- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: July...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To 16 July 2023
Suraj Kumar
17 July 2023 9:33 AM IST
Gurugram Prime Plot 'Sold' Through Fake GPA: Supreme Court Forms SIT To Probe Land Scam; Questions Role Of Sub-Registrar's OfficeCase title: Pratibha Manchanda And Anr. v. State of Haryana And Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw SC 514The Supreme Court, recently, directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate a land scam that...
Case title: Pratibha Manchanda And Anr. v. State of Haryana And Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw SC 514
The Supreme Court, recently, directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate a land scam that involves officials at the office of land Registering Authorities and other accused persons allegedly duping an elderly NRI couple. The Apex Court categorically stated that the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram is personally responsible for monitoring the day-to-day investigation. The SIT will be headed by an officer, not below the rank of DySP and will have two inspectors as its members.
Ballistic Expert's Evidence Important In Cases Of Murder Caused By Firearms: Supreme Court
Case title: Pritinder Singh @ Lovely vs State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516
The Supreme Court observed that, in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.
Reappreciating the evidence on record, the court noted that evidence as to whether the gun belonged to the accused was not available and even the Ballistic Expert has not been examined to show that the wad and pellets were fired from the empty cartridges.
Case title: Sajjan Singh vs Jasvir Kaur
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517
The Supreme Court observed that the appropriateness of prayer sought is not an issue that should be considered while deciding an application seeking rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
"Whether an appropriate prayer should have sought, is a matter ultimately to be decided in the suit and not an issue to be considered while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, in the manner in which it had been done in the facts and circumstances arising in the instant case. Therefore, to that extent, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified.", the bench of Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh observed.
Case title: Dr.Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, while upholding the validity of the 2021 amendments to the Central Vigilance Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, rejected the argument that granting extensions of only one year at a time to the terms of the heads of the Directorate of Enforcement and the Central Bureau of Investigation would threaten the independence of the agencies. The bench held:
“It is not at the sweet will of the government that the extensions can be granted to the incumbents in the office of the Director of CBI or the Director of Enforcement. It is only on the basis of the recommendations of the committees which are constituted to recommend their appointment and that too when it is found in the public interest and when the reasons are recorded in writing, such an extension can be granted by the Government.”
Case title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol noted that ignoring the direction given by the Supreme Court in the 2021 judgment in the case Common Cause vs Union of India that SK Mishra should not be given further extensions, the Union Government extended his tenure two times after that, in November 2021 and November 2022.
Referring to various precedents such as Madras Bar Association vs Union of India (2021), Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala and others,Madan Mohan Pathak and another v. Union of India and others, the bench observed that the legislature can nullify the effect of a judgment by taking away its base or curing the defects in the law. This can be done retrospectively also. However, an enactment which merely nullifies a judgment is unconstitutional.
Case title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held as illegal the extension given to the term of Enforcement Directorate chief SK Mishra for violating the mandate of the Supreme Court's 2021 judgment in the Common Cause case that he should not be given further extension. However, the Court allowed him to continue in his post till July 31, 2023, taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Union Government regarding peer review of international body FATF and smooth transfer of power.
The Court also upheld the amendments made to the Central Vigilance Commission Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act which allow the Centre to extend the term of the heads of ED and CBI up to 5 years.
Noting that the scope of judicial review over legislation is very limited and that the appointments of these officers are made by a high-level committee, the Court upheld these amendments, opining that there are sufficient safeguards. Extension can be granted to high-level officials in the public interest and with reasons in writing,
Case Title: Raman Kumar & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520
The Supreme Court has held that act of regularizing the services of only some employees and not of other entitled employees, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had found 65 employees entitled to regularization of employment but only 35 could be regularized since only 35 posts were available.
Case title: Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair And Ors.|
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521
Recently, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct RBI to extend the benefit of reservation in promotion to an employee with a disability, who was denied the same for a long time(Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair And Ors).
Justice Dipankar Datta noted that the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 did not contain any express provision for a reservation to persons with disabilities serving in the feeder cadre, though there were provisions indicating that merely because an employee is one living with a disability they ought not to be denied promotion. However, he reiterated that the mere absence of an express mandate for reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities did not absolve the Government from keeping reserved vacancies on promotional posts.
