Supreme Court Weekly Roundup (2nd January 2023-7th January 2023)
Padmakshi Sharma
8 Jan 2023 10:06 AM IST
Judgements/OrdersDemonetisation Decision Making Process Lawful, Supreme Court Holds By 4:1 Majority; Justice Nagarathna DissentsCase Title: Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union Of India [WP (C) No. 906/2016] and other connected mattersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1Coram: Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV NagarathnaThe Supreme Court Constitution Bench upheld by...
Judgements/Orders
Case Title: Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union Of India [WP (C) No. 906/2016] and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1
Coram: Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench upheld by 4:1 majority the decision taken by the Union Government six years ago to demonetise the currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1000 denominations. The majority held that Centre’s notification dated November 8, 2016 is valid and satisfies the test of proportionality. Justice BV Nagarathna in her dissenting view held that though demonetization was well-intentioned and well thought of, it has to be declared unlawful on legal grounds (and not on the basis of objects).
Other reports on the judgement can be found here.
Case Title: Ashok Pandey v. Union of India And Ors. [WP(C) No. 823/2022]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5
Coram: Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka
The Supreme Court observed that there is no provision in the Constitution which prohibits lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as judges of High Courts. The observation was made while hearing a petition contending that as per Article 217 of the Constitution, a person who has been enrolled with a State Bar Council and subsequently shifted practice to the Supreme Court is ineligible to be appointed as a judge of that High Court.
Case Title: Prem Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi [CrA 1 OF 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2
Coram: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Rejecting his plea of mental incapacity, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of killing his two sons. "Where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence", the bench observed. The court found that he was neither suffering from any medically determined mental illness nor could be said to be a person under a legal disability of unsound mind.
Case Title: Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP | WP (Crl) No. 113/2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4
Coram: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has held that additional restrictions, not found in Article 19(2), cannot be imposed on the exercise of right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of Ministers, MPs and MLAs. It held that the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) for restricting free speech are exhaustive. The Court by 4:1 majority added that statements made by Minister, even if traceable to any affairs of state or protecting the govt, cannot be attributed vicariously to the govt even applying the principle of collective responsibility. In her dissenting opinion, Justice B.V. Nagarathna agreed that greater restriction cannot be imposed on free speech, in addition to grounds under Article 19(2). However, she observed that in case a Minister makes disparaging statements in his "official capacity", then such statements can be vicariously attributed to the government.
Other reports on the judgement can be found here.
Case Title: KC Cinema v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and others and connected matters. | SLP(C) No. 20784/2018
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha
Supreme Court stated that a cinema hall owner could prohibit movie-goers from carrying their own food and beverages inside cinema halls. However, the bench clarified that all Cinema Halls must provide hygienic drinking water for all movie goers free of cost in theatres. Further, it noted when an infant or a child accompanies a parent, reasonable amount of food for them can be carried in theatres. The court also disapproved mandate for uniform pricing of cinema tickets
Case Title: Deepak Gaba vs State of Uttar Pradesh [CrA 2328 OF 2022]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3
Coram: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J K Maheshwari
The Supreme Court observed that a summoning order under Section 204 CrPC should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course. In this case, the complainant had invoked Sections 405, 420, 471, and 120B of the IPC against the accused. However, the Magistrate directed summons to be issued only under Section 406 of the IPC, and not under Sections 420, 471 or 120B of the IPC.
Other reports on the judgement can be found here.
Case Title: Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd vs Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd. | CA 6693 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
Observing that the State does not have absolute discretion while spending public money, the Supreme Court reiterated that government contracts must be ordinarily awarded through tender process. As the process of inviting tenders ensures a level playing field for competing entities, the departure from the tender route "must not be unreasonable or discriminatory", the Court said.
Case Title: IFB Agro Industries Ltd. vs SICGIL India Ltd. | CA 2030 of 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8
Coram: Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha
The Supreme Court held that National Company Law Tribunal under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013, cannot exercise a parallel jurisdiction with Securities and Exchange Board of India for addressing violations of the Regulations framed under the SEBI Act. The court held that rectificatory jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, is summary in nature. It is not not intended to be exercised where there are contested facts and disputed questions, the bench observed.
Case Title: Sabarmati Gas Limited vs Shah Alloys Limited [CA 1669 of 2020]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9
Coram: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice CT Ravikumar
The Supreme Court observed that delay in initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is condonable on sufficient grounds. The bench noted that the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of IBC. It be so, the position is that the period of limitation is three years from the right to apply accrues but the delay is condonable on sufficient grounds, the bench said.
Other reports on the judgement can be found here.
