- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- 100 Important Supreme Court...
100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2023 - Part 4 [76 to 100]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
27 Dec 2023 9:45 AM IST
![100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2023 - Part 4 [76 to 100]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2023/12/23/750x450_511787-100-important-supreme-court-judgments-of-2023-part-4.webp "100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2023 - Part 4 [76 to 100]")
As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much-awaited article by our dear readers.The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for practising lawyers, judges and students.A disclaimer is added...
As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much-awaited article by our dear readers.
The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for practising lawyers, judges and students.
A disclaimer is added here that the judgments included in the list are not necessarily good or the best judgments; some of them are controversial and regarding some others, there are strong counter-views. Yet, these judgments are worthy of being noted and discussed upon, considering their general importance and impact on litigation and general socio-political arena. Hence, the inclusion in this list. The judgments are arranged in the chronological order. The reports about the judgments are hyperlinked at the case description.
The list of 100 judgments will be published in four parts and this is the second part. Part 1 can be read here. Part 2 can be read here. Part 3 can be read here.
Case Title: Pradyuman Bisht v. Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directions to ensure safety within court premises in light of the recent incidents of gun firing within court premises in the National Capital, stressing on the need to 'preserve the sanctity of the court'. The Apex Court also said that the recent incidents of violence has 'disturbed it to no end'.
A division bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta stressed on the need to take immediate measures stating that the safety and security of the stakeholders in the judicial process is 'non-negotiable.
Case title: Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, while quashing a criminal FIR, made imperative observations.
It observed that in cases where the quashing of FIR is sought, essentially on the ground that the proceedings are based on ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, “then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.”
Case Title: Devesh Sharma v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633
The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which had made B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) degree holders ineligible for appointment to the post of primary school teachers.
The bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia opined that the fundamental right of primary education in India as guaranteed under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution as well as the Right to Education Act, 2009 not just included 'free' and 'compulsory' education for children below 14 years of age but also included 'quality' education to be imparted in such children.
Case title: Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 006534 - / 2023
Upholding the fundamental right of a person to choose a life partner, the Supreme Court on Monday (August 28) overruled a Madras High Court judgment which held that the marriages performed in the offices of the Advocates are not valid as per the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Case Title: SECUNDRABAD CLUB ETC. v. C.I.T.-V ETC.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660
The Supreme Court has ruled that the interest income earned on fixed deposits (FDs) made by Clubs in the banks that are members of those Clubs has to be treated like any other income from other sources within the meaning of Section 2(24) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra said that the principle of mutuality would not apply to interest income earned on FDs made by Clubs in the banks irrespective of whether the banks are corporate members of the Club or not.
Case title: Kavita Yadav v. Secy, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Citation: CA No-5010/2023
The Supreme Court on Thursday(17 Aug) held that maternity benefits have to be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. Maternity benefits can travel beyond the term of contractual employment. The court directed the employer to pay maternity benefits as would have been available in terms of Sections 5 and 8 of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 and payment to be made within 3 months.
The court underlined that the statute itself envisions the continuation of benefits beyond the term of employment, asserting that entitlement to medical benefits, as stipulated under Section 5, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 goes beyond the confines of employment duration.
Case title: Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 665
The Supreme Court directed the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions to ensure proper implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act.
"While declaring that all citizens shall have the 'right to information' under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative 'duty' in the form of an obligation of public authorities is recognized in Section 4.", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667
The Supreme Court on Friday(Aug 18), passed an order relating to the appointment of support persons under the POCSO Act and their qualifications. The Court issued directions for framing guidelines on their appointment.
“A support person is to provide information, emotional and psychological support, and practical assistance which are often crucial to the recovery of the child. This can go a long way in helping them cope with the aftermath of the crime and with the strain of any criminal proceedings – in many ways a support person, acts as guardian ad litem for the child", the Court observed.
Case title: Rajo @Rajwa@Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 717
The Supreme Court recently pronounced a notable judgment explaining the factors which a Government should take into account while deciding to grant remission of sentence to convicts as per Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The government should also take into account factors such as age, health, familial relationships, reintegration possibilities, extent of earned remission, and post-conviction conduct including, but not limited to – whether the convict has attained any educational qualification whilst in custody, volunteer services offered, job/work done, jail conduct, whether they were engaged in any socially aimed or productive activity, and the overall development as a human being.
The Court suggested that the government could also benefit from a report prepared by a qualified psychologist after interacting with the convict. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the individual's post-conviction development, rehabilitation efforts, and potential for reintegration into society.
Case Title: Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun C.A. No. 2844/2011 and connected cases
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737
The Supreme Court on Friday (September 1) pronounced a judgment recognizing the rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents' share in Hindu joint family property.
The Court held that children born out of void/voidable marriages are entitled to inherit a share in the property of their deceased parents which would have been allotted to them on a notional partition of the Hindu coparcenary property. However, such children are not entitled to the properties of any coparcener other than their parents.
The Court clarified that this ruling is applicable only to Hindu joint family properties governed by Hindu Mitakshara law.
