100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2024 - Part 2 [26-50]

26. Judicial Service | 'High Score In Written Exam Alone Doesn't Determine Merit' : Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Mark Criteria For Interview

Case Title: ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS. | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 350

Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat.

27. Supreme Court Issues Directions Against Misleading Ads: Self Declaration Forms By Advertisers; Influencers Must Endorse Responsibly

Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

The Supreme Court, in a pivotal order passed a slew of measures to protect consumers from misleading advertisements. The directions included equal responsibility of advertisers and endorsers qua misleading ads and the uploading of a self-declaration form by advertisers before issuing any advertisements.

The Court declared that the the fundamental right to health encompasses the right of a consumer to be made aware of the quality of products being offered for sale by manufacturers, service providers, advertisers and advertising agencies.

28. Supreme Court Discusses Concept Of 'Parental Alienation Syndrome' In Child Custody Dispute

Case : Col. Ramneesh Pal Singhv v. Sugandhi Aggarwal 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma

The Supreme Court has discussed the concept of "Parental Alienation Syndrome(PAS)" in a judgment delivered in a case between an estranged couple for the custody of their children.

PAS is a syndrome whereby one parent, who has custody of the child, promotes feelings of disaffection against the other parent in the mind of the child, which ultimately influences the child's preference for one parent in a court litigation for custody.

29. Can Time-Barred Debts Be Recovered Through Remedies Other Than Civil Suits As Per Special Laws? Supreme Court Refers To 3-Judge Bench

Case : KP Khemka and anr vs Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Corporation Limited and ors

Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan

The Supreme Court has referred to a 3-judge bench the question whether debts, which cannot be recovered by filing civil suits as they are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1963, can be recovered by invoking other remedies under special statutes for debt recovery.

30. Supreme Court Prescribes 30 Days Time Limit To Prefer Appeal Against Juvenile Justice Board Preliminary Assessment Order

Case Title: CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal

Noting that no time limit has been prescribed under the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to prefer an appeal against the preliminary assessment order of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), the Supreme Court in a recent judgment deemed it appropriate to fill up this gap by prescribing 30 days' time limit for preferring appeal against the JJB's preliminary assessment order.

31. Sub-Classification Permissible Within Scheduled Castes To Give Separate Quotas For More Backwards : Supreme Court

Case Details : State Of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And Ors

A 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court(by 6-1) held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories.

The verdict means that States can identify more backwards among the SC categories and can sub-classify them for separate quota within the quota.

The Court clarified that while allowing sub-classification, the State cannot earmark 100% reservation for a sub-class. Also, the State has to justify the sub-classification on the basis of empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub-class. Four judges of the majority also opined that the 'creamy layer' among Scheduled Castes must be identified and excluded from quotas.

32. Advocates Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act For Deficiency Of Services : Supreme Court

Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal

The Supreme Court eld that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) for deficiency of services. The Court held that professionals have to be treated differently from persons carrying out business and trade. Reports about the judgment can be read here.

33. Prabir Purkayastha's Arrest By Delhi Police & Remand Illegal : Supreme Court Orders NewsClick Editor's Release In UAPA Case

Case Details: Prabir Purkayastha v. State, Diary No, 42896 of 2023

Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta

In a major development, the Supreme Court declared as illegal NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha's arrest by the Delhi police and his remand in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. The judgment held that the Pankaj Bansal judgment on the requirement of giving written reasons for arrest was applicable to UAPA cases as well. The judgment also held that an illegal arrest will not get validated by the passing of a remand order. Reports about the judgment can be read here.

34. For First Time, Supreme Court Recognizes Right To Be Free From Adverse Effects Of Climate Change

CASE TITLE: MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 286

In its first, the Supreme Court, through its judgment dated March 21, has recognized a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as a distinct right. The Court said that Articles 14 (equality before law and the equal protection of laws) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution are important sources of this right.

35. Right To Property | 7 Sub-Rights Which State Must Protect During Land Acquisition : Supreme Court Explains

Case Title: KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. V. BIMAL KUMAR SHAH & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6466 OF 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 382

In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court , while setting aside the acquisition of land acquired by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, highlighted seven sub-rights of Article 300A of the Indian Constitution. Article 300A provides that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”.

The judgment authored by Justice PS Narasimha stressed that these sub-rights mark the real content of the Right To Property under Article 300A. Non-compliance of these will amount to a violation of the right, being without the authority of law

36. 'Hierarchy of Judiciary Must Be Respected' : Supreme Court Cautions NCDRC Members Who Passed Directions Contrary To SC Order, Closes Contempt Case

Case Title: M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Gopinath., C.A. No. 2764-2771/2022

Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

The Supreme Court warned/ cautioned the two members of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for issuing non-bailable warrants against the directors of a company, ignoring a previous interim order of the Supreme Court.

