by the High Court. List for hearing at the end of the cause list on 22nd November 2024. In the meanwhile ECIR and all proceedings based on the ECIR will remain stayed. Even the proceedings of Criminal OP no. 0017762 of 2024 are stayed”, the Court stated in its order.

HCs Fix Deadline For Trial Just For Psychological Satisfaction of Parties, Such Orders Don't Work & Are Impermissible: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal

The Supreme Court said that the trend of High Courts directing trial courts to conclude trial within a set time frame instead of granting bail, without considering the trial courts' case backlogs is impermissible.

“Now we will tell you the trend in High Courts. That case is made out for grant of bail, courts are reluctant to grant then courts say alright decide the case within 6 months without knowing what is the pendency in trial court just to give psychological satisfaction to everybody. Such orders don't work and such orders are not permissible in light of the Constitution Bench judgement”, Justice Oka remarked.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail to two accused in a case of dacoity and attempt to murder, citing their prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.

The Court observed that orders imposing deadlines for trial increase the burden on already overworked trial courts.

Specific Relief Act | Supreme Court Allows Oral Hearing of Review Petition Against Judgment Holding 2018 Amendment To Be Prospective

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

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 2:1 majority, agreed to hear in open court a review petition filed against a 2022 judgment which held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, will apply only prospectively to transactions effected after the date when the amendment came into force (01.10.2018).

The original judgment was rendered by a three-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli in Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712.

Supreme Court Orders Surprise Inspections of Assam's Matia Transit Camp To Assess Hygiene and Living Conditions

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

The Supreme Court directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to conduct surprise inspections of the Matia Transit Camp for housing foreign nationals in Goalpara, Assam to assess the facility's hygiene conditions, availability of food, and overall living conditions.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered the SLSA Secretary to nominate appropriate officers who will carry out periodic inspections at the camp without giving prior notice to the authorities to verify the state's claims made in a compliance affidavit regarding improvements at the facility.

'No Scheduled Offence In Complaint Or Chargesheet': Supreme Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In Money Laundering Case

Case Details: Laxmikant Tiwari v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court granted bail to two accused, Laxmikant Tiwari and Shiv Shankar Naag, in a money laundering case connected with the Chhattisgarh coal levy scam case.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the absence of a scheduled offence at the time of filing of the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Review of Judgment Which Struck Down Electoral Bonds Scheme

Case Details: Mathews J Nedumpara and Anr. v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. Diary No 18045/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking a review of the Constitution Bench judgment which struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme as unconstitutional.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, JB Paridwala and Manoj Misra dismissed the review petition filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara and another

"Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed," the Court observed.

Other Developments

'You Can't Seek In-House Inquiry Against Judge For Denying Relief': CJI DY Chandrachud To Litigant

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud took exception to a litigant seeking in-house enquiry against a judge for not granting him relief.

The litigant, a party-in-person, was mentioning a petition in which he had added retired Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi as a respondent. He said that the petition was filed in May 2018.

Expressing surprise and dismay at the petition, CJI told the party:

"How can you file a PIL with the judge as a respondent? There has to be some dignity. You cannot just say I want an in-house inquiry against a judge. Justice Ranjan Gogoi was a former judge of the Supreme Court. He retired as the Chief Justice of India. You cannot say I want an in-house inquiry against a judge because you did not succeed before the bench. Sorry, we cannot tolerate this."

The litigant said that Justice Gogoi had wrongfully dismissed his petition, challenging his termination from service, relying on an illegal statement and that there were "gross errors of law" in the judgment.

CJI Chandrachud told the party that if he deleted Justice Gogoi's name from the array of respondents, then the Registry would consider processing it. The party agreed to do so.

RG Kar Case | WB Resident Doctors Tell Supreme Court They Are Performing All Essential Services Including IP/OP Duties

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 case over the RG Kar rape-murder crime, recorded a statement made on behalf of the resident doctors in the State of West Bengal that they are now performing all essential and emergency services, including in-patient and out-patient duties.

The doctors had abstained from duties as a mark of their protest against the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at the RG Kar hospital on August 9. Later, the Supreme Court directed them to return to their duties with the assurance that no coercive action would be taken against them for abstention. On September 17, the doctors' association informed the Supreme Court that they would resume duties subject to the implementation of the measures announced in the meeting with the Chief Minister.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the State of West Bengal, told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra that the doctors have come back to work but only for emergency and essential services.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, for the association of resident doctors, denied this statement and said that the doctors are performing all duties, including IPD and OPD services. She said that essential services include IP and OP Duties. The bench recorded the statement of Jaising that all doctors are performing and shall perform essential services including IPD and OPD. The Court perused the latest status report filed by the CBI. The Court noted that the CBI is conducting its investigation on two facets- (1) the alleged rape and murder, 2) the allegations regarding financial irregularities in the hospital.

