SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Abkari Act

Person receiving information of crime or detecting the occurrence can investigate it. Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

Abortion

Woman alone has the right over her body; she's the ultimate decision maker on abortion. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

‘Forcing woman to have child born out of rape against constitutional philosophy’: Supreme Court allows survivor’s plea for abortion. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

'What is happening in Gujarat High Court? We don't appreciate HC's counterblast to our Order': Supreme Court in abortion case. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Adverse Possession

Adverse Possession - Principles Summarised. Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693

When adverse possession is claimed over government land, Courts must act with greater care. Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693

Adverse Remarks

Remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary which is further qualified by, being necessary for proper adjudication of the case at hand - Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles of justice, fair play and restraint - Words employed should reflect sobriety, moderation and reserve - Such remarks, “due to the great power vested in our robes, have the ability to jeopardize and compromise independence of judges”; and may “deter officers and various personnel in carrying out their duty”- "Adverse remarks, of serious nature, upon the character and/ or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly”. (Para 17-18) State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721 : 2023 INSC 773

Advocate

Advocate didn't disclose that his wife was the opposite party in client's case : Supreme Court upholds BCI penalty. Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet @ Ranu Yadav Dokh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635

The Supreme Court vacated a stay order in a 16-year-old criminal appeal as it pulled up the appellant-lawyer for seeking repeated adjournments. Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 608

Litigants should not be made to suffer because of the advocate's fault in withdrawing a complaint by mistake. Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Agricultural Land

Argument that merely because the land has a few coconut trees, that will not make it an agricultural land, as in Kerela, coconut trees are found everywhere even in the urban residential properties and their presence itself will not make the land an agricultural land. Held, the land in question undoubtedly has coconut trees on it, most of them are very old but fruit bearing, and moreover in revenue records, the land is described as “theaattam” i.e., “garden”. This would mean that the land in question may be put for agricultural use. Theoretically, it is possible that a land which is recorded as “theaattam” may not be actually put for agricultural use. All the same, in the present case, the overwhelming evidence which has been duly appreciated by the three Courts below clearly prove that the land was indeed an agricultural land. Therefore, find no reason to take a different view at this stage. (Para 7) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774

Allotment of Plots

Allotment of Plots - E-auction - When the HSIIDC as the authority deciding to allot industrial plots had laid down a particular procedure which will ensure fairness and transparency amongst the participants, they cannot depart from the notified process particularly when there was no technical report available with the authority to confirm technical fault in the e-auction process. When such a departure from the laid down norm is made, it has to be declared to be arbitrary and unfair. Since the decision is not founded on any acceptable reasoning, it would suffer from the vice of irrationality and unreasonableness. (Para 24) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Ashish Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 654

Arbitration

Dissenting opinion of an arbitrator cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704 : 2023 INSC 768

Supreme Court restores 1997 arbitral award passed under 1940 Act; criticises HC & Trial Court for "appellate review". S.D. Shinde v. Govt. of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 693 : 2023 INSC 751

Arbitration award cannot be set aside on mere possibility of an alternative view of facts of interpretation of contract. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 668 : 2023 INSC 742

The Court has no power to modify the award under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 631 : 2023 INSC 708

Bail

Supreme Court surprised by Gujarat HC granting bail to murder accused based on 'settlement' with victim's son; chastises state for not challenging order. Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Supreme Court affirms bail granted to former Andaman Chief Secretary Jitendra Narain in Port Blair gang rape case. XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767

The law regarding the parameters or circumstances to be considered in granting bail or refusing bail – Discussed. (Para 9) XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767

'Age-old principle "where women are respected, gods live there" would recede to background' : Supreme Court cancels bail to gang-rape accused. Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707 : 2023 INSC 761

“How can we start selling bail like this": supreme court says onerous bail conditions must not be imposed ordinarily. Mursaleen Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 700

The grant of bail subject to onerous conditions, is ordinarily in exceptional circumstances and cannot be as a matter of course. Mursaleen Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Antilia bomb scare case - Supreme Court grants bail to former Mumbai Police officer pradeep sharma. Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699 : 2023 INSC 755

Can bail condition requiring assurance from the embassy that foreign accused will not leave India be imposed? Supreme Court to examine. Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 681

Bail condition of NDPS accused relaxed - The liberty of an accused who is facing prolonged trial deserves attention of the Court - Prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners violates the constitutional principles of dignity and liberty. (Para 8 - 10) Ejike Jonas Orji v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 670

Courts should impose realistic conditions of bail considering the economic and social position of the undertrial prisons or else the act of grant of bail does not subserve its purpose. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Banking Law

Disciplinary action was initiated against the bank manager for sanctioning a loan that later became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), causing substantial losses to the bank. The Bank Manager defended himself by stating that he was merely following the instructions of his superiors. However, it was found that when he recommended the loan, he failed to properly evaluate the deficiencies in the loan proposal. The Single Bench of the High Court upheld the Bank’s disciplinary action against the manager. However, the Division Bench set it aside, holding that the sanctioning of the loan was a collective decision made by the superiors, and no action had been taken against them. Held, the Division Bench should not have interfered with the judgment of the Single Judge who had upheld the Bank’s disciplinary action against the manager. Consequently, the appeal has been allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. (Para 14, 15) Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Disciplinary Action - Since no time limit is prescribed by the Bank’s Regulations to initiate disciplinary action and noticing that action was initiated soon after the irregular loan came to light, it cannot be said that only because the charge memo was issued six years after the loan was sanctioned, it would vitiate the disciplinary action. (Para 14) Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Though nationalised bank employees are 'public servants', protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. not available. A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : 2023 INSC 682

Bootlegger

Samples which were drawn and collected from the liquor seized from the possession of the appellant detenu were sent to the forensic science laboratory for the purpose of chemical analysis and in all cases, the analysis report states that the samples were found to be unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. (Para 52) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Caste Certificate

No protection should be given to persons who secure public employment through false caste certificates. It is immaterial whether the caste certificate was submitted fraudulently or due to a genuine mistaken belief. Intent is of no consequence. Granting protection to individuals who are ineligible for the post has a deleterious effect on good governance. The said protection would allow an ineligible person to gain access to a scarce public resource, violate the rights of an eligible person, and perpetuate illegality by unduly bestowing benefits on an ineligible person. (Para 21) Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 644 : 2023 INSC 728

Cheque

Section 202 Cr.P.C. - Evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant in cheque cases can be taken on affidavit. Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706

Cheque case against the firm's partner can be quashed only on strong evidence that he didn't have any concern with issuing the cheque. Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2023 INSC 757

In a cheque case against a company, persons can't be made accused only because they're managing the company's business. Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622 : 2023 INSC 692

Cheque Dishonour - Concurrent sentencing rule only when cases arise out of a single transaction. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Civil Law

Execution petition can't be dismissed as inexecutable merely because property's possession is lost to third party. Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : 2023 INSC 764

When can one escape the effects of a document despite signing it ? Supreme Court explains plea of 'non est factum'. Ramathal v. K. Rajamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 666 : 2023 INSC 637

Civil suit – Non-framing of an issue, which is otherwise covered in a broader issue and for which there was sufficient pleading and evidence, the suit could not have been dismissed on that ground. Ramathal v. K. Rajamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 666 : 2023 INSC 637

Order XVII Rule 2 CPC - Court can proceed only against an absent party whose evidence has been substantially recorded. Y.P. Lele v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 653 : 2023 INSC 732

Supreme Court allows asi survey of Gyanvapi mosque without excavation or damage to structure; asks asi to follow "non-invasive" process. Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : 2023 INSC 702

Constitution of India

Test identification parade not violative of Article 20(3) of Constitution; accused cannot refuse to join TIP. Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Article 370 case : won't touch special provisions for North Eastern States or other parts, Centre Tells Supreme Court. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696

Consumer Law

'NCDRC acted as if they were experts' : Supreme Court sets aside order upholding insurance claim repudiation. S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 619 : 2023 INSC 689

Contempt of Court

Merely because the matter is not listed on the date specified by the Court, cannot be a ground to initiate contempt petition against the Registry. (Para 2) Manoj v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 677

Contempt proceedings were initiated inter alia against the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Secretary of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration - The High Court found fault with the Administration for (i) seeking an undertaking from the Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) for forgoing the claim of regularization as a pre-condition for the release of payment; and (ii) failing to frame a scheme as directed. Held, that the directions issued by the High Court for the suspension of the Chief Secretary were grossly disproportionate. Moreover, such a direction is extraneous to the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction. The direction to the Lieutenant Governor to deposit Rupees five lakhs even though the contempt proceeding was still to be heard finally is plainly unsustainable. The Administration has during the pendency of these proceedings taken steps to withdraw the offending clauses of its Order dated 9 May 2023. Order 2276 states that the enhanced wages shall be implemented with effect from 1 September 2017. Moreover, Order 2276 stipulates that arrears shall be payable from 1 September 2017 to 8 May 2023 to 4010 DRMs. The Administration has requisitioned funds to the tune of Rupees three hundred crores under the ‘wages head’ which is under consideration before the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. Moreover, it has been stated that the regularization scheme would be framed in terms of the statement which was made before the Division Bench of the High Court. In this view of the matter, the exercise of contempt jurisdiction would not be warranted. (Para 11) Admiral D.K. Joshi v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 656

Supreme Court imposes cost on State of U.P. for delay in complying with direction for premature release of 4 convicts. Mahendra v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Contract Law

Owner / employer who authored tender documents is the best person to understand & appreciate it. Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694 : 2023 INSC 760

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act - HC cannot reverse special court findings on validity of sanction unless it finds that failure of justice had occurred. State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Court Complexe

Safety and Security in Court complexes - Several security measures such as the issuance of court identity cards, installation of CCTV cameras and baggage scanners, regulation of footfall in court complexes, deployment of security personnel/relevant officers, and introducing other emergency measures were suggested and laid down its guidelines. (Para 10) Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : 2023 INSC 706

Incidents of gunfire - Preserving the sanctity of a court as a space where justice is administered and the rule of law upheld being non-negotiable, it is critical that judicial institutions take comprehensive steps to safeguard the well-being of all stakeholders. Such incidents, that too in court premises, are deeply concerning and pose significant risks to the safety of not only judges but lawyers, court staff, litigants and the general public. (Para 2) Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : 2023 INSC 706

Mere installation of CCTV cameras may not be enough and something more is required in public interest to check activities which compromise the safety and security of all stakeholders of the justice delivery system, particularly in court complexes. (Para 5) Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : 2023 INSC 706

Criminal Delivery System

Failure of the major stakeholders in the criminal delivery system - Three main stakeholders in a criminal trial, namely the Investigating Officer, the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, have all utterly failed to keep up their respective duties and responsibilities cast upon them. The Trial Court and the High Court miserably failed to notice the sensitivity and intricacies of the case. Both the Courts completely shut their eyes to the manner of the investigation, the Prosecutor’s role, and the highhandedness of the accused as also the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, despite observations and findings having been recorded not only by the Administrative Judge but also by the Division Bench deciding Habeas Corpus petition. They continued with their classical rut of dealing with the evidence in a manner as if it was a normal trial. They failed to notice the conduct of the Public Prosecutor in not even examining the formal witnesses and also that the Public Prosecutor was acting to the advantage of the accused rather than prosecuting the accused with due diligence and honesty. The Presiding Officer of the Trial Court acquitting the accused as also the learned Judge of the High Court dismissing the revision, were both well aware of the facts, legal procedures, as well as the law regarding appreciation of evidence in a criminal case. Both the courts below ignored the administrative reports as also the judgment of the High Court in the Habeas Corpus petition. In fact they should have taken judicial notice of the same. They completely failed to take into consideration the conduct of the accused subsequent to the incident, which was extremely relevant and material in view of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. They failed to draw any adverse inference against the accused with respect to their guilt. (Para 107, 111) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Criminal Law

HC can act on Section 482 petition to quash FIR even if chargesheet has been filed during its pendency. Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

'Far-fetched, vague allegations' : supreme court quashes Section 498A IPC case by wife against mother-in-law & brothers-in-law. Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

Magistrate can take cognizance of a protest petition after rejecting the police final report. Zunaid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730 : 2023 INSC 778

Section 307 IPC - Conviction for attempt to murder can be sustained even if injuries to the complainant were very simple in nature. S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Chargesheet filed in a language which the accused does not understand is not illegal; translation can be given. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. procedure mandatory when one of the accused is a resident of a place outside magistrate's jurisdiction. Odi Jerang v. Nabajyoti Baruah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702

'Great caution needed' : Supreme Court lists out factors to be considered while relying on dying declarations. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758

Supreme Court acquits convict on death row; orders immediate release. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758

Supreme Court sets aside order suspending conviction of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal; asks Kerala HC to decide afresh. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 690

Supreme Court on evaluating criminal revision petition - Presence of party not obligatory. Taj Mohammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689

'Presumption of innocence a human right; life & liberty are not matters to be trifled with': Supreme Court acquits 1995 murder case accused. Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682 : 2023 INSC 749

The presumption of innocence is a human right - When confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence, in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution, this Court will, as a matter of course and of choice, in line with judicial discretion, lean in favour of the Defence. We have borne in mind the cardinal principle that life and liberty are not matters to be trifled with, and a conviction can only be sustained in the absence of reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities. Rather, their origin is traceable to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. Of course, for certain offences, the law seeks to place a reverse onus on the accused to prove his/her innocence,but that does not impact adversely the innocent-tillproven-guilty rule for other criminal offences. (Para 18-20) Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682 : 2023 INSC 749

Criminal Trial - Principle governing “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has got no application to the courts in India. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to remove the chaff from the grain in its pursuit for truth. (Para 7) T.G. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 671

Section 149 IPC - Cannot expect witness to speak about specific overt act by each accused with graphic detail. Bhole v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 669

Merely because the prosecution witness has made a statement that he did not author the first information report the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved especially when there is an admission on his part with respect to the signature made in the FIR. (Para 5) Bhole v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 669

"Shabby trial, tainted investigation": Supreme Court reverses acquittal of former MP Prabhunath Singh in 1995 double murder case. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

'Prosecutor has duty to State, accused and Court; they are not representatives of any party. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Supreme Court allows former MP & murder convict Prabhunath Singh to appear virtually for hearing on sentence. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Supreme Court sentences former MP Prabhunath Singh to life imprisonment in 1995 double murder case. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act does not curtail power of police investigation under Cr.P.C. Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 652 : 2023 INSC 710

If an escaped convict already serving life term is subsequently convicted, subsequent sentence will run concurrently with previous life sentence. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Supreme Court orders release of vegetable vendor convicted for possessing 43 counterfeit ten rupees notes. Palanisamy v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Correctness of witness statements cannot be decided in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings. Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642

To attract Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence to substantiate existence of suicide. Yaddanapudi Madhusudhana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 641