37. S. 357 Cr.P.C. | Payment Of Compensation To Victim Not A Factor To Reduce Convict's Sentence : Supreme Court

Case Title: Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya Versus State of Gujarat | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Coram: Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

The Supreme Court held that an order for the convict to pay compensation to the victim would not result in the reduction of the sentence imposed on the convict.

38. ED Cannot Arrest Accused After Special Court Has Taken Cognizance Of PMLA Complaint : Supreme Court

Case Title: Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its officers cannot arrest an accused exercising powers under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after the Special Court has taken cognizance of the complaint of money laundering. Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

39. Supreme Court Upholds ICAI Rule Limiting Number Of Tax Audits By Chartered Accountants Per Yer; Declares It Operative From April 1, 2024

Case Title : Shaji Paulose versus Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Transfer Case (Civil) No. 20/2021

Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih

The Supreme Court upheld a rule issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants Of India (ICAA) barring Chartered Accountants from accepting more than the "specified number of tax audit assignments" (at present, the upper limit is set at 60) in a financial year.

40. Incarceration Due To Delay In Trial Violates Article 21; Bail Can Be Considered In Such Cases Despite Bar Under NDPS Act : Supreme Court

Case Title: ANKUR CHAUDHARY VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, SLP(Crl) No. 004648 / 2024

The Supreme Court observed that if there's an undue delay in the completion of the trial, then there would be no impediment to consider the grant of bail to the accused under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act despite not meeting the stringent test under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

41. Bail Condition Enabling Police To Constantly Track Movement Of Accused Can't Be Imposed: Supreme Court

Case Title – Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 441

The Supreme Court held that there cannot be a bail condition that enables the police to constantly track the movements of the accused and virtually peep into the privacy of the accused.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was examining whether a bail condition requiring an accused to drop a pin on Google Maps for the investigating officer to access his location violates a person's right to privacy.

42. 'They Must Not Be Lampooned' : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To Visual Media For Portrayal Of Persons With Disabilities

Case Title : Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 439

In a notable judgment delivered, the Supreme Court has issued a set of guidelines to the visual media to ensure a dignified portrayal of persons with disabilities. The Court stressed that portrayals which carry negative stereotypes about persons with disabilities would impact their dignity and perpetuate social discrimination against them.

43. Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates

Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court called upon the Bar to urge only the legally permissible grounds in the arbitration proceedings carried under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

44. West Bengal's Suit Against Union Govt Challenging Suo Motu Registration Of Cases In The State By CBI Maintainable: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Union of India | Original Suit No. 4 of 2021

In a crucial development, the Supreme Court held that the State of West Bengal's suit against the Union over the registration of cases by the CBI despite revocation of its general consent is maintainable. Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

45. Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance From Husband Under S.125 CrPC In Addition To Remedy Under 1986 Act : Supreme Court

Case Title: Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) 1614/2024

The Supreme Court held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to file a petition for maintenance against her ex-husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that this right of a Muslim woman is in addition to the right under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986.

46. Foreigners Act | Authorities Cannot Randomly Ask People To Prove Indian Citizenship On Mere Suspicion Without Sharing Any Materials: Supreme Court

Case Title – Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State Of Assam & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 462

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the authorities cannot randomly accuse people of being foreigners and initiate investigation into a person's nationality without the existence of material basis or information for suspicion.

47. Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Arvind Kejriwal In PMLA Case; Refers Plea Challenging ED Arrest To Larger Bench

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) 5154/2024., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 463

In a significant development, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the case registered by under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) over the liquor policy case, while referring his petition challenging the arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to a larger bench.

48. Chief Information Commissioner Has Power To Form Benches & Frame Regulations For Smooth Functioning Of Central Information Commission: Supreme Court

Case Title – Central Information Commission v. DDA & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 465

The Supreme Court recently held that the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) has the power to form benches and frame regulations for the effective management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission under Section 12(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

49. 'State Can't Alter Schedule Caste List Published Under Art. 341', Supreme Court Quashes Bihar Govt Resolution To Merge EBC Community In SC List

Case Details: DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH BIHAR, PATNA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 472

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 15) struck down the resolution issued by the Bihar Government in 2015 which had merged one community in the Backward Castes list with another community in the Scheduled Caste list.

The Court said that the State Government had no competence/ authority/power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution.

50. Can't Withdraw Prosecution Of Gruesome Crimes Merely Because Accused Is An Elected Representative: Supreme Court

Case Details: SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 476

The Supreme Court has held that the prosecution of a gruesome crime of double murder cannot be withdrawn by the State on the mere ground that the accused has a good public image being an elected representative.

Other parts will be published soon.