Case Title: M/s Muthoot Leasing And Finance Limited And Another vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax [CA No.s 10201-10202 of 2010]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7
Coram: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M M Sundresh
The Supreme Court has held that non-banking finance and leasing companies are not liable to pay tax on the interest component included in the hire-purchase instalment paid under the hire purchase agreement.
Case Title: Rohan Dhungat vs State of Goa and Ors | Diary No. 29535 - 2022
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10
Coram: Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
Supreme Court held that the Parole period has to be excluded from the period of sentence under the Goa Prison Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years of imprisonment for premature release. The bench held that if the parole period is included as part of the sentence period, then any prisoner who is influential enough may get parole several times.
Case Title: Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited vs Prudent ARC Limited | CA 8969 OF 2022 | 5 Jan 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11
Coram: Justice M R Shah and Justice B V Nagarathna
While calculating the amount to be deposited as predeposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 50% of which amount the borrower is required to deposit as pre-deposit? The Supreme Court has explained in a judgment.
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd | CA 6662 OF 2022 | 5 Jan 2023 |
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 12
Coram: Justice M R Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
The Supreme Court observed that the dues under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 would not prevail over the SARFAESI Act.
Case Title: K. Sreedhar vs Raus Constructions Private Ltd. | CA 7402 OF 2022 | 5 January 2023 |
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 13
Coram: Justice M R Shah and Justice M M Sundresh
The Supreme Court held that, in SARFAESI proceedings, the burden is upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties are agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities.
Case Title: B Venkateswaran vs P Bakthavatchalam | CrA 1555 OF 2022 | 14 Jan 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14
Coram: Justice M R Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
The Supreme Court, in a judgment, quashed a complaint alleging offences under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, observing that it amounted to abuse of process of law and Court.
Case Title: Shekhar Resorts Limited vs Union of India | CA 8957 OF 2022 | 5 Jan 2023 |
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15
Coram: Justice M R Shah and Justice B V Nagarathna
No one can be expected to do the impossible, the Supreme Court remarked while granting relief to a company which could not avail the benefit of settlement of tax dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, due to moratorium imposed on it.
Case Title: State of Meghalaya v. R. Wahlang & Ors. | SLPC D.944/2023
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala
Supreme Court stayed the order of Meghalaya High Court which had put an interim stay on the execution of the Assam-Meghalaya border pact, which was entered into between the two States subsequent to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 29.03.2022.
Case Title: Trivendra Singh Rawat Versus Umesh Kumar Sharma And Ors | SLP (Crl) No. 5329-5331/2020 Ii-B
Coram: Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
The Supreme Court of India set aside a Uttarakhand High Court order which had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the corruption allegations against former Chief Minister of Uttarakhand Trivendra Singh Rawat. The bench noted that the former CM was not a party before the High Court and that the High Court did not hear him before passing the directions on the CBI investigation. This, the Court said, violates the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Aley Hasan Khan v. State of UP & Ors.
Coram: Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
The Supreme Court refused to entertain Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan's challenge to the Allahabad High Court dismissing a batch of petitions filed by the office-bearers of Rampur's Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust, headed by Khan, for quashing of criminal proceedings in cases lodged for alleged land grabbing to expand the premises of the University.
Case Title: Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra And Anr. Contempt Petition (C) No. 867/2021 in TP(C) No. 2419/2019
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S Oka
The Supreme Court made an important clarification as to how the vacancies in a High Court is to be categorized when a judge comes there on transfer from another High Court. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka stated that when a judge is transferred from one High Court to another, the said judge does not go to the transferred High Court with a label of a 'bar judge' or the 'service judge'.
Case Title: Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v Iirf India Realty Xii Ltd. & Ors. | CA No. 9062/2022
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka
The Supreme Court while adjudicating an appeal filed in Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. V Iirf India Realty Xii Ltd. & Ors., set aside a status quo order passed by NCLAT Delhi which impeded the implementation of an order passed by the Supreme Court. The Bench has deprecated the NCLAT order while observing that the same is inappropriate and almost bordering on contempt.
News Reports
The Chief Justice of India Justice Dhananjay Y Chandrachud announced the launch of the electronic Supreme Court Reports (e-SCR) project. The e-SCR Project is an initiative to provide the digital version of the Supreme Court's judgments in the manner as they are reported in the official law report - 'Supreme Court Reports'.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha stated that the court will hear the petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against the Allahabad High Court’s decision asking the State to conduct urban local body polls without OBC reservations on 4th January. The plea was mentioned by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta who sought an urgent listing of the matter.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha refused to entertain the petition filed by TMC minister Birbaha Hansda against the Calcutta High Court order barring the registration of FIRs against Nandigram BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari without its prior permission. Hansda, a tribal leader, had filed a complaint against Adhikari under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 over his alleged remarks against her. While the Supreme Court did not intervene, it gave Hansda the liberty to move the Calcutta High Court to be heard in the pending proceedings before it.
