- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Monthly Digest-...
Supreme Court Monthly Digest- August 2022
Sohini Chowdhury
12 Sept 2022 9:52 AM IST
Sec 24(1) RFCTLARR Act- Land Acquisition Proceedings Get "Initiated" From Publication Of Sec 4(1) Notification Under 1894 Act : Supreme CourtCase Status: Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation vs Deepak Aggarwal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644 | SLP (C) 6631-16632/2018In a judgment delivered on Thursday (28 July 2022), the Supreme Court explained the meaning of...
Case Status: Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation vs Deepak Aggarwal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644 | SLP (C) 6631-16632/2018
In a judgment delivered on Thursday (28 July 2022), the Supreme Court explained the meaning of 'Initiation' for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall be treated as initiated on publication of a notification under Section 4(1) thereof, for the purposes of Section 24(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, the Court held.
Case Status: Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani vs British Airways | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645 | CA 4978 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Limitation Act will not have apply when a Statute extinguishes the right itself. The distinction between barring a remedy as exception is well established, the bench observed in a judgment in which it dealt with the Rule 30 of the Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.
Case Status: Rishi Pal Singh vs New India Assurance Co Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 646 | CA 4919 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that an owner of a vehicle cannot be expected to verify the genuineness of his driver's licence if he was satisfied with his driving skills. The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Status: Sunita Palita vs Panchami Stone Quarry 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647 | SLP(Crl) 10396 of 2019
The Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary to make an averment that a Managing Director or Joint Managing Directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of a company to make them accused under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court reiterated that impleading of independent and non-executive directors of a Company on the basis of a statement that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, without anything more, does not fulfil the requirements of Section 141 NI Act.
Case Status: Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs Tulip Star Hotels Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648 | CA 84-85 OF 2020
The Supreme Court observed the entries in Books of Account/Balance sheet of a company can be treated as acknowledgement of liability in respect of debt payable to a financial creditor.
An application under Section 7 of the IBC would not be barred by limitation, on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years from the date of declaration of the loan account of the Corporate Debtor as NPA, if there were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years. the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed. In such a case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years.
Case Status: Mandar Deepak Pawar vs State of Maharashtra | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649 | CrA 442/2022
While quashing a rape case, the Supreme Court observed that there is a distinction between a false promise to marriage and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled.
The court noted that, in this case, both parties were admittedly in a consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011. Though the victim contended that this relationship was on an assurance of marriage by the accused, the complaint was filed only in 2016 after three years, which led to registration of FIR under Section 376 and 420, IPC. The Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed the writ petition filed by the accused observing that rape 'is said to be an offence against the society'.
Case Status: Dauvaram Nirmalkar vs State of Chhattisgarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650 | CrA 1124 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that, for the purpose of Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC, the last provocation has to be considered in light of the previous provocative acts or words, serious enough to cause the accused to lose his self-control. The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi also clarified that this principle does not do away with the requirement of immediate or the final provocative act, words or gesture. Further, this defence would not be available if there is evidence of reflection or planning as they mirror exercise of calculation and premeditation, the court added.
Case Status: Satyajit Kumar and others versus State of Jharkhand and others | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651
The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed a notification issued by the State of Jharkhand in 2016 to provide for 100% reservation for local residents in District Cadre Class III and Class IV posts in the 13 Scheduled Districts of the State.
The Court held that "100% reservation provided for the local residents of the concerned Scheduled Districts / Areas only would be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and affecting rights of the other candidates / citizens of non scheduled areas / Districts guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India".
Case Status: Noor Mohammed vs Khurram Pasha | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 652 | SLP (Crl) 2872 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant cannot be denied to an accused for his failure to deposit interim compensation under Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act.
"Any such order foreclosing the right would not be within the powers conferred upon the court and would, as a matter of fact, go well beyond the permissible exercise of power", the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.
Case Status: Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari vs State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 653 | CrA 1044-1046 of 2022
The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, can grant stay of investigation or any other interim relief only in the rarest of rare cases. The bench observed thus while setting aside orders passed by Gujarat High Court while considering petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution granting interim reliefs staying further criminal proceedings and resultantly staying further investigation.
Advise States To Implement Digital DIN System : Supreme Court To Centre & GST Council
Case Status: Pradeep Goyal vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654 | WP(C) 320 OF 2022
The Supreme Court has directed the GST Council to issue advisory / instructions / recommendations to the respective States regarding implementation of the system of electronic (digital) generation of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the indirect tax administration.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the system, which is already being implemented by the States of Karnataka and Kerala, would be in the larger public interest and enhance good governance. It will bring in transparency and accountability in the indirect tax administration, which are so vital to efficient governance, the bench said.
Case Status: Dr J Vijayan and others vs State of Kerala and others| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 655
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal which sought a direction to enhance the retirement age of college teachers to 65 years in the State of Kerala as per a recommendation made by the University Grants Commission in 2010(Dr J Vijayan and others vs State of Kerala and others). A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Justice JK Maheshwari affirmed the view taken by the Kerala High Court that the fixing the age of superannuation is a policy of the state government and that the UGC regulations cannot override the service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
Case Status: M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes And Ors. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that service tax could not be levied on composite works contracts prior to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2007, which by amending the Finance Act, 1994 had introduced Section 65(105)(zzzza) defining works contracts. The Apex Court noted that in the absence of a charging section and the modalities to levy and assess, service tax cannot be levied on the service element of works contract. The Apex Court had reached the same conclusion in its judgment in Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 170. However, in the present proceedings the Revenue had sought reconsideration of the said judgment.
Case Status: Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. vs IVRCL AMR Joint Venture | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657 | CA 4914 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement should disclose a determination and obligation on behalf of parties to refer disputes to arbitration.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna noted that mere use of the word "arbitration" or "arbitrator" in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, if it requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties for reference to arbitration.
Case Status: Jai Prakash Tiwari vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658 | CrA 704 OF 2018
The Supreme Court observed that while examining an accused under Section 313 CrPC, all the adverse evidence has to be put in the form of questions so as to give an opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and give his explanation.
"If all the circumstances are bundled together and a single opportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he may not be able to put forth a rational and intelligible explanation," the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed. The court clarified such an omission does not ipso facto vitiate the trial, unless the accused fails to prove that grave prejudice has been caused to him.
Case Status : Reliance Industries Ltd versus Securities and Exchange Board of India| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659
A regulator like the Securities and Exchange Board of India(SEBI) has a duty to act fairly, while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties, stated the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on Friday while allowing the plea of Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) to access certain documents relied on by the SEBI to file a criminal complaint against the company.
"It is expected that parties in such proceedings are transparent, more so for Regulators like SEBI, who are expected to share all the documents, which are necessary for understanding the issue", a bench led by the Chief Justice of India observed in the judgment(Reliance Industries Ltd versus Securities and Exchange Board of India).
Case Status : Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi versus Quick Heal Technologies Ltd| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax seeking to levy service tax to the tune of over Rs 56 crores on Quick Heal Technologies Ltd for its sale of anti-virus software during the period 2012-2014.
The Court held that the sale of software in CDs/DVDs is a sale of goods and once sales tax has been paid on the sale consideration, service tax is not leviable on the same transaction on the ground that updates are being provided to the customer.
Case Status: All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra And Ors.| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 661
Opining that the "National Sports Code, 2011 cannot be read in the manner of a statute", the Supreme Court passed a direction to include the representation of 36 football players (24 male and 12 female) in the electoral college for the ensuing executive committee election of All India Football Federation.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Accept Nomination For Vice President Election
The Supreme Court of India on Monday rejected a petition filed by Dr. Mandati Thirupati Reddy seeking to direct the Election Commission of India to accept his nomination to the post of Vice President of India.
The Supreme Court on Monday appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice RV Raveendran as a mediator in the ongoing family dispute between businessman Lalit Modi, his mother Bina Modi and his siblings. The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli also asked the parties to maintain confidentiality during the mediation proceedings and not use social media in relation to the matter.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, suggested the Union Government to not interfere with the disability pension payable to a soldier, who was discharged from service on disciplinary grounds due to alcohol dependency. It urged the Government to curve out an exemption for the individual. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that if the pension was not granted to the veteran by the Armed Forces Tribunal and he would have come before the Apex Court seeking the same, the Court could have 'shown him the door'. But considering the fact that he was granted pension by the Tribunal, it would not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the same. Saying this, the bench urged the union to look at 'the human side of justice'.
Opposing the petitions filed by Uddhav Thackeray faction in the Supreme Court in respect of the issues arising out of the rift within the Shiv Sena party, Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has said that the actions taken by the Governor and the Speaker are not amenable to judicial review.
Shinde has said that to accept the arguments of the Uddhav group would result in the following consequences :
(i) minority tyranny within the House;
(ii) anti-democratic and minority Government to continue illegally in office; and
(iii) Chief Minister, who has lost the confidence of his own party to continue in office.
The Supreme Court on Monday requested the Bombay High Court to expedite the hearing in the petition filed by Lt Col Prasad Purohit seeking the quashing of the sanction granted to prosecute him in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. Purohit had approached the Supreme Court challenging his prosecution in the case. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, taking note of the fact that the petition filed by Purohit seeking to quash the sanction granted under Section 197(2) of the Code of Procedure is pending consideration before the High Court, disposed of his plea requesting the HC to expeditiously decide the same.
In a batch of petitions seeking declaration of virtual hearing as a Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court, on Monday, allowed impleadment of High Courts, which have stopped virtual hearing.
Advocate, Mr. Siddharth R Gupta appearing for the petitioner, informed a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sudhanshu Dhulia that some High Courts which includes High Court of Gujarat High Court and that of Madhya Pradesh, were not allowing requests for virtual hearing and sought permission to implead them to the present proceeding. He submitted that last year in August, the Uttarakhand High Court had stopped virtual hearing completely. Other High Courts, he indicated, have followed suit. He urged the Bench to consider the application pertaining to virtual hearing before the High Courts at priority, while the main issue, he suggested, can be decided on a later date. The Bench agreed to consider the same.
Refer Motor Accident Claims Which Can Be Compromised To Lok Adalat : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has directed compromisable insurance claims from the High Court and the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) which adds up to one lakh fifty five thousand cases to be placed before the Lok Adalat that is proposed to be held on 13th August, 2022 for appropriate orders. It also encouraged pre-discussions amongst the organisers of the Lok Adalats, the High Courts and the insurance companies to facilitate disposal of all these cases.
"Question Of Policy": Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging NEET SS 2022 Exam Pattern Change
The Supreme Court, on Monday, dismissed petitions preferred by MD Radiation Oncologists and MD Anaesthesiologists NEET SS 2022 aspirant challenging the changed examination pattern which would now consist of 150 questions from the general/basic component of the primary feeder broad specialty subject and from all sub- specialty/systems/component of that primary feeder broad specialty subject.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, imposed a cost of INR 5 lakh on the petitioner who approached it by way of a PIL seeking alternative direction other than demolition of the Supertech Twin Towers.
On 31.08.2021, by a detailed judgment the Apex Court had directed the demolition of the illegal twin towers situated in Section 93A NOIDA, on the ground of serious violation of building regulations.
While hearing the PIL, a Bench comprising of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that no petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can be entertained once the judgment dated 31.08.2021 had attained finality.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, turned down a plea seeking modification of the tenure of members of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) appointed pursuant to the notification dated 20.09.2019 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, from 3 years to 5 years. It refused to extend tenure for the concerned 23 members, but clarified that while making appointments in future the Central Government would be bound by Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013, which prescribes the tenure of the members of NCLT to be 5 years. The Apex Court was of the view that an administrative notification for appointment ought to be consistent with the statute.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a plea preferred by Senior Division Civil Judges aggrieved by the notification dated May 30, 2022 issued by the State of UP which only made the officers who had completed three years of experience till December 31, 2021 eligible for taking Suitability Test of UP Higher Judicial Service-2020.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Order Granting Parole To Life Convict To Beget A Child
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court's order of granting parole to a life convict to perform conjugal relationship with his wife to beget a child, as the parole period of 15 days was already over.
However, the Court observed that it has "reservations" on some observations made by the High Court's order passed on April 5, 2022.
The Supreme Court recently stayed the proceedings in a criminal case against international shooter Vartika Singh who had filed a complaint against Union Minister Smriti Irani and others for allegedly demanding bribe to appoint her as a member of the National Commission for Women (NCW). The bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha stayed Allahabad High Court's order dated May 11 by which the High Court had vacated the relief which it had granted to Singh on April 29, 2022.
Hijab Case Listing Delayed As Judges Weren't Well, Will Constitute Bench Soon : CJI NV Ramana
The Hijab case was again mentioned before the Chief Justice of India on Tuesday for urgent listing.
Before Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, who was there for the mentioning, started her submission, CJI NV Ramana told her- "I will constitute a bench. One of the judges is not well".
Arora indicated that the petitions were filed way back in March. "It was in March...at least if a date could be given", she said.
"Wait. If judges would've been alright, the matter would've come", CJI Ramana said.
Supreme Court Bar Association Requests CJI To Declare Holiday On Raksha Bandhan
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, made a request before the Chief Justice of India for declaring "Raksha Bandhan" as a holiday.
"It's a request from the bar. Let Saturday be a working day instead", Singh submitted.
"I'll ask my other brother judges also, if they're willing...", CJI NV Ramana said.
The Attorney General for India KK Venugopal has written to the Supreme Court of India taking strong exception to the action taken by the Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs in replacing him as a counsel in a case. The AG said that such last minute change of counsel amounts to an "unwarranted attempt to interfere with the administration of justice" and went to the extent of stating that it "amounts to contempt of court".
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre On Pleas Challenging Extension Of ED Director's Tenure
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in the petitions challenging the order issued by the Central Government on November 17, 2021 to extend the term of the ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra by one more year. The petitions also challenge Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act 2021 which allows the extension of the term of the Director of the Enforcement of Directorate up to 5 years.
The Bar Council of India has passed a resolution, granting a 6-months window to law graduates to quit their jobs after declaration of result of the All India Bar Examination for enrollment as an Advocate.
A resolution to this effect was passed by the statutory body in light of the Supreme Court accepting the suggestion that persons engaged in other employments can be permitted to provisionally enrol as Advocates.
The suggestion was put forth by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan in BCI's appeal against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which allowed persons with other employments, whether full time or part-time, to enrol as Advocates without resigning from their jobs.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as withdrawn former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt's plea seeking suspension of sentence in the 1990 custodial death case in view of the Gujarat High Court now hearing his appeal against the conviction.
When the matter was taken today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Bhatt, submitted that the petition is being withdrawn as the Gujarat High Court is hearing the appeal on a day to day basis. Sibal requested that the Court be asked to decide the appeal without being influenced by the observations made in the earlier order refusing to suspend the sentence.