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J and K) vs M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522
The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court where the court had held that where the assessee had been held entitled to the refund of the Educational cess and Secondary & Higher Educational cess on the basis of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in M/s SRD Nutrients (P) Limited vs. CCE, (2018) 1 SCC 105, which was applicable at the relevant time, the Revenue Department was not entitled to make recovery of the said refunded amount on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492, where the decision in M/s SRD Nutrients was overruled by the top court.
Supreme Court 'Shocked' To See Lawyer Filing Article 32 Petition Against State To Recover Legal Fees
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of UP And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523
On Monday, while disposing of a writ petition filed by a former Additional Advocate General of the State of Uttar Pradesh seeking writ of mandamus against the State Government to clear the bills of his outstanding fees, the Supreme Court expressed doubt whether such a petition can be entertained in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, especially when the entitlement of the petitioner to the fee has been disputed.
“We have serious doubts if a writ petition under A.32 of the Constitution of India can be entertained at the instance of an advocate representing the state for recovery of his fees and that also when there was a serious dispute regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to recover the same. We are unable to pass any further orders in this writ petition, hence, it is disposed of.
Case title: Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station V. Ashwani Kumar Dubey
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524
The Supreme Court recently held that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) being an adjudicatory body must comply with the principles of natural justice. It also held that if the NGT intends to rely on the report of an expert Committee or any other material that is brought to its knowledge, the concerned party must be informed of it in advance, and be given an opportunity for discussion and rebuttal.
The Court also specifically noted that the recommendations made by an expert Committee are not binding on the NGT and are only to be considered as a guide to allow the Tribunal to arrive at its decision
Case title: Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526; 2023 INSC 620
The Supreme Court has held that once it is found that the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are valid, then the claimant is not entitled to seek compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
It referred to the Constitutional Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal(2020) which interpreted section 24(2) and held that “in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.”
Pavement Built On Acquired Land Encroached By Vendors; Supreme Court Asks DDA To Take Action
Case title: Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526
Taking a serious view of vendors encroaching upon a pavement which was built on a land which was compulsorily acquired from a citizen for public purpose, the Supreme Court called for necessary action by the Delhi Development Authority.
A citizen has lost his valuable property by way of compulsory acquisition. The compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for allowing people to walk", the bench observed.
Case citation: State of Orissa And Anr. v. Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) thr. LRs And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw SC 527
The Supreme Court, recently, held that a writ petition, filed pursuant to withdrawal of a civil suit for the same relief when liberty is not granted to file afresh, is not maintainable. It reiterated that the principles of constructive res judicata laid down in Order 23 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would also apply to writ proceedings.
Case Title: Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528
The Supreme Court has awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 15.9 Lakhs from the previous amount of Rs. 2.3 Lakhs, to a motor vehicle accident victim, who sustained 75% whole body injury. The Bench has additionally granted compensation towards ‘loss of marriage prospects’ since the Claimant remained unmarried due to disability.
The bench observed that the “inability of the Claimant to work due to the disability cannot be denied on the ground that his Employer was not examined or no letter was produced from the Employer. The evidence of disability such as disability certificate and identity card issued by Directorate for the Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizens, cannot be brushed aside by the Tribunal and High Court”.
Case Title: Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529
In a plea regarding the continued detention of a person under a preventive detention law in Jharkhand, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of strictly adhering to procedural requirements in cases concerning preventive detention laws. The bench, comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, acknowledged that preventive detention laws are inherently stringent as they curtail personal liberty without a trial. Therefore, the procedure becomes crucial for the detainee's rights. The court stated that laws on preventive detention must be strictly applied and opined–
"All laws on preventive detention are necessarily harsh. They curtail the personal liberty of an individual, who is kept behind bars without any trial. In such cases, the procedure is all a detenue has. Laws of preventive detention must therefore be strictly applied.
Case title: Gurudeep Singh v Regonda Srinivas
Citation- 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 530
The court observed that the judgment by the High Court in 2021 did not debar NTPC from issuing a fresh notification. It only directed them to finish the recruitment process within 2 months. Therefore, it would not constitute contempt of court.
The court also observed that an unconditional apology was tendered by the appellants in the present case which should have been considered by the High Court.
It opined “ Even if the High Court came to a conclusion that there was a deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of the court, it could have considered the said unconditional apology tendered by appellants and concluded the matter.”
