Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments Of 2020

Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Limited To A Fixed Period Except In Special And Peculiar Circumstances

[Sushila Aggarwal And Others V/S State (NCT Of Delhi)]

Land Acquisition : No Lapse Of Proceedings Under Old Act If Compensation Is Deposited In Treasury

[ Indore Development Authority V/S Manoharlal ]

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 will not lapse if the compensation has been tendered by deposit in treasury. The Court held that land owners cannot insist that the amount should be deposited in Court so as to sustain the land acquisition proceedings under the old Act on the commencement of the new land acquisition law with effect from January 1, 2014.

SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks

The Supreme Court has held that the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act 2002 is applicable to cooperative banks. "The co­operative banks under the State legislation and multi­ State co­operative banks are 'banks' under section 2(1)(c) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002", held the Constitution Bench.

Merely Because The Investigation Officer And Complainant Are The Same The Trial In NDPS Cases Will Not Be Vitiated And Accused Cannot Be Acquitted On That Ground

[Mukesh Singh V/S State (Narcotic Branch Of Delhi) ]

Medical Council Of India Has No Power To Make Any Reservation For In-Service Candidates; States Have

Article 370 : No Need To Refer Pleas Challenging Repeal Of J&K Special Status To Larger Bench

100% ST Reservations For Teacher Posts In Scheduled Areas Unconstitutional: SC

[Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. V. State of A.P. & Ors.]

A Constitution bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that 100 per cent reservation of teachers belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category at schools situated in "Scheduled Ares" is constitutionally invalid. The Bench also quashed the Government order issued under the hand of Governor of State of Andhra Pradesh which had affirmed absolute reservation for ST teachers and imposed costs on both Andhra Pradesh & Telangana Government's, seeking reasons from the Government's for breaching the 50% ceiling in reservations.

Sub-Classification Within SC-ST Reservation: 'EV Chinnaiah' Decision Needs Reconsideration

[ State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh ]

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the decision of a coordinate bench in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh requires to be revisited and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before an appropriate larger bench. The bench expressed the view that once a State Government has the power to make reservation, it also has the power to make sub-classifications and that such sub-classification will not amount to tinkering with the reservation list. A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose delivered the verdict in the case State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh and others and connected cases.

Sabarimala: Questions Of Law Can Be Referred To Larger Bench In A Review Petition

Kantararu Rajeevaru vs Indian Young Lawyers Association

A 9 judge bench headed by CJI SA Bobde dismissed the objections regarding the maintainability of reference in Sabarimala Review Petitions. On that occasion, the bench had stated that it will give reasons for the conclusion later. In May, the bench passed an order detailing the reasons for holding that it can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition. The Court held as follows: (1) Limitations in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules are not applicable to Orders/Judgments in Writ Petitions; (2) Reference can be made in a pending Review Petition; (3) No matter is beyond Jurisdiction of Superior Court of Record; (4) Article 142 justifies the Reference; (5) Not necessary to refer to facts to decide pure questions of law; (6) Article 145(3) Proviso that reference to a larger bench can be made only in Appeals and not in any other proceedings is not applicable to references made by a bench of five or more Judges.

Earlier, on November 14, 2019, a 5-judge bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi observed by 3:2 majority that certain issues in the Sabarimala review were common to the pending cases concerning women entry in Mosques, validity of the practice of Female Genital Mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community and the right of Parsi women who had married outside community to enter Fire Temples. On that count, the majority decided to keep the review petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determined questions related to essential religious practices.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.

In this case, A 5-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat that the time period for filing opposite party's version in Consumer case cannot be extended beyond the period of 45 days prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court held that Consumer Protection Act 1986 did not empower the Consumer Forum to extend the time beyond the period of 45 days. The time period prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory, and not directory, held the judgment.

State & Centre Have Concurrent Power To Fix Sugarcane Prices; No Conflict If State's Price Is Higher Than Centre's 'Minimum Price'

West U P Sugar Mills Association & Ors V/S State Of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court held that both the Centre and the State have concurrent powers to fix the prices of sugarcane. At the same time, the price' fixed by the State Government for sugarcane cannot be lower than the 'minimum price' fixed by the centre, the Court added. Also, it is open to the States to fix the price higher than the price fixed by the Centre.