The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-IX]

CRZ Notification

CRZ Notification 2011: Storage facility for edible oil not allowed outside port area; Supreme Court affirms quashing of post-facto clearance. K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 77 : AIR 2023 SC 808 : (2023) 5 SCC 440

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 - Storage facility for edible oil not allowed outside port areas- the word 'within' used for CRZ-I and 'in' used for CRZ-II in the CRZ Notification of 2011 cannot be interpreted to include what is outside the port areas-The maker of the notification has not even contemplated the activities in question in a 'port area'. We must here elucidate and observe that if the contention is to be upheld that a storage tank can be permitted outside the port limits, it will introduce chaos. The question would arise as to up to what distance from the port area it would be considered as the 'in the port area'. The 2011 Notification cannot receive an interpretation which would leave matters of moment to be afflicted with the vice of uncertainty. This is apart from the importance of avoiding an interpretation which seemingly allows free play in the joints to the Administrator but, atthe same time, vest an arbitrary power in him. (Para 58) K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 77 : AIR 2023 SC 808 : (2023) 5 SCC 440

Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu)

Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu); Section 3 - Late payment of rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court, is clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction of the cultivating tenant. The 1955 Act confers a privilege on the cultivating tenant vis-a-vis the landlord, by which the cultivating tenant is protected from eviction by the landlord. Further, the scope of eviction of the cultivating tenant at the behest of the landlord, is circumscribed by the Act. Thus, the limited grounds for eviction of the cultivating tenant by the landlord under the Act, must not be frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating tenant. K. Chinnammal v. L.R. Eknath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 437 AIR 2023 SC 3534 : (2023) 6 SCR 831

Customs

Customs Duty - Undervaluation must be proved by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports; else benefit of doubt goes to the importer. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Ganpati Overseas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 864

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

Supreme Court upholds withdrawal of Customs notification granting concession on import of printing machinery, on the ground of indigenous angle. Union of India v. A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 430 : AIR 2023 SC 2343

Customs Act 1962 : Supreme Court delivers split verdict on jurisdiction of settlement commission in relation to goods under Section 123. Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Customs Act, 1962

Customs Act, 1962 - The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in respect to the issue whether jurisdiction of Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies. While considering the conflicting judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court the bench expressed divergent views. Supporting the law laid down by the Bombay High Court, Justice Krishna Murari opined that in cases of seizures of smuggled goods within the customs areas, Section 123 of the Customs Act would not be applicable and the accused can make application to Settlement Commission under Section 127B. Justice Sanjay Karol opined that the bar in Section 127B precludes filing an application for settlement in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies [for example gold and watches are specified under S.123]. The Division Bench asked the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate order. Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Customs Act, 1962 - The Supreme Court has upheld the withdrawal of customs notification which granted customs duty concession to “Rotary Printing Machine” of 'single width two plate variety', on the ground of indigenous angle, i.e., availability of the equipment in India. The same cannot be characterized as an irrelevant factor for withdrawing tax concession. The grant of exemption to a class of goods, which are similar to those manufactured within the country, is likely to adversely impact such manufacturers or producers. Thus, the same is a germane and relevant factor for withdrawal of such exemption. The executive has an exclusive domain in fiscal and economic matters, including determining the relevant factors for granting, refusing or amending exemptions. Thus, the role of the court is confined to decide if the executive's decision is backed by germane and not irrelevant reasons. Union of India v. A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 430 : AIR 2023 SC 2343

Customs Act, 1962; Section 14 - If the department wants to allege under valuation, it must make detailed inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence. If the charge of under valuation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. The charge of under invoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. (Para 39.1) Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Ganpati Overseas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 864

Death Penalty

'Past conduct is not always a factor when imposing the death penalty' : Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence. Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 982

When the role attributed in the evidence of the eye witnesses is identical to all the accused, the High Court was not justified in imposing death penalty on appellant while converting the death penalty imposed upon co accused to life imprisonment. (Para 76) Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 982

Supreme Court declines to commute death penalty of Balwant Singh Rajoana, allows centre to decide mercy petition 'when necessary'. Balwant Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 391 : AIR 2023 SC 2195

