- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up...
Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up [October 2023]
Suraj Kumar
2 Nov 2023 7:18 PM IST
![Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up [October 2023]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2023/11/01/750x450_501285-supreme-court-monthly-round-up-october-2023.webp "Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up [October 2023]")
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844-944]Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Basant Bansal v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844Aditya Khaitan & Ors. V. IL and FS Financial Services Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 845Union Bank of India V. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 846Adarsh CB v. CB Awasthy Sidharthan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 847Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar 2023...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844-944]
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Basant Bansal v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844
Aditya Khaitan & Ors. V. IL and FS Financial Services Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 845
Union Bank of India V. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 846
Adarsh CB v. CB Awasthy Sidharthan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 847
Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 848
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. V. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 849
State Bank of India & Ors v. P Zandenga 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 850
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of MP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 851
NS Balaji v. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 853
GRIDCO Ltd. V. Western Electricity Supply Company 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 855
Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 856
Ajeet Gurjar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 857
Sunil Kumar v. Lala Saurabh Verma 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 858
M/S. MEHTA JEWELLERS v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 859
M/S Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik Gmbh V. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya 2023 LiveLaw (SC)860
Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 861
Dhani Ram (died) through LRs. & others V. Shiv Singh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 862
Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 864
Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. V. Union Of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865
Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866
M/s. Kewal Court Pvt. Ltd. V. The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 867
Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited & Ors v. Suresh Maruti Chougule 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 868
Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd.2023 LiveLaw (SC) 869
Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 870
Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 871
Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 872
Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Mrs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur Panesar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 873
State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 874
State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 875
Nabha Power Limited v Punjab State Power Corporation Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 876
X v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 877
Commissioner of Income Tax v Jasjit Singh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 878
Divya v. Union of India| Vimlok Tiwari v. UPSC| Ved Prakash Singh v. UPSC
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 879
Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 880
X v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 881
Union Of India v. Uzair Imran2023 LiveLaw (SC) 882
Bichitrananda Behera V. State Of Orissa 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 883
Commissioner, Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Patna v. M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 885
MC Mehta v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 886
STATE OF U.P. & ANR v. EHSAN 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887
M/S. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited v. M/S. Gayatri Shakti Paper And Board Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 888
Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. The State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 889
Yusuf @ Asif V. State 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 890
KAMAL PRASAD & ORS v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 891
We the Women of India v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 892
UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani(Dead) Thr LRs 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 893
Vishal Chelani and Others v. Debashis Nanda 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 894
Chain Singh v. State of Chattisgarh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 895
M/S Triveni Glass Limited v Commissioner of Trade Tax UP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 896
Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 897
Supriyo v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors V. B. Udayasri 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902
Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903
Priyanka Kumari V. Shailendra Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 904
M/S Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College Of Visual Arts v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 905
Yamini Manohar v. TKD Keerthi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 906
Abhishek Sharma v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 907
Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 908
M/S Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. v. M/S Transtonnelstroy Afcons JV 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 909
Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 910
Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) New Delhi v. M/s Nestle SA 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 911
Dasanglu Pul vs Lupalam Kri 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 912
Surinder Pal Singh v. Vijaya Bank 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 913
Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914
Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916
Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917
Tamil Nadu And Puducherry Paper Cup Manufactures Association v. State Of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918
Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914
M/S Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918
Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919
Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Waqf v. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920
Manmohan Gopal v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 921
Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 922
Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 924
Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited V. The State Of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 925
Mrs. Kalyani Rajan v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 926
The State of Telangana & Ors. V. M/S Tirumala Constructions 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 927
Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v Hdfc Bank Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 929
Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Gordhan Dass Thr. LRs 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 930
M.A Biviji v. Sunita & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931
Indrakunwar v.State of Chattisgarh2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Sabbir(Dead) The. LRs v. Anjuman 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 933
Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 934
Bhisham Lal Verma V. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 935
Pradeep Mehra V. Harijivan J. Jethwa 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 936
Manak Chand v. State of Haryana 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Geeta Devi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 938
Sanjay Agarwal v. State Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 939
KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA v. NANJUNDASWAMY 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 940
Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 942
Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 944
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Basant Bansal v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844; 2023INSC866
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement for mere non-cooperation in response to a summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.
"Mere non-cooperation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 would not be enough to render him/her liable to be arrested under Section 19", held a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PV Sanjay Kumar
Why ED Must Furnish Grounds Of Arrest To Accused In Writing? Supreme Court Explains
Case Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Basant Bansal v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844; 2023INSC866
In a landmark judgment in the case Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must furnish the reasons for arrest to the accused in writing.
While holding so, the bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PV Sanjay Kumar, noted that Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which gives the power to officers of ED to arrest any person guilty of a money laundering offense, uses the expression that the accused shall be ‘informed of the grounds of such arrest’. The Section did not specify how the grounds of arrest should be informed. This aspect was not dealt with in the recent Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Senthil Balaji cases.
Case Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Basant Bansal v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844
In a significant judgment pronounced on Tuesday (October 3), the Supreme Court held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) should furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing at the time of arrest.
"We hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception." pronounced a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar while setting aside the arrest of Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal in the money laundering case against the real estate group M3M
Case Title: Aditya Khaitan & Ors. V. IL and FS Financial Services Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 845
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (03.10.2023) set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court that had refused to take on record a written submission on the ground of delay. The Apex Court held that the benefit of the series of orders passed by the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, extending the period of limitation in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, would enure to the benefit of the appellants who had challenged the High Court order. The Court clarified that the order passed by it on 08.03.2021 expanded the protection to litigants by making it applicable to the period up to which delay can be condoned and not just to the period of limitation.