The Supreme Court stayed an Allahabad High Court order sentencing former Bahujan Samaj Party legislator, Mukhtar Ansari to seven years’ imprisonment for threatening to kill a jailer by pointing a pistol at him in 2003. A Division Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath passed an order holding the High Court verdict in abeyance.
Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath stayed the criminal proceedings against Congress leader and Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid for allegedly trespassing into the office of the Delhi Public School Society in Delhi.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking guidelines for safe visit of Indians abroad. The petition was filed by a man who was detained in Abu Dhabi due to mistaken identity and sought a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for all citizens of India visiting abroad.
The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn the plea seeking the creation of a special task force to keep a check on deceitful religious conversions. While doing so, a Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar allowed the petitioner to file an impleadment application in the pending matter before the Bench against forced religious conversions.
Attorney General For India R Venkataramani informed the Supreme Court that the Centre had preliminary objections on the maintainability of the suit challenging section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act 1998. States of Meghalaya and Sikkim had approached the Supreme Court against the decision to ban their state lotteries in other states.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha adjourned the batch of petitions challenging religious conversion laws in various states. Citizen for Peace and Justice (CJP) submitted that the petitioners were seeking interim relief with respect to the Acts in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh.
The Supreme Court said that the live-streaming of court proceedings through third-party applications like YouTube was a "temporary arrangement" until a viable mechanism for hosting the videos in an independent platform is adopted. A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha was hearing a plea seeking directions to preserve the copyright of the Court over the video footages of Court hearings live-streamed through platforms like YouTube.
The Supreme Court stated that it would list the two petitions seeking to transfer to the Supreme Court the petitions pending in the Delhi High Court and the Kerala High Court seeking recognition of same-sex marriage in India on 6th January.
The Supreme Court issued notice on the special leave petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the High Court restraining the government from taking coercive action against any person who contravenes Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 which requires a person desiring to convert religion to give a declaration in this regard to the District Magistrate. However, the bench of Justices M. R. Shah and C. T. Ravikumar refused to stay the impugned order.
Former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt has filed an application seeking the recusal of Justice MR Shah from hearing his plea seeking to defer the hearing before the Gujarat High Court against conviction till the plea to adduce additional evidence is decided.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath issued notice in a plea seeking to declare the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT for applying to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) as unlawful, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka issued notice in an application filed by former Congress Councillor, Balwan Khokhar, one of the convicts in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, seeking suspension of his sentence.
The Supreme Court will hear on February 20, the Special Leave Petition challenging a Manipur High Court order which held that the State government has sufficient power to create new districts in "Hill areas" and "Plain revenue areas".
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka granted final opportunity to the State of Tamil Nadu to file response in a plea challenging the order of the Madras High Court, that refused to quash the Government Order of 2014, which made Tamil paper compulsory in Class 10 State Board exam for all students.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea filed by Samajwadi Party Leader Azam Khan seeking to transfer his cases from the State of Uttar Pradesh. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice PS Narasimha.
The Supreme Court of India is likely to hear the batch of petitions challenging the Uttarakhand High Court order based on which demolitions in Haldwani were carried out on 5th January. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice PS Narasimha by Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
The petition challenging the Uttarakhand High Court order based on which demolitions in Haldwani were carried out highlights that the petitioners are poor people who have been lawful residents of Mohalla Nai Basti, Haldwani district for more than 70 years. As per the petitioner, the names of local residents are entered in the municipal records of house tax register and that they have been paying house tax regularly for years.
Supreme Court judge, Justice Bela M. Trivedi recused from hearing the Public Interest Litigations challenging the order of Gujarat Government allowing premature release of 11 convicts sentenced to life in the Bilkis Bano case for gangrape & murder during 2002 Gujarat Riots. The recusal is seemingly on the basis that Justice Trivedi was deputed as the Law Secretary of the Gujarat Government during 2004-2006.
When Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, as the only Muslim judge on the Constitution Bench deciding the controversial Ayodhya land dispute and in the Supreme Court itself, agreed to pronounce a unanimous verdict, not only did he defy expectations, but he also demonstrated his commitment to secularism and his willingness to serve the judicial institution as a ‘true Indian’, Senior Advocate and the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Vikas Singh said.
On his final day as a judge of the Supreme Court, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer echoed a sentiment that has been expressed by other members of the judicial fraternity in the past with respect to remunerating junior members of the bar fairly and allowing them to brief and argue in matters.