The bench of Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn. The bench observed in the order that it is needless to say that the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law on merits and that the observations made while considering sentence suspension cannot influence the appeal.
"No Political Party Will Debate Freebies Issue": Supreme Court To Form Expert Body For Suggestions
The Supreme Court on Thursday opined that an expert body consisting of various stakeholders such as Niti Aayog, Finance Commission, Law Commission, Reserve Bank of India, members of ruling and opposition parties would be required to give suggestions to address the issue of promise of freebies during election campaigns.
To enable the Court to pass an order for the constitution of such a body, the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli directed the petitioner, Central Government and the Election Commission of India to give suggestions.
"We direct all the parties to make suggestions about the composition of such a body to enable us to pass an order for the constitution of the body so that they can make suggestions," the bench said in its order.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, directed the Committee of Administrators (CoA) to conduct the elections to the executive committee of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) expeditiously as per the timelines proposed by CoA and consistent with the manner prescribed in Article 26 of the draft Constitution of the AIFF. Article 26 prescribes the term, tenure, age limit and other conditions of eligibility. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and J.B. Pardiwala made it abundantly clear that the elected committee would be an interim body, which would continue for a period of 3 months subject to further orders of the Court. It stated that, in the interim, the constitution of AIFF can be finalized.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Madras High Court's order directing CBI probe into the corruption allegations against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister E Palaniswami over awarding road contracts.
The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli directed the High Court to consider the matter afresh without taking into consideration the observations made in the impugned order.
"Heard the counsel without hearing the parties in length. We request the High Court to look into the report and examine the matter. So far as the probe under CBI is concerned we set aside the order. All the observations will not come in the way," the bench said in its order.
Hockey India : Supreme Court Affirms Delhi HC Order Constituting CoA; Directs Expeditious Elections
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, refused to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court, which had put the affairs of Hockey India into the hands of Committee of Administrators (CoA), till the constitution of the National Sports Federation (Hockey India) is duly amended in consonance with the National Sports Code. While passing the impugned order, the High Court had placed reliance on the order passed by the Supreme Court in the matter pertaining to the election of the executive committee of the All India Football Federation.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Adani Port Trust's Plea Challenging Disqualification In JNPA Tender
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in a plea by Adani Port Trust and Special Economic Zone aggrieved by Bombay High Court's order of dismissing its plea challenging the disqualification for upgradation of the container terminal in Navi Mumbai by the Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA).
The matter was listed before the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli.
Appearing for the Adani Port Trust, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi submitted that the matter required consideration as the Trust is being disqualified in multiple tenders and bids.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, accepted the unconditional apology of an advocate in the Unitech matter, who had allegedly collected money from the homebuyers for uploading the update of the Court proceedings. On 27.07.2022, the Apex Court had issued him a show cause notice and asked him to file an affidavit providing details of the money he had collected. On Thursday, the Counsel vouched to return the money collected from the homebuyer without retaining any part of it and the Apex Court dropped the proceedings against him, initiated by way of the show cause notice.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, asked the Union Government to follow up on the steps taken by the concerned authorities to trace the whereabouts of Capt. Sanjit Bhattacharjee, an Indian army officer who went missing from the Indo-Pak border 25 years ago, and apprised his 83-year old mother about the same, on a quarterly basis. The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the mother of the missing officer seeking directions to trace him.
"Utterly Incomprehensible" : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Judgment Saying Reasons Can't Be Discerned
The Supreme Court recently set aside a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court for being "utterly incomprehensible."
"The judgment of the High Court is utterly incomprehensible. The reasons on the basis of which the High Court has proceeded to allow the petitions and set aside the reassessment cannot be discerned from the judgments," a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Sudhanshu Dhulia held.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, impleaded the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, in the proceedings pertaining to the plea of workers of various Consumer Fora, including technical support staff, appointed on contractual basis seeking parity with their counterparts working at other Judicial Fora/Commissions such as High Court, District Court, NCLT, NCDRC, Human Rights Commission, NCW etc. About 300 contractual workers have approached the Apex Court seeking fixed tenure, fixed compensation and guidelines delineating the same.
During the course of a hearing on Thursday, Supreme Court Judge Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who also heads the Court's e-committee, informed the lawyers present that he has told the concerned Registrar to provide the lawyers the same scanned copies of the files that are given to the judges.
"…from now on we will give members of the Bar the same scanned pages which come to us", Justice Chandrachud announced while he was struggling to find a document referred to by the Counsel.
He indicated that if the same documents are before the members of the Bench and that of the Bar, it would be convenient to 'be on the same pages'. Moreover, he noted that it might come as a relief for the Advocates, as they no longer would be inconvenienced to carry piles of papers with them.
Supreme Court Judge Justice MR Shah Castigates Registry For Deleting Cases From List
Supreme Court judge Justice M. R. Shah on Thursday expressed displeasure at the practice of the Supreme Court registry of deleting matters posted for any particular day.
A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it will decide on referring the issues arising out of the rift in Shiv Sena political to a Constitution Bench. The Chief Justice of India, leading the bench, orally said that a decision on reference is likely by August 8.
The bench also orally asked the Election Commission of India to not take any precipitative action on the claim raised by Eknath Shinde group for recognizing them as the real Shiv Sena party in the meanwhile. he bench observed in the order that ECI may give reasonable adjournment to the Uddhav Thackeray Group to file their responses in view of the pendency of the matter in the Supreme Court.
The Election Commission of India took the stand that the disqualification proceedings under the tenth schedule operate in a different territory and do not affect the Commission's power to decide the claim of rival factions for official recognition.
The Supreme Court recently clarified that neither it nor the Government-appointed Board of Directors of Unitech has authorized any person to act as an intermediary to collect any charges from the Company's home buyers or any other person for providing an update with regard to the court proceedings.
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) on Tuesday told the Supreme Court of India the structure of Employee Provident Fund Scheme (EPFS) and Employee Pension Scheme (EPS) is entirely different. EPFO, appearing through Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram made the submission before Justices UU Lalit, Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly condemned the conduct of certain officers of the Indian army in Secunderabad for encroaching upon a civilian's property near the Army Quarters and razing down its boundary wall in violation of the injunction orders of a civil court.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the permission granted to members of Sikh community to carry "kirpan" in domestic flights. The bench asked the petitioner to move the jurisdictional High Court.
The petition was filed by an organization named Hindu Sena which challenged the exemption given to Sikh community by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security as discriminatory.
"You go to the High Court. Dismissed, with liberty to approach the High Court", the bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari told the petitioner.
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed dissatisfaction with the counter-affidavit filed by the Union Government in response to a writ petition which seeks guidelines for the seizure of personal electronic devices by investigating agencies.
"We are not satisfied with the counter and we seek a new and proper reply", a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed in the order. The bench said that the Centre should also refer to the international practices in this regard.
The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim protection from arrest to Zee News Editor Rajnish Ahuja in the multiple FIRs registered over the airing of a doctored video of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
The Court issued notice to the States of Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh and the Union Government and ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner with respect to the existing FIRs and future FIRs which are registered on the same subject matter.
The Court allowed the investigation to proceed in the first FIR registered in Jaipur but stayed the investigation in the subsequent FIR registered in Raipur. The petition has been tagged with the earlier petition filed by anchor Rohit Ranjan, who was granted interim protection from arrest by a vacation bench on July 8.
The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) on Friday told the Supreme Court that no cutting of trees has been carried out in the Aarey forest region in Mumbai. The Court was hearing a batch of applications filed by activists and residents alleging that the authorities have resumed the tree cutting in Aarey forest region contrary to the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court in November 2019.
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the special leave petition filed by Tamil Nadu Director General of Police against the order of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench,) which transferred the investigation in the case relating to the suicide of a girl in Thanjavur to the Central Bureau of Investigation. A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi said that it will post the matter in October 2022 for final disposal. The High Court had ordered CBI probe in the matter after taking a critical view of the local police ruling out the allegations that attempts at religious conversion were the cause for the suicide of the girl, who was studying in a missionary school in Thanjavur district.
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed an interlocutory application seeking to have alleged conman millionaire Sukesh Chandrashekhar appear via video conferencing mode before a CBI Court, Chennai in a money laundering case registered against him. The IA was filed by the investigating agency in a writ petition filed by Sukesh Chandrashekhar and his wife Leena Paulose seeking their transfer from Tihar Jail to a prison outside Delhi.
The bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed the application, observing that,
"…the ld. Counsel appearing for Sukesh Chandrashekar alias Sukesh has no objection to the grant of the prayer made (In the IA). In the premises, we allow this application in terms of prayer 1 quoted above."
The Supreme Court on Friday expunged observations made against Ernakulam Principal District and Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese in a judgement of the Kerala High Court which suggested that she had exhibited political favouritism.
The bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari observed that it'll be just and proper to expunge the observations/adverse remarks made against the judicial officer in the impugned order.
In a plea filed by a 25 year old unmarried woman seeking medical termination of her 24 week pregnancy, the Supreme Court, on Friday, reflected on ways to extend the benefit of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, to unmarried women so that they can also seek medical termination of pregnancy which exceeds the period of 20 weeks but does not not exceed 24 weeks.
Plea Seeking To Stop Alleged Attacks Against Christians : Supreme Court To Hear On August 16
In a plea seeking directions to stop the alleged attack against Christian communities and their institutions in the country, at the request of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court, on Friday, adjourned the matter allowing him to file a short response.
A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and J.B. Pardiwala clarified that it will not get into the enquiry of individual cases. It noted that the judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, wherein the Apex Court had issued a slew of directions regarding mob violence and lynching, already being in place, in the present proceedings the Court merely has to see if the framework is being followed by the State Government.
While hearing a suit filed by the State of Meghalaya, seeking to sell their lottery outside their own state, the Supreme Court orally asked whether a state banning goods from another state was permissible in a federal structure.
The Supreme Court, on Friday, stated that the Commissioner of Delhi Police shall take necessary steps to ensure that the cost of INR 10 lakhs imposed on one Mukesh Jain, who, along with one late Swami Om Ji(a self proclaimed godman), had pursued a frivolous litigation assailing the existing procedure adopted for the appointment of Chief Justice of India (CJI), be recovered as arrears of land revenue from his immovable properties in Delhi.
Adoption Process Tedious In India, Precluding People From Adopting : Supreme Court Tells Centre
The Supreme Court, on Friday, adjourned the hearing of the petition seeking simplification in the process of adoption in India. Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj apprised a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and J.B. Pardiwala that he had not received the petition. The Bench asked the petitioner-in-person to handover a copy to him. As a preliminary objection, Mr. Nataraj indicated that the writ petition might not be maintainable as it is filed by a society. The Bench noted that the process of adoption in India is indeed cumbersome and tedious and needs to be addressed. Stating that it is a genuine PIL, the bench requested the ASG not to treat it as adversarial litigation.
While hearing a contempt plea preferred by victims of Endosulfan alleging failure on the part of State of Kerala to disburse 5 lakhs compensation, the Supreme Court, on Friday, was apprised by Senior Advocate, Mr. Jaideep Gupta appearing for the State of Kerala, that all applicants other than the 14 applicants, in whose case there is some dispute amongst the legal heirs, have been paid compensation.
The Supreme Court on Friday granted liberty to withdraw a petition which sought to direct the Bar Council of India to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a senior advocate for professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961.
A prominent face in Indian Business, Anil Ambani has moved the Supreme Court challenging the validity of certain provisions of Part III (Insolvency Resolution and Bankruptcy for Individuals and Partnership Firms) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 pertaining to Personal Guarantors of a Corporate Debtor.
Case details: Varsha Garg vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 662 | CrA 1021 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that an application under Section 311 CrPC cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that it will lead to filling in the loopholes of the prosecution's case. The power must be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case and is not constrained by the closure of evidence, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
Conviction Solely On The Basis Of Extra Judicial Confession Cannot Be Sustained: Supreme Court
Case details: State of Rajasthan vs Kistoora Ram | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 663 | CrA 2119 OF 2010
Extra judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of extra judicial confession could not be sustained, the Supreme Court observed while upholding a High Court judgment which acquitted a murder accused.
Case Title: Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan vs State of Maharashtra | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 664 | CrA 822 OF 2018
In a judgment delivered last week , the Supreme Court took into account the possibility of the accused being short tempered to modify his conviction to Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part 1 IPC.
"It cannot be disputed that how a person responds to a particular situation would depend upon the temperament of a particular person. A hot tempered person may react differently as compared to a cool headed person", the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Title: National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association Vs Union Of India| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 665
The Supreme Court turned down a plea seeking modification of the tenure of members of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) appointed pursuant to the notification dated 20.09.2019 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, from 3 years to 5 years. It refused to extend tenure for the concerned 23 members, but clarified that while making appointments in future the Central Government would be bound by Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013, which prescribes the tenure of the members of NCLT to be 5 years. The Apex Court was of the view that an administrative notification for appointment ought to be consistent with the statute.
Case Details: Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade vs ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666 | SLP (C) 21077 of 2019
The Supreme Court observed that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application seeking motor accident compensation.
Such an application has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.
Case details: Budhiyarin Bai vs State of Chhattisgarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 667 | CrA 1218 OF 2022
The Supreme Court reduced sentence awarded to an aged and illiterate lady who was found guilty of possession of the commercial quantity of illegal 'Ganja'(Cannabis).
Budhiyarin Bai along with her two children were charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for having joint possession of the commercial quantity of illegal 'Ganja'(Cannabis) of 05 quintal and 21.5 kilogram. Two others were also charged under Section 27 A of the NDPS Act that they delivered the illegal cannabis. The Trial Court convicted Budhiyarin Bai and acquitted other four persons of all the charges. She was sentenced for 15 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The prosecution did not challenge the acquittal of four co-accused. The appeal filed by Budhiyarin Bai was dismissed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
While considering her appeal, the Apex Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar noted that neither the trial Court nor the High Court has considered that the lady was illiterate and a senior citizen. She was indeed residing but completely unknown to law, with two grown up children, with no previous background of being involved in any kind of criminal cases at any point of time in her lifetime, it noted.
Case Title: Tulshi Choudhary vs M/S. Steel Authority Of India Limited (Sail) & Ors. | (SLP(C) No. 8443 OF 2018)| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 668
The Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of the civil court in relation to the correction of date of birth of an employee is not ousted by the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
The Court stated that the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted if it is a matter relating to the enforcement of a right under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Case details: J. Vedhasingh vs R.M. Govindan | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 669 | SLP (Crl) 2864 OF 2019
Whether on a similar set of allegations of fact, the accused can be tried for an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act which is special enactment and also for offences under Indian Penal Code unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal? The Supreme Court has referred this question to a larger bench.