Case Details: Mathew Alexander V. Mohammed Shafi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531
The Supreme Court recently held that while considering a petition for compensation for death or injury in a road accident the standard of proof compensation for death or injury in a road accident the standard of proof to be applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt would not apply. It also observed that the final report in the criminal investigation connected to the accident would not have a bearing on the claim petition and that the claim petition must be considered on its own merits.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532
The Supreme Court has reiterated that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., [(2023) SCC Online SC 481], an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot make additions to assessee’s income in respect of completed/unabated assessments if no incriminating material has been found during the course of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench, however, said, “However, in view of the decision in Abhisar’s case (supra), completed/unabated assessments could be re-opened by the AO in the exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act subject to fulfillment of the conditions envisaged under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act and hence, such powers are saved in terms of the said judgment.”
Case Title: Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532
The Court while applying the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, observed:
“As regards to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent – State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”
Case title: VK Juvenile v State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to a juvenile accused who spent more than 2 years in custody. As per Section 436-A CrPC, one can be released from custody if he has spent more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense.
A pertinent question of law had arisen here - Would he be entitled to be released as per section 436A CrPC since he has already undergone more than half of the maximum sentence of 3 years prescribed under the JJ Act? Would provisions of CrPC apply under JJ Act?
The Rajasthan High Court had held that “where a juvenile is undergoing action under the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2015, he is not entitled to get the benefit of provisions of Section 436A CrPC”.
The bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia did not delve into such questions of law at this stage and held that “Though contentions with regard to the nature of the order passed by the High court is referred to, at this stage we see no need to go into all aspects of the matter, in as much as at the outset, we note that the petitioner has been in custody for more than two years”
Case title: Mohd Azharuddin v Nalgonda Cricket Association
Citation: SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 26604/2023
Former Indian cricket team captain and the President of Hyderabad Cricket Association Mohammed Azharuddin has approached the Supreme Court challenging the contempt notice issued by the Telangana High Court in a dispute related to Nalgonda Cricket Association.
Google v CCI | Supreme Court Lists Matter For Final Disposal On October 10, 2023
Case Title: Google LLC And Anr. v. Competition Commission Of India And Ors.
Citation: C.A. No. 4098/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday decided to list on October 10, 2023, the appeal filed by the tech giant Google challenging the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had upheld the imposition of Rs. 1337.76 Crores penalty on Google by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Google has been penalized for abusing its dominant position in the Android OS app store market, which resulted in the denial of market access for competing search apps
Case title: Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7700 of 2023
Supreme Court judge Sanjiv Khanna and Senior Advocate Harish Salve had a minor disagreement in court, during the hearing in Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor’s plea for bail in a money laundering case over whether Kapoor pushed the bank into a financial crisis by allegedly receiving illegal gratification in lieu of sanctioning bad loans to high-profile borrowers.
Case title: The State of Karnataka v. Karnataka Unaided Schools Management Association
Citation: SLP(C) No. 12037-12042/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which struck down certain provisions of the Karnataka Education Act 1983 in relation to the powers to regulate the fees and appointments of private unaided schools.
The High Court bench comprising Justices Alok Aradhe and Vishwajith Shetty had found that the provisions would adversely affect the rights of unaided schools and struck them down the provisions in the light of the TMA Pai Foundation case that, “In the case of unaided private schools, maximum autonomy has to be with the management with regard to administration, including the right of appointment, disciplinary powers, admission of students and the fees to be charged.”
Case Details: Enforcement Directorate Vs. Y.S. Bharathi Reddy,
Citation: Diary No. 22285-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain the Enforcement Directorate’s plea challenging the order of the Telangana High Court that allowed YS Bharathi Reddy, wife of Andhra Pradesh CM Jagan Mohan Reddy to substitute the property attached by the ED with a fixed deposit.
The property had been attached by ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in a corruption case involving Bharathi Cement.
Case title: Vinod Bihari Lal Vs State of UP
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 5376-5377/2023
The Supreme Court today extended interim protection from arrest to the Vice Chancellor (Dr.) Rajendra Bihari Lal and Director Vinod Bihari Laland of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute) in connection with the alleged mass religious conversion case.
Case Title: Deeksha Dwivedi v. The State Of Manipur And Anr.
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 298/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday extended the interim protection granted to Advocate Deeksha Dwivedi, who was booked in an FIR over offenses of sedition and conspiracy to wage war against India, after she accompanied a fact-finding team to enquire into the ongoing Manipur violence, till the next date of hearing in the matter.