Supreme Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of a man who had 24 grams of Heroin and Brown sugar in possession with him. "This Heroin and all is destroying the country. We cannot be a party to this", Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar remarked, when the matter came up for hearing.
CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that balance in court was not always between just and unjust but sometimes it was between two unjust things. He stated that in such cases, the court had to determine what was more unjust. The remark was made in a dispute concerning appointments and promotion of Assistant Section Officers.
"In my experience, whenever there is a financial scam and the CBI or the ED come into the picture, there is a delay. It takes years together. You tell us in how many financial scam cases it has come to a logical end?", demanded the Supreme Court.
CJI DY Chandrachud recused himself from hearing contempt petition filed against comedian Kunal Kamra for his tweets about Supreme Court stating that the comments were made on an order he had passed.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari asked the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation to formulate a scheme to continue with advertisements on buses in a manner which will not cause distraction or violate rules.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar reserved its judgement in a plea moved by the Central Bureau of Investigation seeking the cancellation of default bail granted to Erra Gangi Reddy in connection with the YS Vivekananda Reddy murder case.
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of conversion laws across the country. As per the petition the Acts in question invade a person's privacy by forcing them to disclose their faith. Further, the Acts entitle the family members to lodge an FIR and "virtually give them a fresh tool for harassing the convert"
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha directed the Director General (Prisons) of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit showing steps taken in pursuance of the judgement in Rashidul Jafar v. State of UP, in which a slew of directions were issued regarding remission of prisoners.
Signalling a dial down on the confrontation with the Supreme Court over judges appointments, the Central Government assured the Court that the timelines on judicial appointments will be followed and the pending collegium recommendations will be cleared soon.
The Supreme Court transferred to itself the batch of petitions seeking recognition of same-sex marriage in India. The matter was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala. The bench also provided liberty to petitioners to appear on virtual platform and advance their submissions in case they are unable to engage a counsel or travel to Delhi. The batch of petitions is now listed for 13th March 2023.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala issued notice on the petition moved by a homosexual couple, challenging the provisions of public notice and objection to marriage contemplated under the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act.
Flagging the issue of ten recommendations made by the Collegium regarding transfer of High Court judges remaining pending with the Central Government, the Supreme Court said that such delays by the government gives rise to an impression that there is 'third party interference' on behalf of these judges with the government.
While hearing the matter relating to judges' appointments, the Supreme Court orally told the Central Government that elevation of lawyers should not be objected to merely on the basis of views expressed by them or cases conducted by them.
The Supreme Court disclosed that the Central Government has sent some names to the collegium for consideration for judges appointments, although such names were not earlier cleared by the collegium.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala asked the Union of India to formulate a comprehensive legislative or administrative scheme regarding the regulation of funds which come to NGOs. The direction was passed in a PIL filed by Advocate ML Sharma who submitted that Anna Hazare had withdrawn a lot of money from the government to use for himself.
The Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession (HLS CLP) has announced Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud as the 2022 recipient of its “Award for Global Leadership” in recognition of his lifetime of service to the legal profession in India and around the world.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala while hearing petitions concerning uniform laws for marriage framed the preliminary issue in the matter to be whether the court was permitted to direct the Parliament to make laws.
The Supreme Court of India issued notice to the states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, and Bihar on a petition filed by the Social Action Forum (SAF) seeking all States to follow NALSA's Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes, 2018. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala.
The Supreme Court heard a plea regarding road safety through electronic monitoring. A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala asked for a meeting to be convened by Justice AM Sapre, chairperson of Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety to set out an agreed formulation of modalities for implementing the provisions of Section 136A of the MV Act.
The Supreme Court asked the Supreme Court Registry to file a report detailing how Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd's Miscellaneous Application seeking modification in a 2020 judgment, was listed before the Court.
The Supreme Court recently disposed of the appeals filed by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd challenging the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal in 2016 mandating environmental clearance for metro rail projects. While admitting the appeals in 2016, the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the NGT directions. Following that, the metro rail project in Delhi and Noida were completed. When the appeals came for hearing on January 4, a bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar observed that the issue was no longer required to be adjudicated in view of the completion of the project.
In a scathing criticism, former Supreme Court judge Justice V Gopala Gowda said that the "track record of the Supreme Court in the last 8 years is disappointing". He highlighted that the Supreme Court has refused to hear important matters relating to Article 370 and electoral bonds.
The Supreme Court concluded a Hackathon for identifying innovative ideas and exploring practical propositions for refining and bringing in efficiency to the existing processes from filing to listing of judicial matters.