Also from the judgment - Child From Void/Voidable Marriage Cannot Be Treated As Coparcener By Birth In Mitakshara Hindu Undivided Family: Supreme Court
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr RR Kishore | Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2007 and other connected matters
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770
In a significant development, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Monday declared that its 2014 judgment, which declared Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 as unconstitutional, will have retrospective effect. This means that Section 6A is held to not be in force right from the date of its insertion.
Section 6A of the DSPE Act required the Central Bureau of Investigation to obtain prior sanction from the central government to investigate corruption cases against an officer of the rank of joint secretary and above. This provision was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India.
Also from the judgment- Article 20(1) Of the Constitution Doesn't Bar Retrospective Application Of Procedural Changes In Criminal Trial : Supreme Court
Case Number: C.A. No. 7175/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826
In a significant judgment that reaffirms the principles of upholding the dignity, rights, and well-being of armed forces personnel, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a retired Air Veteran, holding the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Army jointly and vicariously liable for medical negligence. The appellant, who contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital while falling sick on duty during Operation Parakram, has been awarded compensation amounting to 1 crore 54 lakhs 73,000.
Also from the judgment - Prioritise Cases Of HIV Positive Persons: Supreme Court Directs All Courts; Issues Directions To Centre & States To Enforce HIV Act
Case Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Basant Bansal v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844; 2023INSC866
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement for mere non-cooperation in response to a summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.
"Mere non-cooperation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 would not be enough to render him/her liable to be arrested under Section 19", held a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PV Sanjay Kumar
Why ED Must Furnish Grounds Of Arrest To Accused In Writing? Supreme Court Explains
Case Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Basant Bansal v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844; 2023INSC866
In a landmark judgment in the case Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must furnish the reasons for arrest to the accused in writing.
While holding so, the bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PV Sanjay Kumar, noted that Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which gives the power to officers of ED to arrest any person guilty of a money laundering offense, uses the expression that the accused shall be 'informed of the grounds of such arrest'. The Section did not specify how the grounds of arrest should be informed. This aspect was not dealt with in the recent Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Senthil Balaji cases.
Case Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Basant Bansal v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844
In a significant judgment pronounced on Tuesday (October 3), the Supreme Court held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) should furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing at the time of arrest.
"We hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception." pronounced a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar while setting aside the arrest of Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal in the money laundering case against the real estate group M3M.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
The Supreme Court on 17.10.2023 refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India saying that it is a matter for the legislature to decide. However, all the judges on the bench agreed that the Union of India, as per its earlier statement, shall constitute a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in the queer union, without legal recognition of their relationship as a "marriage".
The Court also unanimously held that queer couples have a right to cohabit without any threat of violence, coercion or interference; but refrained from passing any directions to formally recognize such relationships as marriages.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
The Supreme Court today refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India. The Constitution bench has pronounced four judgments– written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice PS Narasimha respectively, with Justice Hima Kohli concurring with the view of Justice Bhat. Along with this, the Supreme Court also declined the right of adoption to queer couples by a 3:2 majority.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
While refusing to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India, the Supreme Court today affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have a right to marry as per the existing statutory laws or personal laws.
The Constitution bench pronounced four judgements– written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha respectively, with Justice Hima Kohli concurring with the view of Justice Bhat.
Queerness Not An Urban, Elitist Concept: Supreme Court Declares
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
Stating that the court could not step into the domain of the legislature, the Supreme Court today refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India. The Constitution bench pronounced four judgments– written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha respectively, with Justice Hima Kohli concurring with the view of Justice Bhat.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
Even though the Supreme Court refrained from granting legal recognition for same-sex marriages, it did make a strong call to the State to take steps to end the discrimination faced by queer couples and to ensure protection for their right to cohabitation.
The Court observed that the discrimination faced by the queer community due to the exclusion of same-sex partners from welfare measures due to the heteronormative definitions in laws must be addressed by the State.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
"There is a degree of agreement and a degree of disagreement on how far we have to go," remarked CJI DY Chandrachud as he commenced the pronouncement of the judgment denying the grant of legal recognition for queer marriages in India in open court yesterday.
With four separate judgments authored by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice PS Narasimha, a lot seems to be clarified on these "agreements and disagreements" of the bench on crucial questions of law.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
On October 17, 2023, a Supreme Court Constitution Bench unanimously held that it could not strike down or read down the provisions of the Special Marriage Act (SMA),1954 to include non-heterosexual unions within the ambit of 'marriage'. In doing so, the Supreme Court effectively denied legal recognition for queer marriages in India.
Despite the Constitution bench having pronounced four judgments– written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha respectively, with Justice Hima Kohli concurring with the view of Justice Bhat, all five judges, in one voice, agreed to not strike or read the SMA down.
The court stated that reading the provisions of the SMA to bring within its fold queer marriages would amount to a legislative exercise which fell exclusively within the domain of the Parliament.