Decide mercy petitions against death sentence at the earliest so that convicts won't take advantage of delay : Supreme Court to all Authorities. State of Maharashtra v. Renuka Shinde, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Rarest of rare doctrine requires death sentence be imposed only if there is no possibility of reformation. Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Defamation

Magistrate can dismiss defamation complaint by applying exceptions under Section 499 IPC before issuing summons to accused. Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik Gmbh v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 860 : (2024) 2 SCC 86

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 : AIR 2023 SC 3804 : (2023) 8 SCC 358

Delay

Liberal approach be taken regarding delay in appeals filed by state. Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865 : AIR 2023 SC 5109

Justice oriented approach to be adopted while dealing with delay condonation plea. Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572

Being short of funds to pay court fees is not a sufficient reason to condone delay to file an appeal. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970

Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 - Clause XII Rule 7C - The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Delhi High Court that permitted re-evaluation of the answer script of a candidate for the Delhi Higher Judicial Main Examination 2022 on the ground that there was no 'material error' warranting interference. (Para 5) Registrar General, High Court of Delhi v. Ravinder Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 553

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 - The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court judgment which held that dwellers of jhuggis which are outside the list of recognized jhuggi clusters are not entitled to rehabilitation. Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 555

Delimitation

Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation - There is no illegality associated with the delimitation/readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K undertaken by the Delimitation Commission - there is no illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission under the impugned Order dated 6th March 2020 - There is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed - findings rendered in the judgment are on the footing that the exercise of power made in the year 2019 under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution is valid. We are aware that the issue of the validity of the exercise of the said powers is the subject matter of petitions pending - Nothing stated in this judgment shall be construed as giving our imprimatur to the exercise of powers under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 31 - 46) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

Demonetisation

'Any' means 'All' : Supreme Court says Centre can demonetise all series of bank notes invoking Section 26(2) of RBI Act. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Demonetisation is not illegal merely because the proposal originated from the central govt; no breach of Sec 26(2) RBI Act. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Demonetisation is not invalid merely because some citizens suffered through hardships. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Demonetisation decision making process valid, Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority; Justice Nagarathna dissents. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Discussion in parliament on demonetisation would have given it legitimacy: Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

RBI has no independent power to accept demonetised notes beyond the period specified in centre's notification. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

RBI didn't independently apply its mind in recommending demonetisation, Entire exercise carried out in 24 hours : Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Whether demonetisation achieved its objectives is not relevant to decide its legality. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Digitization of Records

The Supreme Court orders High Courts to ensure digitization of District Court records to facilitate smooth functioning of the judicial process. Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Disability

Disability rights - twin conditions in RWPD Act creating barriers, says Supreme Court while granting relief to person with colour blindness. Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903

The Supreme Court gives relief to person with colour blindness, asks TANGEDCO to appoint him as assistant engineer. Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903

The Supreme Court directs states to appoint chief commissioners, frame rules under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016. Seema Girija v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 545

Persons with Disability Act, 1995 mandated reservation in promotions too : Supreme Court grants relief to RBI employee. Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Disability Rights & CLAT - Supreme Court passes further guidelines to ensure access to CLAT for candidates with disabilities. Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 349

DNA Test

Children's right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously is part of their privacy right: Supreme Court on power to order 'DNA Test'. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 122

Doctor

Allopathy doctors and ayurveda doctors do not perform equal work and are not entitled to equal pay. State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2023 SC 2164

Domestic Violence

Courts should not impose onerous conditions on complainants under Domestic Violence Act. Bhawna v. Bhay Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 148

Dowry

Dowry death case - the Supreme Court surprised at HC using the same dying declaration to convict husband while disbelieving it for father-in-law. Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 833 : AIR 2023 SC 4653 : (2023) 10 SCC 268

Unnatural death of wife in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage in itself not sufficient to convict husband for dowry death. Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 341 : AIR 2023 SC 2095

Criminal proceedings for dowry demand cannot be quashed merely because divorce petition is pending. X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 26