Case Details: Mohammed Nawab Malik v. the State of Maharashtra
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6056 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the hearing in a petition filed by former Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik, who has been in jail since February 23, 2022, following his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a money laundering case.
To be very frank, it is already over," Justice Khanna said, "Interim bail has been rejected, which you may challenge. Challenge that please." Justice Trivedi added, "You can take instructions."
Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. The Speaker, Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 685/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice in the plea filed by Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray) party MP Sunil Prabhu seeking a direction to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker to expeditiously decide on the disqualification pleas pending against rebel Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde.
Case title: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8167 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the cases registered by the CBI and ED in connection with the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan also issued notice on the application filed by Sisodia seeking interim bail to allow him to meet his wife who is suffering from illness. The Court will consider the plea for interim bail on July 28.
Justices Ujjal Bhuyan & SV Bhatti Take Oath As Supreme Court Judges; SC Strength Rises To 32
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice S Venkatanarayana Bhatti took oath as judges of the Supreme Court today. With their appointments, the Supreme Court's strength rose to 32 with two more vacancies remaining.
Case Title: Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India,
Citation: Writ Petition(Civil) No. 324/2020
The Supreme Court on Thursday, while hearing a PIL on the implementation of Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 asked the Centre if any schemes for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers have been put in place.
Justice Ravindra Bhat asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati apart from compensation, whether any steps were being taken for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers?
“Generation after generation these people are into this. What about rehabilitation? You may pay compensation of 5 to 10 lakhs, do they get into some other form of employment? Is there some scheme?” he asked.
Case title: Purnaprakash Sharma V. Yashwant Singh Faujdar
Citation: Contempt Petition (Civil) No 726 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No 132 of 1988
The Supreme Court on Monday closed the contempt proceeding initiated against the officer bearers of the Bharatpur Bar Association, Rajasthan, who had allegedly obstructed the work of legal aid defense counsel appointed by the Legal Services Authority.
The bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha closed the matter after taking note of the submission of the counsel for the newly elected body of the Bharatpur Bar Association that the membership of petitioners and similarly situated persons to the association had been reinstated. The association also undertook that there will be no obstruction to persons acting as legal defense counsel, in pursuing their profession.
Case Title: Sivanandan CT and others vs High Court of Kerala
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 229/2017,
Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud on Wednesday shared his experiences as a High Court judge while discussing the selection process for district judiciary candidates. The CJI's remarks came during a hearing before a constitution bench he was presiding, which was reviewing a set of petitions filed by eleven aspirants seeking selection as District judges in the State of Kerala.
"We have all been High Court judges. When you sit in the selection committee, you are looking at the best interest of the institution. The motive is very, very laudable. The question is whether it is lawful. Sometimes what happens is that the High Court thinks look this is the crop which we are taking in the judiciary, that is what weighs with them.
Case Title: Sivanandan CT and others vs High Court of Kerala
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 229/2017
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday held as illegal the process followed by the Kerala High Court in fixing a cut-off mark on the basis of viva-voce for the selection of District Judges in March 2017. The Court noted that cut-off was fixed by the High Court after the conduct of the viva voce, which was "manifestly arbitrary
The exam scheme and the recruitment notification also did not stipulate any cut-off for viva-voce. Hence, the process was held to be "ultra-vires" the rules.
However, the Court refrained from invalidating the selection of candidates in view of the fact that six years have elapsed since their appointment, during which the appointed candidates have performed judicial functions. "Unseating them would be harsh and would result in a situation where higher judiciary would lose the services of duly qualified candidates who have gained experience over the last six years", the Court observed in the order.
Case title: Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/S ECI SPIC
Civil Appeal Nos.9486-9487/2019
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to defer for two months the hearing of a reference which raises the issue of whether a person, who is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator, can appoint an arbitrator.
CJI DY Chandrachud, while dictating the order, said– "We are informed that Union Govt has constituted an expert committee with a broad remit to consider the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Attorney General submits that the issues which have been raised before the constitution bench will also come within the remit of the committee. After the report of the committee, the government will take a considered view on whether the modification of legislation is warranted.