The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari was considering a special leave petition filed against the Madras High Court judgment which quashed the proceedings under Sections 120B, 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act pertaining to the same cause of action and on the same facts and grounds are pending, prior to the registration of the proceedings under Section 420 IPC.
Suspicion However Strong Cannot Be Ground For Conviction : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused
Case details: Ram Niwas vs State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 670 | CrA 25 OF 2012
An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is, the Supreme Court reiterated while acquitting an accused in a murder case.
In this case, the accused Ram Niwas was accused of murder of one Dalip Singh. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC which was confirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Case details: Bank Of Baroda vs Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 671 | CA 5240 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act is provided for quick enforcement of the security. As per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the application against measures to recover secured debts, has to be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within forty five days from the date on which such measure had been taken.
Case details: Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd vs Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674 | CA 2393 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that continuity of service can be directed in cases where the retrenchment was not bona fide.
Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd 'retrenched' the services of fifty-five employees, on the grounds that it had closed its business. Retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was also offered. Before the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, the Government referred the dispute regarding a demand of the workmen for reinstatement of fifty-five drivers with continuity of service and full back wages. The orders of termination were set aside by the Tribunal and the workmen were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and 75% back wages, save eight employees who admitted to gainful employment post retrenchment. The Bombay High Court upheld this order of the Tribunal.
In appeal, the Apex Court bench agreed with the view of the Tribunal that the method and manner by which the workmen were retrenched clearly demonstrates that it is virtually a closure and that he entirety of business is not lost due to the strike and the retrenchment seems to have been imposed as retribution against the workmen for going on a strike.
Case details: Suneel Kumar vs State of UP | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 675 | CA 5038 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that "suitable employment" for compassionate appointment must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words "suitable employment", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed while interpreting Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Case Title : XYZ versus State of Madhya Pradesh|2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676
Reiterating the importance of the Courts dealing with the victims of sexual crimes in a sensitive manner, the Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions to the trial courts to avoid agony and harassment for women who file complaints of sexual harassment.
The Court directed that in-camera trials should be allowed in all cases relating to sexual harassment. As per Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in-camera trials are mandated only in rape cases. This ambit has been expanded by the Court.
Further, the Court issued directions to ensure that the cross-examination of the victim is carried out in a sensitive and respectful manner.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, adjourned the plea pertaining to the issue whether partial payment of fees without submission of enrolment forms, undertakings and affidavits will amount to admission and joining of a medical college.
The petition was filed by a candidate who had applied in the NEET UG Counselling conducted by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and was allotted a deemed/paid quota seat in DY Patil (Deemed) University, Navi Mumbai. From the records it appeared that the petitioner had joined the institution. However, she had only made a partial payment and was yet to submit the enrolment form, mandatory undertakings and affidavits.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, granted interim protection from arrest to Zee News Producer, Narinder Singh in FIRs registered in relation to the airing of a fabricated video of Rahul Gandhi's speech. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Singh apprised a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna that three FIRs have been filed against him - one in Jaipur, Rajasthan; the other in Raipur, Chhattisgarh; and the third one by Zee News in NOIDA, UP. In the complaint filed by the company it has sought investigation and appropriate action against Singh. Justice Chandrachud stated that the Bench would extend the same protections granted to the Zee News Editor, Rajnish Ahuja on Friday (5th Aug).
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to entertain plea seeking quashing of the compulsory bond conditions, imposed by the State of Maharashtra on the petitioners, while taking admissions in the medical under-graduate MBBS course in the year 2011 and 2013, in the All-India Quota seats, based on merit secured in All India Preliminary Medical Test (AIPMT).
Supreme Court Refuses To Stay NEET-PG 2022 Counselling In Plea Alleging Discrepancies In Test Scores
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to stay the Counseling process for NEET-PG 2022 in a plea challenging the decision of National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBE) to not release the answer key and question paper for NEET-PG 2022. The petitioner alleged serious discrepancies in the scores of the candidates who appeared for the test.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday urged the Patna High Court to drop all disciplinary proceedings initiated against a suspended Additional Sessions Judge from Bihar for deciding POCSO cases within days.
On Monday, Supreme Court Judge, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud expressed displeasure upon being apprised that the Supreme Court Registry has deleted a matter, that was listed, from the Monday Board.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection to Times Now anchor Navika Kumar from the multiple FIRs/complaints registered over the remarks made by Nupur Sharma about Prophet Muhammed in a channel show and future FIRs/complaints which may be registered on the same issue.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday orally observed that it cannot entertain a prayer to identify religious and linguistic minorities at district level, as it is contrary to the precedents which hold that such identification must be carried out at State level. A Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ravindra Bhat was considering a writ petition filed by Devkindan Thakur challenging a 1993 notification of the Central Government declaring Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsi and Jain as minorities at the national level and seeking directions to identify minorities at district-level.
A Plea has been moved before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the appointment of a committee/commission headed by a judge of the high court or supreme court (present/retired) to study the nature of the structure found in the Gyanvapi campus.
Chief Justice of India NV Ramana on Wednesday did not allow senior advocates to mention matters for urgent listing and said that it is better the mentionings are made by Advocates-on-Record.
"No question of allowing seniors to mention", Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail on medical grounds to 84-year old P Varavara Rao, who has been booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the Bhima Koregaon case for alleged links with banned Maoist organization.
A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia passed the order in the Special Leave Petition filed by Rao challenging the Bombay High Court's refusal to grant him permanent bail on medical grounds.
The bench took into account Rao's age, his medical conditions and also the two and half year period of actual custody spent by him. The bench also noted that trial is yet to begin in the case and even charges have not been framed although a chargesheet has been filed.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) Principal Bench at New Delhi in September 2020 which held Advocate Mahmood Pracha guilty of contempt of court for intemperate behaviour on the ground that no trial was conducted by the CAT.
The CAT had convicted Pracha for contempt of court but let him off with a warning. It had also directed that the order must be forwarded to the Bar Council of India and the Delhi State Bar Council for disciplinary action.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday transferred all FIRs registered against former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma in different parts of the country over her remarks on Prophet Mohammed to the Delhi Police. The order will extend to any FIR or complaint which may be registered against her in future with respect to the comments made on the channel debate aired by "Times Now" on May 26.
The Court also granted her liberty to approach the Delhi High Court for seeking the relief of quashing the FIRs, opining that a part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala also turned down a proposal made by the State of West Bengal through Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy for a joint Special Investigation Team to investigate the matter under the monitoring of the Court. The bench said that the FIR in Delhi has been registered by the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of the Delhi Police, which is a specialized agency, and suggested that the investigation is carried out by IFSO. The bench also said that the IFSO will be at liberty to collect information from other States for the purposes of the investigation.
The bench also extended the interim protection that it had granted to Sharma on July 19 till the completion of the Investigation.
Supreme Court Adjourns Jamiat Pleas Challenging "Bulldozer" Actions For September 7
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the PILs filed by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind alleging that authorities in states like UP and MP are resorting to "bulldozer" action to demolish the houses of persons accused in cases like riots for September 7, 2022.
The adjournment was sought by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hedge before the bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha due to Senior Advocate PV Surendranath's ill health. The bench also granted Senior Advocate CU Singh time to file rejoinder to the affidavit filed by the respondents.
Freebies Issue : Supreme Court Says Balance Needed Between Economy & Welfare Of People
While considering a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to not permit political parties to promise freebies during election campaigns, the Supreme Court on Thursday stressed on creating a balance between the welfare of the State and the economic strain on the public exchequer. .
"Economy losing money and the welfare of people, both have to be balanced. That's why this debate and there must be someone to put thoughts to the vision," the CJI said.
The bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari also refused to look into the aspect of de-registering political parties for distributing freebies.
"I don't want to look into the aspect of de-registration. That's an anti-democratic thing. We are a democracy after all," the CJI said.
The Top Court also said that another question which required to be considered was the extent to which the Court could interfere in the issue.
EPF Pension Case : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Appeals Of EPFO
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment on the appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization challenging the Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi High Court judgments which had quashed the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014.
A 3-judge bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved judgment after 6-days of hearing.
In the matter related to the elections of All India Football Federation (AIFF), the Supreme Court on Thursday indicated that it will not hesitate from interfering if attempts are made to undermine the hosting of the 2022 FIFA Under-17 Women's World Cup by India.
The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed by the Committee of Administrators (CoA) of the AIFF alleging that the ousted AIFF President Praful Patel has been trying to undermine the conduct of tournament. It may be noted that FIFA has given an ultimatum to the AIFF to elect a democratically elected governing body and the Supreme Court had last week passed directions for the holding of elections.
Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case Convict Nalini Moves Supreme Court Seeking Premature Release
S. Nalini, convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case has moved the Supreme Court seeking premature release. She has impugned the order of the Madras High Court, by which her plea for early release had been dismissed.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the court proceedings in the multiple cases registered against Aumkareshwar Thakur, the alleged creator of the "Sulli Deals" apps which was used to do an online auction of several Muslim women.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh issued notice to the Governments of Delhi, UP and Maharashtra on the writ petition filed by Thakur seeking the clubbing of the multiple FIRs.
During the hearing, the bench orally observed that each victim woman was an aggrieved person who can file complaints separately.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by financial journalist and Managing Editor of Money Life Sucheta Dalal concerning unclaimed funds of investors and depositors which are taken by various regulators and are not accessible to the rightful legal heirs of such funds. A bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari orally observed that "it is a very important issue" and issued notice on the PIL. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioner.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a petition preferred by the State of Kerala against Kerala High Court's order of discharging alleged Maoist leader Roopesh accused of charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of irregularities in the order granting sanction for prosecution.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Provision Allowing Use Of EVMs
The Supreme Court, on Friday, refused to entertain a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 61A of the Representation of the People Act (Act), which pertains to the use of EVMs in elections. Noting that there is no merit in the present Public Interest Litigation, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh dismissed it.
The Supreme Court on Friday asked Jharkhand Chief Minister, Hemant Soren, to submit a copy of the writ petition filed before the High Court which sought an independent probe against him for alleged money laundering through shell companies. The direction was passed by a Division Bench of Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat while hearing the petitions moved by the State of Jharkhand and Soren challenging the High Court's order accepting the maintainability of the said plea.
Model Builder-Buyer Agreement: Supreme Court Asks Amicus & Centre To Provide A Roadmap
In a plea seeking direction to the Centre to frame model builder-buyer and agent-buyer agreements to ensure uniformity, the Supreme Court, on Friday, asked the Amicus Curiae and Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt. of India (Ministry), to provide a roadmap to the future, so that it can pass some comprehensive directions. The Apex Court noted that the said road map would assist it in formulating a feasible model agreement for sale, which would also accommodate the individual needs and exigencies of respective States/Union Territories.
Unnao Rape Survivor Moves Supreme Court Seeking Transfer Of Case Against Her To Delhi
The Unnao rape survivor has moved a Transfer Petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking transfer of a counter case filed against her by the father of Shubham Singh, one of the accused men, facing trial in New Delhi for the gang rape of the minor petitioner. As an interim relief, the petitioner has sought a stay on a non-bailable warrant issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao against her. The FIR was filed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as a counter blast against the minor petitioner, her uncle and her mother. The petition has highlighted the "clear, grave and real risk" to the personal safety and life of the petitioner if she is forced to appear before and face a criminal trial in Unnao district, where she was repeatedly raped and gang raped in 2017 by politically powerful men.
In a plea filed by the State of Tripura, which assails an interim order passed by the Tripura High Court directing the State Government to enhance the salary of the staff of the High Court as per the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, at the request of State's Counsel, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Singh, the Supreme Court, on Friday, adjourned the hearing.
Supreme Court Directs State Governments To Inform If State Haj Committees Have Been Constituted
The Supreme Court on Friday(August 12) directed State governments to inform the Court, by way of an affidavit, if Hajj committees are constituted in their respective states. The court has also directed states to specify the names of the committee members of the Hajj Committees thus constituted.
Whether an accused added under Section 319 CrPC can seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC? The Supreme Court agreed to examine this issue raised in a special leave petition.
Appearing for a petitioner in a special leave petition, Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu had contended that this issue was answered in the negative in Jogendra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (2015) 9 SCC 244 and that the said view is not a correct view in law.
"We are, therefore, of the view that it will be appropriate to examine the correctness of the said proposition", the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in this matter.
Attorney General for India KK Venugopal has written another letter to the Supreme Court in the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal matter, reiterating his complaint that there has been an attempt to ensure that he does not appear in the matter.
Last week, AG had informed the Chief Justice of India that Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs changed his Advocate-on-Record and other lawyers who had been appearing for the Board till then. Taking strong exception to such a move, the AG had said that contempt of court action should be taken against the Board as the last minute change of counsel would amount to interference with the administration of justice. Now, ahead of the hearing tomorrow, AG Venugopal has written to to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court seeking an adjournment in the case saying that he is yet to recover from COVID-19 after effects. The AG also said that the arguments on the legal issues in the matter be heard only after the contemnors "purged themselves of the contempt".
Talaq-E-Hasan Not So Improper Prima Facie, Women Have Option Of Khula Divorce : Supreme Court
Case Status: Benazeer Heena v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 348/2022 (PIL)
The Supreme Court made a prima facie observation that the practice of divorce through the Muslim personal law practice of Talaq-E-Hasan, as per which a man can divorce his wife by pronouncing "talaq" once a month for three months, is "not so improper".
"Prima Facie this (talaq e Hasan) is not so improper. Women also have an option. Khula is there. Prima facie I don't agree with petitioners. I don't want this to become an agenda for any other reason", Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the presiding judge of the bench, orally remarked.
The Supreme Court agreed to list plea seeking transfer of a counter case filed against her by the father of Shubham Singh, one of the accused men, facing trial in New Delhi for the gang rape of the minor petitioner. The plea wherein the victim had sought interim relief for the stay of the non-bailable warrant issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao against her was mentioned by Advocate Vrinda Grover before the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli.
Case Status: Most Rev Dr. Peter Machado v. UOI & Ors. WP (Crl) NO. 137 of 2022
The Central Government has opposed a PIL filed seeking directions to stop alleged attacks against Christians in the country by saying that the petitioners have resorted to 'falsehood and some selective self-serving document' and mere conjectures. The preliminary objection has been filed by the Central Government through the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in response to the PIL filed by Archbishop Of Bangalore Diocese Dr. Peter Machado along with the National Solidarity Forum, the Evangelical Fellowship of India. The Centre's response states that the petitioners had relied on information gathered from press reports, "independent" online databases and from findings of various non-profit organisations. The Centre said that "enquiries reveal that the majority of the incidents alleged as Christian persecution in these reports were either false or wrongfully projected".