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Section 3 & 4 - Denial of anticipatory bail and a further direction to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail – Held, there are no startling features or elements that stand out or any exceptional fact disentitling the appellant to the grant of anticipatory bail. Once the chargesheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the Trial Court. Therefore, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand, and is hereby set aside. (Para 12) Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583

Drugs & Cosmetics

Doctor can't be punished under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act for storing small quantities of medicines. S. Athilakshmi v. State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 194 : (2023) 2 SCR 914

Education

HC erred in holding an 18 months diploma in elementary education through open distance learning equivalent to 2 years regular diploma. Jaiveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

'No quality education if a student is penalised based on religion' : Supreme court slams UP Govt & police on Muzaffarnagar student slapping. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Prescribe minimum marks requirement for languages other than Tamil & English also in TN schools: Supreme Court in linguistic minorities' plea. Linguistic Minorities Forum of Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 839

The Supreme Court refuses to interfere with the Lakshadweep administration's decision to drop meat from the school mid-day meal menu. Ajmal Ahmed v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 803

Unacceptable that national law university jodhpur has only contractual teachers; can't expect excellence without regular staff. National Law University Jodhpur v. Prashant Mehta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 785

The Supreme Court deprecates High Courts allowing admission to educational institutions through 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 : AIR 2023 SC 3895

UP Intermediate Education Act - Appointment process of teachers not concluded without approval by District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

U.P. Intermediate Education Act - No 'deemed appointment' of selected candidate if dios doesn't give approval within 15 days. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

UP Intermediate Education Act - Vacancies which existed before amendment of regulation 17 are to be governed by amended rules. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Court cannot declare equivalency of a course. Unnikrishnan C.V. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 256 : AIR 2023 SC 1943

Post graduate degree from an open university without undergoing a basic degree course is not valid. P. Raman v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 169

'Schools can't be without playgrounds; students entitled to a good environment' : Supreme Court orders removal of encroachments. State of Haryana v. Satpal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 163 : AIR 2023 SC 1391 : (2023) 6 SCC 643 : (2023) 2 SCR 12

E-Filing

Supreme Court refuses to allow an exception to women lawyers - not inclined to accept the submission that there should be a general exception to female practitioners and litigants. There is no reason to postulate that there is a gender divide in one's inherent ability to use technology. (Para 20) M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276 : (2024) 2 SCC 536

E-Filing and Virtual Courts - There can be no gainsaying the fact that e-filing provides transparency and efficiency in the administration of justice. E-filing provides for 24x7 access to the court system and, in fact, facilitates the convenience of lawyers as well as litigants. With the march of technology, it would be too late in the day to postulate that e-filing should not be adopted. As a matter of fact, the decision to take up e-filing must be replicated by other tribunals and courts in the country, including the High Courts in a phased manner and that it eventually becomes mandatory. (Para 12) M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276 : (2024) 2 SCC 536

Ensure e-filing of all revenue appeals before HCs and Tribunals: Supreme Court directs centre. CCE and ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 106

It is utterly incomprehensible why NCLAT should insist on physical filing in addition to e-filing. This unnecessarily burdens litigants and the Bar and is a disincentive for e-filing. This duplication of effort is time consuming. It adds to expense. It leaves behind a carbon footprint which is difficult to efface. The judicial process has traditionally been guzzling paper. This model is not environmentally sustainable. (Para 30) Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406 : (2024) 2 SCC 545

It would defeat the purpose if in addition to e-filing, the ITATs insist on filing of the appeals in the physical mode. This has to be discontinued since it imposes an unnecessary burden on litigants. If there is a training deficit in respect of the Members of the ITAT, this shall be attended to immediately so that all Members of the ITAT are equipped to handle e-filed cases. CCE & ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Judiciary has to modernize' : supreme court deprecates NCLAT's insistence on physical filing of appeals in addition to e-filing. Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406 : (2024) 2 SCC 545

Supreme Court affirms mandatory e-filing in DRTs and DRATs - Issues directions to enable access to people who are technologically deprived - Directions issued to set up e-sewa kendras. M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276 : (2024) 2 SCC 536

Supreme Court affirms mandatory e-filing in DRTs & DRATs, says other courts should replicate it. M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276 : (2024) 2 SCC 536