'There Has To Be An Enduring Solution': Supreme Court On Stray Dog Issue In Kerala
Case title: Animal Welfare Board of India v. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles
Citation: C.A. No. 5988/2019
The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally said that there has to be an enduring solution to the issue of stray dogs in Kerala.
The Court was considering the plea filed by the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (KeSCPCR) citing an increase in stray dog attacks in Kerala, especially against children, seeking directions to curb the menace.
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: Diary No. 14476 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing in the bail plea of former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid, who has been arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for his alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy surrounding the communal violence that broke out in February 2020 in the Indian capital. Khalid has been behind bars since September 2020, awaiting his trial.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India And Anr
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 699/2016
The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that its permission is not required for the High Courts to transfer Presiding officers of Special Courts dealing with cases pertaining to MPs/MLAs. The same was done by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra to ensure that the administrative work of the High Courts does not suffer.
Case Title: Delimitation Demand Committee for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur & Nagaland in North East India v Union of India
Citation: Diary No 12880 of 2022
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, while hearing a petition seeking for delimitation in four north-eastern states of India, namely, Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh, orally observed that it seemed that the Election Commission of India did not require the authorization of the Government of India to conduct the exercise of delimitation.
Speaking at the felicitation function organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association in honour of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K V Viswanathan who was recently appointed as judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said,
“We must also accept the fact that the government is also a stakeholder in the process and these recommendations that have come through in less than 72 hours after the names were recommended. I think we’ve sent the nation a message that the collegium is vibrant, active and committed to its task.”
Case title: Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigation Agency & Anr
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5997 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing in the bail plea of activist and Bhima Koregaon case accused Jyoti Jagtap, saying that the judgments on the bail applications of co-accused Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira are expected to be delivered next week.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar was hearing Jagtap’s petition challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision to reject her bail application. She has been lodged in jail since September 2020 for offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 after being arrested in connection with the 2018 caste-based violence that broke out at Bhima Koregaon in Pune, and for having alleged links with the proscribed far-left outfit, Communist Party of India (Maoists).
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to July 17, the hearing in a clutch of pleas against the premature release of the life convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, directing it to be listed for directions on that day.
After the retirement of Supreme Court judge KM Joseph, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra will now be hearing the challenge against the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to the 11 convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and gang-rapes during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 162/2023
In the Adani Hindenburg matter, the Supreme Court enquired about the background of the legislative changes introduced by SEBI in the regulatory framework. This was after Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for a petitioner seeking a probe into the Hindenburg allegations, pointed out that as per the Expert Committee, SEBI's investigation will not reach anywhere owing to their own amendments and changes made to the definition of "opaque structure", "related party" etc.
Supreme Court Extends Interim Bail Granted To Ashish Mishra In Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case
Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P.
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the interim bail granted to Union Minister Ajay Mishra's son, Ashish Mishra in light of the ongoing trial in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.
A division bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta took note of the submissions of Sr. Adv Mukul Rohatgi that the trial in the case was going well. “Evidence is going on, several reports have been filed,” Rohatgi, representing Ashish Mishra told the Apex Court.
“We are doing whatever we can, we are doing it promptly, we are present. On both sides, witnesses are being examined. “ Rohatgi submitted before the Court.
Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei And Ors
Citation No. 19206-2023 and connected matters
In the batch of pleas concerning Manipur violence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Manipur Government to act upon certain suggestions made by petitioners to mitigate the situation. Yesterday, stating that the Court cannot take over the control of law and order from the elected government, the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had called for "constructive suggestions" from the petitioners which could be considered by the government, while leaving out the aspect of security measures for the executive to handle.
Case Title: In Re: Order Dt. 23.05.2023 In Gobind Rai @ Monu Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed the matter in which it took suo motu cognizance of the order of the Allahabad High Court which directed the Head of Astrology Department, Lucknow University to determine if an alleged rape victim is a Mangali/Mangalik by examining her Kundali. The Apex Court disposed of the matter on the submission of the counsel for the complainant and the state of Uttar Pradesh that the bail application filed by the accused was dismissed for non-prosecution and hence the matter had become infructuous.
Case Title: Committee Of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors.
A Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court to transfer all pending suits related to the Krishna Janambhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute from the Mathura Court to itself.
The Petition is filed by the Committee Of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah through Advocate-on-Record R.H.A. Sikander. It states that “the Transfer Application was allowed by the High Court despite the fact that the proceedings in Suit No. 353 of 2022 from which the Transfer Application emanated, were stayed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.”