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Construction Of Lulu Mall At Thiruvananthapuram
Case Status: MK Salim v. State of Kerala SLP(C) 8363 of 2022
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the construction of LuLu Mall, a popular shopping mall in Thiruvananthapuram, the Capital city of Kerala. The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli upheld Kerala High Court's order dated August 13, 2021 passed by the bench of Justice S.V. Bhatti and Justice Bechu Kurian. The bench observed that the mall has been granted requisite permission by the statutory authorities.
Can A State Running Lottery Ban Lotteries From Other States? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Status: State of Nagaland And Ors. v. State of Kerala And Ors. Diary No. 21222/2022
The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Kerala on a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Nagaland challenging the Kerala High Court's order which upheld the power of the State Government to regulate lotteries from other states. A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the challenge against thejudgment delivered by the High Court on May 17, 2021, which upheld the amendments brought to Kerala Paper Lotteries (Regulation) Rules in 2018 (Rules) to regulate marketing and sale of lotteries organised by other states in their own State.
Case Status: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India WP(C) 43 of 2022
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) is the latest party to approach the Supreme Court in the "freebies" issue, after the Aam Aadmi Party and the Indian National Congress, saying that welfare schemes intended to ensure social and economic justice can't be termed "freebies". The application moved by the DMK seeking to implead itself in the PIL filed by former BJP Spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay stated :
"It is humbly submitted that a welfare scheme providing a free service are introduced with an intent to secure a social order and economic justice under Article 38 to minimise the inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities. In no imaginable reality, it could be construed as a "freebie". Such schemes have been introduced in order to provide basic necessities which the poor households cannot afford. They cannot be imputed to be luxuries".
It also questioned why the petitioner has only added the Union Government and the Election Commission of India as the respondents in the case when the policies of the state governments were under scrutiny. The DMK also said that only a welfare scheme introduced by a State Government cannot be judged to be classified as a freebie. The ruling government at the Union giving tax holidays to foreign companies, waiver of bad loans of influential industrialists, granting crucial contracts to favoured conglomerates etc. also have to be considered and cannot be left untouched.
Case Status: Eparchy of Bathery v. State of Kerala and others SLP(Crl) No.1487/2022
The Kerala Catholic Church reformation movement, a registered Catholic Association, approached the Supreme Court supporting the Kerala High Court's judgment which held that Bishops have no power to alienate the church assets and that their powers are confined to religious and spiritual matters. The Association has filed impleading applications opposing the Special Leave Petitions moved by the Catholic Diocese of Thamarassery and Eparchy of Bathery challenging the remarks made by the Kerala High Court in its judgment delivered in August 2021 which refused to quash the criminal cases against Cardinal Mar George Alencherry over the sale of properties belonging to Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese. The Court has adjourned the matter for hearing to September 7.
Teesta Setalvad Moves Supreme Court Seeking Bail; Bench Led By Justice UU Lalit To Hear On August 22
Case Status: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat SLP(Crl) No. 7413-14/2022
Social activist Teesta Setalvad has approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in the case registered by Gujarat ATS alleging falsification of records to implicate high state functionaries in the Gujarat riots conspiracy case. The petition was mentioned by Advocate Aparna Bhat before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. The CJI agreed to list the matter before a bench led by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit on August 22. Teesta has approached the Supreme Court against the Gujarat High Court's refusal to grant her interim bail. She was arrested on June 26 from Mumbai by the Gujarat ATS, a day after the Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Zakia Jafri challenging the SIT's clean chit to high ranking State functionaries and the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2002 riots.
Other States Should Not Ban Our Lotteries : Meghalaya & Sikkim To Supreme Court
Case Status: State of Meghalaya v. Union of India And Ors. Original Suit No. 1/2021
The Supreme Court heard a suit filed by the State of Meghalaya and Sikkim against the decision to ban their state lotteries in other states. The context of the suit is that as per Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act 1998, the Central Government authorised State Governments to prohibit the sale of tickets of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by another State. The State of Meghalaya, submitting that the regulation of lotteries organised by other states was not a State subject, but fell within the domain of the Central government, thus sought to be granted permission to sell lotteries in other States. The State of Sikkim also supported the stand of Meghalaya. The matter is listed for next week.
Case Status: Deepika Singh v. CAT SLP(C) No. 7772/2021
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that a woman cannot be denied maternity leave under the Central Services (Leave Rules ) 1972 with respect to her biological child on the ground that her spouse has two children from his earlier marriage.According to Rule 43, only a female employee with less than two surviving children can seek maternity leave. In this case, the woman's husband had two children from his previous marriage and she had previously availed child care leave for her non-biological child. When a child was born to her in the marriage, the authorities denied her maternity leave, citing the bar under Rule 43. A Bench presided by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud held that Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave Rules) 1972 has to be given a purposive interpretation in terms of the Maternity Benefit Act and Article 15 of the Constitution of India, under which the State is to adopt beneficial provisions for protecting the interest of women.
Case Status: Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677
In a case of conflicting dying declarations, the Supreme Court relied on the one recorded after a medical examination with regard to the fitness of the deceased. The bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice PS Narasimha opined that the court was required to examine as to whether a dying declaration was true and reliable; as to whether it had been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration and; whether it had been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting.
Case Status: Shinde Mohan Kalu v. State of Nagaland Writ Petition (Crl) No. 228/2022
The concept of human rights is being limited to webinars and symposiums and does not see proper implementation at ground level, the Supreme Court of India lamented on Tuesday.
"Human rights and all these are things that are said in discussions and symposiums. Are we not required to do it at the ground level?", a Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari orally queried.
The Bench was considering a petition moved by an army man seeking transfer of prison from Kohima Central Jail, Nagaland to one in Pune. He was sentenced to five years in jail through a court martial for the aggravated sexual assault of a minor under the Army Act, 1951 and the the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012.
Case Status: All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra SLP(C) 30748/2017
The Supreme Court told the Central Government to take "proactive steps" with the FIFA to ensure that India can get to host the Under 17 women's world cup and that the suspension of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) is lifted. The FIFA has suspended the All India Football Federation (AIFF) with immediate effect citing "undue influence from third parties". This means that India will not be able to host the FIFA Under 17 Women's World Cup, which was scheduled to be held in October 2022. In a press statement issued on August 16, the FIFA said that the suspension will be revoked once the order appointing the Committee of Administrators to assume the powers of the AIFF Executive Committee is repealed. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala adjourned the hearing in the matter related to AIFF as per the Solicitor General's request in view of the "active discussions" between the Government of India and FIFA to resolve the issue.
Case Status: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) 43 of 2022
The Supreme Court, while considering a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to not permit political parties to promise freebies during election campaigns, orally opined that the issues raised in the matter were getting increasingly complicated. The matter was listed before the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli. The plea has been filed by former BJP Spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay and political parties like AAP, Congress and DMK have sought to intervene in the matter.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Allow NRIs To Vote In Elections From Abroad
Case Status: Kerala Pravasi Association And Anr. v. UoI And Anr. WP(C) No. 506/2022
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a petition seeking directions to the Central Government to permit citizens residing outside India to exercise their franchise, under Section 20A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (1950 Act), from their place of residence or employment. The petition has thus asked for alternative options/external modes to be provided to citizens residing outside India for exercising their right to vote, without insisting on their physical presence in their respective polling stations in India, on the day of polling. The matter was listed before the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli.
Case Status: M/s Patil Automation Private Limited and others versus Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678
In a judgment having far reaching impact in commercial litigations, the Supreme Court on Wednesday declared that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre- institution mediation, is mandatory and suits which are filed violating this mandate are liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court has however made this declaration effective from August 22, 2022.A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy gave this ruling in the batch case M/s Patil Automation Private Limited and others versus Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd and connected matters.
Case Status: P Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency Diary No.24350/2022
The Supreme Court granted liberty to 82-year old Telugu poet Varavara Rao, facing accusations under the UAPA in the Bhima Koregaon case over alleged links with Maoists, to approach the Special NIA Court at Mumbai seeking permission to go to his native place Hyderabad for cataract surgery. Asking Rao to make such an application within 2 weeks, the Court directed the trial court to make a decision within three weeks of the filing of the same. Clarifying that it has not expressed anything on the merits of the plea, a bench led by Justice UU Lalit disposed of Rao's petition with the above directions.
Case Status: Hemant Soren v. Shiv Shankar Sharma SLP(C) No.11364-11365/2022
The Supreme Court stayed proceedings before Jharkhand High Court on PILs filed against Chief Minister Hemant Soren alleging money laundering through shell companies and obtaining a mining lease while he was in power. A Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia was considering the petitions moved by the Jharkhand State government and CM Soren challenging the High Court's order which accepted maintainability of PIL seeking probe against him. While staying the High Court proceedings, the bench also reserved its judgment in the matter.
Case Status: Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors v. Union of India and Ors WP(C) No. 961/2021
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, assured that, the petitions challenging the validity of Centre's Rs. 8 lakhs annual income upper limit criteria for seeking Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation in the All India Quota for NEET admissions, would be taken up on priority, either next week or the week thereafter. Appearing before a Bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala Senior Advocate, Mr. Arvind Datar apprised it that the counselling for NEET-PG 2022 is to commence from 1st September, 2022, he requested the matter to be listed at the earliest. He informed the Bench that as per his instructions, the Pandey Committee recommendation to not include agricultural land has also not been implemented. Mr. Datar urged for early hearing for interim directions in this regard.
Case Status: Satyender v. Saroj 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679
The Supreme Court observed that a counter claim can be set up only "against the claim of the plaintiffs". The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed. observed that though the requirement of formulation of a substantial question of law was not necessary, yet Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, requires that only such decisions are to be considered in second appeal which are contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law or the court below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law.
Subramanian Swamy's Plea On Ram Setu Assigned To Bench Led By Justice Chandrachud
Case Status: O. Fernandes (Dead) v. TNPCB And Ors. SLP(C) No. 20758 of 2005
Rajya Sabha MP Dr Subramanian Swamy mentioned the plea seeking National Heritage Status for Ram Setu before the Supreme Court for early listing. As the matter was mentioned before the Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud informed Mr. Swamy that he would consult with the other members of the concerned Bench and take a call as to when the matter can be next listed.
"I will discuss it with my Ld brother and see when we can list it."
The State of Kerala has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the order mandating minimum one kilometer Eco Sensitive Zone(ESZ) from protected forests.
"If the ESZ is uniformly fixed as 1 kilometer from the boundaries of protected areas in the State of Kerala, the State will face insurmountable difficulties in implementing the same", the review petition stated.
Case Status: Hemant Soren v. Shiv Shankar Sharma SLP(C) No.11364-11365/2022
The Supreme Court asked the Enforcement Directorate why it furnished a report in sealed cover before the Jharkhand High Court in a PIL seeking enquiry against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, even before the allegations are substantiated. During the hearing today, a Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ravindra Bhat asked the ED "Can you act on an individual citizen's unsubstantiated allegations and proceed? You cannot take it as an opportunity to act"
Case Status: University of Kerala And Ors. Etc. v. Merlin J.N. And Etc. Etc. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680
The Supreme Court held that the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2016 would be applied retrospectively. Relying on a catena of judgments, a Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia reiterated that when an amendment is merely clarificatory in nature it ought to have retrospective application.
Case Status: Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India And Ors. Diary Number 25767/2022
The Supreme Court ordered status quo with respect to the Delhi High Court's order which placed the affairs of Indian Olympic Association under a Committee of Administrators constituted by the High Court. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice CT Ravikumar passed the order on an urgent mentioning made by the Indian Olympic Association. The bench was informed that the Committee of Administrators is yet to take over the IOA. In this backdrop, the bench passed the status quo order and listed the case next Monday.
Case Status: BLA Industries Pvt Ltd versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 683
The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on the Union Government for incorrectly mentioning the name of a coal mining company in the list of the illegal coal block allotments made in the "Coalgate" scam. The Court noted that the petitioner-company, BLA Industries Pvt Ltd, had applied through the legal route, following the procedure under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and that it was granted the mining lease by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after the approval of the Central Government, on May 21, 1998.
Case Status: P.A. Josseph v. Election Commission of India And Anr. SLP(C) No. 12895/2022
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to freeze the AIADMK's "Two Leaves" symbols. The matter was listed before the bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. The CJI, while stating that the petition was a "waste of time", dismissed the same. The petitioner, PA Joseph, had earlier approached the Madras High Court praying for a direction to the Election Commission to take necessary action against the rival groups of the AIADMK and freeze the "Two Leaves" symbol, until the disputes between Edappadi K Palaniswami and O Panneerselvam were solved, to protect public order and peace in the state. The bench of Chief Justice M N Bhandari and Justice N Mala of Madras High Court, while stating that the petition was filed purely for publicity had dismissed the petition and a cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the petitioner.
Spicejet & Credit Suisse Settles Dispute, Plea In Supreme Court Withdrawn
Case Status: Spicejet Limited v. Credit Suisse AG SLP(C) No. 1046/2022
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard the plea of airline company SpiceJet Ltd., challenging the winding order passed by the Madras High Court on Thursday. The airline company stated that it had reached a settlement with the creditor and agreed to withdraw the Special Leave Petition filed against the Madras High Court winding up order. The matter was listed before the bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Case Status: X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which discharged a rape accused on the ground of delay in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR). The bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and J.B. Pardiwala observed that the High Court judgment is perverse and utterly incomprehensible.
"..The impugned order of the High Court is utterly incomprehensible. We have yet to come across a case where the High Court has thought fit to discharge an accused charged with the offence of rape on the ground of delay in the registration of the FIR.", the bench remarked.
Case Status: Syed Shahnawaz Hussain v. GNCTD SLP(Crl) No. 7653/2022
BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain has moved the Supreme Court against Delhi High Court order directing registration of FIR against him in an alleged 2018 rape case. The matter was mentioned for an urgent hearing before the bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. Advocate Mohit Paul, counsel appearing for Hussain, argued that if an FIR was registered against him, the petition would become infructuous. Further, it was submitted that Hussain had a 30-year-long career in politics and a registration of FIR would destroy his reputation. CJI Ramana agreed to list the matter for next week.