Case Title: Union Bank of India V. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 846
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (04.10.2023) held that the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India though wide in its amplitude, cannot be exercised to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the court.
“It cannot be gainsaid that the court in exercise of powers under Article 142 cannot ignore any substantive statutory provision dealing with the subject. The plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 are inherent in nature and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes. These powers though are of a very wide amplitude to do complete justice between the parties, cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the court,” a bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi observed.
Case title: Adarsh CB v. CB Awasthy Sidharthan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 847
In a matrimonial dispute related to a child's custody, the Supreme Court recently modified a condition imposed by the Family Court requiring the father to meet the child in the premises of the Court.
Case Title: Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 848
The Supreme Court observed that a Hindu marriage can be dissolved through a customary divorce deed, provided the existence of such a customary right is established.
This is by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which states the none of the provisions of the Act will affect any right recognised by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage.
State Govt Has Power To Impose Permit Fee On Erection Of Mobile Towers: Supreme Court
Case Title: BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. V. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 849
The Supreme Court has held that a State Government has the competence to impose permit fee on the erection of mobile towers. The Court rejected the argument that State cannot realise permit fee on mobile towers in the absence of a Parliamentary law empowering it to do so.
The Court upheld a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which held that the Chhattisgarh Government had the competence to issue the Circulars as well as the Rules for the purpose of realising one time permit fee while granting sanction for erection of a mobile tower in the area under jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Gram Panchayats. e.
Case Title: State Bank of India & Ors v. P Zandenga
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 850
The Supreme Court recently ruled that an acquittal in connected criminal proceedings does not entail any benefit in the surviving proceedings and thus does not automatically result in a corresponding discharge in disciplinary proceedings pending against an employee.
Case title: South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of MP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 851, 2023INSC865
The Supreme Court recently upheld the power of Municipal Councils to levy terminal tax within the limits of Scheduled Areas, dismissing an appeal brought by a coal mining company challenging the imposition of such taxes in Madhya Pradesh.
The Court emphasized that Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule grants the Governor the power to direct either that the parliamentary or state laws would not apply to Scheduled Areas or it’ll apply only with certain exceptions and modifications. The Court found that no such notification was issued by the governor. Therefore, the municipal council could levy tax as empowered under the state’s legislation.
Case Title: NS Balaji v. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 853
The Supreme Court has observed that a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family(HUF) has the right to sell/dispose of/alienate a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, even if a minor of the family has an undivided interest.
The reason is that a HUF is capable of acting through its Karta or an adult member of the family in the management of the HUF property, explained the Court. Reference was made to the judgment in Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996) 8 SCC 54.
Case Title: GRIDCO Ltd. V. Western Electricity Supply Company, Civil Appeal No.414 of 2007
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 855
The Supreme Court recently criticised the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) for challenging the orders of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) correcting the Commission’s own order. Reminding the Commission that it was bound by the APTEL's order, the Supreme Court questioned the propriety of the Commission's appeal.
Case Title: Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 856; 2023INSC878
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has summarized the principles related to Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, which prescribes the conditions under which a search of persons shall be conducted.
S. 50 NDPS Act Not Applicable To Recovery From Bag Carried By A Person: Supreme Court
Case Title: Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 856
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the conditions for personal search as specified in Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are applicable only for the search of the physical body of the person and not for the search of any bag carried by the person.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged that confining the applicability of Section 50 NDPS Act only to the physical body and excluding a bag carried by a person can defeat the purpose of the provision, which is to provide a safeguard against abuse of powers by the investigating agency during a search operation
Case Title: Ajeet Gurjar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.3023 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 857
The Supreme Court recently held that compliance with Section 19(1) subclause (i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which requires the Children’s Court to hold an inquiry as to whether the alleged offender is to be tried as a child or an adult is not a mere formality.
In this regard, the Court also said that the use of the word 'may' used in Clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 19, will have to be read as 'shall'.
Case title: Sunil Kumar v. Lala Saurabh Verma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 858
The Supreme Court recently held that Section 9(1)(b) of the SC/ST Act grants State Governments the power to delegate the authority to arrest, investigate, and prosecute offenders. This delegation of power, as emphasized by the Court, is a vital aspect of the Act and should not be curtailed by any rules framed under Section 23 of the SC/ST Act.
Case Title: M/S. MEHTA JEWELLERS v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Citation. : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 859
Recently, the Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal, noted that the claim arising out of an insurance policy cannot be repudiated on the basis of a term, mentioned in the policy, which itself is ambiguous.
A Division Bench, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha, observed that the insurance policy itself does not define the word “locked safe” nor does it define what should be the standard make of the “locked safe”. It elucidated:
Case Title: M/S Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik Gmbh V. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC)860
The Supreme Court on Thursday (05.10.2023) held that a Magistrate can dismiss a defamation complaint by applying the exceptions under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 even before even summoning the accused.
“..nothing prevents the Magistrate upon application of judicial mind to accord the benefit of such Exception to prevent a frivolous complaint from triggering an unnecessary trial. Since initiation of prosecution is a serious matter, we are minded to say that it would be the duty of the Magistrate to prevent false and frivolous complaints eating up precious judicial time. If the complaint warrants dismissal, the Magistrate is statutorily mandated to record his brief reasons. On the contrary, if from such materials a prima facie satisfaction is reached upon application of judicial mind of an “offence” having been committed and there being sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate is under no other fetter from issuing process,” a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Bela M Trivedi observed
Principles Of Applying Section 106 Of Evidence Act: Supreme Court Explains
Case title: Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 861
The Supreme Court recently held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not inherently impose a burden on the accused but comes into play when the accused fails to provide any explanation regarding facts that should be within their knowledge, facts that could support theories compatible with their innocence.