Registration of FIR mandatory if information discloses cognizable offence : supreme court reiterates. Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 639

The Supreme Court sets aside directions issued by P&H High Court regarding appearance of prosecution witnesses. State of Haryana v. Darshan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Registration of FIR - The Supreme Court set aside the Order of the High Court which had allowed the registration of FIR against MLA for allegedly making provocative remarks during the Panchayat elections - Requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to take fresh decisions after granting him an opportunity of hearing. Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 636

Sessions Court should first see if the case is of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' before proceeding with murder trial. Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Criminal antecedents of accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash criminal proceedings. Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Supreme Court quashes Gujarat Police FIR against senior advocate & former ASG IH Syed after complainant says allegation was based on misconception. Iqbal Hasanali Syed v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Threatening a person to withdraw fir/complaint or settle dispute will not attract offence under Section 195A IPC. Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The High Court can try to read in between the lines while considering a plea to quash the FIR. Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2023 INSC 684

15 days police custody meant to be applied to the entire period of investigation as a whole : Supreme Court doubts 1992 precedent. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

'Trivial' : Supreme Court quashes 2014 criminal case over petty office altercation. Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : 2023 INSC 668

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence awarded to a woman for assaulting a government official during a laborer's protest 30 years ago. Razia Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 605 : 2023 INSC 667

Judge also has a public duty to see that the guilty man does not escape : the supreme court upholds the conviction of a man for killing wife. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. This Court proceeded to observe that a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. - Magistrate has to examine witnesses named in the complaint before dismissing the complaint u/Sec 203 Cr.P.C. Dilip Kumar v. Brajraj Shrivastava, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 597 : 2023 INSC 670

Criminal Trial

Test Identification Parade - In a case where an accused himself refused to participate in the TIP, it is not open to him to contend that the statement of the eye witnesses made for the first time in Court, wherein they specifically point towards him as a person who had taken part in the commission of the crime, should not be relied upon. Such a plea is available provided the prosecution is itself responsible for not holding a TIP. However, in a case where the accused himself declines to participate in a TIP, the prosecution has no option but to proceed in a normal manner like all other cases and rely upon the testimony of the witnesses, which is recorded in Court during the course of the trial of the case. Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained. Inordinate delay has been taken as presumptive proof of prejudice, but in particular cases where the accused is in custody. (Para 30) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

Customs

The Customs Act does not create a statutory first charge overriding charge in favour of secured creditor under S. 529A of Companies Act. Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683 : 2023 INSC 746

Defamation

Allegations in complaint made in good faith to lawful authority cannot attract offence of defamation. Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : 2023 INSC 675

Digitisation

Digitisation of Judicial Infrastructure - Initiatives like Audiovisual (AV) technology / Videoconferencing (VC) facility for recording of evidence and testimonies in trial, live-streaming of court proceedings at all levels, establishing e-SEWA Kendras, particularly in remote areas also considered and leave it to the discretion of the Chief Justices of the High Courts to decide. (Para 12) Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : 2023 INSC 706

Doctrines

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction - As per the rules of doctrine of harmonious construction, the document has to be read as a whole and in its totality. If there is any ambiguity either patent or latent, in any of the clauses of the document, the courts should interpret such clause in such manner which is consistent with the other clauses and with the purpose and intent of the parties executing it. (Para 8) Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711 : 2023 INSC 750

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - A public authority must objectively demonstrate by placing relevant material before the court that its decision was in the public interest to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation. (Para 38) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658 : 2023 INSC 709

E-auction

When e-auction opted for allotment of the industrial plots, the authority could not have departed from the notified procedure. The shift to manual auction would make the earlier process of e-auction an exercise in futility. It would also undermine the finality of the auction process where the bidding must conclude by the stipulated time and the winner is determined by the highest last bid. (Para 29) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Ashish Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 654

Education

The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of directing admission to educational institutions by way of interim orders. National Commission for Homeopathy v. Swanirbhar Homeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal Gujarat State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 726

B.Ed. graduates ineligible for the post of primary school teachers, holds supreme court; says 'right to education includes quality education'. Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : 2023 INSC 704

Election

Filing of affidavit under section 83(1)(c) proviso of Representation of People Act not mandatory requirement ; substantial compliance sufficent. Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705 : 2023 INSC 762

Election Law - Election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but purely a statutory proceeding, provision for which has to be strictly construed. (Para 15) Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 661 : 2023 INSC 712

NHRC was not right in seeking to supervise West Bengal panchayat polls; conduct of elections SEC's sole responsibility. National Human Rights Commission v. West Bengal State Election Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Supreme Court dismisses PIL challenging appointment of Arun Goel as election commissioner. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Supreme Court stays conviction of congress leader Rahul Gandhi in 'modi-thieves' defamation case which disqualified him as MP. Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Enforcement Directorate

Violation of Section 19 PMLA will vitiate arrest; Magistrate should ensure that ED followed the arrest procedure. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

‘Custody' under Section 167 CrPC includes custody of other investigating agencies such as ED, not just police. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Habeas corpus writ not maintainable against ED alleging illegal arrest; Plea to be raised before Magistrate. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Supreme Court dismisses Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging ED custody. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Environment

Forest Protection - Supreme Court allows Centre to notify the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as a permanent body. (Para 6) In Re T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 687

Registration of all BS VI compliant diesel vehicles is allowed to be done in NCT Delhi, irrespective of their requirement for the g-20 summit. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 607

Whether ESI Act excludes NGT jurisdiction? Supreme Court leaves question of law open while affirming NGT award on gas leak compensation. Rourkela Steel plant v. Odisha Pollution Control Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593

ESI

Electronics shop repairing & servicing electrical goods is a “factory” under ESI act. J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Pathological labs in Kerala covered under ESI Act from 2007 & not 2002 : Supreme Court dismisses ESIC appeal. E.S.I. Corporation v. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 600

Evidence

Extra-judicial confession - While extra-judicial confessions are typically considered weak pieces of evidence, they can still serve as grounds for conviction if proven to be voluntary, truthful, and free of inducement. The court must be convinced of the reliability of the confession, and this evaluation takes into account the surrounding circumstances. (Para 6) Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679 : 2023 INSC 739

FIR is a public document u/s74 Evidence Act; Injured person's statement recorded as FIR can be treated as dying declaration. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Marking of Evidence - the marking of a piece of evidence as ‘exhibit’ at the stage of evidence in a Trial proceeding is only for the purpose of identification of evidence adduced in the trial and for the convenience of the Court and other stakeholders in order to get a clear picture of what is being produced as evidence in a Trial proceeding. (Para 85) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Non-exhibition of Evidence - In the present case, considering the failure of State machinery and failure of the Trial Court to ensure a fair trial from the perspective of the victim side, the aspect of non-marking of the FIR and Written Statement of the deceased as an exhibit, non-production of the formal witnesses to prove the lodging of FIR/ Written Statement and the flimsy rejection of application for examination as a witness in the Trial proceeding do not vitiate the genuineness of the FIR and Written Statement, and we refuse to give any discount to the accused persons for non-exhibition thereof. (Para 89) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Production of Document - At the stage of evidence, when any document/paper is formally produced for being treated as a piece of evidence, the Court looks at two basic aspects. Firstly, the existence of the document on the Court’s record and, secondly, the proof of its execution or its contents being sufficiently deposed to by a witness having requisite knowledge thereof, whereafter, the document in question is marked as exhibit. At the stage of exhibiting any document as a piece of evidence, the truth of what is stated in the document is not considered. It is left open to final evaluation at the trial after cross-examination, and the entire testimony of the witness about the existence and contents of the document is weighed in conjunction with various other factors emerging during a trial. At the final evaluation stage, the Trial Court concludes whether the document speaks the truth and decides what weight to give it for final decision. In other words, its evidentiary value is analysed by the Courts at the time of final judgment. (Para 85) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Section 27 Evidence Act - Disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Test Identification Parade (TIP) - If the accused are already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, then the sanctity of TIP before the court is doubtful. (Para 13) Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678

Law with regard to conviction based upon circumstantial evidence - Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - Circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established - There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” - Facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused - However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 18, 19) Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678

Circumstantial Evidence - Cases are frequently coming before the Courts where the husbands, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards the character, have gone to the extent of killing the wife. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence - No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member - If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted upon by the Courts. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

Newspaper reports only hearsay evidence, extra-judicial confession has no greater credibility because newspapers reported. Dinesh B.S v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Excise Duty

Excise duty exemption - To determine if a product falls under description "intravenous fluids”, its composition & not its use matters. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Denis Chem Lab Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Government Land

Proper and concrete proof as required would need for the claimants to show some proof of possession, other than statements which may be vague. Merely a long period of possession, does not translate into the right of adverse possession. Surmises, conjectures and approximations cannot serve the basis for taking away the right over land resting with the State and place the said bundle of rights in the hands of one who did not have any such rights. (Para 28) Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693

When the land subject of proceedings wherein adverse possession has been claimed, belongs to the Government, the Court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness, care and circumspection as it may lead to Destruction of a right/title of the State to immovable property. (Para 21.7) Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693

IBC

NCLAT can 'recall' its judgment, can't 'review' them: Supreme Court affirms NCLAT ruling. Union Bank of India v. Financial Creditors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Information

'Ensure public authorities follow the mandate of Section 4 RTI Act': Supreme Court directs Central / State Information Commissioners. Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 665 : 2023 INSC 741

Insolvency

EPFO employees must comply with the IBC timeline for filing claims; default officers must face action. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 734

Insurance

Insurance company is not liable if claimant was travelling in a trailer which was not insured even if the tractor was insured. Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725

Mere knowledge on the part of the insurer that there was a breach of warranty would not amount to a waiver in the absence of an express representation to that effect. (Para 21) Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640 : 2023 INSC 694

Marine Insurance - If a ship is sent to sea in an unworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss due to unseaworthiness. Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640 : 2023 INSC 694

Insurance companies must deal in a bonafide & fair manner; should not just care for its own profits. Isnar Aqua Farms v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 615 : 2023 INSC 680

Uberrima fides, i.e., good faith, is the requirement in a contract of insurance - It is not open to an insurance company to ignore or fail to act upon a certificate or document that it had itself called for from independent and impartial authorities, subject to just exceptions, merely because it is averse to it or to its detriment. Having undertaken to indemnify an insured against possible loss in specified situations, an insurance company is expected to make good on its promise in a bonafide and fair manner and not just care for and cater to its own profit - It is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties; that good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the party knows; and that the insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the insurance company to disclose all material facts within their knowledge since the obligation of good faith applies to both equally. This obligation and duty would rest on both parties not only at the inception of the contract of insurance but throughout its existence and even thereafter. (Para 12 - 13) Isnar Aqua Farms v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 615 : 2023 INSC 680

'Breach of condition must be fundamental to deny insurance claim altogether': Supreme Court directs insurer to award 75% claim in vehicle theft case. Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Interpretation of Statues

Doctrine of harmonious construction - ambiguous clauses in deed must be interpreted consistent with other clauses & with intent of parties. Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711 : 2023 INSC 750

Judgment

Supreme Court criticises Bombay High Court for not uploading reasoned order despite one month's passage after pronouncement. Vipul Pramodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 716

Judicial Service

Unseating Judges after 6 yrs experience is against public interest though their selection was illegal : Supreme Court in Kerala District Judges case. Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658 : 2023 INSC 709

Supreme Court says Kerala HC erred in fixing cut-off for viva-voce in 2017 District Judge selection; refrains from unseating selected candidates. Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658 : 2023 INSC 709

Judicial Review

When it is seen that the decision of the authority is arbitrary, irrational, and disproportionate, having regard to complaints received only with regard to few plots and yet all 130 plots being put to manual auction after abandoning the e-auction process, the intervention by the High Court with the decision of the authority cannot be faulted. (Para 31) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Ashish Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 654

If the policy decision itself is contrary to the law and is arbitrary and irrational, powers of judicial review must be exercised. (Para 36) Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : 2023 INSC 704

Land Law

Land Dispute - The serious objection of the State against impugned Judgment is that the High Court has decided disputed questions of facts. After perusing the Judgment, the High Court recorded a finding not by deciding a fact in issue on title, identity, or entitlement but from the record and admitted documents. The solitary ground raised against the impugned Judgment, therefore, deserves to be rejected. (Para 12.2) Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa v. G.P Panda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 713 : 2023 INSC 753

The Supreme Court reiterates principles of deduction for development charges in land acquisition compensation claims. Mala v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663 : 2023 INSC 735

RFCTLARR Act - The Supreme Court sets aside the award passed during covid lockdown; says 'fair opportunity of hearing must be given to claimant'. Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Latin Maxim

“qui sentit commodom, sentire debit et onus” - A person who receives advantage must also bear the burden. (Para 74) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

“res judicata pro veritate accipitur” - A judicial decision must be accepted as correct. (Para 69) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

“qui facit per alium facit per se” – He who acts through another, acts himself. (Para 30) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Law and Order and Public Order

There is a very thin line between the question of law and order situation and a public order situation, and sometimes, the acts of a person relating to law and order situation can turn into a question of public order situation. What is decisive for determining the connection of ground of detention with the maintenance of public order, the object of detention, is not an intrinsic quality of the act but rather its latent potentiality. Therefore, for determining whether the ground of detention is relevant for the purposes of public order or not, merely an objective test based on the intrinsic quality of an act would not be a safe guide. The potentiality of the act has to be examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances, posterior and anterior for the offences under the Prohibition Act. (Para 64) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

Law Commissions

Constitutional or Statutory status – Held, when a litigant seeks a writ of mandamus, he must show a right existing in his favour and the corresponding obligation of the State to ensure that the litigant is able to exercise the said right. There is no right vested in the applicant to claim that the Law Commission set up by the Central Government should be given constitutional or statutory status. Law Commissions have already functioned and submitted reports. Whether Law Commission should be given a status under the Constitution or under a Statute is a major policy decision to be taken by the Central Government. It is only the Central Government which can take a call on this issue. Therefore, the 2nd direction was uncalled for. (Para 9) Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701

Recommendations of Constitutional Courts - High Court’s direction to appoint a "Nodal Officer" to note down the Courts' recommendations to bring to the knowledge of the Policy Makers – Held, whether a nodal officer should be appointed or not, is a matter to be decided by the Central Government. The Court cannot compel the Central Government to appoint a nodal officer. All the departments of the Government have adequate notice of the judgments of Constitutional Courts in which recommendations are made for the amendment of any legislation. Therefore, the 5th direction is unwarranted. (Para 11) Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701

Requisition for grant of funds – Held, the Central Government will consider such requisition at the earliest considering the importance of the tasks assigned to the Law Commission. The Central Government must ensure that the Law Commission does not become ineffective on account of lack of funds. (Para 13) Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701