Case Status: Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682
The Supreme Court observed that a cheque bounce complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer of the cheque is not maintainable. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna noticed -
"Can an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act be said to have been committed when the period provided in clause (c) of the proviso has not expired? Section 2(d) of the Code defines "complaint". According to this definition, complaint means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to taking his action against a person who has committed an offence. Commission of an offence is a sine qua non for filing a complaint and for taking cognizance of such offence. A bare reading of the provision contained in clause (c) of the proviso makes it clear that no complaint can be filed for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act unless the period of 15 days has elapsed. Any complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date on which the notice has been served on the drawer/accused is no complaint at all in the eye of the law. It is not the question of prematurity of the complaint where it is filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date on which notice has been served on him, it is no complaint at all under law. As a matter of fact, Section 142 of the NI Act, inter alia, creates a legal bar on the court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 138 except upon a written complaint. Since a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act before the expiry of 15 days from the date on which the notice has been served on the drawer/accused is no complaint in the eye of the law, obviously, no cognizance of an offence can be taken on the basis of such complaint. Merely because at the time of taking cognizance by the court, the period of 15 days has expired from the date on which notice has been served on the drawer/accused, the court is not clothed with the jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 on a complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer of the cheque."
Case Status: Baiju KG v. Dr VP Joy Conmt. Pet (C) No. 244/2021
The Supreme Court, directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Kasaragod, Kerala to visit the medical and healthcare facilities at various levels, including district hospitals, general hospital, community healthcare centres, primary healthcare centres, assigned for treatment of Endosulfan victims in the district and submit a status report within 6 weeks. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the said exercise would enable it to have an objective assessment of medical and healthcare facilities provided to the victims of Endosulfan.
Case Status: Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684
The Supreme Court, while noting the plight of a physically disabled employee, stated that disabled employees should not be forced to forfeit seniority for choosing posting place as per a beneficial circular. The circular in question was issued by the Finance Department of the Rajasthan Government. It directed the appointing authorities to consider the posting of persons with disabilities at or near the place for which they opt at the time of appointment.
Case Status: Veera Brahma Rao v. UOI & Anr W.P.(C) No. 1020/2021
In a plea challenging the exclusion of NCLT members from the Eighth Schedule of the Finance Act, 2017, Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020 and the subsequent Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and the benefits accruing thereunder, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj apprised the Supreme Court that the Union Government is coordinating with the concerned departments, namely Law and Finance, in this regard.
Case Status: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI WP(C) No. 327/2021
"This will create a lot of complications", the Supreme Court of India orally observed on Thursday, while considering petitions filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay and BJP leader Kapil Mishra seeking a uniform compensation code for victims of wrongful prosecution. A Division Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ravindra Bhat, observed, "This will create a lot of complications….This involves law making."
Case Status: Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Ors. v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 323/2021
The Federation of Medical & Sales Representatives Association of India informed the Supreme Court that the Central Board for Direct Taxes have accused the Pharma Company manufacturing DOLO tablets, a fever reducing drug, of distributing INR 1000 crore worth freebies to doctors for prescribing dosage of 650mg. Senior Advocate, Sanjay Parikh appearing on behalf of the Association, informed a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna that the market price of DOLO upto 500mg is regulated, however the dosage beyond 500mg can be priced at the will of the manufacturer. In order to ensure higher profits, the freebies were distributed amongst doctors to prescribe a dosage of 650mg, which Mr. Parikh referred to as an "irrational dose combination".
Case Status: Sulekha v. Pradeep Pachouri SLP(C) No. 5726/2021
While setting aside a divorce decree granted in favour of a husband, the Supreme Court orally remarked that marital status is important for women in India given the social situation here.A Division Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ravindra Bhat was considering a petition filed by the appellant wife seeking to challenge a divorce decree granted by the High Court on the ground of desertion.
Case Status: Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Anr SLP(Crl) No. 5423/2022
The Supreme Court asked the Special NIA Court to decide on framing charges in the Bhima Koregaon case within a period of three months. The Court also directed the NIA Court to decide the discharge applications filed by the accused in the case simultaneously. A bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat passed the direction while considering a petition filed by accused Vernon Gonsalves seeking bail in the case. The bench also directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take apt steps to segregate trial of activist Gonsalves from other accused persons who are absconding in the Bhima Koregaon case. It also asked the NIA to issue proclaimed offender notices for the absconding accused persons.
Case Status: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. M/s. ABC Papers Limited 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686
Settling a crucial issue, the Supreme Court held that appeals against orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) will lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assessing officer is situated. The Apex Court clarified that even if the case is transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, which enables a higher authority to transfer a 'case' from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. The same principle would be applicable even if the transfer under Section 127 is for the same assessment year.
Section 304B IPC -Message Should Go That Dowry Death Shall Be Dealt With An Iron Hand: Supreme Court
Case Status: Ajhola Devi & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 695
Observing that "the legislative intent of incorporating IPC section 304 B was to curb the menace of dowry death with a firm hand" and that "in dealing with cases under section 304 B, such legislative intent has to be kept in mind", the Supreme Court has asserted that in the imposition of sentence for the offence of dowry death, "a strong message must go in the society that a person who commits such an offence of dowry death and/or the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act shall be dealt with an iron hand".
Case Status: S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685
The Supreme Court observed that an erroneous decision of a court cannot be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction, but can only be corrected by the Superior Court. An error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review, the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.
High Court Cannot Enhance Sentence Without Putting Accused To Notice : Supreme Court
Case Status: Radheyshyam And Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 687
The Supreme Court opined that High Courts are required to give notice to the accused before enhancing sentences. It set aside an enhancement, wherein the Rajasthan High Court had modified sentence of imprisonment for life simplicitor to life imprisonment till death, without giving prior notice to the accused; depriving them of an opportunity to defend themselves. A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and P.S. Narasimha was of the opinion that the High Court can exercise suo moto powers and enhance the sentence, but it ought to have given prior notice to the accused persons.
Case Status: M/S Chopra Fabricators And Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Pumps And Compressors Ltd. And Anr. SLP(C)No. 4654/2022
The Supreme Court asked for the Allahabad High Court to look into and respond on whether not transferring the pending arbitration matters/commercial cases to the concerned Commercial Courts can be said to be contrary to Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act. The bench of Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna was hearing the matter where the Court had in May issued certain directions to tackle the problem of delay in deciding the matters related to commercial disputes in the state of UP. The direction was issued after being apprised of the burgeoning pendency in the execution proceedings of arbitral awards and applications to set aside award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the state of UP. The bench had earlier expressed its displeasure at huge pendency of cases filed under two statutes i.e. the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which envisages the speedy disposal of cases.
Prosecution Under PMLA Not Possible After Accused Is Acquitted Of Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court
Case Status: Parvathi Kollur v. State by Directorate Of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 688
The Supreme Court reiterated that a person acquitted of scheduled offence cannot be prosecuted under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari noted the following observations made in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633:
"The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money-laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.""
Financial Criteria In A Compassionate Appointment Scheme Cannot Be Ignored: Supreme Court
Case Status: Central Bank of India v. Nitin 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 690
The Supreme Court observed that the financial criteria for compassionate appointment given in a Compassionate Appointment Scheme cannot be ignored.
"Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Status: Khema @ Khem Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689
The Supreme Court observed that some corroboration is necessary when an ocular testimony falls into the category of "neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable". The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha noted that in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] SCR 981, oral testimony was classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the said judgment, it was observed thus: "In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial..……"
State Has No Public Duty To Indicate HSN Code For GST Rate In Public Tender: Supreme Court
Case Status: Union of India And Ors. v. Bharat Forge Ltd. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691
The Supreme Court held that there is no public duty on the State to indicate HSN Code in public tender documents.
A Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy quashed the mandamus issued by the Allahabad High Court, inter alia, directing Central Government to verify the HSN Code from taxing authorities and indicate the same on bid documents, at the instance of a writ petitioner that claimed the non-disclosure of HSN Code in the public tender violates the doctrine of "level playing field" embodied in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Case Status: Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692
The Supreme Court has held that the Central Administrative Tribunal has no power to dispense with trial before punishing for contempt committed in the face of it, if the alleged contemnor is denying the charges.
The Court noted that unlike the Supreme Court, which has powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, the CAT cannot punish for contempt in the face of it without trial. It held that trial ought to be conducted in terms of Section 14(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and other relevant statues, otherwise denial of right to a trial would result in miscarriage of justice.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Stop Private Zoo In Gujarat From Acquiring Animals
Case Title : Kanhaiya Kumar v. Central Zoo Authority and another WP(C) No. 547 of 2022
The Supreme Court has dismissed a PIL filed against the recognition granted to Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, an upcoming private zoo, at Jamnagar, Gujarat.
A bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari dismissed the PIL filed by one Kanhaiya Kumar observing "we are unable to find any logic or basis in this petition". The Court noted that the petition was filed on the basis of certain newspaper reports and the petitioner, who is not an expert in the field, has not carried out the requisite research before invoking PIL jurisdiction.
Case Status: JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 693
Noting that there exists conflicting decisions on the issue of appointment of Arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court referred it to a larger Bench. Given the frequent recurrence of the issue, the Apex Court also observed that the question of law be resolved at the earliest.
A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhuliawas apprised that in its order dated 11.01.2021 a 3-judge Bench of the Apex Court in Union of India v. M/s. Tantia Constructions Ltd. have already made a reference to a larger Bench to look into the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation forRailway Electrification V. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company (2020) 14 SCC 712(CORE), which, was stated, to have taken a divergent view.
Case Status: M/s Chauhan Builders Raibareli v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694
The Supreme Court observed that a contractor cannot be blacklisted for life.
"One cannot be blacklisted for life. The order of blacklisting to the extent that it has not specified the period cannot be sustained", observed a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath.
The blacklisting order was passed over an allegation that the contractor used foul language against the government officers in the process of tender of certain construction works. The blacklisting order was passed on February 7, 2013. The period of blacklisting was not mentioned in the order.
The Court clarified that this blacklisting will not debar the appellant from seeking fresh enlistment in accordance with law, so as to act as contractor in respect of works to be advertised by the State.
Ex-Indian football captain Baichung Bhutia had moved the Supreme Court seeking the draft constitution finalised by the CoA to be adopted as the new Constitution of the All India Football Federation as it prioritises and promotes welfare of the players over the vested interest of those who have been controlling Indian football for several years now. The intervention application filed by Bhutia also seeks that the order passed by the Apex Court on 03.08.2022 directing the inclusion of 36 football players in the electoral college for the election of the executive committee of the AIFF, be given full effect.
Supreme Court Directs Status Quo On OBC Reservations In Maharashtra Local Polls
Case Status: Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra And Ors. SLP(C) No. 19756 of 2021
The Supreme Court directed status quo to be maintained in the matter pertaining to OBC reservations in Maharashtra local elections. This means that the OBC quota cannot be implemented for the time being in 367 local boies where the election process has already been notified. A special bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, was considering an application filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking recall of the July 20 and July 28 orders which restrained the State Election Commission from re-notifying election process in 367 local bodies, where election process was already notified, so as to implement OBC quota.
Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Review Of Its PMLA Judgment
A review petition has been filed before the Supreme Court against its July 27 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India which upheld the power of arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the Enforcement Directorate by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The plea was mentioned before CJI NV Ramana was eventually listed.
Case Status : Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat SLP(Crl) No.7413 of 2022
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea moved by Social activist Teesta Setalvad seeking bail in the case registered by Gujarat ATS alleging falsification of records to implicate high state functionaries in the Gujarat riots conspiracy case. At the outset, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, the presiding judge of the bench, asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing Teesta, whether there was any objection to him hearing the matter, due to his representation of "few of the accused in the Sohrabuddin murder matter". Sibal expressed that he has no objection. The Supreme Court directed Teesta to serve the Standing Counsel for the State and has kept the matter for hearing on August 25.
The CJI, NV Ramana said that he has constituted a bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud to decide upon the questions pertaining to the legal dispute between the Delhi Government and the Central Government regarding the control over administrative services in the national capital. The issue in the case is - whether the Govt of NCT of Delhi has legislative and executive powers in relation to 'services' under Schedule VII, List II, Entry 41 of the Constitution of India and whether the officers of the various 'services' such as IAS, IPS, DANICS, and DANIPS who have been allocated to Delhi by the Union of India, come under the administrative control of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Case Status: All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra SLP(C) 30748 of 2017
In a significant development in Indian football, the Supreme Court passed a direction to terminate the mandate of the Committee of Administrators (CoA) - which has been constituted by the Court- to manage the affairs of the All India Football Federation (AIFF). The Court passed this order in the light of the decision taken by the FIFA to suspend AIFF, which construed the functioning of the CoA as a "third party interference". The Central Government requested the Supreme Court to end the mandate of the Court-appointed Committee of Administrators(CoA) for the management of the All India Football Federation so as to lift the suspension of AIFF by FIFA. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna modified the earlier directions relating to the CoA and the elections of AIFF so as to facilitate the revocation of the AIFF suspension and to ensure that India can host the Under-17 women's World Cup in October 2022 as scheduled.
Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Order To Register FIR Against BJP's Shahnawaz Hussain In 2018 Rape Case
Case Status: Syed Shahnawaz Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi And Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 7653 of 2022
The Supreme Court stayed all proceedings against BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain in connection with an alleged 2018 rape case. Hussain has approached the top court challenging an order of the Delhi High Court directing registration of FIR against him. The matter will now be heard next month. Meanwhile, the top court has granted liberty to the complainant, who was allegedly threatened and assaulted at the behest of the accused, to approach the Police which shall be under an obligation to provide protection, if required. The Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia has granted liberty to the complainant side to file its objections.
Case Status: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India And Ors .T.C.(C) No. 27 of 2007
The Supreme Court adjourned a plea filed by Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy seeking directions to the Centre for declaring Ram Setu as a national heritage monument. The issue of declaring Ram Setu as a National Heritage monument was raised by Dr Swamy, in his plea filed in 2007 against Sethusamudram Ship Channel project for protection of Ram Setu. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna noted that the decision regarding the grant of National heritage status is the prerogative of the executive. However, Dr. Swamy apprised the Bench that the Central Government has been dilly dallying on the pretext that the Apex Court is in seisin of the matter. Dr. Swamy sought the Court's indulgence to ask the Central Government to file its counter affidavit in the matter and take a stand. He added that if the Centre is opposing his petition, then they should clearly indicate the same. Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta submitted that he would review the documents and get back in this regard.
Case Status: Christian Medical College Vellore v. State of TN W.P.(C) No. 8 of 2022
The Supreme Court has approved the seat-sharing formula free agreed by the Christian Medical College(CMC) at Vellore and the State of Tamil Nadu for sharing the MBBS and PG medical seats among themselves on 50-50 basis. Recording terms of the agreement, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha disposed of the writ petition filed by CMC Vellore seeking the quashing of Selection Committee's letter whereby the State of Tamil Nadu sought to impose the state policy of reserving 50% of seats ("state quota") in its favour in the undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses.