The Court observed, “We consider the true rule to be that Section 106 does not cast any burden upon an accused in a criminal trial, but that, where the accused throws no light at all upon the facts which ought to be especially within his knowledge, and which could support any theory of hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can also consider his failure to adduce any explanation, in consonance with the principle laid in Deonandan Mishra’s case.”
Case title: Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 861
The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a husband in a case related to the murder of his wife and domestic cruelty against her. It reiterated the crucial role that courts play in ensuring justice, especially in cases involving crimes against women
Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment noted “The role of courts in such circumstances assumes greater importance, and it is expected that the courts would deal with such cases in a more realistic manner and not allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities, perfunctory investigation or insignificant lacunas in the evidence as otherwise the criminals would receive encouragement and the victims of crime would be totally discouraged by the crime going unpunished. The courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.”
Will Can't Be Presumed To Be Valid Merely Because It Is Registered: Supreme Court
Case Title: Dhani Ram (died) through LRs. & others V. Shiv Singh, Civil Appeal No. 8172 of 2009
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 862
The Supreme Court on Friday (06.10.2023) held that mere registration would not sanctify a document by attaching to it an irrebuttable presumption of genuineness.
A bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar agreeing with the view of the Trial Court and affirming the order of the High Court said:
“…the Trial Court rightly opined that mere registration of the Will would not be sufficient to prove its validity, as its lawful execution necessarily had to be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity, ‘the Evidence Act’), and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for brevity, ‘the Succession Act’)
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 864
The Supreme Court has recently highlighted that the transaction value (the price actually paid or payable for the goods) should be the primary basis for customs valuation and that other valuation methods be invoked sequentially only when there is evidence to doubt the correctness of the declared transaction value.
Liberal Approach Be Taken Regarding Delay In Appeals Filed By State: Supreme Court
Case Title: Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. V. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865
The Supreme Court, recently (October 9), while deciding over a discretionary order of the High Court granting the prayer for condonation of delay observed that such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State.
The Bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta reiterated the well-settled that “a court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below”
Case Title: Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866
Reiterating the principles relating to the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the Supreme Court reversed the acquittal of an accused in a case for cheque dishonor. A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and SVN Bhatti observed that there was a "fundamental flaw" in the approach taken by both the Trial Court and the High Court.
It held "Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption.
If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The Court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly".
Case Title: M/s. Kewal Court Pvt. Ltd. V. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 867
The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred the question of the construction, meaning and import of the term ‘vacant land’ contained in Section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to a larger bench.
The Ceiling Act was enacted to impose a ceiling on the acquisition of urban property. It imposed a ceiling on ‘vacant land’ in urban agglomeration. The acquisition of urban land in excess of the ceiling limit, and construction of buildings on such land is regulated under the Act. The intention of the Act was to prevent the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few individuals.
Case Title: Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited & Ors v. Suresh Maruti Chougule
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 868
The Supreme Court has affirmed that an Advocate cannot claim the right of legal representation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Agreeing with the view expressed in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs. Their Workmen (1977) 2 SCC 339, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CT Ravikumar, and Sudhanshu Dhulia answered a reference against the judgment.
Case Title: Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 869
In a judgment pronounced on October 11, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles relating to liability of a director of a company for the dishonour of a cheque issued by the company.
Referring to Section 141(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the Court said, "only that person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished."
Case title: Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 870
The Supreme Court recently examined a controversial conviction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a triple murder case that was based on a modified charge, noting the absence of the appellant's advocate during the hearing. The Court highlighted procedural errors and the failure to provide notice regarding the proposed alteration of the charge, which resulted in a breach of legal principles and caused significant prejudice to the appellant.
Case title: Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 870
The Supreme Court recently revisited a critical distinction between "common intention" and "common object", which are mentioned in Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) respectively. The Court relied on Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan, which had previously addressed the conversion of charges from Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
It was observed: “A clear distinction is made out between common intention and common object in that common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a prearranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of minds or preconcert. Though there is a substantial difference between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the charge under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by Section 34. Thus, if several persons numbering five or more, do an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply. If the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted.”
Case Title: Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 871
The Supreme Court, while mandating hybrid hearings in all High Courts across the country, expressed its concern over the absence of uniform Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in High Courts, highlighting the need for a clear and consistent approach to electronic access for hearings.
Case Title Arun Muthuvel V. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.756/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 872
The Supreme Court has observed that insisting that only the egg and the sperm of an intending couple can be used for gestational surrogacy is prima facie against Rule 14(a) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022.
A new amendment introduced in March 2023 to Form 2 read with Rule 7 of the Surrogacy Rules specifies that donor eggs cannot be used for gestational surrogacy of an intending couple
Case Title: Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Mrs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur Panesar, Civil Appeal No.2045 of 2011
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 873
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that it can exercise its discretion under the inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolving a marriage on the ground of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’, even when one of the spouses opposes the dissolution of marriage. However, the Court said that such discretion must be exercised with great care and caution.