Lawyer's Fault

Complaint was withdrawn by the advocate of the complainant on the pretext of the case being prolonged by the advocate of the Insurance Company, without having express instructions for withdrawal of the said complaint. However, for the fault of the advocate, the complainant cannot be made to suffer. Finally, the dismissal of the complaint was made by the National Commission under the wrong pretext that the earlier complaint had challenged the order of repudiation. Thus, the complaint cannot be thrown out on the threshold of Order XXIII Rule (1)(4) CPC and in the peculiar facts, it requires consideration on merits. (Para 8) Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Law of Torts

High Court’s direction to introduce a law dealing with “Liability in Tort” – Held, as far as the law of torts and liability thereunder of the State is concerned, the law regarding the liability of the State and individuals has been gradually evolved by Courts. Some aspects of it find place in statutes already in force. It is a debatable issue whether the law of torts and especially liabilities under the law of torts should be codified by a legislation. A writ court cannot direct the Government to consider introducing a particular bill before the House of Legislature within a time frame. Therefore, the first direction issued under the impugned judgment was unwarranted. (Para 8) Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701

Legal Aid

An advocate appointed to represent the accused should be given reasonable time to go through the file and get ready to assist the Court - The object of appointing an advocate to espouse the cause of the appellant who was unrepresented was to ensure that justice is done to him. Niranjan Das @ Niru Das @ Mahanto v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 732 : 2023 INSC 780

Legislation

No Constitutional Court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. The Court may, at the highest, record its opinion or recommendation on the necessity of either amending the existing law or coming out with a new law. (Para 12) Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701

Legitimate Expectation

Legitimate expectation is a weak and sober right as ordained by a statute. When the Government decides to introduce fair play by way of auction facilitating all eligible persons to contest on equal terms, certainly one cannot contend that he is entitled for a lease merely on the basis of a pending application. The right being not legal, apart from being non-existent, it can certainly not be enforceable. (Para 19 - 20) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Manipur Violence

The Supreme Court transfers CBI cases to Assam for pre-trial steps. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 729

'In sectarian conflict, mob uses sexual violence to send a message of subordination; state bound to stop this'. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

'Investigate if Manipur police officers colluded with violence' : Supreme Court to supervising officer - Directions. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

'Enquire into violence against women in Manipur from May 4' : Supreme Court explains mandate of committee of three women judges. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

The Court directed to constitute a committee of three former High Court women Judges that will essentially look at relief and rehabilitation of the survivors and to appoint officers from other States to monitor the investigation of the criminal cases related to the ethnic clashes. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Marriage

Advocates should not solemnise 'self-respect marriages' in professional capacity but can act as witnesses in private capacity. Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813

Self-respect marriages don't require public solemnisation or declaration : Supreme Court overrules Madras HC Judgment. Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813

Role of Advocates - Advocates or lawyers have many capacities- one being Officers of the Court. Therefore, they should not, while acting as counsel or advocates or their capacity as advocates, undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages. That can well result in Advocates chambers or offices turning out to be matrimonial “establishment”- a consequence never intended- or perhaps never contemplated by law. However, in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses, their role as witnesses cannot be ruled out. (Para 9) Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813

Keeping spouses together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage is cruelty to both parties : Supreme Court dissolves marriage. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727

Long Cohabitation - Law infers a presumption in favour of a marriage when a man and woman have continuously cohabitated for a long spell. No doubt, the said presumption is rebuttable and can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. When there is any circumstance that weakens such a presumption, courts ought not to ignore the same. The burden lies heavily on the party who seeks to question the cohabitation and to deprive the relationship of a legal sanctity. (Para 20) Shiramabai v. Captain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 672 : 2023 INSC 744

Maternity Benefit

Maternity benefits must be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Media

'Have to keep in mind freedom of speech' : Supreme Court dismisses PIL for central govt authority to regulate media. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Medical Negligence

The Supreme Court sets aside adverse observations by NCDRC against top cardiologist Dr. Upendra Kaul. Upendra Kaul v. S.C. Mathur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 676

Complaint alleges that the angiography was carried out without proper medical equipment, and care was not taken by both the doctor and the hospital, leading to the death. The State Consumer Commission concluded that the Doctor wasn't negligent, but the hospital was guilty of administrative negligence due to the unavailability of necessary equipment during the angioplasty. The NCDRC upheld this decision and a subsequent review petition was also dismissed. Held, Complainants have not tendered evidence of any independent doctor regarding the treatment's appropriateness or any potential medical negligence by the Doctor and the Hospital. The observation as made by the NCDRC that the ventilator was connected belatedly, is not justified. Therefore, insofar as the adverse observations as contained in the impugned order against the Doctor as well as the Hospital, are set aside. The payment of compensation already made shall not reflect on the professional competence of the appellants. Upendra Kaul v. S.C. Mathur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 676

Mines and Minerals

No fundamental right in mining. (Para 18) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Pending application for mining lease doesn't create any vested right : Supreme Court upholds Rajasthan Rule introducing auction. State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Vested Right - It is far too settled that there is no right vested over an application made which is pending seeking lease of a government land or over the minerals beneath the soil in any type of land over which the Government has a vested right and regulatory control. In other words, a mere filing of an application ipso facto does not create any right. The power of the Government to amend, being an independent one, pending applications do not come in the way. For a right to be vested there has to be a statutory recognition. Such a right has to accrue and any decision will have to create the resultant injury. When a decision is taken by a competent authority in public interest by evolving a better process such as auction, a right, if any, to an applicant seeking lease over a government land evaporates on its own. An applicant cannot have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of license of a mineral unless facilitated accordingly by a statute. (Para 17) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Money Laundering

Unitech Case : Supreme Court rejects ED's challenge to bail granted to Preeti Chandra in money laundering case. Directorate of Enforcements v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 603

Motor Vehicle

When the claimant was travelling in the trailer which was not insured, the liability on the Insurance Company cannot be fastened - When a tractor and trailer are involved, both the tractor as well as the trailer are required to be insured - However, invoking Article 142 powers, Insurance Company directed to pay the amount awarded by the High Court as compensation with the accrued interest and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725

It is unfortunate to seek strict evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. Even in the absence of definite proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in the unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration. Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 697

The Supreme Court criticised the 'lethargic attitude' of states in not filing compliance reports on directions issued by the Apex Court for implementation of the amended Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 686

Motor accident claims need not be filed before the MACT of the area where the accident occurred. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Murder Trial

'Sudden provocation as Rs. 500 for daughter not given' : Supreme Court modifies murder conviction of wife who killed husband. Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585 : 2023 INSC 662

Narcotic Drugs

Section 50 NDPS - Conviction cannot be sustained if accused were not informed about their right to be searched before magistrate/gazetted officer. Mina Pun v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724 : 2023 INSC 776

Prolonged incarceration of undertrials violates constitutional principles of dignity & liberty: SC relaxes bail conditions imposed on Nigerian accused in NDPS case. Ejike Jonas Orji v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 670

NEET PG

Students who take admission in All India Quota (AIQ) seats for Post Graduate medical courses cannot vacate the seats after the second round of counselling for AIQ seats in National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (NEET). Amrit Malik v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Non est factum

A plea of non est factum is a latin maxim which literally means “it is not the deed". It is a defence available in Contract Law allowing a person to escape the effect of a document which she/he may have executed/signed - Requirements for a successful plea of non est factum - (1) The person pleading non est factum must belong to "class of persons, who through no fault of their own, are unable to have any understanding of the purpose of the particular document because of blindness, illiteracy or some other disability". The disability must be one requiring the reliance on others for advice as to what they are signing (2) The "signatory must have made a fundamental mistake as to the nature of the contents of the document being signed", including its practical effects (3) The document must have been radically different from one intended to be signed. Ramathal v. K. Rajamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 666 : 2023 INSC 637

Partition

There is no prohibition to effect a partition otherwise than through an instrument in writing by duly complying with the requirement of law. In other words, the division may also be effected under a settlement or oral understanding. H. Vasanthi v. A. Santha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 655 : 2023 INSC 731

Pension

Past service as contractual employee to be taken into account for pension. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 662

POCSO Act

The Supreme Court emphasises the importance of “support persons” for victims under the POCSO act; issues guidelines. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Power to Expunge

How the power to expunge remarks may be exercised by the High Court and Supreme Court - With great caution and circumspection, since it is an undefined power - Only to remedy a flagrant abuse of power which has been made by passing comments that are likely to cause harm or prejudice - The High Court, as the Supreme Court of revision, must be deemed to have power to see that courts below do not unjustly and without any lawful excuse take away the character of a party or of a witness or of a counsel before it. Though in the context of Judicial officers, this Court has observed that “The role of High Court is also of a friend, philosopher and guide of judiciary subordinate to it. The strength of power is not displayed solely in cracking a whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the power should be so wielded as to have propensity to prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition if committed once innocently or unwittingly. “Pardon the error but not its repetition”. This principle would apply equally for all services. The power to control is not to be exercised solely by wielding a teacher's cane. (Para 19-20) State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721 : 2023 INSC 773

Practice and Procedure

It is not completely alien to the system where reasoned orders are sometimes to be delivered later on, but that does not mean that such period of later-on can be unending. There could be urgency to the parties aggrieved by the operative portion of the order which has been uploaded and if the reasons are not available / uploaded, neither the party aggrieved nor the Court considering the correctness of such order can validly challenge the same or test the same respectively. Vipul Pramodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 716

The plaint runs into 10 pages; the order of the Trial Court runs into 10 pages and the impugned order of the High Court has 6 pages. However, there are more than 60 pages of synopsis and 27 pages of the SLP. Such a bulky synopsis ought to be avoided. Drakshayanamma v. Girish, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709

Precedent

SC Order dismissing an appeal without any reasons cannot be treated as precedent. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : 2023 INSC 748

Law of Precedents - Doctrine of Merger - To merge means to sink or disappear in something else, to become absorbed or extinguished. The logic behind the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject matter at a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority is subjected to a remedy available under law before a superior forum, then the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding; nevertheless, its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court disposes the dispute before it in any manner, either by affirming the decree or order, by setting aside or modifying the same, it is the decree of the superior court, tribunal or authority, which is the final binding and operative decree. The decree and order of the inferior court, tribunal or authority gets merged into the order passed by the superior forum. However, as has been clarified in both decisions, this doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior court and the content or subject matter of challenge laid or could have been laid will have to be kept in view. (Para 32) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : 2023 INSC 748

Precedent and Res Judicata - A precedent operates to bind in similar situations in a distinct case, whereas res judicata operates to bind parties to proceedings for no other reason, but that there should be end to litigation. Principle of res judicata should apply where the lis was inter-parties and has attained finality on the issues involved. The principle of res judicata will have no application in cases where the judgment or order has been passed by the Court having no jurisdiction thereof or involving a pure question of law. Law of binding precedents, in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, has a larger connotation as it settles the principles of law which emanates from the judgment, which are then treated as binding precedents. (Para 34) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : 2023 INSC 748

When does an order become a binding precedent? – Explained. (Para 18 - 24) Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660 : 2023 INSC 736

Preventive Detention

The 3 months limit under Article 22(4)(a) applies only at the initial stage till the advisory board's report. Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

The period of detention should be determined only after the Advisory board gives a report justifying it. (Para 33) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

If the sale of liquor is dangerous to public health, it becomes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. (Para 65) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

Whether the material was sufficient or not is not for the Courts to decide by applying the objective basis as it is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. (Para 71) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

In the case on hand, the detaining authority has specifically stated in the grounds of detention that selling liquor by the detenu and the consumption by the people of that locality was harmful to their health. Such statement is an expression of his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Not only that, the detaining authority has also recorded his satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the detenu from indulging further in such activities and this satisfaction has been drawn on the basis of the credible material on record. No error, much less an error of law, in the impugned judgement of the High Court. Appeal dismissed. (Para 71) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

Property Law

TP Act - Transaction can't be regarded as 'mortgage by conditional sale' if condition for reconveyance is not specified in the same deed. Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2023 INSC 743

Difference between 'mortgage by conditional sale' & 'sale with condition of retransfer': Supreme Court explains. Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2023 INSC 743

Difference between the term’s ‘acquisition’ and ‘resumption’ - While both terms indicate deprivation of a right, there exists a significant distinction in their actual legal connotation. Acquisition denotes a positive act on behalf of the State to deprive an individual’s enjoyment of a pre­existing right in a property in furtherance of its policy whereas resumption denotes a punitive action by the State to take back the right or an interest in a property which was granted by it in the first place. The term ‘resumption’ must not therefore be conflated with the term ‘acquisition’ as employed within the meaning of Article 300­A of the Constitution so as to create a right to compensation. (Para 73) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664

Public Interest

It would be contrary to the public interest to direct the induction of the petitioners into the Higher Judicial Service after the lapse of more than six years. Candidates who have been selected nearly six years ago cannot be unseated. They were all qualified and have been serving the district judiciary of the state. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest. To induct the petitioners would be to bring in new candidates in preference to those who are holding judicial office for a length of time. To deprive the state and its citizens of the benefit of these experienced judicial officers at a senior position would not be in public interest. (Para 53) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658 : 2023 INSC 709

Public interest need not remain exclusively limited to ensuring maximum revenue accrual for the Government. Instead, public interest includes, without limiting itself to, a fair, transparent & stable process which any and all executive action must adhere to. (Para 30) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Ashish Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 654

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Setting up of a National Internal Security Council to deal with organised crime in the country such as smuggling, interstate trafficking, cybercrimes and large-scale political violence. The PIL also sought for all national and state level investigation agencies to be brought under the control of such a body. Held, that the reliefs sought for were in the nature of policy and in the domain of the legislature and hence the writ jurisdiction of the court could not be exercised for the same. Agnostos Theos v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 651

To limit the pages in petitions filed in Court - Held, the concern of the Petitioner was ‘laudable’, it would not be proper to issue a ‘one size fits all’ direction - Disposed the plea leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Secretary General of the Supreme Court on any ‘concrete’ suggestions he may have for expeditious disposal of cases. Amrish Rajnikant Kilachand v. Secretary General SCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 646

Rape

"No evidence" : Supreme Court acquits two men accused in 26 year old rape case. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592 : 2023 INSC 666

Real Estate

RERA - Supreme Court seeks responses of States/UTs which haven't established Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Appellate Tribunals. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 657

Review

Applications filed for ‘clarification/addition’ while evading the recourse of review, should be discouraged. Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : 2023 INSC 671

Res Judicata

Only fundamental determinations of the Court are hit by res judicata in subsequent proceedings. If the Court makes any incidental, supplemental or non-essential observations, which are not fundamental but ‘collateral’ to the final determination, then those ‘collateral determinations’ would not be hit by res judicata. (Para 43) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664

