Statistical Analysis Of Reportable Supreme Court Judgments In January 2023

Overview of Judge-wise Statistics –

The overview of Reportable Judgments delivered by each Hon’ble Judge over the month of January 2023, is as under :

Statistics based on outcome of proceedings –

Out of the 84 Reportable Judgments, 53 (i.e. 63.09%) were cases where the Petition / Appeal was allowed; in 23 cases, the Petition / Appeal was dismissed (i.e. 27.38%).

The Supreme Court disposed of 3 Petitions / Appeals with directions (i.e. 3.57%); and, partly allowed 2 Petitions / Appeals (i.e. 2.38%). However, 3 judgments (arising out of 2 cases) still remain pending (i.e. 3.57%), where the Reportable Judgment was delivered, and the proceedings have been placed on another date, for further consideration.

The Pie Chart of the outcome of proceedings is as under:

Subject-wise distribution of Reportable Judgments –

In January 2023, out of 84 Reportable Judgments, 21 were authored in the field of Land Acquisition; notably, all 21 being authored by Justice M.R.Shah. This was followed by 16 Judgments being authored in the field of Criminal Law, and 10 judgments in Civil Law. The subject-wise distribution of Reportable Judgments for January, 2023 is as under:

Land Acquisition Matters:

Out of the 21 Land Acquisition Judgments, 19 (i.e. 90.47%) filed by the land acquiring authority were allowed, 1 filed by the beneficiary of the land was dismissed (i.e. 4.76%); and 1 filed by the landowner was disposed of, with certain observations made with respect to the Judgment of the High Court. (i.e. 4.76%)

Criminal Law:

Out of the 16 criminal law judgments, 12 arose out of criminal appeals filed by the Accused person/s against their conviction. Out of the said 12 cases, in 7 cases, the Supreme Court acquitted the Accused person/s [i.e. 58.33%]; in 4 cases, the Court upheld the conviction. [i.e. 33.33%]; and in 1 case [i.e. 8.33%], the Court modified the conviction of the Accused from one u/S. 302 I.P.C., to one u/S. 304 Part I.

• Highlights of the Reportable Judgments for January 2023:

1. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud authored 4 Reportable Judgments in this month. Out of these, 1 pertained to the scope of judicial review over government contracts; another judgment pertained to the non-applicability of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to international commercial arbitrations. Justice Chandrachud also authored a Judgment deciding the issue of prohibition of carrying outside food and beverages into cinema halls.
2. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul delivered a Judgment setting aside the condition of victim compensation for grant of anticipatory bail. It was held that victim compensation is simultaneous with the final view taken in respect of the alleged offence, i.e., whether it was so committed or not. The Court, while upholding the grant of anticipatory bail to the Accused, set aside the condition of payment of interim victim compensation at the bail stage.
3. Justice K.M. Joseph, who presided over a Constitution Bench in January, delivered 2 Reportable Judgments, one of which was delivered in the Constitution Bench on the issue relating to living wills. The other Reportable Judgment was delivered while presiding over a Division Bench, in the context of civil law, with respect to transfer of property under a Release Deed, and the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel.
4. Justice M.R. Shah delivered 41 Reportable Judgments, of which 21 were in the field of land acquisition. Justice Shah also delivered 4 Judgments in the field of Tax law, and 3 Judgments in the field of Criminal law. Justice Shah also authored 1 Judgment in Arbitration law, deciding the issue of adducing additional evidence at the Section 34 stage. [M/s Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok S. Dhariwal and Others] In another important Judgment, Justice Shah held Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, which excluded ‘old Indian settlers’ from the definition of ‘Sikkimese’ to be unconstitutional. Justice Shah also adjudicated the issue of free public access to Charge Sheets, and held that the direction to put up Charge Sheets on websites of the State Governments, would run contrary to the scheme of the Cr.P.C. It was held that ‘charge sheets’ are not ‘public documents’ within its definition u/S. 74 of the Evidence Act.
5. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari delivered 2 Reportable Judgments, both in the field of criminal law. In one judgment, Justice Maheshwari was deciding a challenge made by an informant against grant of anticipatory bail to the Respondent-Accused, on the condition of payment of a certain sum to the informant. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the challenge to the grant of anticipatory bail, also deleted the condition of payment of money to the informant. It was held that the process of criminal law, particularly in matters of grant of bail, is not akin to money recovery proceedings. In another Judgment, Justice Maheshwari was deciding a challenge raised by an Accused against his conviction u/S. 302 and 201 I.P.C. for murdering his two minor sons. The Court, while adjudicating the defence of unsound mind, held that the burden to prove that the Accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts as a result of unsoundness of mind is on the defence. The Court, while appreciating the evidence on record, and applying the principles of circumstantial evidence, and the last-seen theory, upheld the conviction of the Accused.
6. Justice Sanjiv Khanna delivered 2 Reportable Judgments, of which, in 1 Judgment, the Court held that non-banking finance and leasing companies are not liable to pay tax under the Interest-Tax Act, 1974 on the interest component included in the hire-purchase instalments paid under hire- purchase agreements. The other judgment was passed in the context of Civil Law, wherein the Court held that a decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff merely because defendants were not able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the property.
7. Justice B.R. Gavai delivered 5 Reportable Judgments, of which 1 was delivered as the Majority Opinion of the Constitution Bench in Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India [Demonetization], 3 were in the field of Criminal Law, and 1 pertained to development in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Out of the 3 Judgments in Criminal Law, in 2 cases, Justice Gavai set aside the conviction awarded to the Accused; and in 1 case, the conviction awarded to the Accused was modified from S. 302 I.P.C. to one u/S. 304 Part I.
8. Justice B.V. Nagarathna authored 7 Judgments, out of which 2 were dissenting opinions, of which, 1 was authored in the Constitution Bench matter relating to the validity of demonetization. The other dissent was authored in the context of Civil Law, where Justice Nagarathna held that the non-production of the original Power of Attorney [on the basis of the which a Sale Deed was executed in favour of the Plaintiff] was not fatal to the Plaintiff’s case. Justice Nagarathna also authored 1 partial dissent, while delivering her Judgment in the Constitution Bench on the issue relating to the vicarious liability of the Government for statements made by Ministers. Her Ladyship also delivered a separate concurring opinion striking down Section 26(AAA) of the Income Tax Act. In another Judgment, Justice Nagarathna upheld the validity of the Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, and held that the State had the legislative competence to enact the said Act.
9. Justice Surya Kant delivered 1 Reportable Judgment relating to the classification of Hewlett Packard products under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Court also made observations with respect to the reliance placed by the assessing authorities on Wikipedia, and sounded a word of caution for the usage of such source of information for legal dispute resolution.
10. Justice S.Ravindra Bhat authored 4 Reportable Judgments, out of which 2 were in the field of Criminal Law, and 1 pertained to the exemption of a charitable organization u/S.12AA and S.80G of the Income Tax Act. Justice Bhat also authored a Judgment arising out of a challenge to a judgment of the NCLAT. In that case, the Supreme Court (speaking through Justice Bhat) observed that all courts and judicial forums should frame guidelines in cases where amounts are deposited with the office / registry of the court / tribunal, that such amounts should mandatorily be deposited in a bank or some financial institution, to ensure that no loss is caused in the future.

Authored by,

Ms. Vidhi Thaker, Advocate, Supreme Court of India and

Mr. Prastut Dalvi, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India.