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

Share this

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.

76. Gun Firing Incidents In Courts Deeply Disturbing': Supreme Court Issues Slew Of Directions For Security In Courts

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.

77. When Accused Seeks To Quash FIR On Ground That It's Based On Personal Vengeance, Attendant Circumstances Must Be Looked Into: Supreme Court

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.”

78. B.Ed. Graduates Ineligible For Post Of Primary School Teachers, Holds Supreme Court; Says 'Right To Education Includes Quality Education

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.

79. Self-Respect Marriages Don't Require Public Solemnisation Or Declaration : Supreme Court Overrules Madras HC Judgment

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.

80. Interest Income Earned On Deposits By Clubs In Banks Which Are Corporate Members Taxable; Principle Of Mutuality Not Applicable: Supreme Court

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.

81. Maternity Benefits Must Be Granted Even If Period Of Benefit Overshoots Term Of Contractual Employment: Supreme Court

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.

82. Ensure Public Authorities Follow Mandate Of Section 4 RTI Act': Supreme Court Directs Central/State Information Commissioners

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.

83. Supreme Court Emphasises Importance Of “Support Persons” For Victims Under POCSO Act; Issues Guidelines

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.

84. Remission Shouldn't Be Denied Solely On Reports Of Presiding Judge Or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors For Premature Release

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.

85. Children Of Invalid Marriages Have Right In Their Parents' Share In Hindu Joint Family Property: Supreme Court

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

86. Public Servants Lose Immunity In Pre-2014 Corruption Cases; Supreme Court Clarifies That Striking Down Of Sec 6A DSPE Act Has Retrospective Effect

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

Once A Law Is Declared Unconstitutional, It Becomes Inoperative From Its Inception; Void Ab Initio: Supreme Court

87. 'Army & Air Force Liable': Supreme Court Awards Rs 1.5 Crore Compensation To Air Veteran Who Contracted HIV During Blood Transfusion

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

88. Mere Non-Cooperation To ED Summons Not A Ground For Arrest Under PMLA; ED Can't Expect Admission Of Guilt From Person Summoned: Supreme Court

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.

ED Can't Be Vindictive, Grounds Of Arrest Must Be Furnished In Writing To Accused At The Time Of Arrest: Supreme Court

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.

89. Supreme Court Refuses To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages, Asks Union Govt To Form Committee To Determine Rights Of Queer Unions