Test to distinguish between ‘fundamental determination’ and ‘collateral determination’ - The test is to see whether the concerned determination is so vital to the decision, that without it the decision cannot stand independently. (Para 43) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

The affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe - The claim by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits etc.- Though the Affinity Test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence, it should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim - If an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the perConstitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his or her claim. Priya Pramod Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 591 : 2023 INSC 663

Service Law

Supreme Court upholds disciplinary action against bank manager for lapses in loan approval; rejects defence of following superiors' instructions. Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Disciplinary Action - Power of judicial review for the Courts in disciplinary action is circumscribed. The Court can only correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and the power exercised is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. (Para 9) Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

In a disciplinary proceeding, the question of burden of proof would depend upon the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the employee. In a given case, the burden may be shifted to the employee depending upon the explanation. (Para 23) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719 : 2023 INSC 766

Scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. (Para 36) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719 : 2023 INSC 766

If in a disciplinary proceeding, the order of penalty can be imposed on the charges proved and the punishment imposed is lawfully sustainable on those charges, it is not for the Court to consider whether those grounds alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment. Unless punishment imposed is only co-relatable to any of those charges found not proved, the penalty cannot be set aside. (Para 39) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719 : 2023 INSC 766

The penalty imposed in this case is “reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I” as envisaged under Rule 49 (e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and further, to treat the period spent by the delinquent officer under suspension from 18.08.1990 till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only. Since the charge of not conducting periodical inspection and the failure to complete the formalities for creating equitable mortgage are supported by evidence, we do not think that the penalty as imposed is disproportionate so as to shock the conscience of the Court. (Para 40) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719 : 2023 INSC 766

Appointment cannot be denied citing suppression of material facts when the employer's query was vague in nature. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754

‘Suppression of Material Information’ - Bare perusal of the details of the information sought in Column No. 12 indicates that, it was regarding arrest, detention and conviction by a Court in any offence. In case the answer was ‘yes’, then full particulars of the arrest or detention or conviction and sentence were required to be furnished. In case the answer was in the negative, no other particulars were required to be furnished. In the case on hand, in reply to the information asked the respondent gave the answer as “no”. As per the contents of the information sought and as per the answer given by the respondent, he is not required to furnish information regarding pending criminal case. Therefore, supply of such information by the respondent does not fall within the expression ‘suppression of material information’. (Para 10) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754

Even in case where the information regarding pending criminal case is truthfully furnished and on acquittal therein, an employer has the discretion to consider the antecedents while issuing the letter of appointment. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754

Issuance of order of appointment is required to be left on the discretion of the employer and the High Court ought not to have taken away the said discretion. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754

As the respondent was not involved in heinous/serious offence or any offence involving moral turpitude, and the fact that in the said criminal case he has been honourably acquitted, therefore, modifying the order of the High Court, we direct the appellant to consider the case of the respondent and issue order of appointment to the post of constable in West Bengal Police Force within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. (Para 15) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754

Retired employees cannot claim benefit of subsequent Government decision to increase retirement age. (Para 17) Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : 2023 INSC 772

The idea behind extension of retirement age of doctors was to take care of the emergency situation caused by shortage of doctors, which was resulting in affecting the studies or patient care. It was not merely to grant benefits to a particular class. (Para 19) Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : 2023 INSC 772

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters that are strictly governed by the Service Regulations. (Para 18, 19) Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : 2023 INSC 772

Retirement age cannot be increased based on superannuation age in another similar post. The age of superannuation for employees is determined solely by statutory rules. (Para 44) Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : 2023 INSC 733

Retirement age of an employee cannot be increased on the ground of devotion to the job. (Para 48) Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : 2023 INSC 733

Once appointment is declared illegal and void ab initio, one cannot legally continue in service and claim salary. Dulu Deka v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 691 : 2023 INSC 752

'Tenure post & appointment made on regular post on tenure basis different' : Supreme Court allows lecturer's claim for pay protection. Asma Shaw v. Islamia College of Science & Commerce Srinagar Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 649 : 2023 INSC 690

Central Civil Service Rules - Retired employee can be appointed as inquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Sexual Violence

In time of sectarian violence, mobs use sexual violence to send a message of subordination to the community that the victims or survivors hail from. Such visceral violence against women during conflict is nothing but an atrocity. It is the bounden duty of the state – its foremost duty, even – to prevent people from committing such reprehensible violence and to protect those whom the violence targets. (Para 17) Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Social Media

'Substantial progress made to prevent circulation of child porn, rape videos on social media': Supreme Court closes PIL. In Re Prajwala letter dated 18.2.2015 videos of sexual violence and recommendations, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Sports Quota

75% eligibility condition for admission to sports quota 'unwarranted & discriminatory'. Dev Gupta v. Pec University of Technology, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623 : 2023 INSC 695

Statutory Remedy

Where a right or a liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute must be availed of. If a Statute provides for doing a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (Para 12) Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 661 : 2023 INSC 712

Succession

Hindu Succession Act - Possession of property necessary for woman to claim rights under section 14. M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774

Synopsis

'Avoid bulky synopsis' : Supreme Court expresses disappointment at 60 page synopsis filed against 6 page hc order. Drakshayanamma v. Girish, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709

Tax

Service Tax -­ Assessee cannot be subjected to a penalty on the basis of a show cause notice containing a completely erroneous category of service. (Para 10) Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II v. 3I Infotech Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 675 : 2023 INSC 711

Supreme Court recalls Judgment holding that no indirect taxes can be levied on duty free shops at airports. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai East v. Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 673

Interest income earned on deposits by clubs in banks which are corporate members taxable; principle of mutuality not applicable. Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660 : 2023 INSC 736

Income tax settlement commission's purpose is to give assessee a chance to disclose undisclosed income to seek immunity. Shree Nilkanth Developers v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Theft of Vehicle

Any violation of the condition of the insurance policy should be in the nature of a fundamental breach to deny the claimant insurance coverage. (Para 14) Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured. (Para 9, 10) Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Insurer had repudiated the claim by saying that the driver had left the vehicle unattended in the public road with the key on the ignition. The time gap between the driver alighting from the vehicle and noticing the theft, is very short. It cannot be said, in such circumstances, that leaving the key of the vehicle in the ignition was an open invitation to steal the vehicle. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the Claimant consented or connived in the removal of the vehicle. Even if there was some carelessness, it was not a fundamental breach of condition for totally denying the insurance claim altogether. Therefore, a claim up to 75% must be awarded on a nonstandard basis. (Para 15 - 18) Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Videos of Sexual Violence

The Supreme Court closed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for controlling indiscriminate circulation of child pornography and videos of gang rape and rape through WhatsApp and other social media after the expert committee constituted by the Court for the matter, submitted its report on how it proposes to address the issue. The expert committee had reached a consensus on the larger issue and had made substantial progress in addressing it. Held that, what was left to be monitored were technical aspects of implementation, which could be done by the Union. (Para 7 – 11) In Re Prajwala letter dated 18.2.2015 videos of sexual violence and recommendations, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Wage

‘Basic wage’ under epf act, cannot be equated with ‘minimum wage’ under Minimum Wages Act. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. G4s Security Services (India) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Wildlife

Issue regarding death of Cheetahs taking place in Kuno National Park - Supreme Court requests Centre to take into consideration suggestions of expert committee in right earnest. (Para 13) Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 616

Workman

Supreme Court asks UP Power Discom to pay over Rs 10 Lakhs as backwages to workman; Imposes cost of Rs 2 Lakhs. Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 736

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Abkari Act; Section 8 - The testimonies of official witnesses cannot be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined - the person receiving the information of the crime or detecting the occurrence thereof, can investigate the same. Questioning such an investigation on the basis of bias or such like factor, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not amenable to a general unqualified rule that lends itself to uniform application. (Para 16-26) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

Advocates Act, 1961; Section 35 - Professional Misconduct - Advocate did not disclose that his wife was the opposite party in the property dispute case taken up by him - Upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India to suspend the license - Advocate's son, who was assisting his father as his junior colleague, was let off with an undertaking that he won't commit any misconduct in future. Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet @ Ranu Yadav Dokh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635

Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - The parties have been litigating since the year 1994. During these decades, the Subject Land has acquired enormous value. Some of the documents on record do indicate that land mafia has already ousted the gullible Assignees and now have vulture’s eyes on the land. Additionally, ‘Greyhounds Commando Force’, a security agency of paramount national importance, currently occupies the Subject Land in public interest. The Subject Land in its entirety is declared to have vested in the State Government. On further allotment, its ownership and possessory rights, free from all encumbrances, stand transferred in favour of the Greyhounds Commando Force. No Civil Court or High Court shall entertain any claim whatsoever on behalf of any Assignee, their legal representative, GPA holder or any other claimant under any Agreement to sell or other instruments, claiming direct or indirect interests in the Subject Land. There shall be a final quietus of title and possessory dispute over the Subject Land in favour of the Respondent­State and/or the agency to whom the said land has been allotted. (Para 76) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664

Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - Section 3(2) of the Act refers to the period of delegation of powers and not the period of detention. (Para 27) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986; Section 3(2) - If the detention is on the ground that the detenu is indulging in manufacture or transport or sale of liquor then that by itself would not become an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order because the same can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Prohibition Act but if the liquor sold by the detenu is dangerous to public health then under the Act 1986, it becomes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, it becomes necessary for the detaining authority to be satisfied on material available to it that the liquor dealt with by the detenu is liquor which is dangerous to public health to attract the provisions of the 1986 Act and if the detaining authority is satisfied that such material exists either in the form of report of the Chemical Examiner or otherwise, copy of such material should also be given to the detenu to afford him an opportunity to make an effective representation. (Para 65) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

Arbitration Act, 1940; Sections 30 and 33 - Court’s jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act never extended beyond discerning whether the award discloses an “error apparent on the face of the award” or not. The ruling of the trial courts and the High Court is nothing short of intense appellate review, which is impermissible in law and beyond the courts’ jurisdiction. S.D. Shinde v. Govt. of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 693 : 2023 INSC 751

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - A dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. It might provide useful clues in case there is a procedural issue which becomes critical during the challenge hearings - When a majority award is challenged by the aggrieved party, the focus of the court and the aggrieved party is to point out the errors or illegalities in the majority award. The minority award (or dissenting opinion, as the learned authors point out) only embodies the views of the arbitrator disagreeing with the majority. There is no occasion for anyone- such as the party aggrieved by the majority award, or, more crucially, the party who succeeds in the majority award, to challenge the soundness, plausibility, illegality or perversity in the approach or conclusions in the dissenting opinion. That dissenting opinion would not receive the level and standard of scrutiny which the majority award (which is under challenge) is subjected to. (Para 27) Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704 : 2023 INSC 768

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - Awards which contain reasons, especially when they interpret contractual terms, ought not to be interfered with, lightly - Appellate review is unavailable when exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act - Courts cannot, through process of primary contract interpretation, thus, create pathways to the kind of review which is forbidden under Section 34. (Para 22 - 23) Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704 : 2023 INSC 768

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - The court is powerless to modify the award and can only set aside partially, or wholly, an award on a finding that the conditions spelt out under Section 34 have been established - In appeal, Section 37 of the Act grants narrower scope to the appellate court to review the findings in an award, if it has been upheld, or substantially upheld under Section 34. (Para 13-16) Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 631 : 2023 INSC 708

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - The scope of interference by a court in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is restricted and subject to the same grounds as the challenge under Section 34 of the Act - This jurisdiction is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction - The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act is exercised only to see if the Arbitral Tribunal’s view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, the question of reinterpreting the contract on an alternative view does not arise. (Para 14, 15, 20) Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 668 : 2023 INSC 742

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Andhra Pradesh) - Serious allegations prevail against the Appellants for being involved with the land mafia to usurp the Subject Land for private interests which was the precise reason for the Government to introduce legislation in the nature of the 1977 Act. Held, the Appellants are not entitled to any compensation under the existing constitutional framework. The proceedings emanating out of the second show cause notice (SCN) were valid; the Subject Land was non-alienable and hence was subject to the provisions of the 1977 Act. The Appellants had transferred the Subject Land in contravention to the provisions of 1977 Act and therefore, the resultant resumption order dated 27.01.2007 is valid. The Appellants are also not entitled to any compensation on account of the requisition of the assigned land. (Para 74 & 75) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664

CCS Pension Rules, 1972; Rule 2(g) and 17 - Past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account for pension. (Para 9) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 662

Central Excise Act, 1944 - In order to determine whether a product would fall under the description of “Intravenous Fluids” so as to be eligible for exemption from excise duty, it is the composition of the product in question which is relevant and not whether the product is used for treatment of any particular disease. The veterinary products ‘Calcium Borogluconate Injection (I.P.) (Vet.)’ and ‘Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injection (I.P.) (Vet.)’ manufactured by the assessee fell under the description of “Intravenous Fluids”, and thus were eligible for exemption from excise duty. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Denis Chem Lab Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Civil Service Regulations (Jammu & Kashmir); Article 77D - Benefit of Pay Protection - Only exception carved out to Article 77D was in respect of a government servant holding a post on ad-hoc basis or working against leave/suspension or any other short-term vacancy. There is a difference between a tenure post and an appointment made on a regular post on a tenure basis. The appointment to the post of Lecturer at Academic Staff College was not against a short-term vacancy as it was a substantive post on a tenure basis and hence the exception under the third proviso to Article 77D will not apply. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to pay protection. (Para 10) Asma Shaw v. Islamia College of Science & Commerce Srinagar Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 649 : 2023 INSC 690

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX - When the defendant counsel had withdrawn his Vakalatnama, in normal course, the Trial Court ought to have issued notice to the defendants to engage another counsel. (Para 21) Y.P. Lele v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 653 : 2023 INSC 732

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XVII Rule 2 - Any party” refers to the party which has led evidence or substantial evidence and “such party” refers to that very party which has led evidence or substantial evidence - Under Order XVII Rule 2, the Court would proceed to pass orders with respect to any of the parties being absent or both the parties being absent. Whereas the explanation is confined to record the presence of that party and that party alone, which has led evidence or substantial evidence and has thereafter failed to appear. (Para 19) Y.P. Lele v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 653 : 2023 INSC 732

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 - Executing Court cannot dismiss an execution petition against the judgment-debtor by treating the decree for possession as inexecutable, merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession of the immovable property to a third party/encroacher. It was the duty of the Executing Court to issue warrant of possession for effecting physical delivery of the suit land to the decree-holder. Further, if any resistance is offered by any stranger/ encroacher to the decree, the same has to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court in accordance with Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI CPC. Unless this procedure is adopted, the Executing Court could not have closed the execution proceedings by observing that the decree is inexecutable. (Para 15) Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : 2023 INSC 764