The Court also clarified that since the institution of marriage is considered to be a ‘pious’ and ‘spiritual’ union in Indian society, a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 on the ground of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ may not be desirable
Accused Has No Right To Produce Any Material At The Time Of Framing Of Charge: Supreme Court
Case title: State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 874
The Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing charges, the accused does not have the right to produce any material or documents to contest the case. The Court further emphasized that at the charges stage, the trial court should base its decision solely on the chargesheet material provided by the prosecution, presuming the material to be true for the purpose of determining the existence of a prima facie case.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 875
The Supreme Court has observed that whenever a child is subjected to sexual assault, the State or the Legal Services Authorities should ensure that the child is provided with a facility of counselling by a trained child counsellor or child psychologist. Because, it will help the victim children to come out of the trauma, which will enable them to lead a better life in future.
The Court further stated that the State should ensure that the children who are the victims of the offence continue with their education.
Caste Or Religion Of Litigant Should Never Be Mentioned In Judgments: Supreme Court To All Courts
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 875
The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice followed by certain Trial Courts and High Court of mentioning the caste or religion of a party in the cause-title of the judgment.
While deciding a criminal appeal arising from a child sex abuse case in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court was surprised to note from the cause-title of the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court that the respondent’s caste has been mentioned. The Court further said that the same defect was carried forward in the Special Leave Petition as the description of the respondent–accused must have been copied from the cause title of the judgments of the Courts.
Case Title: Nabha Power Limited v Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 876
The Supreme Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 40 Lakhs and Rs.25 Lakjs on Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (Respondent) based on the actual computation of costs incurred by Nabha Power Limited and Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd (Appellants). The Supreme Court had previously adjudicated the contractual dispute between the Parties and had directed the Respondent certain amounts to the Appellants.
Instead of complying with the Court’s order, the Respondent continued instituting multiple litigations to evade its payment obligation. The Court observed that the issues at hand were already been adjudicated upon in the previous round of litigations. Accordingly, cost was imposed on the Respondent.
Case title: X v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 877
The Supreme Court on Monday (09.10.2023) in an order allowing the medical termination of pregnancy of a married woman who is 26 weeks pregnant has highlighted the importance of family planning and taking adequate precautions.
It is however, important to note that on October 11th, while hearing the recall application filed by the Union against the said order, the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna has referred the matter to a larger bench. The recall application was filed by the Union citing a subsequent medical report that said that the foetus has a high chance of survival.
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax v Jasjit Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 878
The Supreme Court has rejected the argument of the Income Tax department that Section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 empowers the assessing officer to seek information from a third party regarding income tax returns of the period of six years preceding the date of the search of the assessee whose premises was originally searched.
A Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar held that under Section 153C, a third party would only have to furnish income tax returns of preceding six years, starting from the date when the Assessing Officer assigns the third party’s documents to the concerned Assessing Officer and not from the date of the original search.
Case title: Divya v. Union of India| Vimlok Tiwari v. UPSC| Ved Prakash Singh v. UPSC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 879
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 9) dismissed three writ petitions filed by certain civil service aspirants challenging the decision of the Union Public Service Commission to treat them as general category candidates for not submitting the certificates regarding Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in the prescribed format before the prescribed cut off date for the 2022 Civil Service Examinations(CSE).
Case title: Divya v. Union of India| Vimlok Tiwari v. UPSC| Ved Prakash Singh v. UPSC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 879
The Supreme Court emphasized that where there is an absence of any specific rule or prescription, the last day for fulfilling eligibility is the last date of submission of the application. The Court made the observation while refusing the benefit of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation to candidates of Civil Service Examination 2022 who did not upload the income and asset certificate in the prescribed form before the stipulated cut-off date.
Sterling Witness Should Be Of High Quality Whose Version Is Unassailable: Supreme Court
Case title: Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 880
The Supreme Court recently held that the evidence of an eye-witness should be of very sterling quality and caliber and it should not only instill confidence in the court to accept the same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its face value.
The Court relied on Rai Sandeep @ Deepu alias Deepu V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 which held: “the “sterling witness” should be of very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. What would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution of the accused. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and however strenuous it may be. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offense alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished.
Case title: Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 880
The Supreme Court recently emphasized the importance of concrete evidence to establish the common object in cases involving Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This provision deals with vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly.
"To convict a person under Section 149 IPC prosecution has to establish with the help of evidence that firstly, appellants shared a common object and were part of unlawful assembly and secondly, it had to prove that they were aware of the offences likely to be committed is to achieve the said common object," the Court said.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 881
Justice Nagarathna observed that an unwanted pregnancy, whether due to failure in family planning or due to sexual assault, has the same consequence. Since the lady is not willing to continue with the pregnancy, whether the foetus is viable or not is an irrelevant consideration.
"The pregnant lady is not interested in continuing with the pregnancy. In such a situation whether the child to be born is viable or if the child would be a healthy child are not relevant considerations. What is to be focused upon is, whether, the pregnant lady intends to give birth to a child or not," Justice Nagarathna said.
28 Years After Applying, Man To Get Job In Postal Dept At 50 Years Age Due To Supreme Court's Order
Case Title: Union Of India v. Uzair Imran & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 882
The Court held “Once a candidate is declared ineligible to participate in the selection process at the threshold and if he still wishes to participate in the process perceiving that his candidature has been arbitrarily rejected, it is for him to work out his remedy in accordance with law. However, if the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately his name figures in the merit list though such a candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment, he does have a limited right of being accorded fair and non-discriminatory treatment.”
Delay & Laches Vital In Service Matters, Can Be Seen As Acquiescence: Supreme Court
Case Title: Bichitrananda Behera V. State Of Orissa And Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 883
The Supreme Court, while rejecting the belated service-related claim made by one Bichitrananda Behera pertaining to the post of Physical Education Trainer, held that ground of delay and laches in such cases amounts to acquiescence which means an implied and reluctant consent to an act.