Case Status: Adani Ports And Special Economic Zone Limited v. Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority And Ors. SLP(C) No. 11190 of 2022
The Supreme Court heard a plea by Adani Port Trust and Special Economic Zone aggrieved by Bombay High Court's order of dismissing its plea challenging the disqualification for upgradation of the container terminal in Navi Mumbai by the Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA). The matter was listed before the Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Hima Kohli.
Case Status: Arun Bhatiya v. HDFC Bank 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 696
The Supreme Court has observed that the consumer complaint in a dispute regarding premature encashment of Joint Fixed Deposit by bank in contravention of the terms and conditions is maintainable. A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
"A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a 'consumer' and it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
Indian Olympic Association : Supreme Court Extends Status Quo On CoA Take Over
Case Status: Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India & Ors. Dairy No. 25767 of 2022
The Supreme Court issued notice in the Indian Olympic Association's (IOA) plea against the Delhi High Court's Orderas per which the affairs of IOA were put in the hands of a Committee of Administrators (CoA). The matter was listed before the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and J.K. Maheshwari. The bench, while issuing notice, also extended the status quo order on the CoA take over until further orders. The matter will be heard after four weeks. On August 18, a bench led by the Chief Justice of India had passed the status quo order after being told that the CoA was yet to take over. However, the CJI-led bench had not issued notice, as the matter was only orally mentioned by the Solicitor General of India.
Case Status: Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700
The Supreme Court declared that Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 as unconstitutional on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary. Section 3(2) prescribes the punishment for entering into a benami transaction.
"Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution", the bench declared.
The Court further held that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively. The Court held that the 2016 amendment cannot be held as merely procedural. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli delivered the judgment in an appeal field by the Central Government against a Calcutta High Court judgment holding that that 2016 amendment Act was prospective in nature (Union of India versus M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd).
Remission Granted To 11 Convicts In Bilkis Bano Case Challenged Before Supreme Court
The remission granted by the Gujarat Government to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case has been challenged before the Supreme Court. Advocate Aparna Bhat had mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India today morning seeking an urgent listing tomorrow. CJI NV Ramana agreed to look into the matter. CJI Ramana asked if they were granted remission by virtue of a Supreme Court order. The petition challenging the pre-mature release of the convicts has been filed by Subhashini Ali, a member of the Communist Party of India(Marxist), journalist Revati Laul and Professor Roop Rekha Verma. TMC MP Mahua Moitra has also moved the Supreme Court challenging their release. Filed through Advocate Shadan Farasat, the public interest litigation states that the victim has legitimate apprehensions regarding the safety of her and her family members.
Baba Ramdev Should Not Abuse Other Medicine Systems, Says Supreme Court While Hearing IMA Plea
Case Status: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 645 of 2022
The Supreme Court pulled up Baba Ramdev for making statements against modern medicine systems like Allopathy. A bench led by the CJI, NV Ramana orally criticised Ramdev while hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association seeking to control the "smear campaign" and negative advertisements against the vaccination drive and modern medicines. The petitioner, inter alia, sought to direct the Centre, ASCI and the CCPA to take action against such advertisements and campaigns to promote Ayush system by disparaging the Allopathic system. The bench, also comprising Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar, issued notice to the Union Government, Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Advertising Standards Council of India, Central Consumer Protection Authority of India and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd (the company run by Ramdev).
Case Status: Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 697
The Supreme Court referred to a Constitution Bench the petitions filed by the rival groups of Shiv Sena in relation to the political developments in the State of Maharashtra. A 3-judge bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli referred the petitions to a 5-judge bench observing that important questions of constitutional issue arise. On a prayer made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the Uddhav camp, to restrain the Election Commission of India from deciding Eknath Shinde's claim as the official Shiv Sena party, the CJI agreed to post the matter before the Constitution Bench in a couple of days to consider the interim relief. Till then, the Election Commission has been asked to not take a final call.
Case Status: Sukash Chandra Shekhar @ Sukesh & Anr. v. Union Of India & Anr. WP (Crl) 129 of 2022
The Supreme Court directed to shift alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar and Wife Leena Paulose from Tihar Jail to Mandoli jail in Delhi within a week. The direction was passed by Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia while considering a writ petition filed by Sukesh Chandrashekhar and his wife Leena Paulose seeking their transfer from Tihar Jail to a prison outside Delhi owing to safety reasons.
"Don't Think You're The Only Wise Party" : Supreme Court To DMK In "Freebies" Case
Case Status: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI And Anr. WP(C) No. 43 of 2022
While hearing the case relating to promises of "freebies" by political parties, the Supreme Court on Tuesday took a dim view of certain statements made by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party. DMK, in an impleading petition filed before the Supreme Court, stated that welfare measures intended to uplift the marginalized persons cannot be termed as "freebies". The DMK also stated the Court should examine whether the tax holidays and loan waivers granted by the Union Government to big corporate houses would amount to "freebies".
The Central Government has notified further amendments to the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959 (Rules), inter alia, deploying a domestic help, a chauffeur and a secretary assistant to serve retired Chief Justices of India during their lifetime. The Judges of the Supreme Court would be entitled to lifelong domestic help and chauffeur after retirement.The rules were earlier amended on August 23 to provide for chauffeur and secretarial assistant to former CJI and SC judges for a period of one year after retirement. But now, as per the latest amendment notified on August 26, these benefits have been made life-time.
Case Status: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) 43 of 2022
While hearing a PIL filed by lawyer and former BJP Delhi Spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to not permit political parties to promise freebies during election campaigns, the Supreme Court acknowledged the complex nature of the issue. A bench comprising CJI Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice CT Ravikumar observed that the intention of the Court was to initiate a wider public debate on the issue, and it is for that purpose the constitution of an expert body was mooted.
"We have to see what is freebie and what is welfare", CJI NV Ramana said.
"For example, some state gives cycles to poor and women. It is reported that by giving bicycles has improved lifestyle. The problem is which is freebie and which can be said a beneficiary for the upliftment of a person. For a rural poverty stuck person, his livelihood may depend on that small boat or bicycle. We cannot sit here and argue on this", CJI Ramana added.
Inherent Power U/Sec 151 CPC Can Be Invoked Only When Alternate Remedies Do Not Exist: Supreme Court
Case Status: My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698
The Supreme Court observed that the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked only in circumstances where alternate remedies do not exist.
"Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews", the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.
Case Status: Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700
In the judgment delivered relating to the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act 1988, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the ratio in the recent PMLA judgment which allowed the taking possession of the property before trial in exceptional circumstances. A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, while dealing with the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, observed that the ratio of the PMLA judgment in relation to Section 8(4), while allows the officers of the Enforcement Directorate to take the possession of the attached property once the provisional attachment order is confirmed, requires "further expounding in an appropriate case, without which, much scope is left for arbitrary application". In the case Vijay Madanlal Choudary & Ors v. Union of India, a 3-judge bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 8(4) of PMLA. However, the bench held that "the provision in the form of Section 8(4) can be resorted to only by way of an exception and not as a rule."
Case Status: X v. The Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621
As the Supreme Court was exploring ways to extend the benefit of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (Act), to unmarried women so that they can also seek termination of pregnancy which exceeds the period of 20 weeks but not 24 weeks, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, beseeched it to intervene in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules rather than the Act. She was of the opinion that it might be more effective to interpret the Rules as the distinction between married and unmarried women is made in the Rules and not the Act. Considering her suggestion, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala indicated that Rule 3B(b) of MTP Rules can be interpreted in a manner so as to include both married and unmarried women who have suffered abandonment.
Case Status: My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698
The Supreme Court observed that a person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court.
'The sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned', a Bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.
Case Status: Md. Nijamuddin v. State of Jharkhand And Ors. Diary No(s). 19812 of 2022
The Supreme Court has directed Jharkhand High Court to expedite the hearing in the Jharkhand cattle traders lynching case where two persons (Majlum Ansari and Imtiyaz Khan) were killed. A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice P. Narasimha stated that while they were not inclined to entertain the petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judges of the High Court of Jharkhand were requested to decide the appeal expeditiously and in any case, within a period of one year.
Case Status: Union of India v. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh and connected cases 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 699
The Supreme Court has held that the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme is applicable with effect from 01.09.2008 and not from 01.01.2006 (the date from which the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission are effective). The Court further held that under MACP, the entitlement is to financial upgradation equivalent to the immediate next grade pay and not to the immediate next promotional post. Deciding a batch of appeals filed by the Union of India(Union of India versus Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh and connected cases), a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi set aside the judgment of the High Court which had held that MACP scheme is applicable with effect from 01.01.2006 and that under the MACP Scheme the employees are entitled to financial upgradation equivalent to the next promotional post. However, as regards the MACP scheme for Central Armed Forces, the Court held that fulfilment of pre-promotional norms for grant of financial upgradation would not be insisted for personnel who, for administrative or other reasons, could not be sent or undergo the pre-promotional course.
Aarey Forest : Supreme Court Asks MMRCL To Not Cut Trees As Undertaken By It Till August 30
Case Title: In Re Felling Of Trees In Aarey Forest (Maharashtra) SMW(C)No(s).2/2019
The Supreme Court reiterated that Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation (MMRCL) would be bound by its earlier affidavit which stated that no trees have been cut and would be cut in the Aarey Forest post the Supreme Court order dated October 7, 2019. During the previous hearing, the MMRCL had told the Court that no cutting of trees had been carried out in the Aarey forest. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the Court only trimming of certain branches were carried out and that no trees were cut.
Case Status: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) 43 of 2022
The Supreme Court asked the Centre why it cannot call for an "all party meeting" to determine issues pertaining to election freebies. In its last hearing, the court, while acknowledging the complex nature of the issue, had stated that the intention of the Court was to initiate a wider public debate on the issue, and it is for that purpose the constitution of an expert body was mooted.
Supreme Court Refers BCCI Matter To Bench Led By Justice Chandrachud
Case Status: BCCI And Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bihar And Ors. CA No. 4235 of 2014
A Supreme Court bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud will hear the matters related to the Board of Cricket Control for India's ("BCCI"). The BCCI has now moved applications seeking permission to amend its constitution.
When the matter came before a bench led by CJI NV Ramana, he pointed out that the earlier order in the BCCI case was passed in August 2018 by a bench comprising the then CJI Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Chandrachud. Of the members of the previous bench, only Justice Chandrachud is remaining in the Supreme Court, as the other two judges have retired. Therefore, the CJI told the Solicitor General of India that the matter will be referred to the bench led by Justice Chandrachud.
Case Status: Parvez Parwaz And Anr. v. State of UP And Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 6190 of 2018
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a plea challenging the denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case alleging making of hate speech in 2007. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI N.V. Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. The petitioner Parvez Parwaz alleged that Yogi Adityanath had made anti-Muslim hate remarks while addressing "Hindu Yuva Vahini" activists in a meeting held in Gorakhpur on January 27, 2007. He challenged the decision taken by the UP Government on May 3, 2017 to refuse sanction to prosecute the accused in the case and also the closure report filed in the case. He had earlier approached the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the petition on February 22, 2018, following which he filed the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Case Status: Union of India v. CitiBank NA 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704
The Supreme Court observed that the authorities are required to initiate proceedings within a reasonable period when no such period has been provided in the Statute. The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha quashed show cause notices issued in the year 2002 against some banks to explain certain transactions of the year 1992- 1993. In this case, proceedings were initiated under FERA against CitiBank, Bank of America and Standard Chartered Bank. The Delhi High Court, allowing their writ petitions, had quashed the proceedings against which the Union of India approached the Apex Court.
Case Status: National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 705
The Supreme Court disapproved the entertaining writ petitions seeking execution of Arbitration awards passed against National Highways Authority of India.
"If the High Courts convert itself to the Executing Court and entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
The court was considering an appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment which had allowed writ petition filed by original land owners and directed the NHAI to deposit the entire compensation amount as awarded by the Arbitrator and thereafter permitting the original land owners to withdraw the amount.
Case Status: State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 706
Upholding Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, the Supreme Court observed that the financial burden on the State can be a valid ground to fix a cut off date for the purpose of payment of revision of pension. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna set aside the judgment passed by Tripura High Court that had struck down the Rule 3(3). The High Court had observed that the Rule is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and had consequently directed the state to pay the original writ petitioner the arrears of pension for the period from 1 01.03.2007 to 31.12.2008. The High Court had rejected the submission made by the State that due to the financial burden on the State, which the State was not in a position to bear the additional burden of revised pension, a policy decision has been taken to grant the benefit of revised pension notionally from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 and to grant the actual benefit of the revised pension from 01.01.2009 only.
Supreme Court Allows Open Court Hearing For Review Against PMLA Judgment; Hearing Tomorrow
Case Status: Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement RP (Crl) No.219/2022
The Supreme Court allowed open court hearing in the review petition filed against the judgment upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A 3-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar passed the order allowing oral hearing in the review petition filed by Karti P Chidambaram. It may be noted that review petitions are ordinarily considered in chambers and oral hearing in open court is allowed only in exceptional cases.
Case Status: HS Deekshit v. Metropoli Overseas Limited 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 703
The averments in the plaint alone are to be examined while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
No other extraneous factor can be taken into consideration, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.
In this case, the High Court of Karnataka had allowed a revision petition filed by the defendant and rejected the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Code. The plaintiff had pleaded that the sale deeds were executed on the basis of alleged fabricated General Power of Attorney.
Case Status: Sonadar v. State of Chhattisgarh SLP(Crl) No. 529 of 2021
The Supreme Court is exploring options of popularizing the concept of "plea bargaining". However, the Court noted that the major stumbling block is the reluctance of accused persons to avail "plea bargaining" option due to the fear of bearing the taint of guilt. At times the accused have hesitancy in accepting their conviction under a particular offence which may lead to other civil consequences. In this regard, the Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh noted that Indian law permits plea bargaining only with respect to the sentence and not with respect to the natue of offence. However, plea bargaining in foreign jurisdictions operates qua the nature of the offence. While the Court was wondering if an amendment of the law is required, Amicus Curiae, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, apprised it that such a course can be adopted in India without legislative action, merely by applying the principle of 'Alford plea' and the 'nolo contendere plea' prevalent in the USA.
Case Status: VR Soji v. Veena George SLP(C) No. 12656 of 2022
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition challenging the election of Minister for Health and Family Welfare, Veena George in the Kerala State Assembly Elections, in 2016. The petitioner alleged that Veena had been involved in corrupt practices as per the Representation of People's Act while contesting in the 2016 elections. Though a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi dismissed the plea as it has been infructuous, it also looked at the matter on merits at the insistence of the petitioner counsel, Senior Advocate Kailasanatha Pillai. He told the court that if there's any finding pertaining to corrupt practices during election campaigning, it would have large scale ramifications.