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 10 - Procedure of Commissioner - In terms of Order XXVI Rule 10, the Commissioner has to submit a report in writing to the court. The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him constitute evidence in the suit and form a part of the record. However, the court and, with its permission, any of the parties may examine the Commissioner personally in open court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in the report or as regards the report including the manner in which the investigation has been made. The court is also empowered to direct such further inquiry if it is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner. The evidentiary value of any report of the Commissioner is a matter to be tested in the suit and is open to objections including cross-examination. A report of the Commissioner does not by and of itself amount to a substantive finding on matters in dispute and is subject to the process of the court during the course of the trial. (Para 14) Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : 2023 INSC 702

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - High Court cannot admit regular second appeal without framing substantial questions of law. Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - Transfer Petition - Rejected petitioner's contention that since all his witnesses are from Siliguri (West Bengal), language could be a barrier - In a country as diverse as India, it is no doubt true that people speak different languages. There are at least 22 (twenty-two) official languages. However, Hindi being the national language, it is expected of the witnesses who would be produced by the petitioner before the MACT, Fatehgarh, U.P. to communicate and convey their version in Hindi. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, it is the claimants who would be seriously prejudiced not being in a position to communicate and convey their version in Bengali. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Curtailment of 15 days of police custody by any extraneous circumstances, act of God, an order of Court not being the handy work of investigating agency would not act as a restriction. (Para 60) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. is a bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act. (Para 77) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 311, 367 and 391 - Appellate Courts can exercise all powers vested in the Trial Court in an attempt to arrive at a just and fair decision. In the present case, unfortunately the Trial Court as well as the High Court failed to exercise their powers under the aforesaid provisions to summon the witnesses of the charge-sheet to prove the police papers. Despite applications being filed to summon persons who were not shown as witnesses to the charge-sheet, the Trial Court repeatedly rejected the said applications in 2006 and again in 2008 on the flimsy grounds that were not named in the charge-sheet or that the Public Prosecutor had not filed such application in gross violation of Section 311 CrPC. (Para 112, 113) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The decision in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141, which held that police custody is not permissible beyond first 15 days of remand, as followed subsequently requires reconsideration by a reference to a larger Bench. (Para 79) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The maximum period of 15 days of police custody is meant to be applied to the entire period of investigation – 60 or 90 days, as a whole. (Para 62) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence. Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 639

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 - An order of remand has to be challenged only before a higher forum as provided under the Cr.P.C. when it depicts a due application of mind both on merit and compliance of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 read with Section 19 of the PMLA 2002. (Para 66) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The word “custody” under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 shall mean actual custody. (Para 60) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The words “such custody” occurring in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 would include not only police custody but also that of other investigating agencies. (Para 85) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173, 190, 200 - On the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options - Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action - Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process - Thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 - Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report - Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report - Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be. Zunaid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730 : 2023 INSC 778

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 197 - Although a person working in a Nationalised Bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of Section 197 of the CrPC would not be attracted at all as Section 197 is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government. (Para 45) A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : 2023 INSC 682

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 197 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - In the prosecution for the offences exclusively under the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua the public servant. In cases under the general penal law against the public servant, the necessity (or otherwise) of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC depends on the factual aspects. The test in the latter case is of the “nexus” between the act of commission or omission and the official duty of the public servant. To commit an offence punishable under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC on such reasoning. The “safe and sure test”, is to ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have made the public servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of his official duty. He may have acted “in excess of his duty”, but if there is a “reasonable connection” between the impugned act and the performance of the official duty, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC cannot be denied, so long as the discharge of official duty is not used as a cloak for illicit acts. (Para 49) A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : 2023 INSC 682

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - As far as complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act are concerned, for the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses. Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202(1) - In a case where one of the accused is a resident of a place outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, following the procedure under Section 202(1) is mandatory. (Para 4) Odi Jerang v. Nabajyoti Baruah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202(1), 203 - After taking recourse to Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C., before dismissing a complaint by taking recourse to Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to consider the statements of the complainant and his witnesses. (Para 5) Dilip Kumar v. Brajraj Shrivastava, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 597 : 2023 INSC 670

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 207, 208 - When a copy of the report and the documents are supplied to the accused under Section 207 and/or Section 208, an opportunity is available for the accused to contend that he does not understand the language in which the final report or does not understand the language in which the final report or the statements or documents are written. But he must raise this objection at the earliest. In such a case, if the accused is appearing in person and wants to defend himself without opting for legal aid, perhaps there may be a requirement of supplying a translated version of the charge sheet and documents or the relevant part thereof concerning the said accused to him. It is, however, subject to the accused satisfying the Court that he is unable to understand the language in which the charge sheet is submitted - When the accused is represented by an advocate who fully understands the language of the final report or charge sheet, there will not be any requirement of furnishing translations to the accused as the advocate can explain the contents of the charge sheet to the accused. If both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed, then the question of providing translation may arise. The reason is that the accused must get a fair opportunity to defend himself. (Para 19) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 211, 215 - In a given case, even if the charge is not framed in the language of the Court, the omission to frame the charge in the language of the Court shall not be material unless it is shown that the accused was misled and it resulted in failure of justice. (Para 14.a) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227, 239 - An interlocutory application seeking discharge in the midst of trial would also not be maintainable. (Para 15) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228, 240 - If the accused does not understand the language in which the charge is framed, the Court will have to explain the charge to him in the language which he understands. (Para 14.b and 14.c.) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272 - The power under Section 272 is not a power to decide which language shall be used by the investigating agencies or the police for the purposes of maintaining the record of the investigation. At the highest, for that purpose, the provisions regarding the law governing the Official Language of the State may apply subject to the provisions contained in such enactment. In a given case, while prescribing a form as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 173, the State Government may provide that the charge sheet must be filed in the official language of the State. Therefore, Section 272 deals with only the language of the Courts under CrPC. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272, 167, 173 - A charge sheet filed within the period provided either under Section 167 of CrPC or any other relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground - With the availability of various software and Artificial Intelligence tools for making translations, providing translations will not be that difficult now. In the cases mentioned aforesaid, the Courts can always direct the prosecution to provide a translated version of the charge sheet. (Para 19) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272, 173, 465 - There is no specific provision in CrPC which requires the investigating agency/officer to file it in the language of the Court determined in accordance with Section 272 of CrPC. Even if such a requirement is read into Section 173, per se, the proceedings will not be vitiated if the report is not in the language of the Court. The test of failure of justice will have to be applied in such a case as laid down in Section 465 of CrPC. (Para 18) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 279 - Where evidence is recorded in the language of the Court which is not understood by the accused or his pleader, there is an obligation on the part of the Court to explain the evidence to the accused or his lawyer, as the case may be. (Para 14.g) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Trial courts cautioned against recording statements in a casual and cursory manner. What holds importance is not the mere quantity of questions posed to the accused but rather the content and manner in which they are framed. (Para 31) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 385 and 386 - Criminal revision petition needs to be considered on merits even in the absence of a party or their counsel. (Para 6) Taj Mohammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 4 (2) - Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Maharashtra); Section 81(5B) - the police have an independent power and even duty under the CrPC to investigate into an offence once information has been drawn to their attention indicating the commission of an offence. This power is not curtailed by the provisions of the 1960 Act. There is no express bar and the provisions of Section 81(5B) do not by necessary implication exclude the investigative role of the police under the CrPC. (Para 27) Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 652 : 2023 INSC 710

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41A - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 has got no application to an arrest made under the PMLA 2002. (Para 35) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 426(2)(b) - Insofar as a life convict is concerned, in law, no part of the sentence remains unexpired. The remission granted by the Government to a life convict, cannot be taken to mean that there is some portion of the life sentence that remains unexpired in the same sense as in the case of other convicts. A life sentence is a sentence for life. What remains unexpired of such a sentence is known only to God (if you believe) and to the Government, if there is a policy of remission. Therefore, Section 426(2)(b) cannot be taken to have included within its fold, the case of a life convict, since in the case of life convict no portion of the sentence remains unexpired, in the technical sense. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail was allowed by the High Court weighing the fact that the accused has filed a settlement arrived at with the victim’s son that too in respect of an offence under Section 302 IPC. The State ought to have approached this Court against the order of bail granted by the High Court but surprisingly, no steps were taken. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and accused was directed to surrender forthwith before the trial Court. A copy of this order forwarded to the Secretary (Home), Government of Gujarat for his perusal and appropriate action. (Para 7 – 12) Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and would be a onslaught on the dignity of the womanhood and the age old principle of where women are respected Gods live there would recede to the background and the guilty not being punished by process of law or accused persons are allowed to move around freely in the society or in spite of there being prima facie material being present they are allowed to move around freely in the society before guilt is proved and are likely to indulge in either threatening the prosecution witnesses or inducing them in any manner to jettison the criminal justice system, then the superior court will have to necessarily step in to undo the damage occasioned due to erroneous orders being passed by courts below. (Para 17) Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707 : 2023 INSC 761

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 464, 465 - While deciding whether there is a failure of justice occasioned due to error, omission, or irregularity in the trial, the Court is required to consider the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. (Para 16) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet - The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all - The factors which the Court is required to take into consideration, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and while considering an application for discharge are totally different - Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the crossexamination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial - Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 3-9) Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Cheque complaint against partner of a firm - Powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court in case when it comes across unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the partner of the firm did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques. Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2023 INSC 757

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR. However, delay with other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case rendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings. (Para 33) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 – High Court can act on Section 482 petition to quash FIR even if chargesheet has been filed during its pendency. (Para 11) Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - the complainant had named the appellant and alleged complicity based on a misconception and therefore, at this stage, having realized the same, has indicated that he does not wish to prosecute the complaint as against the appellant. Therefore, the FIR as against the appellant, would not be appropriate and all further action unnecessary. Iqbal Hasanali Syed v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - When it comes to quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings. An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal, then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter. Initiation of prosecution has adverse and harsh consequences for the persons named as accused - The right to not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds as one of the underlying mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution - The requirement and need to balance the law enforcement power and protection of citizens from injustice and harassment must be maintained. It goes without saying that the State owes a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished but at the same time it also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed. (Para 34) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the 2 initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. (Para 30) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. (Para 26) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2023 INSC 684

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 54A - Test Identification Parade - An accused is under an obligation to stand for identification parade. An accused cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be forced or coerced for the same. If the coercion is sought to be imposed in getting from accused evidence which cannot be procured save through positive volitional act on his part, the constitutional 38 guarantee as enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution will step in to protect him. However, if that evidence can be procured without any positive volitional evidentiary act on the part of the accused, Article 20(3) of the Constitution will have no application. The accused while subjecting himself to the TIP does not produce any evidence or perform any evidentiary act - The accused concerned may have a legitimate ground to resist facing the TIP saying that the witnesses had a chance to see him either at the police station or in the Court, as the case may be, however, on such ground alone he cannot refuse to face the TIP. It is always open for the accused to raise any legal ground available to him relating to the legitimacy of the TIP or the evidentiary value of the same in the course of the trial. However, the accused cannot decline or refuse to join the TIP. (Para 35) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 54A - This Section is restricted to identification of persons only. So, this Section has no application where the question of identification of articles arises. (Para 33) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 426 and 427 - If an escaped convict already serving life term is subsequently convicted, subsequent sentence will run concurrently with previous life sentence. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 82, 83 - The High Court by its impugned order even while granting bail to the accused issued detailed and elaborate guidelines with respect to the manner of issuing proclamations under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The impugned order has inadvertently or otherwise entirely overlooked Form 5 and 6 and the important provisions of Sections 83 Cr.P.C. and 174A IPC. Therefore, to the extent, they issue directions to the State and to all Courts within the territories of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh; are hereby set aside. However, to the extent that the order grants bail to the accused, is left undisturbed. State of Haryana v. Darshan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Companies Act, 1956; Sections 529, 529A, 530 - Customs Act, 1962; Sections 61, 72, 142, 142A - In case of winding up of a company, the customs duty owed by the company would be treated as a preferential payment under Section 530(1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956. But customs duty would not override and be given preference over the payments due to overriding preferential creditors covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act, which include the secured creditors. The Customs Act, 1962 does not create a statutory first charge on the customs dues, overriding the charge created in favour of the secured creditor under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683 : 2023 INSC 746

Constitution of India, 1950 - The Court expressed its anguish of the manner in which women have been subjected to grave acts of sexual violence in the course of the sectarian strife in Manipur. Subjecting women to sexual crimes and violence is completely unacceptable and constitutes a grave violation of the constitutional values of dignity, personal liberty and autonomy all of which are protected as core fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Mobs commonly resort to violence against women for multiple reasons, including the fact that they may escape punishment for their crimes if they are a member of a larger group. (Para 17) Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 10A - Survey of Gyanvapi Mosque - Commission for Scientific Investigation - Application seeking a direction to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to undertake a scientific survey for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the construction and the age of the structure. The District Judge allowed the applications and directed the ASI to “undertake the scientific investigation / survey / excavation on the property. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the order of the District Judge directing an archeological survey of the area in which the Gyanvapi Mosque is situated. However, during the course of the proceedings before the High Court, ASI has clarified on affidavit that it was neither carrying out any excavation nor would the survey involve any destruction of the property. Held that the Order of the Trial Judge under Order XXVI Rule 10A cannot prima facie be construed to be without jurisdiction. Having regard to the nature and ambit of a court appointed Commissioner, we are unable to differ with the view of the High Court, particularly while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The survey shall not involve any excavation at the site or any destruction of the structure. The entire process shall be concluded by any noninvasive methodology that may be adopted by the ASI. (Para 15 -17) Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : 2023 INSC 702

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - Even after leave is granted and appeal is admitted, the appellants must show that exceptional and special circumstances exist to reverse the findings, or grave injustice will be done if the decision under challenge is not interfered with. (Para 8) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - An individual who claims a benefit or entitlement based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation has to establish the following: (i) the legitimacy of the expectation; and that (ii) the denial of the legitimate expectation led to a violation of Article 14. (Para 44) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658 : 2023 INSC 709

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Sports Quota - Objective of the sports quota, was to promote and encourage sports, and sportsmanship in educational institutions. Expecting the same degree of academic excellence as that of general candidates will defeat the purpose of the sports quota. The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore, falls afoul of the equality clause. (Para 17, 18) Dev Gupta v. Pec University of Technology, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623 : 2023 INSC 695

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The High Court’s decision to apply the minimum cut-off marks for the viva voce frustrates the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. The decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Para 52) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658 : 2023 INSC 709

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The principles of good administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Para 43) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658 : 2023 INSC 709