The judiciary has to modernize and adapt to technology. The tribunals can be no exception. This can no longer be a matter of choice. If some judges are uncomfortable with e-files, the answer is to provide training to them and not to continue with old and outmoded ways of working. If a lawyer or litigant is compelled to file physical copies in addition to e-filed documents, then they will not resort to e-filing. (Para 30) Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406 : (2024) 2 SCC 545

Why presume women are bad at technology?': CJI DY Chandrachud disapproves of plea to exempt female lawyers from e-filing. M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276 : (2024) 2 SCC 536

Would defeat the purpose of e-filing if ITATs insist on filing of appeals in physical mode too. CCE & ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Election

The Supreme Court refers the electoral bonds case to the Constitution Bench. Association for Democratics Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 901

Supreme Court (2:1 Majority) suspends conviction of BSP MP Afsal Ansari; dissenting judge says impact on electorate can't be considered. Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1055 : (2024) 2 SCC 187 : 2024 CriLJ 930

The Supreme Court issues guidelines to high courts to monitor early disposal of cases against MPs/MLAs. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 971 : (2024) 1 SCC 185

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment which invalidated the assembly election of Arunachal Pradesh MLA Dasanglu Pul. Dasanglu Pul v. Lupalam Kri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 912 : AIR 2023 SC 5265

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking independent audit of EVM source codes. Sunit Ahya v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Aadhaar number not mandatory for electoral rolls, will make changes in forms to enrol new voters: ECI Tells Supreme Court. G. Niranjan v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 805

Courts must interfere in the election process if there's unjust executive action or attempt to disturb the level playing field. Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

'Unprecedented' : Supreme Court slams Ladakh Administration for denying symbol to JK National Conference in LAHDC-Kargil Elections. Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Supreme Court sets aside notification for LAHDC-Kargil elections; Holds JKNC entitled to 'plough' symbol. Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

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 : AIR 2023 SC 4531

Election contests are purely a statutory proceeding, provisions must be strictly interpreted. Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 661 : AIR 2023 SC 3868

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 : (2024) 2 SCC 595

Voter has the right to know the full background of the candidate; the right to vote based on informed choice is crucial to democracy. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : AIR 2023 SC 3574

Maharashtra Case - Governor's decision for floor test wrong, but Uddhav Govt can't be restored as he resigned. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719

'Governor can't enter the political arena, floor test not to decide intra-party disputes ': Supreme Court slams Maharashtra Governor. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719

Shiv Sena Case - Supreme Court refers 'Nabam Rebia' Judgment to larger bench; says it is in conflict with 'Kihoto Hollohan' Judgment. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719

Shiv Sena Case - Speaker's decision recognising Eknath Shinde as leader & Gogawale as whip illegal; only political party can appoint whip & leader. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719

Test of legislative majority futile to decide who is 'real' Shiv Sena; ECI's recognition will apply prospectively. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719

Supreme Court rejects challenge to Section 62(5) RP Act which denies prisoners right to vote. Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Election petition liable to be dismissed on showing no cause of action; vague allegations not material facts. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398 : AIR 2023 SC 2366

Supreme Court quashes forgery case against former Punjab CM Prakash Singh Badal & Akali Dal leaders over party's dual constitution. Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : AIR 2023 SC 3053

'Open ballot system in Rajya Sabha elections necessitated to prevent cross-voting' : Supreme Court rejects challenge to Election Rules. Lok Prahari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 254

The Supreme Court directs appointment of election commissioners on advise of committee comprising Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and CJI. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : (2023) 6 SCC 161 : (2023) 9 SCR 1

'Certain Section of media turned unashamedly partisan; Huge surge of money power in elections': Supreme Court Observes in ECI Case. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Election Commission needs permanent secretariat, expenses should be charged on consolidated fund: Supreme Court suggests. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Should election commissioners have the same protection as CEC? the Supreme Court majority says no, Justice Ajay Rastogi says yes. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Arun Goel's appointment as election commissioner raises pertinent questions at procedure; EC should have 6 years tenure. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

'Majoritarian forces must be counterbalanced, abuse of electoral process way to grave of democracy ': top quotes from Supreme Court's ECI verdict. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