Case Title: Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India, Writ Petition(Civil) No. 324/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917
The Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions to the Union and the State Governments to ensure that the abhorrent practice of manual scavenging is totally put to an end by strict implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
The Court directed that the process of manual cleaning of sewers is completely eradicated and to ensure that no individual has to manually enter sewers for any purpose
91. Read 12 Directions Issued by Supreme Court For Speedy Trial of Civil Cases
Case Title: Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and others
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916
Expressing serious concerns at the pendency of cases in the country, the Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directions to ensure the speedy disposal of cases.
A bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar issued eleven directions to the high courts to ensure speedy trial and to monitor the disposal of cases, especially those pending for over five years.
Case title: PAVANA DIBBUR v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1021
In an important judgment , the Supreme Court clarified that an offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code will be deemed a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) only if the alleged conspiracy is directed towards committing an offence specifically included in the schedule of the PMLA.
“An offence punishable under section 120-B will become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence specifically included in the schedule. On that ground, we've quashed the proceedings," ruled the Court.
Person Accused Of PMLA Offence Need Not Be An Accused In Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that a person accused of an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) need not necessarily be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence. The judgment clarified that a person, unconnected to the scheduled offence but knowingly assisting in the concealment of the proceeds of crime, can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA.
93. High Courts, Session Courts Can Grant Interim/Transit Anticipatory Bail Even When FIR Is Registered In Another State: Supreme Court
Case title: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996
The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court or High Court would have the power to grant interim/transit anticipatory bail, when the FIR is not registered within the territory of a particular State but in a different State.
The Court observed : "...we hold that the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, if the accused apprehending arrest makes out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that the FIR has not been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider the case of the accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail"
Conditions For Transit Anticipatory Bail In FIRs Registered In Other States: Supreme Court Explains
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on December 11 upheld the validity of the Union Government's 2019 decision to repeal the special status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) under Article 370 of the Constitution. The Court held that the State of J&K had no internal sovereignty and the concurrence of the State Government was not required to apply the Indian Constitution to the State of J&K. It was held that Article 370 was a temporary provision.
Other reports on the judgment can be read here.
Case Title : In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050.
A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 13) ruled that arbitration clauses in unstamped or inadequately stamped agreements are enforceable. Insufficiency of stamping does not make the agreement void or unenforceable but makes it inadmissible in evidence. However, it is a curable defect as per the Indian Stamp Act, the Court pointed out.
The Court overruled the judgment rendered by a 5-judge bench in April this year in M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors which had by a 3:2 majority held that unstamped arbitration agreements are not enforceable.
Case Title: In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And The Indian Stamp Act 1899 Curative Pet(C) No. 44/2023 In R.P.(C) No. 704/2021 In C.A. No. 1599/2020
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049
96. Arbitration Agreement Can Bind Non-Signatories: Supreme Court Upholds 'Group Of Companies' Doctrine
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on December 6 held that an arbitration agreement can bind non-signatories as per the "group of companies" doctrine.
"The 'group of companies' doctrine must be retained in the Indian arbitration jurisprudence considering its utility in determining the intention of the parties in the context of complex transactions involving multiple parties and multiple agreements," the Court observed.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the verdict.
Case : Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd | ARBIT. PETITION No. 38/2020
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) relating to Personal Guarantors' Insolvency Resolution, which were introduced through the amendments made in 2019.
The Court held that these provisions (Section 95 to 100 IBC) cannot be held as unconstitutional for not affording an opportunity of hearing to the personal guarantors before the insolvency petition filed by creditors is admitted against them and the moratorium is automatically applied against them as soon as the insolvency petition is filed.
Case Title: Dilip B Jiwrajka v. Union of India and others, Surendra B. Jiwrajika and Anr. vs. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited SLP(C) No. 016464/2021 + connected matters
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1010
The Supreme Court on December 15 held that its judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of Indiawhich held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing does not apply retrospectively.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma held that non-furnishing of grounds of arrest till the date of pronouncement in Pankaj Bansal (October 3, 2023) cannot be held to be illegal.
Further, the bench made certain observations which have the effect of diluting Pankaj Bansal dictum. It stated that the accused need not be informed of the grounds of the arrest in writing at the time of the arrest and they need to be furnished within 24 hours, but the accused must be orally told about the grounds at the time of arrest.
Case Title : Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1059
This clarification by the Court is important because Article 200 of the Constitution does not expressly state what should be the next course of action after a Governor withholds assent for a Bill.
Also from the judgment -Governor Can't Doubt Validity Of Assembly Session : Supreme Court Asks Punjab Governor To Decide On Pending Bills
Case Title: The State Of Punjab v Principal Secretary To The Governor Of Punjab And Anr. W.P.(C) No. 1224/2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008
The Supreme Court allowed the Union Government to extend by six months the term of the Chief Secretary of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Naresh Kumar, who is otherwise due to retire tomorrow.
The Court held that the Central Government has the power to appoint the Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government and that such power includes the power to extend the term of the superannuating officer. The Court clarified that its views are prima facie in the nature, subject to the adjudication by the Constitution Bench on the validity of the Centre's services law.
Also from the judgment - Delhi Chief Secretary, Though Appointed By Centre, Must Follow Directions Of Delhi Govt On Matters Over Which It Has Power: Supreme Court
Case : Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No 1268 of 2023)
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1040