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides - Continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage - When there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then dissolution of marriage is the only solution. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(3) - Test Identification Parade - Conduct of Test Identification Parade is not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India - What is prohibited by Article 20(3) of the Constitution is procuring by compulsion of the positive volitional evidentiary acts of an accused. It is true that an accused may be said to be compelled to attend a test identification parade, but this compulsion does not involve any positive volitional evidentiary act. His mere attendance or the exhibition of his body at a test identification parade even though compelled, does not result in any evidentiary act until he is identified by some other agency. The identification of him by a witness is not his act, even though his body is exhibited for the purpose. His compelled attendance at a test identification parade is comparatively remote to the final evidence and cannot be said by itself to furnish any positive volitional evidentiary act. (Para 26) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - A “fair trial”, is a right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it encompasses all stages of trial including that of “investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and the trial. (Para 28) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 207, 208 - Accused must know and understand the material against him in the charge sheet. That is the essence of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 19) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21A - Right to Education Act, 2009; Section 23 - B.Ed. degree holders did not pass the basic pedagogical threshold require for teaching primary classes and thus would not be able to provide 'quality' education to primary school children. (Para 31) Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : 2023 INSC 704

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21A - Right to Education Act, 2009; Section 23 - The fundamental right of primary education in India not just included 'free' and 'compulsory' education for children below 14 years of age but also included 'quality' education to be imparted in such children. (Para 19) Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : 2023 INSC 704

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22(4)(a) - Period of three months specified in Article 22(4)(a) is relatable to the period of detention prior to the report of the Advisory Board and not to the period of detention subsequent thereto. (Para 44) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The whole object of preferring a Writ Petition is to engage with the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional power. Such a power is vested with the constitutional courts and discretion has to be exercised judiciously and having regard to the facts of the case and by taking into consideration the relevant facts while leaving out irrelevant considerations and not vice versa. (Para 19) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petition in tender matters - The owner or the employer of a project, who authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents - The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation. (Para 25) Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694 : 2023 INSC 760

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 – Petition to restrict the assassination of dignity of individual, community, religious saint, religious & political organisation by these broadcasting electronic channels in the name of freedom of 'Press' - to control these uncontrolled and unregulated broadcasting electronic channels - to restrict media trail, parallel trial, judgmental views and interfering in the administration of justice - to constitute an independent authority for the purpose of regulating and facilitating development of broadcasting services in India - to stop the misuse of airwaves by these broadcasting electronic channels in the name of media, press and journalism - Held, that the prayers are too wide - we have to also keep in mind the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression - a mechanism has been created to address the grievances headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court consists of members of the Civil Society as well. Moreover, this Court is dealing with hate speeches/news items in separate petitions. Therefore, declined to entertain the petition. If the petitioner so desires, he can always make a representation to the appropriate authorities pointing out alleged illegalities committed by news channels. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging appointment of Election Commissioner – Held, the appointment of the Election Commissioner, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has been examined the Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155. The Constitution Bench did not pass any effective order disturbing the appointment, though the relevant files and all other factors have been taken into consideration. PIL dismissed. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Union Government has absolutely no intent to affect any of the special provisions in Part XXI applicable to the North East or to any other part of India. The reference to the Constitution Bench is confined to the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 4, 5) In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 22(1) r/w. 13(4)(iv) – Insurance claim - Leakage of gas - Reports of the loss Assessor and experts – Held, NCDRC made observations in the impugned judgment as if its members were experts in the relevant field and clothed with authority to sit in appeal over the same. The leak of ammonia gas was not occasioned due to wear and tear as claimed by the insurance company but was the outcome of an accident which was not foreseen and beyond its control and not covered by any of the exceptions in the Policy so as to entitle the company to claim immunity for the ultimate purpose of repudiating the insurance claim. The NCDRC committed serious error by not giving the reports placed on record the extent of credence the same deserved. The manner in which the NCDRC dealt with such reports was not proper and legal; major part of the reports could not have been rejected and only stray observations relied upon to support the conclusions. This is one of the foremost reasons which compels to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Repudiation of the insurance claim, on facts and in the circumstances, is held to amount to deficiency in service on its part. Therefore, see no reason to accept any of the grounds assigned by the NCDRC for rejection of the Complaint. (Para 34 – 34) S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 619 : 2023 INSC 689

Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Supreme Court imposes cost on State of Uttar Pradesh for delay in complying with direction for premature release of 4 convicts. Mahendra v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Maharashtra) - Section 81(5B) of the Act casts a positive obligation on the auditor or the Registrar to file an FIR. It does not use any negative expression to prohibit persons other than the auditor or the Registrar from registering an FIR. Therefore, it would be contrary to basic principles of statutory construction to conclude that Section 81(5B) debars persons other than the auditor or the Registrar from filing an FIR. (Para 24) Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 652 : 2023 INSC 710

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; Section 2b - Once the EPF Act contains a specific provision defining the words ‘basic wage’, then there was no occasion for the appellant to expect the Court to have travelled to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to give it a different connotation or an expansive one, as sought to be urged. Clearly, that was not the intention of the legislature. (Para 4) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. G4s Security Services (India) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 2(14AA) - Factories Act, 1948; Section 2(k) - “manufacturing process” - the firm's utilization of electrical energy for repairing electrical goods would make it fall within the definition of “power” used in the “manufacturing process” under both the ESI Act and Factories Act,1948. The word Manufacturing process also includes “repairing” any article for its use. Admittedly, the shop premises is used not only for selling goods, but also to service electrical goods. That being the position, it is clear that the appellant firm falls under the definition of a “Factory” and is using a “manufacturing process”, as contemplated under both the Statues. (Para 8 & 9) J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 2(15)(C) - Factories Act, 1948; Section 2(g) - “power” - the electronic goods shop which sells goods and repairs/services such goods can be said to be engaged in a “manufacturing process” using “power” as defined under ESI Act and Factories Act. (Para 10) J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Sections 2(12) - Factories Act, 1948; Section 2(k) - “factory” - Electronics shop repairing and servicing electrical goods is “factory” under ESI Act. (Para 9) J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 - Pathological labs in Kerala covered under ESI Act from 2007 and not from 2002, by virtue of a Government Notification issued on 06.09.2007 - If the pathological laboratories were already covered under the Act there was no occasion to issue such a notification - Even as per the understanding of the Corporation, pathological laboratories were not covered under the Act prior to that date – Hence, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the ESI Corporation. (Para 13-15) E.S.I. Corporation v. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 600

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - When an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete - Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show, that shortly before the commission of the crime they were seen together or the offence took place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not dispute his presence at home at the relevant time and does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 114(a) - A presumption of fact must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation. (Para 36) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 21) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - In the case at hand, the deceased gave his statement in the form of a written statement and narrated the entire incident and circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. Subsequently, he died on account of injuries suffered by him in the incident in question. This fact is not in dispute and hence, the FIR lodged on the basis of a written statement of injured is liable to be treated as a dying declaration, which itself is a substantive piece of evidence and is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. (Para 95) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Statement by an injured person recorded as FIR can be treated as a dying declaration and such a statement is admissible. The dying declaration must not cover the whole incident or narrate the case history. Corroboration is not necessary for this situation; a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction. (Para 91) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 – Dying Declaration – Weight Assigned in Criminal Proceedings – Great caution must be exercised while placing reliance on dying declarations even as the law attaches a presumption of truthfulness to such statements – No hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted – Duty of the court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the declarations – Held, dying declarations not sufficient evidence in present case – Appeal allowed. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Statement by an injured person which was later converted into an FIR, is admissible in evidence and is to be read as a dying declaration or his last statement. (Para 114 (a)) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 56 - Doctrine of Judicial Notice - Law in respect of taking judicial notice of any fact – (i) The doctrine of judicial notice, as provided under Section 56, is an exception to general rules of evidence applicable for proving any fact by adducing evidence in the Court of law. (ii). According to Section 56 of the Evidence Act, judicial notice of any such fact can be taken by the Court, which is well-known to everyone, which is in the common knowledge of everyone, which is authoritatively attested, which is so apparent on the face of the record, etc. (iii). Except in the rarest of rare cases, judicial notice of any fact is generally not taken in criminal matters in the normal course of proceeding, and the case is decided on the basis of oral, material and documentary evidence adduced by the parties to find out the guilt or innocence. (Para 66) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 56 - Judicial notice is taken of the judgment in the Habeas Corpus petition regarding the conduct of the accused, the investigating agency, the Public Prosecutor and the Presiding Officer conducting the trial. The two administrative reports of the respective judges, who were constitutional functionaries, also have to be given due credence and cannot be ignored outright regarding the conduct of the accused, public prosecutor and the Presiding Officer conducting the Trial. (Para 114 (f), (g)) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 74 - FIR is a public document. (Para 82) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 78 and 81 - Newspaper reports only hearsay evidence and it can only be treated as secondary evidence - Extrajudicial confession cannot be given greater credibility only because it is published in a newspaper and is available to the public at large. (Para 15) Dinesh B.S v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - Conduct of the accused – Accused was instrumental in making all possible efforts to wipe out the evidence against him and the Prosecution machinery as also the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, if we may say so, was used as a tool of his highhandedness. The obvious question pops up in the mind of any prudent person, as to why he was instrumental, when he was not guilty of the offence to which he was being tried. The obvious answer to this would reasonably come to mind of any prudent person that his guilty mind was fearful about the result. All these aspects leave no room for doubt that the subsequent conduct of the accused is one of the major circumstances pointing towards his guilt for the incident. (Para 72, 73) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8, 27 - The conduct of an accused is relevant, if such conduct influences or influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where he had concealed the weapon of offence would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act or not. (Para 78) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Higher Judicial Services Special Rules 1961 (Kerala State); Rule 2(c)(iii) - The decision of the High Court of Kerala to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination is contrary to Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules. (Para 51) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658 : 2023 INSC 709

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 7A (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu) - Self-respect marriages do not require a public solemnisation or declaration. (Para 8) Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 7A (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu) - Self-respect marriage - Couples intending to marry may refrain from making a public declaration due to various reasons, such as familial opposition or fear for their safety. In such cases, enforcing a public declaration could put lives at risk and potentially result in forced separation. (Para 8) Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 14 - Possession of property necessary for woman to claim rights under section 14. (Para 4) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774

Income Tax Act 1961 - Settlement Commission - there is a real object and purpose of setting up of the Settlement Commission as an Assessee, who is given an opportunity to disclose the undisclosed income in order to seek benefit in the form of immunity from penalty and prosecution. Shree Nilkanth Developers v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 2 (24) - Interest income earned on fixed deposits made in the banks by Clubs has to be treated like any other income from other sources within the meaning of Section 2(24). The principle of mutuality would not apply to interest income earned on fixed deposits made by Clubs in the banks irrespective of whether the banks are corporate members of the club or not. Dismissed the plea that the judgement in Bangalore Club vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 5 SCC 509 is not a binding precedent and therefore the same calls for reconsideration. (Para 43) Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660 : 2023 INSC 736

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; S.33C(2) - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; S.6H - The appellant–workman claimed unlawful termination of his employment (sometime in 1979) and approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court directed his reinstatement and also directed payment of back wages at the rate of ₹8000/-. The Respondent, U.P. Power Corporation, filed a writ petition which was dismissed after the High Court had kept it pending for 11 long years, on 03.01.2006. The appellant thereafter represented to the employer on several occasions, but unsuccessfully. Ultimately, he approached the Labour Court yet again for calculation of his dues. In this second round, the Labour Court by order dated 31.08.2020 calculated back wages and directed payment of ₹8000/- per month. By the impugned order of the High Court those directions were set aside. Held, the High Court could not have done what it in fact did, i.e., to set aside the second order of the Labour Court which merely calculated the amounts due and made consequential directions. The adjudication between the parties having crystallized with the award dated 22.12.1995, which was confirmed by the High Court, there was no occasion for any intervention, much less by the High Court. In these circumstances, the second award of the Labour Court is hereby restored. The respondent–U.P. Power Corporation Limited is hereby directed to pay to the appellant the sum indicated, i.e., ₹10,54,311/-, with interest @ 11% p.a. calculable from 21.09.2006 and shall also pay ₹2,00,000/- as costs. The appeal is allowed. (Para 3, 6) Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 736

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Commissioner and employees of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) must ensure that they comply with the timelines under the IBC. In case of failure to comply with the timelines, action must be taken against erring employees. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 734

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Rules, 2016 - The Supreme Court has upheld the ruling of NCLAT fivemember bench, wherein it was held that NCLAT is empowered to recall its judgment but not to review them. The Supreme Court has affirmed the NCLAT’s ruling and dismissed an appeal filed against the order. Union Bank of India v. Financial Creditors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The Supreme Court has recalled its judgment dated 10 April 2023, where the Court had ruled that Duty Free Shops situated in the arrival or departure terminals of Airports are outside the customs frontiers of India and therefore, they cannot be saddled with any indirect taxes like the Service Tax. While allowing the review plea filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise against the Supreme Court’s verdict in Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd [Civil Appeal Diary No. 24336/2022 dated 10.04.2023], the court observed that while hearing the appeal, none of the submissions of the Union of India had been recorded or considered, and that the judgment only adverts to the submissions of the respondent- assessee. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai East v. Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 673

Interpretation of Statutes - All penal statutes are to be construed strictly - Court must see that the thing charged is an offence within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the words. (Para 19-21) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Land Acquisition Act 1894 - While determining the deduction for development charges, the courts should take into consideration important factors including the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not, if developed to what extent, the purpose of acquisition etc. This exercise is required for ascertaining the percentage of deduction by the Courts. (Para 11) Mala v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663 : 2023 INSC 735

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 18 - Whether the Reference made to the Reference Court was within the limitation? Held, the issue of limitation raised by respondent- Committee before the Reference Court and before the High Court was not only not tenable but was highly unreasonable and improper. Considering the hardship caused to both the parties arrived at a Settlement and requested the High Court to dispose of the said writ petition in terms of the consent terms. The Reference Court after considering all the legal and factual aspects of the matter had rightly held that the Reference was filed with the Collector within the period of limitation as per the order passed by the High Court. The High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the said well-reasoned findings recorded by the Reference Court, and in setting aside the entire award and remanding the matter back to the Reference Court for deciding it afresh. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court being ex facie erroneous, the same are set aside. (Para 5 - 7, 9) Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711 : 2023 INSC 750

Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - An insured party seeking insurance coverage based on a Classification Certificate for a vessel must proactively bring any shortcomings or defects to the attention of the Classification Society before the certificate is issued. This is important as the insurance coverage is based on the assumption that the Classification Society has diligently assessed all aspects before issuing the certificate. (Para 16, 21) Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640 : 2023 INSC 694

Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - If the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness. (Para 16) Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640 : 2023 INSC 694

Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 - Maternity benefits must be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. (Para 10) Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - “To give birth to an unwanted child or not” is the question posed by the appellant in this appeal, being unsuccessful before the Gujarat High Court. It is significant to note that the High Court has not taken into consideration the relevant facts that the appellant was pregnant for 25 weeks and 6 days +/- 2 weeks and the weight of foetus was around 914 grams as per ultra-sonography report. The report further stated that although there is no congenital abnormality in the foetus, the medical termination of the pregnancy could be done only if the Court permits, after taking the consent of the appellant and explaining potential risk to maternal health. However, the following paragraphs of the report have not been noted by the High Court that at present the survivor is clinically fit for above mentioned procedure and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy would not adversely affect child bearing capacity and General Health of the Survivor in future. We find that in the absence of even noticing the aforesaid portion of the report, the High Court was not right in simply holding that “the age of the foetus is almost 27 weeks as on 17.08.2023 and considering the statements made by the learned advocate for the petitioner-victim and the averments made in the application the petition for medical termination of pregnancy stands rejected”, which, in our view is ex facie contradictory. (Para 9, 10) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - A woman alone has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion. (Para 17) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - In Indian society, within the institution of marriage, generally pregnancy is a reason for joy and celebration and of great expectation, not only for the couple but also for their families and friends. By contrast, pregnancy outside marriage, in most cases, is injurious, particularly, after a sexual assault/abuse and is a cause for stress and trauma affecting both the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman the victim. Sexual assault or abuse of a woman is itself distressing and sexual abuse resulting in pregnancy compounds the injury. This is because such a pregnancy is not a voluntary or mindful pregnancy. (Para 13) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - In the context of abortion, the right of dignity entails recognising the competence and authority of every woman to take reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Although human dignity inheres in every individual, it is susceptible to violation by external conditions and treatment imposed by the State. The right of every woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the state is central to the idea of human dignity. Deprivation of access to reproductive healthcare or emotional and physical well-being also injures the dignity of women. (Para 18) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Section 15 - Appeals seek to overturn the decision of the High Court declaring Rule 4 (10) and Rule 7 (3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 as unconstitutional. Held, in any case, the decisions of the High Court rendered earlier do not stand in the way of the impugned amendments. They were with respect to sandstone alone, while in the impugned judgment the High Court applied it to all the minor minerals. In the decision rendered by the High Court dated 13.03.2013 all the applications were directed to be considered as per the amended Rules. In fact, the reasoning of the High Court in the impugned order is contrary to the earlier order passed. The impugned Rules have been introduced in exercise of the power conferred under Section 15 of the 1957 Act. There is neither a right nor it gets vested through an application made over a government land. Law does not facilitate hearing the parties in bringing an amendment by an authority competent to do so. The High Court has totally misconstrued the issues ignoring the fact that there is a delegation of power to the first appellant which was rightly exercised as conferred under Section 15 of the 1957 Act. For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgments. (Para 22) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (Rajasthan); Rule 4 (10) and Rule 7 (3) - Legal Malice – Amendment made vide Notification dated 28.01.2011 to Rule 4 and 7 - It is contended that the impugned Rules have been brought forth only to nullify the effect of the judgments. The Appellants have duly complied with the orders passed. Even otherwise, law is quite settled that the basis of a judgment can be removed and a decision of the court cannot be treated like a statute, particularly when power is 2 available to act and it is accordingly exercised in public interest. In such a view of the matter, do not find any legal malice in the amendments. (Para 21) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - It is not mandatory for the claimants to lodge an application for compensation under Section 166 before the MACT having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred - Claimants can approach the MACT within the local limits of whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or the defendant resides. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 50 - Accused were not informed about their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer - There was a violation of the safeguard provided by Section 50 of the NDPS Act - Conviction cannot be sustained. Mina Pun v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724 : 2023 INSC 776

National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010; Section 17 - Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948; Section 53 - Whether NGT can exercise jurisdiction when the matter is covered under the ESI Act? Held, that this issue merits consideration. But given the circumstances of the case, chose not to interfere with the compensation given and kept the question of law open for the future. Rourkela Steel plant v. Odisha Pollution Control Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Only when the conviction arise out of the single transaction, concurrent sentence would be merited - Where there were several transactions over a period of time for which the cheques tendered towards payment, were dishonoured, convict cannot take benefit out of the ratio in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 211. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - Offences by Companies - A person will become vicariously liable when a company is accused of the offence under Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds) of the Act, only if such a person was "in charge of" and was "responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company" at the time the offence was committed. Just because a person is managing a company and is involved in its day-to-day affairs, he does not automatically come under the ambit of Section 141 of the NI Act. (Para 19) Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622 : 2023 INSC 692

Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (Chhattisgarh); Rule 6 - Election Petition seeking the relief for re-counting of votes only, without seeking any other reliefs i.e., declarations as contemplated in Rule 6, would not be tenable in the eye of law. (Para 13, 15) Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 661 : 2023 INSC 712

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323, 504 and 506 - Office Altercation - Nature of allegations are of very trivial nature - there is no progress made in the proceedings since the chargesheet was filed in the year 2015 – Held, that continuing the proceedings would be a persecution and harassment - As such a petty incident which took place in their office should have been resolved by the parties on that day itself, instead of stretching it so far. (Para 6) Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : 2023 INSC 668

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 8 to Section 499 - It is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation - In this case, the accused lodged a complaint in writing addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate stating that a person had put up a shop by encroaching upon some land - Defamation complaint quashed. Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : 2023 INSC 675

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120A - One person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself - The offence of criminal conspiracy is committed only when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. (Para 38) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - In a case involving 149 of the IPC one cannot expect a witness to speak with graphic detail about the specific overt act that can be attributed to each of the accused. (Para 5) Bhole v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 669

Penal Code, 1860; Section 195A - To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A - False evidence means false evidence before the Court of law. On such false evidence if a person is convicted and sentenced, then the person found guilty of administering threats would be liable to be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent as such innocent person is punished and sentenced. The word “false” in Section 195A should be read in the context with what has been explained in Section 191 of the IPC which falls in Chapter XI – of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice. (Para 16) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Penal Code, 1860; Section 299, 300, 302, 304 - A duty is enjoined upon the Court of Sessions to undertake an exercise and to satisfy itself whether a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out or not, before proceeding with the trial of an accused for murder. (Para 6) Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - Prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case as they need to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence with regard to last seen theory is totally unreliable. The evidence regarding the Call Detail Records (CDRs) also is one which does not inspire any confidence. As such, the appeals deserve to be allowed. (Para 21) Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302, 304 Part 1 - Conviction altered from S 302 to S 304 Part 1 - the possibility of the appellant causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased cannot be ruled out - The weapon used in the crime is a stick which was lying in the house, and which, by no means, can be called a deadly weapon - it will also be necessary to take into consideration the background in which the offence took place. There used to be persistent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. (Para 13) Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585 : 2023 INSC 662

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306, 107 - To attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence to substantiate the existence of suicide. It should be followed by abetment, as required under Section 107 of the IPC. (Para 9) Yaddanapudi Madhusudhana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 641

Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - Merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused. (Para 8) S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Penal Code, 1860; Section 376(D), 228A, 506 and 120B – Cancellation of Bail - Special leave to appeal has been filed by the victim assailing the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent no. 2 (Jitendra Narain), Ex-Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands - The High Court noted that as the accused Jitendra Narain, an IAS officer has already been transferred to Delhi, if some stringent conditions are put, the Respondent No.2 would not be in a position to influence any of the witnesses in the Islands. The Division Bench also noticed that Jitendra Narain being in service, there would be no chance of him absconding. The Court further noticed that there was no material to impress that in case he was released, he would influence the witnesses or there would be any danger of justice being thwarted. On such considerations, the Division Bench proceeded to grant bail, subject to conditions. Held, not find reason to interfere with the Impugned Judgments. (Para 4, 12) XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767

Penal Code, 1860; Section 386 - The victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury. (Para 22) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Penal Code, 1860; Section 390 - Theft amounts to ‘robbery’ if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Before theft can amount to ‘robbery’, the offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The second necessary ingredient is that this must be in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. The third necessary ingredient is that the offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. It is not sufficient that in the transaction of committing theft, hurt, etc., had been caused. If hurt, etc., is caused at the time of the commission of the theft but for an object other than the one referred to in Section 390, IPC, theft would not amount to robbery. It is also not sufficient that hurt had been caused in the course of the same transaction as commission of the theft. (Para 14) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Section 489C - Accused-appellant found to be in possession of 43 counterfeit notes of denomination of Rs.10. He was a vegetable vendor - Sentence of 5 years imprisonment modified to the one already undergone while retaining the conviction. Palanisamy v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific details regarding how and when her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law, who lived in different cities altogether, allegedly subjected her to dowry harassment. After leaving her matrimonial home in February 2009, the wife took no action until 2013 when she filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings. The allegations seem so far-fetched and improbable that no prudent person could conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the in-laws. Permitting the criminal process to continue in such a situation would undoubtedly result in a clear and patent injustice. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings. (Para 20 - 22) Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant - In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. (Para 25- 26) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - One of the essential elements for constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present. (Para 28) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 - Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. (Para 27) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 120B, 201, 302, 364 and 403 - Arms Act, 1959; Section 25 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004; Sections 16, 18 and 20 – Bail Application - Appellant was arrested as far back as 17.06.2021 and has been in custody throughout, except for the brief period when this Court had released him on interim bail so as to attend to the medical treatment of his wife. He has been interrogated and a charge sheet has been filed. Since all witnesses out of more than 300 witnesses named are to be examined and, in that regard, further investigation under Section 173(8) is pending, and a supplementary charge sheet would be filed, the process will not conclude in the near future. In so far as the role alleged against the appellant, as already noted by the High Court the charge sheet does not disclose that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy of planting gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. As per the charge, the appellant is stated to have conspired with Sachin Waze and others to eliminate Mansukh Hiren which is a matter of circumstantial evidence to be proved by the prosecution. Though the High Court has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant being a retired police officer, there is the likelihood of interference in the course of trial, in our opinion the fact that he was a police officer and has retired after rendering 37 years of service is a factor which should weigh in favour of the appellant as he has strong root in Mumbai and would be available to stand trial. The case is being prosecuted by a different agency-the NIA. That apart, there is no adverse report about the conduct of the appellant while he was out on interim bail. Further, he would also be aware that violating any of the conditions of bail would be detrimental to his own interest. In addition, it has also been urged before us that he has his mother aged about 93 years to care for, his wife who is also not enjoying good health has to undergo a reversal of bariatric surgery. Therefore, if all the above aspects are kept in view, taking note of the role assigned to the appellant as also the circumstances stated to connect the appellant to the crime and also the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, there would be no purpose in continuing the appellant in custody. Held, that the appellant is to be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions being imposed by the trial court and the appellant diligently adhering to the said conditions and participating in the process of trial. (Para 10 - 12) Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699 : 2023 INSC 755

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 and 201 - There is serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case regarding the recovery of a dead body and the recovery of the alleged instrument of the offence at the instance of the accused. Most importantly, it is not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. Thus, there was no legal evidence on record to convict the accused. In any case, the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 16) Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679 : 2023 INSC 739

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 and 307 - Accused is liable to be convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder and attempt to murder. The tainted investigation shows the highhandedness of the accused, who was a powerful person, being a sitting M.P. of the Ruling Party. Adverse inference against the accused is drawn in view of their subsequent conduct. (Para 114 (b), (j)) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 333, 353 and 451 – granted the benefit of probation to a social worker who was convicted of assaulting a public servant and reduced her sentence to 1 month. The incident related to 1992 when she had barged into the office of the Directorate (Women and Child Development) and abused and pushed a public official who got injured in her right finger. The matter was over 30 years old where appellant was out on bail all these years. Now, she’s an old lady of 62 years. The court acknowledged that there was no scuffle as such and the appellant was only raising the concerns of laborers. The court was cognizant that hurting a public servant is a serious offense where a 10-year jail term can be granted. But the court while considering all the factors in totality was of the view that leniency can be shown to the appellant. The Court allowed the appeal partly by upholding the conviction but at the same time reduced the jail term to 1-month simple imprisonment for offenses under sections 333 and 451 IPC. It also imposed a fine of 25,000 to be given to the injured public servant. (Para 3 - 13) Razia Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 605 : 2023 INSC 667

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 342 and 376(2)(g) - Criminal Appeal against concurrent conviction in rape case - There was no evidence brought on record to connect the present appellants with the offence - Accused Acquitted. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592 : 2023 INSC 666

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The question with regard to the validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of the proceedings, however could be raised at the subsequent stage of the trial also - The stages of proceedings at which an accused could raise the issue with regard to the validity of the sanction would be the stage when the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the stage when the charge is to be framed by the Court or at the stage when the trial is complete i.e., at the stage of final arguments in the trial - Competence of the court trying the accused also would be dependent upon the existence of the validity of sanction, and therefore it is always desirable to raise the issue of validity of sanction at the earliest point of time - In case the sanction is found to be invalid, the trial court can discharge the accused and relegate the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for the prosecution in accordance with the law. (Para 10) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19(3), 19(4) - Findings recorded by the Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by the High Court in the petition filed by the accused challenging the said order of the Special Judge, in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 19, and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused as contemplated in the said subsection (3). (Para 12-14) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 - Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 would enure to the benefit of the person arrested. For such noncompliance, the Competent Court shall have the power to initiate action under Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002. (Para 39) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 (3) - When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA, 2002 no writ of Habeus Corpus would lie. Any plea of illegal arrest is to be made before such Magistrate since custody becomes judicial. (Para 82) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - The respondent has undergone over 620 days of custody. Since in the exercise of its discretion, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent should be released on bail, we are not interfering with the order under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 3) Directorate of Enforcements v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 603