Case Status: State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710
Observing that the purpose of a judgment is not to "confuse or confound the readers", the Supreme Court has urged the Courts and Tribunals to "provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact" in their verdicts. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna made this crucial observation while dealing with a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which was found to be "incomprehensible".
Case Status: ML Sharma v. Union of India and others and connected cases WP(Crl) 314 of 2021
The Supreme Court took on record the sealed cover report submitted by the independent committee probing the allegations of illegal surveillance using Pegasus spyware. A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli orally remarked that Government of India did not cooperate with the Committee and that the Government followed the same stand which it took before the Court as well, whereby it refused to clearly state if the spyware was purchased or not. The Pegasus controversy erupted on July 18 after The Wire and several other international publications published reports about the mobile numbers which were potential targets of the spyware service given by NSO company to various governments, including India. 40 Indian journalists, political leaders like Rahul Gandhi, election strategist Prashant Kishore, former ECI member Ashok Lavassa etc are reported to be in the list of targets, as per The Wire.
Case Status : Lawyers Voice v. Union of India WP(C) No. 13 of 2022
The Supreme Court noted that as per the committee appointed by the Supreme Court, Punjab SSP, Harmandeep Singh Hans, had failed to discharge his duties in ensuring security of the Prime Minister during his visit to Punjab in January 2022. The case, which had sought probe into the security lapse during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Punjab in January 2022 was heard by the bench led by Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana. In the hearings, CJI Ramana read out the committee's report, which stated that Harmandeep Singh Hans, Punjab SSP Ferozpur had failed to discharge his duty, and augment the route even though sufficient time and forces were available with him. As per the report, despite clear instructions, before the PM entered, the SSP failed to act on instructions. The Committee report recommended the constitution of a committee for periodic review of the 'Blue Book'.
Case Status: Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement RP (Crl) No.219/2022
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by Congress MP Karti P Chidambaram, seeking review of its July 27 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India which upheld the power of arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the Enforcement Directorate by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
A bench headed by CJI NV Ramana opined that prima facie, two aspects of the judgment upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) require to be reconsidered: (i) regarding no legal requirement to provide ECIR copy to the accused and (ii) the reversal of presumption of innocence.
Case Status: Subhashini Ali And Ors. v. State of Gujarat And Anr. WP(Crl) No. 319 of 2022
The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition challenging the order of Gujarat Government allowing premature release of 11 convicts sentenced to life in the Bilkis Bano case for gangrape & murder. It directed the Petitioners to array the accused persons, the affected party, as Respondents.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Vikram Nath however posed a query with respect to the legal bar on grant of remission to the convicts.
Case Status: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat SLP(Crl) No.7413 of 2022
The Supreme Court of India has deferred the petition filed by Teesta Setalvad seeking bail in the case registered by Gujarat ATS alleging falsification of records to implicate high state functionaries in the Gujarat riots conspiracy case. A Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia adjourned the matter to August 30, after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Gujarat sought time to make corrections in the response to the petition.
Case Status: St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708
The Supreme Court has held that a writ petition raising service disputes against private educational institutions are not maintainable, if they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions.
"The actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service", the bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case Status: State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710
The Supreme Court observed that judgments should be accessible to persons from all sections of society including persons with disability. The court added that the judgments should be signed using digital signatures.
"They should not be scanned versions of printed copies. The practice of printing and scanning documents is a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose. The practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens.", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
Case Status: M N G Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701
The Supreme Court observed that a breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment. The issue before the Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna was, whether the ingredients of the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust have been made out on the face of the complaint?
Case Status: Sau Rajani v. Sau Smita 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702
The Supreme Court observed that a civil suit claiming reliefs beyond the scope of the Act which bars its jurisdiction will be maintainable.
Even in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by a statute, the test is to determine if the authority or tribunal constituted under the statute has the power to grant reliefs that the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
Case Status: Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707
The Supreme Court held that a confession recorded by an Additional Superintendent of Police [Addl. SP] is admissible in evidence under Section 18 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 [MCOCA].
The posts of SP, Addl. SP, and DCP all fall within the same rank as they exercise similar functions and powers and operate within similar spheres of authority, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed.
Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Father For Taking Away Son From Mother's Custody
The Supreme Court quashed a First Information Report which was registered by the Ghaziabad Police Station against a father for secretly taking away his son from his mother's custody four years back. A bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia The Court was considering an appeal plea moved by the father seeking to quash the FIR registered against him. It reckoned -
"In a matter like this why should there be FIR and criminal charges? You will be actually putting burden on your normal criminal courts. What kind of FIR is this? The Father has taken the custody of the child. Therefore, he is supposed to be guilty of what? We'll quash the FIR on the condition that he will take care of the child, whatever is supposed to be the financial expenditure for school education, the father will take care."
Case Status: Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Anr. v. Adan Power (Mudra) Ltd. And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 711
The Supreme Court has held that Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd needs to pay compounded interest to Adani Power limited, on account of "change in law".
The bench comprising Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli, held that if the banks had charged Adani Power interest on monthly rest basis for giving loans to purchase the installations required on grounds on Change in Law, any restitution will be incomplete, if it is not fully compensated for the interest paid by Adani to the banks on compounding basis.
Case Status: Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 709
The Supreme Court observed that some kind of physical manifestation of agreement to commit an offence is required to attract the offence of Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha noted that the principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is an agreement to commit an offence.
"Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Court has to necessarily ascertain whether there was an agreement between the Appellant and other accused...It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence", the bench observed.
Case Status: Parvez Parwaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 716
The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case alleging making of hate speech in 2007. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice CT Ravikumar observed that the subsequent events have rendered the appeal into a purely academic exercise.
"We think it appropriate that the legal questions on the issue of sanction be left open to be considered in an appropriate case", the bench observed.
Election Freebies Issue: Supreme Court Refers Matter To 3-Judge Bench
Case Status: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 717
The Supreme Court has referred the issues pertaining to promises made by political parties and election freebies to a three-judge bench. The bench led by CJI NV Ramana observed, "The issues raised by parties require extensive hearing. Certain preliminary hearings need to be determined, such as what is the scope of judicial intervention, whether appointment of expert body by court serve any purpose, etc. Many parties also submitted that judgment in Subramaniam Balaji requires reconsideration. The Court in the said case held such practices would not amount to corrupt practices. Looking at the complexity of issues and the prayer to overrule Subramaniam Balaji, we refer the matters to a 3-judge bench."
Case Status: Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715
The Supreme Court had held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) will prevail over the Customs Act. The bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli observed that the customs authority can only determine the quantum of duties and levies but cannot initiate recovery proceedings. While pronouncing the judgment, CJI Ramana stated that once moratorium under IBC is declared, Customs authorities have only limited jurisdiction to assess the quantum and they cannot take steps to recover the dues. The court stated that after such assessment, customs authorities had the option to approach the adjudicating authority, claiming the customs dues as operational debt under IBC. IRP can take steps to secure the property.
Case Status: S Hymavathi and others v. National Testing Agency and another SLP(C)14546/2022
The Supreme Court refused to entertain pleas seeking directions to the National Testing Agency (NTA) to conduct additional sessions of IIT-JEE Mains Examination 2022 for both the first and the second sessions which were disrupted owing to some technical glitches. After the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, the petitioners chose to withdraw the petition. The bench said that it does not want to interfere when the IIT-JEE(Advanced) exam is scheduled to happen on Sunday.
Case Status: Archita And Ors. v. National Medical Commission And Ors. WP(C) 607 of 2022
The Supreme Court issued notice on a batch of petitions filed seeking the relief of allowing nearly 20,000 Indian students who had to return from Ukraine due to Russian attack to complete their medical education in India. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath issued notice returnable by September 5 on seven writ petitions. The petitioners relied upon the report submitted by the Lok Sabha Committee on External Affairs on August 3 in which it recommended the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to consider accommodating the students who returned from Ukraine in Indian private medical colleges as a one-time measure.
Case Status: Nimesh Kumar v. Union of India WP(C) 687 of 2022
Why are you coming at the last minute", the Supreme Court observed while dismissing a writ petition filed by an IIT-JEE aspirant seeking a one-time relaxation to appear for the IIT-JEE (Advanced) 2022 exam due to modification of relaxation policy for COVID-19 affected candidates.
It was the petitioner's case that in the light of COVID-19 induced disruptions and hardships, the joint admission board of the IIT had announced a one-time special measure relaxation for JEE (Advanced) 2022 for certain categories of candidates. However, he was not granted the said relief. A Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala was not inclined to interfere.
Case Status: Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewar 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714
The Supreme Court observed that a drawer of a cheque is liable even if the details in the cheque have been filled up not by the drawer, but by some other person. The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
Supreme Court Directs Supertech's IRP To Deposit Rs 1 Crore With Registry For Homebuyers' Relief
Case Status: Chandrani Banerjee v. R.K. Arora And Ors. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 151 of 2022
With a view to ensure that homebuyers get some relief, the Supreme Court asked the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of Supertech Ltd. to deposit an amount of Rs One Crore with the Supreme Court Registry before September 30, 2022. A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala and Surya Kant also directed the Amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal and the IRP to jointly work out the outstanding dues of the homebuyers and submit the details before the next date of hearing so that directions on disbursement of the said fund could be issued. In this regard, the order reads,
Case Status: The Temple of Healing v. Union of India WP(C) 1003/2021
The Supreme Court highlighted that asking young couples made to wait three to four to adopt a child is not correct and that the adoption process in India needs a reconsideration. While considering a plea moved by a society, the Temple of Healing seeking to simplify the adoption process in India, Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwalaorally told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj :
"This is a genuine petition, Mr. Natraj, people are waiting for 3 and 4 years for adoption. If we make couples wait for years, lakhs and lakhs of children are waiting to be adopted. You have to expedite adoption. People are waiting for years….That's a huge waiting time."
Case Status: Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707
The Supreme Court observed that, in MCOCA cases, more than one charge-sheet is not required to be filed with respect to each accused person. Charge-sheets with respect to the organized crime syndicate are sufficient to fulfil the condition in Section 2(1)(d) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed. The court also held that the order of approval under Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA need not name every accused person at the outset.
Case Status: Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712
The Supreme Court held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act is prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force [1.10.2018]. The bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed thus while allowing an appeal arising out of a specific performance suit. In this case, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. While allowing the appeal, the Telangana High Court held that specific relief in essence is a part of the law of procedure, and hence the 2018 amendment is retrospective.
Case Status: Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713
The Supreme Court observed that the demand for increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises of a landlord. the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and JB Pardiwala observed:
"The demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises by the appellant. We find that even if a notice is served upon by a landlord to increase the rent, that notice has nothing to do with the bonafide requirement as the landlord is statutorily prohibited from increasing the rent in respect of the tenanted premises in terms of Section 6 of the Act. The demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible in terms of Section 6 of the Act."
The court therefore set aside the order of the High Court remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority. It restored the Revision Petition and directed the High Court to decide it afresh.
Case Status: Samaj Parivartana Samudaya And Ors. v. State of Karnataka And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 509
Noting that the situation merits a cautious approach, the Supreme Court, on Friday (26.08.2022), refused to accept the recommendation of the Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) to grant complete relaxation of the ceiling limit imposed on production of iron ore in certain districts in the State of Karnataka. The Apex Court observed that though generally it has accepted the recommendation of the CEC with respect to ceiling limits, it cannot accede to its latest recommendation in toto. A Bench comprising CJI N.V. Ramana and Justices Hima Kohli and C.T. Ravikumar enhanced the limit from 28 MMT to 35 MMT for iron ore production in Bellary District and from 7 MMT to 15 MMT for Chitradurga and Tumkur Districts collectively. While increasing the ceiling limit, it observed that in order to achieve sustainable development, the environmental concerns have to be balanced against the goals of economic development.
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: August 29 to September 4, 2022
Case Status: Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718
The Supreme Court opined that a woman cannot be denied maternity leave under the Central Services (Leave Rules ) 1972 with respect to her biological child on the ground that her spouse has two children from his earlier marriage. While delivering this judgement, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna made the observation that familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli made this oral remark when a counsel mentioned a matter pertaining to NEET PG, seeking some clarification. The matter which was mentioned was a writ petition challenging the decision of National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBE) to not release the answer key and question paper for NEET-PG 2022. The petitioners alleged serious discrepancies in the scores of the candidates who appeared for the test.
Case Status: Fathima Bushra versus State of Karnataka WP(c) 95/2022 and connected cases.
During the hearing, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia was told by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that a letter of adjournment has been circulated by the petitioners. Hearing this, Justice Gupta said, "This is not acceptable to us. You wanted urgent listing and when the matter is listed, you want adjournment. We will not permit forum shopping". In spite of the petitioners' request seeking two weeks' time in the matter, the Court issued notice to the State of Karnataka and proceeded to post the matter on September 5, 2022.
Case Status: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi & Ors. W.P. (Crl.) No. 257/2021
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat considered the PIL filed by Advocate ML Sharma, which made Narendra Modi as the first respondent in personal capacity. The bench initially dismissed the petition saying that no case for interference by the Supreme Court has been made out by the petitioner. After the order was dictated, Sharma made a further request seeking permission to withdraw the petition. Accepting the subsequent request, the bench altered the order and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Siddique Kappan's Bail Plea, Posts Matter For Disposal On Sep 9
Case Status: Sidhique Kappan v. State of Uttar Pradesh Special Leave to Appeal No. 7844/2022
The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition filed by Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan, challenging the rejection of his bail application in Hathras Conspiracy case by the Allahabad High Court. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat has posted the case for final disposal on September 9.
Supreme Court Slams Jharkhand Govt For Arrest Of News 11 Bharat Reporter
Case Status: State of Jharkhand v. Baby Chatterjee And Ors.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the interim order passed by the Jharkhand High Court granting interim bail to News 11 Bharat Journalist Arup Chatterjee. A bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli was perturbed to prima facie note the blatant transgression by the officers of the State enforcement authority and their disregard for law in making the arrest of the media journalist. Justice Chandrachud expressed concerns regarding the manner in which Chatterjee was pulled out of his house and arrested. "You go to his house at 12 o'clock at night, pull him out of his bedroom...This is no way to treat a media journalist. This is complete lawlessness."
Case Status: Athira R Menon vs Union of India|WP (C) No. 169/2021
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging certain provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) which mandate parties to marriages to publish their private details, open for public scrutiny, before 30 days of the intended marriage. The petition specifically challenged Sections 6(2), 6(3) [Both provisions on notice of intended marriage], 7 [Objection to marriage] ,8 [Procedure on receipt of objection], 9 [To the extent to which it deals with inquiry under Section 8 of SMA], 10 [Procedure on receipt of objection by Marriage Officer abroad].