Case Title: Commissioner, Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Patna v. M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd; Union of India v.M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 885
In an interesting judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Indian Institute of Technology and the National Institute of Technology will come under the Mega Service Tax Exemption Notification issued by the Department of Revenue in 2012(and amended and clarified by a subsequent notification issued in 2014).
"Going by the golden rule of interpretation that words should be read in their ordinary, natural, and grammatical meaning, the word “or” in clause 2(s) clearly appears to us to have been used to reflect the ordinary and normal sense, that is to denote an alternative, giving a choice; and, we cannot assign it a different meaning unless it leads to vagueness or makes clause 2(s) absolutely unworkable," the judgment stated.
Case title: MC Mehta v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 886
The Supreme Court has constituted a Judicial Committee with two retired judges to deal with the challenges to the orders passed by the Monitoring Committee in relation to sealing/desealing of properties in Delhi.
The members of the Committee are: 1) Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, retired Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, and 2) Justice G.S. Sistani, retired Judge of the Delhi High Court.
Case Title: STATE OF U.P. & ANR v. EHSAN & ANR., CIVIL APPEAL NO.5721 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated October 13, 2023, opined that one of the compelling reasons for relegating the writ petitioner to an alternative remedy may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion.
The Court reiterated that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/S. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited v. M/S. Gayatri Shakti Paper And Board Limited And Another, Etc.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 888
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, has held in cases where a Captive Generating Plant (CGP) has more than one user and fluctuating shareholding or any change in ownership, shareholding, or consumption occurs, the principle of “Weighted Average” should be applied to determine the proportional electricity consumption of each user, in terms of second proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of Electricity Rules, 2005.
Case Title: Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 266-267 Of 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 889
The Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on Friday (13.10.2023) held that just because a person is educated and said to be God-fearing, it cannot be said that the person has a positive reputation.
“A court of law cannot declare the reputation of a person based upon its own opinion merely because a person is educated and said to be God-fearing, that by itself will not create a positive reputation,” the Apex Court said
NDPS Act | If Samples Are Drawn Violating Section 52A, Trial Stands Vitiated: Supreme Court
Case Title: Yusuf @ Asif V. State, Criminal Appeal No.3191 Of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 890
The Supreme Court on Friday (13.10.2023), set aside the order of the High Court that had sentenced a man to 10 years’ imprisonment for being found in possession of commercial quantities of heroin. The Apex Court set aside the order on the ground that the NCB authorities failed to show that the seized contraband were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate and that the inventory of the seized contraband was duly certified by the Magistrate as mandated under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Principles Relating To Plea & Alibi & Delaying In Registering FIR: Supreme Court Explains
Case Title: KAMAL PRASAD & ORS v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 891
It is worth mentioning, that the Court, in its judgment, has meticulously penned down several principles pertaining to the plea of alibi. These principles have been driven by various landmark decisions including Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220; and Vijay Pal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2015) 4 SCC 749.
Case Title: We the Women of India v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 892
The Supreme Court has underlined that the State has the obligation to provide 'support persons' as per the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2023 to child victims of sexual offences and that the appointment of support persons cannot be made optional. The need for support persons should not be left to the discretion of the parents of the child victims, the Court stated.
Case title: UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani(Dead) Thr LRs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 893
The Supreme Court recently held that disciplinary proceedings are considered to begin only after the service of a chargesheet and not show cause notice as per the United Commercial Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976.
The Court reiterated the principles laid in UCO Bank v. Rajender Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694(Rajender Lal Capoor -I), Rajendra Lal Capoor-II and finally approved by a 3-judge bench in Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam, (2016) 12 SCC 724 that the regulations(The United Commercial Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976) could be invoked only if disciplinary proceedings had been initiated before the employee's service came to an end. Disciplinary proceedings are considered to have begun only when the chargesheet is issued and not merely upon the issuing of a show-cause notice.
Case Title: Vishal Chelani and Others v. Debashis Nanda
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 894
The Supreme Court has held that homebuyers cannot be treated differently from other "financial creditors" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 just because they have secured orders from the authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016.
Case Title: X v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 840
The Supreme Court today (16.10.2023) rejected the plea of a married woman to abort her third pregnancy which has crossed 26-week on the ground that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis after her previous delivery in September 2022. The order was passed by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
Decide Remission Applications Without Delay: Supreme Court To Chhattisgarh Govt
Case title: Chain Singh v. State of Chattisgarh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 895
In a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India, a case involving the belated grant of permanent remission, the Court urged the Chhattisgarh State Government to ensure that such cases are considered without unnecessary delays, following the government's policy. The Court noted that the petitioner was released and the Secretary had tendered his apology for belated remission.
Case Title: M/S Triveni Glass Limited v COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.
Case No.: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 896
The Supreme Court has held that ‘Tinted Glass Sheet’ is different from ‘Plain Glass sheet’ and is thus liable to be taxed as “goods or wares made of glass” under Entry 4 of Notification No.5784 dated 07.09.1981, issued by State Government. Accordingly, the manufacturer of Tinted Glass is liable to pay tax @15% on such goods.
The Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, observed that, “There is no vagueness in the notification dated 07.09.1981 and the entry No. 4 is clear and unambiguous namely it has brought within the sweep “all goods and wares made of glass” eligible to tax but not including “plain glass panes” and the exemption being the creation of the statute itself, it has to be construed strictly and even if there is any vagueness in the exemption clause must go to the benefit of the revenue.”