Supreme Court Stays NGT's Direction Appointing LG As Chairman Of High-Level Committee On Yamuna
Case Title: Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Ashwani Yadav
Citation: Diary No. 22325 OF 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the direction of the Nation Green Tribunal (NGT) which had appointed the Lt. Governor of Delhi as the head of the High-level Committee for Yamuna river pollution.
CJI DY Chandrachud added–"There shall be a stay of the operation on the direction of NGT to the extent that the LG has been asked to be the head. We are not staying the entire order.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI And Ors.
Citation: WP(C) No. 1246/2020 and connected matters
While giving yet another extension of time to the Union Government to file its counter-affidavit in a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the mere pendency of the petitions does not mean that the Act has been stayed.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra was considering a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the legislation, which prohibits the conversion of a religious structure from its nature as it stood on the date of independence
Case Title: Shah Faesal And Ors. v Union Of India And Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1099/2019
The Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed August 2, 2023 as the starting date for the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution of India which stripped the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. The petitions also challenge the J&K Re-organization Act 2019 which bifurcated J&K into Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
Case title: Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 000754 / 2016
"Vigilantism is not permissible, needs to be checked", orally observed the Supreme Court on Monday while asking the States to share data regarding mob lynching cases.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Bela Trivedi was hearing the Tehseen Poonawalla case in which the Supreme Court in 2018 had issued several directions to the Union and States regarding measures to prevent mob lynching. The matter was posted again to monitor the follow-up action taken by the governments.
The bench directed that the Ministry of Home Affairs shall convene a meeting of heads of departments of state for consolidation of data for compliance with respect to preventive and remedial measures taken as per the judgment passed by the court in 2018.
Can Court Direct Union Govt To Make Law Commission A Statutory Body? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment
Case Title: Union of India And Ors. v. K. Pushpavanam And Ors.
Citation: SLP(C) No. 478/2022
The Supreme Court, on Monday, reserved judgment in the Union Government’s plea, inter alia, challenging the directions passed by the Madras High Court to the Central Government to consider suggestions for making Law Commission either a statutory body or constitutional body.
Case Title: X v. St. Xavier’s University Kolkata And Ors.
Citation: Diary No. 12808/2023
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to entertain a plea filed by a former professor of St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata who was allegedly forced to tender resignation pursuant to complaints by an undergraduate student’s parent over her photographs on her personal Instagram account. The former professor (petitioner) assailed the order passed by the Calcutta High Court dismissing her plea to proceed with the writ petition anonymously, without making her identity public.
Case Title: Abdul Maudany Vs State of Karnataka
Citation: MA 418-426/2023 in SLP(Crl) No. 8084-8092/2013
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the State of Karnataka's response in the plea filed by 2008 Bangalore blasts case accused Abdul Nasser Maudani for relaxation of bail condition, permitting him to travel and to stay in his home town in Kerala. As part of the bail condition, the Kerala People’s Democratic Party (PDP) chairman was to stay in Bengaluru till the trial in the blasts case is over.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: SLP(C) No. 12034/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and State Bank of India's (SBI) notifications that permit exchange of Rs. 2000 currency notes without the requirement of any identity proof.
At the very outset, the Chief Justice said–"Mr. Upadhyay, suppose you take a 2000 Rs note and you give it to a shopkeeper. Forget that, let's take a 500 Rs note. Would a shopkeeper ask you to show your identity card and then only sell you vegetables? No."
He added that the RBI's contention was that the purpose of the Rs 2000 currency notes had been served and the same was withdrawn as legal tender.
Case Title: Women Lawyers Association Of Nilgiris v. The Registrar, Madras High Court And Anr.
Citation: MA 1378/2023 in W.P.(C) No. 511/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday said that the media report about the lack of toilet facilities for women lawyers in the Nilgiris District Court complex in Tamil Nadu district was incorrect. Referring to a report submitted by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court indicating the facilities given to women lawyers, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure about the media report, which it said resulted in a "negative portrayal" of the judiciary and the Madras High Court in particular.
The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud noted that the issue ultimately emanated out of rivalry between two associations of lawyers.