Telangana MBBS/BDS Admissions : Supreme Court Asks State If Local Quota Criteria Can Be Applied From Next Academic Year

Case Details: State of Telangana and Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024

The Supreme Court while hearing the issue pertaining to the Telangana Local Quota Rule for MBBS Admissions, suggested to the State of Telangana to consider if the new criteria (four years continuous study and passing the qualifying exam in Telangana) could be applied from the next academic year.

During the hearing, the State also said that it was considering revoking the earlier concession granted by it for making a one-time exception for the petitioners who had approached the High Court challenging the criteria.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.

Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Compensation To Victims of 1992-93 Communal Riots In Mumbai

Case Details: Shakeel Ahmad v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the delay in payment of compensation the victims of the 1992 and 1993 communal riots in Mumbai.

“So much of delay in making payment of compensation to victims of riots”, Justice Abhay Oka remarked after the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority sought time to file a report showing compliance with the Court's earlier order directing payment of compensation.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, perusing the report submitted by the Member Secretary of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, noted that some progress had been made in implementing the Court's directions regarding compensation.

Supreme Court Refuses To Pass Status Quo Order Against Demolitions In Somnath, Seeks Gujarat's Response

Case Details: Summast Patni Musslim Jamat v. State of Gujarat and Ors. in Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022

The Supreme Court sought the response of the State of Gujarat on a contempt petition alleging illegal demolition of Muslim religious and residential places by authorities on September 28 at Gir Somnath.

However, the Court refused to pass an interim order of status quo with respect to the demolitions.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by Summast Patni Musslim Jamat, a Trust representing the Patni Muslim community of Prabhas Patan.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Petition Seeking Free & Timely Legal Aid To Convicts

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

The Supreme Court reserved the judgment on question of free and timely legal aid to convicted prisoners in batch of petitions filed by human rights activist Suhas Chakma flagging issue of free legal aid to prisoners and open jail reforms.

A bench of B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan was assisted by amicus and Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria on the issue of free legal aid. It was argued by Hansaria that despite the existence of Legal Services Authorities at the National, State, District and Taluka level, a large number of convicts are not aware of their right to free legal aid to approach higher courts challenging their convictions.

'My Credibility At Stake': CJI DY Chandrachud Disapproves of Different Lawyers Mentioning Same Case

The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressed displeasure at the practice of repeated mentioning of same cases by different advocates.

Bulldozer Actions | 'Will Clarify Demolition Can't Be Done Merely Because Someone Is Accused/Convict': Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Details: Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case)

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on petitions against the demolition of houses of persons as a punitive measure, a practice popularly referred to as 'bulldozer justice' or 'bulldozer actions.'

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan elaborately heard the parties on the guidelines which can be issued to ensure that the local laws providing for the demolition of unauthorised constructions are not misused and that due process is followed.

The bench said that it would clarify that demolitions cannot be carried out merely because somebody is an accused or a convict in a crime. At the same time, the bench stated that it would ensure that unauthorized constructions and public encroachments are not protected.

Scammers Fake Supreme Court Hearing & Impersonate CJI, Dupe Industrialist of ₹7 Crore

Textile baron and Chairman of the Vardhman Group, SP Oswal has filed a complaint for being scammed by cyber criminals who orchestrated a fake Supreme Court hearing presided by a person impersonating Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

According to a report by Reuters , the fraudsters swindled Rs 7 crores of Oswal after he was made to attend a fake court proceeding in a purported money laundering case where he was 'directed' to deposit funds in an account.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Challenge To Centre's Circular Treating OCIs As NRIs For Admissions

Case Details: Aranav Bhargav v. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot Through its Registrar| SLP(C) No. 022927 - 022928 / 2024

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the plea by an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) who has challenged government circular treating OCIs to be NRIs for the purposes of admissions in medical and engineering courses.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order which dismissed challenge to the impugned circular barring OCIs to be treated under General Category for medical and engineering admissions.

Delhi Police's Prohibitory Orders Affecting Ramlila & Religious Gatherings: Kalkaji Temple Priest Approaches Supreme Court

A Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the prohibitory order issued by the Delhi Police banning the assembly of five or more persons, dharnas, protests etc in Delhi from September 30 to October 5 (both days inclusive).