Case Details: Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 897
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 16) upheld the practice of designating senior advocates, affirming the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
The Supreme Court on 17.10.2023 refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India saying that it is a matter for the legislature to decide. However, all the judges on the bench agreed that the Union of India, as per its earlier statement, shall constitute a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in the queer union, without legal recognition of their relationship as a "marriage".
The Court also unanimously held that queer couples have a right to cohabit without any threat of violence, coercion or interference; but refrained from passing any directions to formally recognize such relationships as marriages.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
The Supreme Court today refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India. The Constitution bench has pronounced four judgments– written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice PS Narasimha respectively, with Justice Hima Kohli concurring with the view of Justice Bhat. Along with this, the Supreme Court also declined the right of adoption to queer couples by a 3:2 majority.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
While refusing to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India, the Supreme Court today affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have a right to marry as per the existing statutory laws or personal laws.
The Constitution bench pronounced four judgements– written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha respectively, with Justice Hima Kohli concurring with the view of Justice Bhat.
Queerness Not An Urban, Elitist Concept: Supreme Court Declares
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
Stating that the court could not step into the domain of the legislature, the Supreme Court today refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India. The Constitution bench pronounced four judgments– written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha respectively, with Justice Hima Kohli concurring with the view of Justice Bhat.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
Even though the Supreme Court refrained from granting legal recognition for same-sex marriages, it did make a strong call to the State to take steps to end the discrimination faced by queer couples and to ensure protection for their right to cohabitation.
The Court observed that the discrimination faced by the queer community due to the exclusion of same-sex partners from welfare measures due to the heteronormative definitions in laws must be addressed by the State.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
"There is a degree of agreement and a degree of disagreement on how far we have to go," remarked CJI DY Chandrachud as he commenced the pronouncement of the judgment denying the grant of legal recognition for queer marriages in India in open court yesterday.
With four separate judgments authored by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice PS Narasimha, a lot seems to be clarified on these "agreements and disagreements" of the bench on crucial questions of law.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
On October 17, 2023, a Supreme Court Constitution Bench unanimously held that it could not strike down or read down the provisions of the Special Marriage Act (SMA),1954 to include non-heterosexual unions within the ambit of 'marriage'. In doing so, the Supreme Court effectively denied legal recognition for queer marriages in India.
Despite the Constitution bench having pronounced four judgments– written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha respectively, with Justice Hima Kohli concurring with the view of Justice Bhat, all five judges, in one voice, agreed to not strike or read the SMA down.
The court stated that reading the provisions of the SMA to bring within its fold queer marriages would amount to a legislative exercise which fell exclusively within the domain of the Parliament.
Consumer Disputes Are Non-Arbitrable, Consumers Can't Be Compelled Into Arbitration: Supreme Court
Case Title: M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors V. B. Udayasri
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902
The Supreme Court recently held that consumer disputes are nonarbitrable disputes and a party cannot be compelled into arbitration just because they are a signatory to an arbitration agreement.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a piece of welfare legislation with the primary purpose of protecting the interest of a consumer.
Case title: Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903
The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the conditions of disabilities falling within defined categories and meeting the criteria of "benchmark disabilities" under the Right to Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (RPwD Act). While hearing a case of a person with colour blindness who was denied appointment in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), the Court said that these conditions were creating barriers and advocated the need to adopt a different yardstick.
Case title: Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 16) granted relief to a person with 'colour blindness' by directing the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) to appoint him as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) at an appropriate grade of pay.
Case Title: Priyanka Kumari V. Shailendra Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 904
The Supreme Court recently held that when notice is returned as ‘unclaimed’, it shall be deemed to be served on the addressee and considered proper service. The Apex Court also clarified that the word ‘refusal’ can be interpreted as synonymous to the word ‘unclaimed’.
Case Title: M/S Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College Of Visual Arts V. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 905
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court recently determined the legal position pertaining to the clubbing of different institutes for the purpose of coverage under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act).
After referring to several decisions with respect to the subject matter, the Court concluded that there is a financial integrity between the two institutes and thus, they can be interconnected and can be clubbed for the purpose of coverage.
Case Title: Yamini Manohar v. TKD Keerthi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 906
While reiterating the mandatory nature of Section 12A of the Commercial Suits Act, which mandates pre-litigation mediation unless the suit contemplates urgent relief, the Supreme Court stated that plaintiff has no absolute choice to avoid pre-litigation mediation by merely making a prayer for urgent interim relief.
Principles To Be Followed In Case Of Multiple Dying Declarations: Supreme Court Explains
Case title: Abhishek Sharma v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 907
The Supreme Court recently laid down the principles to be followed in cases where there are multiple dying declarations. The Court delved into the circumstances where the extent of burn injuries was considered when evaluating the credibility of dying declarations. The Court also clarified that evidence given by interested witnesses should be corroborated by an independent witness.
Case Details: Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Criminal Appeal Nos. 489-490 of 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 908
The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 19) set aside the conviction and death sentence of a man accused of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a three-month-old infant after noting that he had not been give a 'proper opportunity' to defend himself. The trial had hit the headlines after being concluded in a record 23 days from the date of the offence.
Case Title: M/S CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED vs. M/S TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS JV, C.A. No. 4591/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 909
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has held that unilateral revision of fee by an arbitral tribunal, though not permissible, will not terminate its mandate on the ground of ineligibility as per Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
States/UTs Must Notify 'District Officers' Under POSH Act: Supreme Court Issues Slew Of Directions
Case Title: Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 910
The Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions to the Union government, and all State/UT governments to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) read with its Rules.