ECI Case - Right to vote is a part of fundamental rights, says Justice Rastogi; majority judgment opines it's a constitutional right. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Municipal Corporation of Delhi mayor polls: Nominated members can't vote, holds Supreme Court; Election to be notified in 24 hours. Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119 : (2023) 5 SCC 414

'For Parliament to decide whether to allow candidates to contest from two seats' : Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Sec 33(7) RP Act. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 84 : AIR 2023 SC 891 : (2023) 5 SCC 668

Electricity

Electricity Act - Captive generating plant having more than one user and fluctuating shareholding, consumption to be calculated using “weighted average” principle. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Gayatri Shakti Paper and Board Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 888

The Supreme Court criticises OERC for challenging APTEL's order, saying the quasi-judicial body can't be aggrieved with the appellate body's order. GRIDCO Ltd. v. Western Electricity Supply Company, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 855 : AIR 2023 SC 4884 : (2024) 2 SCC 500

'Governor cannot stultify a government like this": Supreme Court rebukes Delhi LG for delaying appointment of DERC chairperson. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of LG of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 476

Electricity dues of previous occupier can be recovered from subsequent occupier of premises. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

CERC can't go beyond express terms of contract; APTEL can't discover new "change in law" which parties never contemplated. Haryana Power Purchase Centre v. Sasan Power Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 409

'Specific show-cause notice necessary before imposing penalty': Supreme Court quashes debarment and penalty order issued by MP DISCOM. Isolators and Isolators v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330 : AIR 2023 SC 2058

DISCOMS to pay 'change in law' compensation for all additional charges levied by state instrumentalities to power generating companies. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Appellate Electricity Tribunal cannot casually render findings of coercion without proper pleading, proof or probe. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Diversion of gas to other generating stations is not sufficient ground to seek compensation when PPA has no such provision. Penna Electricity Ltd. (Now Pioneer Power Ltd.) v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Supreme Court upholds 'Change in Law' compensation for Adani Power; Flays State DISCOMs for taking a stand contrary to Union Govt. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166 : AIR 2023 SC 1495 : (2023) 7 SCC 401

Electricity Act, 2003

Electricity Act 2003; Section 84 (2) - Appointment of the Chairperson - The substantive part of sub-section (2) indicates that the State Government may appoint any person as the Chairperson from “amongst persons who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court”. However, in terms of the proviso, an appointment under the subsection has to be made only after consultation with the Chief Justice “of that High Court”. The expression “of that High Court” makes it abundantly clear that the consultation has to be made with the Chief Justice of the High Court from which the Judge or, as the case may be, the former Judge is drawn. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of LG of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 476

Electricity Act, 2003 - In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Electric Utilities have been directed in the facts of cases before us to waive the outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003 - The implication of the expression “as is where is” basis is that every intending bidder is put on notice that the seller does not undertake responsibility in respect of the property offered for sale with regard to any liability for the payment of dues, like service charges, electricity dues for power connection, and taxes of the local authorities. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 178 - In a case where the matter is governed by express terms of the contract, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission cannot, even donning the garb of a regulatory body, go beyond the express terms of the contract. A regulation made under Section 178 of the Act has the effect of interfering and overriding the existing contractual relationship between the regulated entities. However, while it may be open for a regulation to extricate a party from its contractual obligations, the Commission cannot in the course of its adjudicatory power, use the nomenclature regulation to usurp this power to disregard the terms of the contract. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity cannot discover a new 'change in law' which the parties have not contemplated as change in law, and the Tribunal cannot rewrite the contract and create a new bargain between the parties. Haryana Power Purchase Centre v. Sasan Power Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 409