The petitioner is Sunil, a priest of the Kalkaji temple and the Secretary of the Manas Naman Sewa Society, which organises the grand Ramlila fair at the Satpula Ground in Chirag Delhi. The petitioner stated that the Ramlila festivities, which were scheduled to commence on October 3, cannot happen due to the Delhi Police's order.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas of SHUATS VC & Officials To Quash Cases Under UP Religious Conversion Law

Case Details: Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 3210/2023 (and connected matters)

The Supreme Court reserved the judgment in a batch of petitions seeking to quash the criminal cases against the Vice Chancellor and other officials of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS), Prayagraj over alleged forced mass religious conversions of people to Christianity.

'Registry Has Messed Up The Cause List': Justice AS Oka Expresses Dismay

Justice Abhay Oka expressed dismay over the Registry's handling of that day's cause list for his bench, noting that it was confusing.

Justice Oka commented, “Matters which have been listed on top have gone down. There is a complete mistake committed by the Registry.”

The first case on October 1 as per Court order was listed as Item No. 4, and two cases supposed to be taken up on top of the board were listed as Item Nos. 3 and 45. Further, a case supposed to be kept in the first ten matters was listed as Item No. 31, causing confusion regarding the order the cases were to be taken up by the bench.

Responding to a counsel's query whether the Court would have time to hear his matter listed at serial no. 31, Justice Oka remarked, “We don't know. The Registry has messed up the cause list today. They don't know how to prepare a cause list. It was supposed to be in the first 10 matters, but they have kept it at 31.

NCP Dispute: Sharad Pawar Approaches Supreme Court To Restrain Ajit Pawar Group From Using 'Clock' Symbol In Maharashtra Polls

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

The founder of the Nationalist Congress Party(NCP), Sharad Pawar, has filed an application seeking to restrain the NCP(Ajit Pawar) from using the 'clock' symbol in the upcoming Maharashtra Assembly Elections. It urged the Supreme Court to direct the Ajit Pawar group to apply to the Election Commission of India for a new symbol.

Delhi Police's Prohibitory Order Against Gatherings Withdrawn, Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the order of Delhi Police Commissioner prohibiting public gatherings beyond 5 or more persons from September 30 to October 5 has been withdrawn.

The SG made this statement before the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra in response to an urgent mentioning of a plea challenging the said order.

CJI DY Chandrachud Rebukes Lawyer For Inquiring With Court Master About Contents of Order

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud rebuked a counsel for making enquiries with the Court Master regarding the contents of an order.

The Counsel mentioned before the CJI that in an arbiration matter, few observations which were dictated in the open court were not present in the final draft of the order. When the CJI asked the counsel how he got to know about the contents of the order, the counsel admitted that he made enquiries with the Court Master.

Displeased by the conduct of the advocate, the CJI remarked: "How dare you ask the court master what I dictated in the court? Tomorrow you will come to my house and ask the PS what I am dictating in my chamber? Lawyers have lost all sense of decency or what? The final order is the one which we sign."

Bringing Offence of 'Rape' Within Marriage 'Excessively Harsh', Other Remedies Exist: Centre Opposes Criminalization of Marital Rape By Supreme Court

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

In petitions seeking criminalization of marital rape in India, the Union of India has filed a preliminary affidavit, stating that alternative remedies in law already exist to protect married women against sexual violence and attracting the offense of "rape" to the institution of marriage may be "excessively harsh" and disproportionate.

The Centre claims that to decide the constitutionality of Exception 2 to Section 375 and Section 376B of IPC as well as Section 198B CrPC, a holistic approach is required to be taken, after due consultation with all states.

Further, it avers that the issue raised is more 'social' than 'legal' and criminalization of marital rape falls within the ambit of legislative policy.

'What Happens To Democracy If You Interfere Like This?': Supreme Court Questions Delhi LG In MCD Standing Committee Election Matter

Case Details: Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 649/2024

The Supreme Court orally expressed reservations about the manner in which the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi issued directions for holding the elections for the 6th member of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

The Court asked "what was the tearing hurry" in holding the elections in the absence of the MCD Mayor and questioned the resort to Section 487 of the DMC Act by the LG.

"487 is an executive power. It is not to interfere with legislative functions. It's the election of a member. What happens to democracy if you keep interfering like this?" the Court orally asked.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan issued notice to the office of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on the petition filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi challenging the election of the 6th member of the MCD standing committee held on September 27, which was won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

WB Universities' VC Appointments | Can Chief Minister Change Order of Preference For Shortlisted Candidates? Supreme Court To Clarify

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

In the matter pertaining to appointment of Vice Chancellors for certain West Bengal Universities, the Supreme Court expressed an inclination to clarify its earlier order regarding recommendation of candidates' names by the Chief Minister, to say that the order of preference of the names shall be as fixed by the search-cum-selection committees.

The development came as an interim application seeking modification/clarification of judgment dated July 8, 2024 was mentioned before a Justice Surya Kant-led bench by Attorney General of India R Venkataramani.