Significant among them is the mandatory direction issued by the Court that the States and Union Territories must appoint a "District Officer" as per Section 5 of the Act.
Case Title: Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) New Delhi v. M/s Nestle SA C.A. No. 1420/2023 + ten connected appeals
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 911
The Supreme Court has held that a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) cannot be given effect to by a court, authority or tribunal unless it has been notified by the Central Government under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act.
The Court held that until the Government of India issues a notification as per Section 90, the DTAA treaty is not enforceable per se in Indian courts
Case Title : Dasanglu Pul vs Lupalam Kri
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 912
The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 19) set aside the judgment of the Gauhati High Court which invalidated the election of BJP MLA from Arunachal Pradesh Dasanglu Pul to the State Assembly in 2019.
Case Title: SURINDER PAL SINGH v. VIJAYA BANK & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 913
The Supreme Court, while deciding an appeal, settled the issue of right of redemption of a mortgaged property by a borrower under the unamended Section 13 (8) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
Case Title: Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914
The Supreme Court has held that the ‘Doctrine of Election’ cannot be applied to prevent a Financial Creditor from approaching the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against a Corporate Debtor, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The Doctrine of Election is embodied in the law of evidence, which bars prosecution of the same right in two different fora based on the same cause of action.
Case title: Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915
In a heartwrenching case, where a girl committed suicide by setting herself on fire due to physical and mental torture committed by her in-laws demanding dowry, the Supreme Court convicted the appellants under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 498A(cruelty against a married woman)read with Section 34 IPC based on the dying declaration made by her.
Her dying declaration even while suffering burn injuries(70-80%) proved critical in the end, even as her own father and all other witnesses had turned hostile in this case.
Read 12 Directions Issued by Supreme Court For Speedy Trial of Civil Cases
Case Title: Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and others
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916
Expressing serious concerns at the pendency of cases in the country, the Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directions to ensure the speedy disposal of cases.
Case: Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916
A bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar issued eleven directions to the high courts to ensure speedy trial and to monitor the disposal of cases, especially those pending for over five years.
Case Title: Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India, Writ Petition(Civil) No. 324/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917
The Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions to the Union and the State Governments to ensure that the abhorrent practice of manual scavenging is totally put to an end by strict implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
The Court directed that the process of manual cleaning of sewers is completely eradicated and to ensure that no individual has to manually enter sewers for any purpose
Case Title: Dr.Balram Singh v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 20) issued a categorical direction to the Union Government and all State Governments to ensure the complete eradication of the practice of manual scavenging.
Expressing grave anguish at the continuance of this abhorrent practice in India, the Supreme Court directed that the compensation in cases of sewer deaths must be increased to Rs.30 lakhs. In cases of permanent disablement arising from sewer operations, the Court directed the increase of compensation to Rupees 20 lakhs and for other forms of disablement, the compensation must be not less than Rs 10 lakhs.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu And Puducherry Paper Cup Manufactures Association V. State Of Tamil Nadu, Civil Appeal No. 8536 Of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918
The Supreme Court on Friday (20.10.2023) refused to interfere with the order of the Madras High Court that upheld the ban on reinforced paper cups introduced in Tamil Nadu in 2019. However, the Apex Court directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to re-consider the ban on non-woven bags afresh in the light of the amended Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 wherein the Centre has regulated its use instead of imposing a complete ban.
Case Title: Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914
The Supreme Court has held that in a composite application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) based on several Recovery Certificates issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal, if any of the Recovery Certificate(s) is barred by limitation, then the same can be segregated from composite claim. However, as the decree (Recovery Certificate) would still be alive, it can be treated as a claim made in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in view of Public Announcement.
Case Title: M/S UNIBROS v. ALL INDIA RADIO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918
Recently, the Supreme Court, while rendering an arbitral award as patently illegal and being in conflict with the “public policy of India”, held that a claim for damages cannot as a matter of course result in an arbitral award without proof of the claimant having suffered injury. The present decision emphasised the importance of substantial evidence in awarding claims for loss of profit.
“A claim for damages, whether general or special, cannot as a matter of course result in an award without proof of the claimant having suffered injury. The arbitral award in question, in our opinion, is patently illegal in that it is based on no evidence and is, thus, outrightly perverse; therefore, again, it is in conflict with the “public policy of India” as contemplated by section 34(2)(b) of the Act.,” Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta.
Case Title: Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, Civil Appeal No.6565 Of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919
In the context of tenancy laws, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 ( Extension of prescribed period in certain cases) cannot be used to extend the time limit prescribed, when a lesser time period has been specifically provided under the relevant act for a particular purpose.
Case Title: MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF V. M/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920
After a prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court, in a noteworthy judgment, finally granted relief to the owner of a suit property (Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf) in favour of whom the decree was already granted back in 2002.
In a judgment authored by Justice M. M. Sundresh, it called out the dilatory tactics adopted by respondents while setting aside the impugned order and restoring the order passed by the executing court in favour of appellant/ suit property owner.
Case Details: Manmohan Gopal V. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 921
The Supreme Court recently directed sale of ancestral property of a man to pay arrears of maintenance of Rs. 1.25 Crores to his wife under its inherent powers under Article 142.
A bench of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar relied on decisions of the Apex Court in Subrata Roy Sahara V Union Of India [2014] 12 SCR 573 and Delhi Development Authority V. Skipper Construction 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 295 to observe that the Supreme Court is not powerless, but can issue appropriate directions, and even decrees, for doing complete justice between the parties.