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - For an application to be considered as a 'reconnection', the applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same premises for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is the same, but the premises are different, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not a reconnection. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 49 - A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 1948 Act requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have a statutory character. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 50 - The Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 50 - The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent owners. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 56 - The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2003 Act. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Sections 50 and 181 - The rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003 – Appeal under Section 125 – Plea of Fraud, Coercion, Duress, or Undue Influence – Party that sets up plea of fraud, coercion, duress, or undue influence must prima facie establish it by laying out material facts – Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) not to render findings on coercion without proper and specific pleadings, adequate evidence, or without conducting a probe, in a casual or cavalier way – Held, concurrent findings of APTEL and state commission unsustainable owing to the absence of evidence of coercion and particularity of pleadings beyond a bare allegation – Appeal allowed. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Electricity Act, 2003 - Supreme Court has lamented the practice of Distribution Companies (DISCOMS) and power generating companies pursuing endless litigation challenging the concurrent findings arrived at by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The Court has asked the Union of India through the Ministry of Power (MoP), to evolve a mechanism so as to ensure timely payment by DISCOMS to the power generating companies under the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). All additional charges which are payable on account of orders, directions, Notifications, Regulations, etc., issued by the instrumentalities of the State, after the cut-off date specified in the PPAs, will have to be considered to be 'Change in Law' events for payment of compensation under the PPAs. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Electricity Act, 2003 - Compensation for "Change in Law" clause in PPA - SC dismisses petition filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited challenging the 'Change in Law' compensation granted by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity to Adani Power Maharashtra Limited and GMR Warora Energy Limited-we find that the stand taken by the DISCOMS that, since the loss being sustained by the generating companies is on account of non-fulfillment of obligation by CIL/Coal Companies, they should be relegated to the remedy available to them in law against the CIL/Coal Companies, is totally unreasonable. The claim is based on change of NCDP 2007 by NCDP 2013, which, undisputedly, is covered by the term 'Change in Law. (Para 151) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166 : AIR 2023 SC 1495 : (2023) 7 SCC 401

Electricity Act, 2003 - Diversion of gas to other generating stations not sufficient ground to seek compensation when Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) has no such provision. Penna Electricity Ltd. (Now Pioneer Power Ltd.) v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Electricity Act, 2003 - The Court took note of the fact that the DISCOMS (Distribution Companies) which are instrumentalities of the State had taken contrary view to that of the Union Government, which contemplates that the generators would be entitled to pass-through for the coal required to be imported or purchased from the open market on the ground of Change in Law. Referring to Central Warehousing Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL) And Ors. (2022), the Court observed that the Apex Court had deprecated the practice of different instrumentalities of the State taking contradictory / different positions / stands on the same issue - We have come across a number of matters wherein concurrent orders passed by the Regulatory Body and the Appellate Forum are assailed. Such a litigation would, in fact, efface the purpose of the Electricity Act. As already discussed herein above, one of the major reasons for the enactment of the Electricity Act was the deterioration in performance of the State Electricity Boards. (Para 150) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166 : AIR 2023 SC 1495 : (2023) 7 SCC 401

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 62 and 111 - Electricity Regulatory Commission - the Commission exercises quasi-judicial powers. There are appeals preferred by the Commission against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in appeals. The Appellate Tribunal in appeals has dealt with the legality and validity of the decisions of the Commission rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial power. In short, the Appellate Tribunal has tested the correctness of the orders of the Commission. The Commission is bound by the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, we have serious doubt about the propriety and legality of the act of the Commission of preferring appeals against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in appeal by which its own orders have been corrected. The Commission cannot be the aggrieved party except possibly in one appeal where the issue was about the non-compliance by the Commission of the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. If the Commission was exercising legislative functions, the position would have been different. (Para 26) GRIDCO Ltd. v. Western Electricity Supply Company, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 855 : (2024) 2 SCC 500

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 84 and 125 - Electricity Regulatory Commission - Members of the Commission are experts in the field - Therefore, when we consider the challenge to the decisions of the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal, we must keep in mind that the decisions are of a body of experts. This limitation is apart from the constraints of Section 125 of the Electricity Act of entertaining an appeal only on a substantial question of law. Therefore, this Court will normally be slow in interfering with the factual findings recorded by the Commission and/or by the Appellate Tribunal. (Para 25) GRIDCO Ltd. v. Western Electricity Supply Company, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 855 : (2024) 2 SCC 500