Case Status: Gautam Navlakha v. NIA & Anr. SLP (Crl) No. 23064/2022
The Supreme Court was to hear the plea of Bhima Koregaon case accused, Gautam Navlakha who sought to be transferred out of Taloja Central Prison and be placed under house arrest owing to the alleged denial of basic medical necessities. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, who was on the bench with Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, recused himself from hearing the matter. CJI Lalit noted that Justice Bhat could not hear the matter and instead it should be placed before Justice K.M. Joseph
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Husband In Plea Challenging Talaq-E-Hasan
Case Status: Benazeer Heena v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 348/2022 (PIL), Nazreen Nisha Kadir Shaikh versus Union of India WP(c) 603/2022
In plea filed by a Muslim woman challenging the constitutionality of divorce through "Talaq E Hasan" on the ground that it is discriminatory against women, the Supreme Court, on Monday, impleaded and issued notice to the husband to explore possibilities of reaching a settlement.
Supreme Court Asks Jitendra Tyagi To Surrender, Refuses To Extend Interim Bail
Case Status: Jitendra Narayan Tyagi alias Vasim Rizvi versus State of Uttarakhand and another | SLP(Crl) 3304/2022
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to extend the interim bail granted on medical grounds to Jitendra Tyagi alias Wasim Rizvi in the case for allegedly making anti-Muslim hate speeches at the Haridwar Dharam Sansad. A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna asked Tyagi to surrender by September 2 and posted the regular application for hearing on September 9.
Case Status: Youth Bar Association v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1071/2021
The Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed a petition challenging section 8 of the Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages (Amendment) Bill, 2021. The petitioner "Youth Bar Association of India" challenged the law as it permits registration of child marriages. The Rajasthan State Assembly in 2021 had passed the bill to amend a 2009 Act [Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act] which provides for mandatory registration of marriages, including child marriages. While dismissing the plea, Justices Indira Banerjee and MM Sundresh of the Supreme Court orally observed that the provision was for past actions of marriages keeping in the mind the plight of the parties. This prompted the bench to dismiss the matter.
Supreme Court Reserves Judgement In Hyderpora Encounter Case
Case Status: Mohammad Latief Magrey V. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 12743/2022 XVI-A
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala was hearing a petition filed by Mohammed Latif Magrey seeking the body of his son Amir Magrey, who was killed in Hyderpora Encounter in Srinagar in November 2021. The petitioner disputes that his son was a terrorist and maintains that he was an innocent who got killed in the encounter by the security forces. After hearing the matter, the bench reserved judgment in the case.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Provisions Criminalising Personal Consumption Of Drugs
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat on Monday heard a petition seeking to declare certain provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act 1985, invalid. The bench found no merit in the petition and it was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Case Status: National Testing Agency v. KS Manoj And Ors. SLP(C) No. 3253/2022
In a plea alleging tampering of OMR sheet by National Testing Agency (NTA) in NEET-UG 2020 examination, the Supreme Court, in consonance with the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court to remand the matter back to the Single Judge, gave liberty to the parties to appear before the Single Judge keeping all issues in the matter open to be argued before it.
Supreme Court Upholds Amendment Covering Teachers Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
Case Status: Independent Schools Federation of India vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 719 | CA 8162 OF 2012 | 29 August 2022
The Supreme Court has upheld the amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 extending the benefit of gratuity to teachers. The amendment with retrospective effect remedies the injustice and discrimination suffered by the teachers on account of a legislative mistake, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi dismissed the appeals/writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment to Section 2(e) and insertion of Section 13A to the Payment of Gratuity Act, with retrospective effect from 3rd April 1997 (vide the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009).
Case Status: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union of India WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 836 OF 2020
The Central Government has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court seeking more time in the plea seeking minority status for Hindus in States where they are numerically less in number. The affidavit, filed on August 29, states that the Central Government has already held meetings with the State governments of Nagaland, Punjab, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, along with the UTs of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh with inputs from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Legal affairs of Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Higher Education of Ministry of Education, National Commission for minorities and National Commission for minority educational institution.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Filed By CAT Bar Association, Kolkata For Filling Up Vacancies
Case Status: CAT Bar Association Kolkata And Anr. v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 662/2022
The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued notice in a plea filed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bar Association Kolkata regarding vacancies at the Calcutta Bench of CAT. While issuing notice, considering the urgency, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli indicated that it would take up the matter at the earliest.
CJI Lalit Brings Administrative Reforms
In what appears to be a move to prioritise final hearing matters, Chief Justice of India UU Lalit has introduced a change in the order of hearing of cases on non-miscellaneous days (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday). As per the causelist published for August 30, regular hearing matters will be taken in the morning itself. The miscellaneous after notice matters will be taken during the post-lunch session. For the uninitiated, miscellaneous days in Supreme Court are Mondays and Fridays, where the fresh petitions are listed for admission hearings. The other days are meant for final hearing matters (called non-miscellaneous days, or NMD in SC lawyers' parlance). However, certain fresh matters after notice are listed for consideration on NMDs as well.
Case Status: Dr. Subramaniam Swamy vs State of Tamil Nadu| WP(c) 1147/2021
The Supreme Court of India sought the response of the Tamil Nadu government in a plea filed by Dr Subramanian Swamy challenging certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XXII of 1959 (Act) giving control to the State government over appointments of Archakas (priests) in Hindu temples. A Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia also issued notice in a plea seeking interim relief to restrain Tamil Nadu Govt from exercising powers over Archaka appointments, while tagging the matters with similar matter from 2012.
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench will start hearing in the cases challenging the constitutional validity of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections and the reservation given for Muslims in Andhra Pradesh as a Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) on September 13 and 14. A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, JB Pardiwala decided on Tuesday to list these matters next Tuesday -September 6- to set the timeline for hearing and completion of other pre-hearing steps. The bench said that the hearing in the matters will commence from September 13.
Supreme Court Holds That Arbitrators Cannot Unilaterally Fix Their Fee As It Violates Party Autonomy
Case Status: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Afcons Gunanusa JV | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally fix their fees without the consent of the parties. The Court further held that the fee scale prescribed under the 4th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not mandatory.
Case Status: Ram Jethmalani And Ors. And Ors. Versus Union Of India And Ors And Ors, Juilio F Riberio and others versus Union of India WP(C) 37/2010
The Supreme Court on India adjourned a petition filed by the late senior advocate and politician, Ram Jethmalani and others seeking steps to recover black money stashed in foreign accounts. The petition, though filed in 2009, was last heard in 2016. Apart from Jethmalani, there are 5 other petitioners in the case, including former IPS officer KPS Gill. A Bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian adjourned the matter after the counsel appearing for the petitioners sought for more time to seek instructions.
CJI Lalit Makes Changes For Timely Listing Of New Cases
By way of a circular issued on August 29, the Top Court has directed that all fresh matters verified on Saturday, Monday and Tuesday will be listed on Monday in the next week. Those matters verified on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday will be listed on Friday in the next week.
Case Status: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation MA 408/2022
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, refused to entertain the plea filed by Gurugram District Bar Association seeking clarification regarding interpretation of court's orders suspending period of limitation qua the proviso (b) and (c) to the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat. The matter was accordingly withdrawn by the petitioner.
Case Status: Haji Abdul Gani Khan And Anr. v. Union of India And Anr. WP(C) No. 237 of 2022
In a plea challenging the delimitation exercise undertaken in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to the notifications of 2020, 2021 and 2022, the Supreme Court reprimanded the Union Government for not filing the counter affidavit even after it was granted 6 weeks' time to do so.
Supreme Court Issues Directives To Govern Fees Of Arbitrators
Case Status: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Afcons Gunanusa JV | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723
In its judgment holding that arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally fix their fees, the Supreme Court also issued directives governing fees of arbitrators in ad hoc arbitrations.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Sanjiv Khanna observed that the fees of the arbitrators must be fixed at the inception to avoid unnecessary litigation and conflicts between the parties and the arbitrators at a later stage. The fixation of arbitral fees at the threshold will obviate the grievance that the arbitrator(s) are arm-twisting parties at an advanced stage of the dispute resolution process, the court added.
Case Status: The Central Muslim Association Of Karnataka Versus The State Of Karnataka And Ors, Karnataka State Board of Auqaf versus State of Karnataka SLP (c) 15154/2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered status quo with respect to land use of Idgah Maidan in Bengaluru's Chamarajpet, in effect putting in abeyance the move of Karnataka Government to allow Ganesh Chaturthi festivals at the land.
Case Status: X Versus Secy. General., Supreme Court of India And Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 15/2014
The Supreme Court will hear plea seeking framing of guidelines on how to handle complaints of sexual harassment against sitting/retired judges on 15th November 2022 for the purpose of passing appropriate directions. At the request of the Senior Advocate, Ms. Indira Jaising, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, A.S. Oka and Vikram Nath granted four weeks time to file her note elucidating the mechanism that has been put in place in this regard, since the time the petition was filed in 2014. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court is to file a response within 4 weeks thereafter indicating the mechanism followed by the Apex Court.
Case Status: Harkirat Singh Ghuman vs Punjab & Haryana High Court | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 720
The Supreme Court observed that the disclosure of the marks in the main examination before interview/viva voce is conducted, may be avoided. In this case, the appellant before the Apex Court had participated in the selection process for direct recruitment to Punjab Superior Judicial Service/Haryana Superior Judicial Service. Aggrieved of not being qualified in the written examination, he had filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was dismissed.
Case Status: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union of India WP (C) No. 836 of 2020
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, deferred the hearing of the plea seeking minority status for Hindus in States where they are numerically less in number by six weeks, at the request of the Union Government.
Supreme Court Observed That Arbitrators Fee Cap Is Rs 30 Lakhs
Case Status: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Afcons Gunanusa JV | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723
The Supreme Court held that the ceiling of Rs 30,00,000 in entry at Serial No 6 of the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is applicable to the sum of base amount and the variable amount, and not just the variable amount. This means that the highest fee payable shall be Rs 30,00,000, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
Case Status: Action Committee for the implementation of Sri Krishna Report And Ors. v. UOI And Ors
In a plea filed in 1998 seeking the implementation of the Justice Sri Krishna Commission report in relation to 1992 Bombay Riots, the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, reserved judgment. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, A.S. Oka and Vikram Nath sought some clarifications from the State of Maharashtra regarding the compensation paid to the victims of the riots.
Case Status: Vasant Khela Sarak And Ors. v. State of Maharashtra And Ors. SLP(C) No. 56111/2020
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat dismissed the petition filed against Bombay High Court's order on plea challenging the prescription of 'shorthand test' as selection criteria for promotion as 'Private Secretary' to the judges. The bench concurred with Bombay High Court's view in the matter which had stated that proficiency in Stenography had an important bearing upon discharge of the duties by Private Secretaries and thus, 'shorthand test' for the same could not be done away with.
Supreme Court Refers Question Of Whether Third Party Insurance Cover Pillion Rider To Larger Bench
Case Status: Mohana Krishnan S vs K.Balasubramaniyam | SLP(C) 3433/2020
Whether a pillion rider on a motorcycle is a third party? Is the insurance company liable to indemnify the insured on account of the injuries or death of such pillion rider in case of an "Act Only" Policy? The Supreme Court has referred these questions to a larger bench. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath was considering a contention raised in a Special Leave Petition that a pillion rider on a motorcycle is not a third party, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured on account of the injuries or death of such pillion rider.
Case Status: V. Vasanthakumar vs H.C. Bhatia and Ors Case No: W.P.(C)No.36/2016
The Attorney General of India, K.K. Venugopal stated that he will need time to take instructions from the Government of India on the petition seeking reliefs for the division of Supreme Court into appellate and Constitutional divisions with regional benches for the former. The matter was listed before the Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala.
Case Status: Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 725 | SLP(C) 13554-13555 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that Board of Control for Cricket in India [BCCI] can be said to be a "shop" for the purposes of attracting the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and PS Narasimha observed that the activities of the BCCI can be said to be systematic commercial activities providing entertainment by selling tickets etc.
Case Status: Ghazi Saaduddin v. State of Maharashtra C.A. No. 329-330/2004
The Supreme Court asked Centre to provide its current stand on the issue of extending the benefit of reservation available to the Scheduled Caste community to Dalits who have converted to other faiths. The petition in which the order has been passed was filed almost 18 years back. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, A.S. Oka and Vikram Nath directed the Union Government to file its affidavit within a period of 3 weeks. The petitioners were asked to file the rejoinder within a week thereafter. All the parties are required to file a synopsis at least 3 days before the next date of hearing, which is 11th October, 2022.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice V Ramasubramanian issued notice to the Central government and all States, on August 29, in a Public Interest Litigation seeking Centre and States to invoke National Security Act against persons involved in hoarding, profiteering, adulteration and black marketing and seize their 100 % benami properties and disproportionate assets.
Case Status: Wyeth Limited vs State of Bihar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 721
The Supreme Court reiterated that a criminal complaint has to be quashed if if no offence is made out by a careful reading of the complaint. When the complaint itself disclosed nothing more than a commercial relationship which broke, it is not possible to enlarge the scope of his complaint by merely adding the language used in the text of the Indian Penal Code, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Status: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Afcons Gunanusa JV 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723
The Supreme Court held that the term 'sum in dispute' in the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration Act refers to the sum in dispute in a claim and counter-claim separately, and not cumulatively.
Case Status: Sakharam (D) vs Kishanrao | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 722
The Supreme Court observed that a second appeal does not abate on death of one of the respondents when the right to sue survives against the surviving respondent. Abatement occurs only when the cause of action does not survive upon or against the surviving party, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed. The court was considering an appeal against the Bombay High Court order dismissing a Second Appeal as having abated due to the death of one of the respondents.
Case Status: Tej Prakash Pathak & others Vs. Rajasthan High Court & others with 14 connected matters; C.A. No. 2634 of 2013
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will start hearing on September 6 the issue whether the "rules of the game" can be changed after the selection process has started. The issue arose in a batch of cases relating to the selection process of District Judges conducted by certain High Courts. The primary question is whether the selection criteria can be changed during the process.
Case Status: Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 724 | CrA 871 OF 2021
The Supreme Court observed that to raise a presumption under Section 54 of NDPS Act, it must first be established that a recovery was made from the accused. The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed thus while allowing an appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Supreme Court last week granted pre-arrest bail and quashed non-bailable warrants issued against a man belonging to the Dalit community, who was accused of kidnapping and forcibly marrying an upper caste woman. Coming to the aid of the man, a Division Bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka observed, "In our considered view, subject to the petitioner joining and fully co-operating with the on-going investigation in the F.I.R....it is not a case where non-bailable warrants ought to have been issued against the petitioner."