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 3 - A support person – whether involved from the early stages of lodging a report or brought on board shortly thereafter - can play a tremendous role in offering encouragement, reassurance, and guidance, merely from their knowledge of the legalese, armed with a compassionate child-friendly approach. Their potential in providing moral support and guidance, which directly translates to better and more just outcomes both in terms of prosecution, and rehabilitation, cannot be overstated. To fulfil their role as envisaged, their primary focus must be the child’s immediate care and protection, and to play the role of a helpful intermediary between the child, its family/guardian, and the various institutional stakeholders and authorities. In these interactions, the support person should bear in mind the principles enunciated in Section 3 of the Act, 2015 while engaging with the child victim, and their families. These include – the principles of dignity and worth, participation, best interest, safety, positive measures, non-stigmatising semantics, non-waiver of rights, equality and non-discrimination, and right to privacy and confidentiality. (Para 6) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The enactment and bringing into force of the POCSO Act was not merely in furtherance of this country’s commitment to international instruments, but its resolve to and attempt at creating a world as secure and as free from fear, for the most innocent and vulnerable section of its citizens, i.e., children and young adults. Behaviour - physical, verbal, and non-verbal, ranging from what discomfits a child to as horrifying as rape and physical sexual abuse have been criminalized. Special mechanisms to provide access to the justice delivery system, and ensure speedy justice, have been devised. Yet, a society’s commitment to such a cause does not cease by mere enactment of any law, but its willingness, and those governing and administering it, to create and ensure effective overall frameworks which support and strengthen its institutions. (Para 1) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - There are numerous aids prepared, to help in understanding the role of the support person, and how to maximise their impact. The Ministry of Women and Child Development released the Model Guidelines under Section 39 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which offers detailed guidance for the use of professionals and experts under the POCSO Act (albeit issued in 2013, i.e., prior to the POCSO Rules, 2020). Similarly, another useful resource tailored specifically for the use of support persons, is the ‘Handbook for Support Persons 2021 – Assisting Child Victims of Sexual Violence’ which is a handy open access resource, available for download from the internet. These resources, comprehensively elucidate child-friendly best practices, and explain what not to do, as a support person, in a lucid and accessible manner. (Para 7) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 - Importance of a support person accompanying the child victim at the time of recording statement and deposition - In addition to maintaining confidentiality of all information, and addressing the concerns of the child and family, the support person is responsible for accompanying the child during recording of statement, medical examination, depositions, and to assist in all other interactions at the investigation, pre-trial, and trial stage. The support person is to make available public or private emergency and crisis services; ensure availability of free legal aid; provide assistance with navigating the victim compensation scheme; track the status of investigation, arrest, and filing of charges of the accused person; follow the dates of the court proceedings to enable the victim or family to attend as required; and be abreast of any other developments such as grant of bail, detention status, etc. of the accused. (Para 5) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 39 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 – Directions issued on Comprehensive assessment of support persons ecosystem, Participation of relevant authorities for such assessment, Data collection from district child protection unit, Guidelines and training, Periodic training of all personnel, Reporting mechanism establishment, Standard operating procedure (sop), Role of support persons, Remuneration of support persons to be commensurate with qualification and experience, Model guidelines and precedent consideration, Comprehensive victim support, Role of support institutions and state's responsibility for implementation - Concerned authorities to file a status report by October 4, 2023. (Para 11) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 39 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020; Rules 4, 5, and 10 - Model Guidelines - A support person is to provide information, emotional and psychological support, and practical assistance which are often crucial to the recovery of the child. This can go a long way in helping them cope with the aftermath of the crime and with the strain of any criminal proceedings – in many ways a support person acts as guardian ad litem for the child. (Para 4) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 - In crimes against children, it is not only the initiating horror or trauma that is deeply scarring; that is aggravated by the lack of support and handholding in the days that follow. In such crimes, true justice is achieved not merely by nabbing the culprit and bringing him to justice, or the severity of punishment meted out, but the support, care, and security to the victim (or vulnerable witness), as provided by the state and all its authorities in assuring a painless, as less an ordeal an experience as is possible, during the entire process of investigation, and trial. The support and care provided through state institutions and offices is vital during this period. Furthermore, justice can be said to have been approximated only when the victims are brought back to society, made to feel secure, their worth and dignity, restored. Without this, justice is an empty phrase, an illusion. The POCSO Rules 2020, offer an effective framework in this regard, it is now left to the State as the biggest stakeholder in it – to ensure its strict implementation, in letter and spirit. (Para 12) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 - Role of a ‘Support Person’ - From the point of registering an FIR/complaint under the POCSO Act, the victim and their family are required to interact with the police machinery, medical officers and hospitals, the Magistrate, Special Court and/or Juvenile Justice Board, the concerned CWC, and other stakeholders – which in itself can be daunting and overwhelming (over and above the already traumatic experience of the crime itself), often dissuading them from pursuing the case altogether. Noticing the need for support at various stages, the role of a ‘support person’ was institutionalised in the POCSO Rules, 2020, to fill this lacuna. (Para 3) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 - Role of a ‘Support Person’ - The present writ petition, arose from the strife caused to an individual victim in her painstaking struggle for justice while navigating the police, investigation stage, and court processes, for the prosecution of an offence under the POCSO Act. At numerous stages, she was revictimized, and faced severe hardships; the issues arising from the individual case, have been dealt with by way of continuing mandamus, wherein this court through a series of orders has monitored the aspects requiring special attention. During those proceedings, it was noticed that the role of a ‘support person’ as envisaged in the POCSO Rules, 2020, despite being a progressive step – remains unfulfilled, or is given effect to, in a partial or ad-hoc manner, thus limiting its positive potential in offering support to victims and their families. (Para 2) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020; Rule 4(14) ‘Form-A’ - A support person has been appointed only in 4% of POCSO cases. The availability of services of a support person is not merely directory or suggestive – but a legal entitlement. (Para 9) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020; Rules 2(f), 4(8) and 5(6) - Clearly delineating the scope of assistance to be rendered by a support person, the Rules also stipulate that if the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), in contravention of its duties fails to appoint one, or for whatever reason, the child victim and their family wish to engage someone else, they are free to seek assistance from a qualified support person externally [ref: proviso to Rule 5(6)]. Termination of their services, for whatever reason, is also covered under Rule 4(11). (Para 3) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Conduct of election is the sole responsibility of the Election Commission. The Human Rights Commission cannot encroach on the autonomy, independence and function of another constitutional authority such as the Election Commission. (Para 9 - 18) National Human Rights Commission v. West Bengal State Election Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; Rule 14 - the disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant. Hence, no fault can be found as the inquiry officer was not a public servant, but a retired officer. Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 – Implementation Progress Report – The Supreme Court seeks responses of States/UTs which haven't established Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Appellate Tribunals. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 657

Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 83(1)(c) - The requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory. It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit - In this case, the election petition contained an affidavit in which the election petitioner has sworn on oath that the paragraphs where he has raised allegations of corrupt practice are true to the best of his knowledge. Though there is no separate and an independent affidavit with respect to the allegations of corrupt practice, there is substantial compliance of the requirements under Section 83(1)(c). (Para 14-15) Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705 : 2023 INSC 762

Representation of the People Act, 1950; Section 8(3) - Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 – Criminal defamation case over the "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark - Trial Judge has awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years. Except the admonition given to the appellant by the Apex Court no other reason has been assigned while imposing the maximum sentence of two years. It is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years, the provisions of Section 8(3) of the RP Act have come into play. Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act would not have been attracted. Particularly, when an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years. (Para 5, 6) Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Representation of the People Act, 1950; Section 8(3) - Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 – Defamation - Stay of Conviction - Though the Appellate Court and the High Court have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, the reasons for maximum sentence have not even been touched in their orders. No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches. May be, had the judgment of the Apex Court in the contempt proceedings come prior to the speech, the appellant would have been more careful and exercised a degree of restraint while making the alleged remarks, which were found to be defamatory by the Trial Judge. (Para 7, 8) Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Representation of the People Act, 1950; Section 8(3) - the ramification of Section 8 (3) of the Act are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects and particularly that no reasons have been given by the learned Trial Judge for imposing the maximum sentence which has the effect of incurring disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Act, the order of conviction needs to be stayed, pending hearing of the present appeal. Therefore, stayed the order of conviction during the pendency of the present appeal. (Para 9, 10) Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Representation of the People Act, 1951; Section 8 (3) - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 422, 324, 342, 307, 506 r/w. 149 - Stay of Conviction - High Court has considered only one aspect of the matter, namely, that the first respondent being a Member of the Parliament and a representative of his constituency, any order of suspension of membership which is consequential upon conviction would cause a fresh election to be conducted in so far as the Union Territory of Lakshadweep is concerned which would result in enormous expenses. The said aspect need not have been the only aspect which should have weighed with the High Court. The High Court ought to have considered the application seeking the suspension of conviction in its proper perspective covering all aspects bearing in mind the relevant judgments rendered by this Court and in accordance with law. On this short ground alone, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the application filed by the first respondent seeking suspension of conviction. In order to avoid a situation where there would be vacuum created till the said application is considered by the High Court, the benefit of the order impugned shall be extended to the first respondent herein for the said period by way of an interim arrangement. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 690

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Award passed during covid lockdown – Held, Fair opportunity of hearing must be given to claimant. Award passed in respect of the acquired land is set aside. (Para 10) Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - It is imperative that a fair opportunity of hearing is given to the persons whose rights are affected. This requires that the interested person is given an effective opportunity to put forth his or her claim. Any deviation to the prescribed procedure, especially when it has seemingly affected the interested person, would militate with the very object of legislative mandate. (Para 8) Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – the Collector is obligated to hold an inquiry on certain relevant aspects, including the objections submitted by the interested persons, and pass an award concerning: (a) the exact area of the acquired land; (b) the compensation as may be determined under Section 27 of the Act; and (c) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. (Para 5) Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Right to Information Act, 2006; Section 4 - Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions to continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time - Power and accountability go hand in hand. While declaring that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative ‘duty’ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognized in Section 4. The core of the right created under Section 3 in reality rests on the duty to perform statutory obligations. Public accountability is a crucial feature that governs the relationship between ‘duty bearers’ and ‘right holders. (Para 22-27) Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 665 : 2023 INSC 741

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XII Rule 3 - Applications filed on the pretext of ‘clarification / addition’ while evading the recourse of review, ought not to be entertained and should be discouraged - Any alternation or addition to a judgment pronounced by Court can be made only to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising out of an accidental slip or omission - The power of Supreme Court under the Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules is limited and can only be exercised sparingly with due caution while confining itself within the parameters as described only to correct clerical/arithmetical mistakes or otherwise to rectify the accidental slip or omission. (Para 10-12) Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : 2023 INSC 671

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Difference between 'mortgage by conditional sale' and 'sale with condition of retransfer' – Explained. (Para 25) Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2023 INSC 743

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 58(c) - A transaction cannot be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports to effect the sale. (Para 25.3) Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2023 INSC 743

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587
2. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592 : 2023 INSC 666
3. Dilip Kumar v. Brajraj Shrivastava, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 597 : 2023 INSC 670
4. Dinesh B.S v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594
5. Directorate of Enforcements v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 603
6. E.S.I. Corporation v. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 600
7. Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 608
8. In Re Prajwala letter dated 18.2.2015 videos of sexual violence and recommendations, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 604
9. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584
10. Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : 2023 INSC 671
11. Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : 2023 INSC 675
12. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 607
13. Mahendra v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 588
14. Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585 : 2023 INSC 662
15. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596
16. Priya Pramod Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 591 : 2023 INSC 663
17. Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598
18. Razia Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 605 : 2023 INSC 667
19. Rourkela Steel plant v. Odisha Pollution Control Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593
20. State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669
21. State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586
22. Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : 2023 INSC 668
23. Union Bank of India v. Financial Creditors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 589
24. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674
25. Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664
26. A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : 2023 INSC 682
27. Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622 : 2023 INSC 692
28. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 612
29. Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 616
30. Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : 2023 INSC 702
31. Dev Gupta v. Pec University of Technology, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623 : 2023 INSC 695
32. Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : 2023 INSC 704
33. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626
34. Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693
35. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 610
36. Iqbal Hasanali Syed v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620
37. Isnar Aqua Farms v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 615 : 2023 INSC 680
38. J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637
39. Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678
40. Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 631 : 2023 INSC 708
41. Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet @ Ranu Yadav Dokh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635
42. Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2023 INSC 684
43. Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705
44. Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683
45. Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : 2023 INSC 706
46. S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 619 : 2023 INSC 689
47. Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687
48. Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703
49. Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625
50. State of Haryana v. Darshan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638
51. Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 636
52. Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632
53. Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609
54. Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701
55. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677
56. Admiral D.K. Joshi v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 656
57. Agnostos Theos v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 651
58. Amrish Rajnikant Kilachand V. Secretary General SCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 646
59. Asma Shaw v. Islamia College of Science & Commerce Srinagar Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 649 : 2023 INSC 690
60. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745
61. Bhole v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 669
62. Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 644 : 2023 INSC 728
63. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Denis Chem Lab Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 650
64. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai East v. Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 673
65. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II v. 3I Infotech Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 675 : 2023 INSC 711
66. Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 652 : 2023 INSC 710
67. Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 661
68. Ejike Jonas Orji v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 670
69. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : 2023 INSC 748
70. H. Vasanthi v. A. Santha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 655 : 2023 INSC 731
71. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738
72. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Ashish Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 654
73. Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640 : 2023 INSC 694
74. Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 665 : 2023 INSC 741
75. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 668 : 2023 INSC 742
76. Mala v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663 : 2023 INSC 735
77. Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642
78. Manoj v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 677
79. Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679 : 2023 INSC 739
80. National Human Rights Commission v. West Bengal State Election Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 659
81. Palanisamy v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 643
82. Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734
83. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 657
84. Ramathal v. K. Rajamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 666 : 2023 INSC 637
85. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 645
86. Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660 : 2023 INSC 736
87. Shiramabai v. Captain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 672 : 2023 INSC 744
88. Shree Nilkanth Developers v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 648
89. Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 639
90. Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658 : 2023 INSC 709
91. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647
92. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 662
93. T.G. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 671
94. Upendra Kaul v. S.C. Mathur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 676
95. Y.P. Lele v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 653 : 2023 INSC 732
96. Yaddanapudi Madhusudhana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 641
97. Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779
98. Amrit Malik v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 684
99. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. G4s Security Services (India) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722
100. Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707 : 2023 INSC 761
101. Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688 -
102. Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728
103. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770
104. Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : 2023 INSC 733
105. Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725
106. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 729
107. Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701
108. Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : 2023 INSC 772
109. Drakshayanamma v. Girish, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709
110. Dulu Deka v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 691 : 2023 INSC 752
111. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 734
112. Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 681
113. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 686
114. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704 : 2023 INSC 768
115. Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813
116. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696
117. In Re T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 687
118. Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683 : 2023 INSC 746
119. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa v. G.P Panda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 713 : 2023 INSC 753
120. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758
121. Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 697
122. M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774
123. Mina Pun v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724 : 2023 INSC 776
124. Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765
125. Mursaleen Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 700
126. National Commission for Homeopathy v. Swanirbhar Homeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal Gujarat State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 726
127. Niranjan Das @ Niru Das @ Mahanto v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 732 : 2023 INSC 780
128. Odi Jerang v. Nabajyoti Baruah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702
129. Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694 : 2023 INSC 760
130. Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 736
131. Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699 : 2023 INSC 755
132. Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2023 INSC 743
133. Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733
134. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727
135. Rajo @Rajwa@Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 717
136. Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2023 INSC 757
137. S.D. Shinde v. Govt. of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 693 : 2023 INSC 751
138. S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715
139. Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711 : 2023 INSC 750
140. State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719 : 2023 INSC 766
141. State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721 : 2023 INSC 773
142. State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754
143. Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682 : 2023 INSC 749
144. Taj Mohammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689
145. Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705 : 2023 INSC 762
146. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 690
147. Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : 2023 INSC 764
148. Vijaya Bhiku Kadam v. Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 723 : 2023 INSC 775
149. Vipul Pramodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 716
150. Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706
151. XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767
152. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680
153. Zunaid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730 : 2023 INSC 778