Electricity Rules, 2005; Rule 3(1)(a) Second Proviso - In cases where a Captive Generating Plant (CGP) has more than one user and fluctuating shareholding or any change in ownership, shareholding, or consumption occurs, the principle of “Weighted Average” should be applied to determine the proportional electricity consumption of each user. (Para 47) Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Gayatri Shakti Paper and Board Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 888

Employees Compensation Act, 1923

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Officers of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) are entitled to claim compensation under the 1923 Act, despite the RPF being designated as an armed force of the Union. The case arose when the heirs of an RPF Constable, who died during his employment, sought compensation under the 1923 Act. The Appellant contended that as a part of the Armed Forces of the Union, the deceased was not a 'workman' under the Act. The Apex Court rejected this contention, emphasizing the lack of legislative intent to exclude RPF members from the benefits of the 1923 Act, even after its designation as an armed force. The definition of a 'Railway Servant' in the Railways Act, 1989, includes RPF members, making them eligible for compensation under the 1923 Act. The designation of the RPF as an "armed force of the Union" did not automatically exempt its members from the provisions of the 1923 Act, unless such intent was evident. (Para 61) Railway Protection Special Force v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 835

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Social welfare legislation must be given a beneficial construction – Matters thereunder are to be adjudicated with due process of law and also with a keen awareness of the scope and intent of the Act. (Para 30) Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746

Employees Compensation Act, 1923; Section 30 - An appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered – Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts – The other ground making the order under challenge, amenable to interference when the scope of jurisdiction is circumscribed by it being exercised only in cases of “substantial question of law”, is perversity in the findings. (Para 17- 21) Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

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

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - ESI Act should be given liberal interpretation and should be interpreted in such a manner so that social security can be given to the employees. (Para 6, 6.1) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53 : AIR 2023 SC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 1045

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 1 (6) - Prior to insertion of Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the ESI Act, only those establishments/factories engaging more than 20 employees were governed by the ESI Act. However, thereafter, Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the ESI Act has been inserted on 20.10.1989, and after 20.10.1989 there is a radical change and under the amended provision a factory or establishment to which ESI Act applies would be governed by the ESI Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act. Therefore, on and after 20.10.1989, irrespective of number of persons employed a factory or an establishment shall be governed by the ESI Act. (Para 7) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53 : AIR 2023 SC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 1045

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 1 (6) - Sub-section (6) of Section 1 shall be applicable even with respect to those establishments, established prior to 31.03.1989/20.10.1989 and the ESI Act shall be applicable irrespective of the number of persons employed or notwithstanding that the number of persons employed at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act - Only in case of demand notice for the period prior to inserting Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the Act, it can be said that the same provision has been applied retrospectively. (Para 7) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53 : AIR 2023 SC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 1045

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

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Sections 53, 61 - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; Section 163A, 167 - Can an employee insured under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act - Whether the insurance amount paid under the ESI Act is a “similar benefit” as the compensation which is claimed in a case where there is a Motor Vehicle accident and claim subsists so as to bar the same - Referred to larger bench. Rajkumar Agrawal v. Vehicle Tata Venture, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 62

Equity

Equity will follow the law and it would tilt in favour of law and further that to claim equity the party must explain previous conduct. (Para 14) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894

Enforcement

Why must the ED furnish grounds of arrest to the accused in writing? the Supreme Court explains. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Mere non-cooperation to ed summons not a ground for arrest under PMLA; ED can't expect admission of guilt from a person summoned. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844

ED can't be vindictive, grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing to accused at the time of arrest. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Enforcement officer competent to file complaint under repealed provisions of FERA during sunset period of 2 years after enforcement of FEMA. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Rishiraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 820 : AIR 2023 SC 4524

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

'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

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

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

Supreme Court extends Ed Director Sk Mishra's term till September 15 "in larger national interest"; says no further extensions. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Supreme Court Invalidates Extensions Of ED Director SK Mishra's Term; Permits Him To Continue Till July 31. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518

Supreme Court rejects argument that 'piecemeal' extensions will affect independence of directors of CBI & ED; upholds amendments to CVC Act & DSPE Act. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : AIR 2023 SC 3444 : (2023) 10 SCC 276

Part 8: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-VIII]