Case Title: Shajan Skaria v The State of Kerala
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 8081/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection from arrest to the editor of Malayalam YouTube News Channel 'Marunadan Malayalee' Shajan Skaria in a criminal case under the SC/ST Act over making alleged derogatory remarks against MLA PV Sreenijin.
"His statements may be defamatory, but these are not offences under the SC/ST Act. He may have said something against the father-in-law (of the complainant), judiciary etc, which may be in bad taste", CJI said.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Union Government on a writ petition filed by the Delhi Government challenging Centre's ordinance taking away the powers of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) from 'services'.
Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei And Ors.
Citation: Diary No. 19206-2023 XIV
While hearing the matter pertaining to Manipur violence, the Supreme Court on Monday stressed upon its limitations and underlined that the court cannot take over the responsibility of maintaining law and order from the elected government.
The Court further cautioned that the proceedings before it should not be used as a platform to escalate the violence and asked the lawyers to exercise restraint in making allegations against different ethnic groups. Taking on record the latest status report filed by the State of Manipur, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha asked the petitioners to bring forth "concrete suggestions" to de-escalate the situation.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee vs Soumen Nandi
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11588-11589/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Calcutta High Court's order passed on May 18 allowing the Enforcement Directorate to summon Trinamool Congress leader and Member of Parliament Abhishek Banerjee in relation to the teacher recruitment scam.
Deciding a petition filed by Banerjee against the High Court's order, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha said that the investigation cannot be stifled. Observing that the High Court has "duly applied its mind" regarding the need for investigation, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the direction, adding that the consequence of doing so would be to "stifle the investigation at the incipient stage".
Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6561 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday extended the interim bail granted on medical grounds to Aam Aadmi Party leader and former cabinet minister of the Delhi government Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case.
A division bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh directed Jain's medical reports to be brought on record before the next date of hearing.
Case title: BV Srinivas v. State of Assam
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6210 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Monday adjourned to August the hearing in Indian Youth Congress (IYC) president BV Srinivas’ plea against the Gauhati High Court rejecting his application for anticipatory bail in an alleged harassment case.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala was hearing a petition for anticipatory bail in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered in Assam against Srinivas on the strength of sexual harassment complaint lodged by a former party member.
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to cancel faculty appointments in Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) from 2008 to present for allegedly violating reservation norms. The PIL also sought for equal opportunity to be given to candidates from northern and Hindi speaking states in faculty positions at IITs across India
The Court observed that the petitioner himself had admitted that the matter relating to the implementation of reservation policy in IITs is already pending before the Apex Court and the Madras High Court and hence no separate writ was required to be entertained pertaining to the same issue.
Case Title: Gohar Mohammed Versus Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & others Citation: Civil Appeal No. 9322 OF 2022
The Supreme Court on Monday urged the States and High Courts that had not filed their compliance reports in connection with a slew of directions issued by the Apex Court in December 2022 with regard to motor accident compensation claims to do so by August 14. The Court warned that if the reports are not submitted on time, the Court would have to insist on the presence of Registrar Generals of the concerned High Courts and the Chief Secretaries of the concerned States in Court.
Case title: Ravi Khandelwal v. M/S Taluka stores
Citation: SLP(C) No.9434/2020
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that the objective of section 14(3) of Rajasthan Rent control Act,1950 was to safeguard the interest of tenants. As per the provision, Eviction suit cannot be filed by landlord within 5 years of tenancy. However, the court opined that even though in this case, the eviction suit was filed within 5 years, 38 years have gone by since then. This itself would cure the defect in the eviction suit.
Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday set up a high-level panel to examine the environmental issues arising as a result of a large number of pilgrims visiting the temples located inside the core area of Rajasthan’s Sariska Tiger Reserve and directed them to furnish a report within six weeks. The bench held:
“The perusal of an affidavit by the deputy forest conservator and Sariska’s deputy field director reveals that the state government is attempting to find out a solution to the problem of lakhs of people visiting the temple situated in the core area. However, for finding a complete solution, it would be necessary that a body of experts sits together and comes out with an everlasting solution.
Case details: CBI BHOPAL vs ABHISHEK SACHAN @ ABHISHEK SINGH
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).405/2021
The Supreme Court will examine whether supplying of hard copies of the documents relied on by the Prosecution, is mandatory, or can it be supplied in digital format?
This issue was raised in a special leave petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had upheld the direction issued by the Special Judge ordering for supply of hard copies of the concerned documents to the accused.