Judges Taking Up Cases Not Assigned By Chief Justice Is An Act Of 'Gross Impropriety': Supreme Court
Case Title: Ambalal Parihar vs State of Rajasthan and ors, Criminal Appeal No.3233 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 922
The Supreme Court recently said that the judges should refrain from taking up cases not specifically assigned to them by the Chief Justice of the Court. If not, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning, the Court said.
The Apex Court said that taking up cases not assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of 'gross impropriety'.
“If the Courts allow such sharp practices, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning. The Judges have to follow discipline and ought not to take up any case unless it is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. A Judge can take up a case provided either the cases of that category have been assigned to him as per the notified roster or the particular case is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. Taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety” a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal said.
Case title: Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 924
The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of conspiring to murder his wife after she refused consent for mutual divorce, upon noticing the "sudden somersault" taken by vital witnesses like the deceased's family members and the accused's history of using influence of police and goons.
The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 311 of CrPC to order a fresh examination of witnesses.
Case Title: Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited V. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 925
The Supreme Court has expressed surprise at an order of the Bombay High Court that first admitted a writ petition but then refused to consider prayer for interim relief on the ground that an alternate remedy was available to the party.
The Apex Court remitted the matter back to the High Court directing it to consider whether the interim relief needs to be granted or not
Case Title: Mrs. Kalyani Rajan v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 10347 Of 2010
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 926
The Supreme Court while deciding a case of medical negligence held that principles of Res Ipsa Locutor get attracted where circumstances strongly suggest partaking in negligent behaviour by the person against whom an accusation of negligence is made. Res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself”.
State Amendments Made To VAT Acts After GST Came Into Effect Are Invalid: Supreme Court
Case Title: The State of Telangana & Ors. V. M/S Tirumala Constructions., Civil Appeal No(S). 1628 Of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 927
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while deciding the appeals arising from judgments of Telangana, Gujarat, and Bombay High Court with respect to the validity of VAT Amendment Act in their respective states, made several significant findings regarding Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act (Amendment), 2016, which allowed the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax.
The Court held: “The amendments in question, made to the Telangana VAT Act, and the Gujarat VAT Act, after 01.07.2017 were correctly held void, for want of legislative competence, by the two High Courts (Telangana and Gujarat High Court). The judgment of the Bombay High Court is, for the above reasons, held to be in error; it is set aside; the amendment to the Maharashtra Act, to the extent it required pre-deposit is held void.”
Case Title: Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 929
Rents receivable by a borrower can be assigned to a lender as an "actionable claim" as per the Transfer of Property Act,1882(TPA), held the Supreme Court while deciding a dispute between the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd and the HDFC Bank Ltd.
The bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed that under Section 3 of TPA, actionable claim means (a) claim to an unsecured debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property, hypothecation or pledge; and (b) beneficial interest in a movable property. Both these are recognised as enforceable. Section 130 of TPA provides the manner in which Actionable claims can be transferred.
Case Title: URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER V. GORDHAN DASS (D) THROUGH LRs.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 930
The Supreme Court recently delivered a split verdict on whether notice must be given to possessors in a land acquisition proceeding by the acquiring authority under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, when their names were not reflected in the revenue records, despite having the land.
Justice Misra was of the view that if the name of the owner is not reflected on the land records, the state is not expected to make a roving inquiry into the same. In such a case, serving notice on the owners entered in the land records is sufficient compliance of the statutory obligation, he held.
However, Justice Roy held that even though land acquisition by acquiring authority is permitted for public purposes, not adhering to the procedure prescribed, could prejudice the landowners and other interested persons.
Case Title: M.A Biviji v. Sunita & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931
The Supreme Court, while hearing a set of appeals pertaining to the medical negligence matter, observed that to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. This is to ensure that these doctors are focused on deciding the best course of treatment as per their assessment rather than being concerned about possible persecution or harassment that they may be subjected to in high-risk medical situations.
Case Details: Indrakunwar v.State of Chattisgarh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932
While deciding a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court recently considered a significant question of law- whether an accused woman is required to disclose aspects relating to her private life in a criminal trial.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed by a woman who was accused of killing her own child and was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In the context of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court said: "Although there is a requirement by law to disclose the aspects required to adjudicate in a criminal matter such duty cannot unreasonably and unwarrantedly step over the fundamental right of privacy.
Case Title: SABBIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS V. ANJUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 933
The Supreme Court, while dismissing a suit, arising from an Agreement to Sell (ATS), noted that while the ATS was dated 31.07.1975, the suit was filed by the respondent named Anjuman (now represented through legal heirs) on 01.01.1981. Further, the limitation for filing a suit for specific performance, as per Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 is 3 years ‘from the date fixed for performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused.’
Case Details: INDRAKUNWAR V. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Recently, the Supreme Court, in a noteworthy judgment, while acquitting a woman accused of killing her own child and was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, also decided the question of what may be required of the convict in her statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C).
Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 934
In the judgment denying bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in relation to the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam, the Supreme Court observed that the allegation of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) that kickback of Rs.100 crores were received from the liquor group, and used by the associates of Sisodia and other leaders of AAP is "somewhat a matter of debate.
If Trial Is Delayed For No Fault Of Accused, Courts Must Consider Grant Of Bail: Supreme Court
Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 934
Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial, said the Supreme Court in the judgment refusing bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi liquor policy scam case.
The Court in its judgment has emphasised that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that, if the trial is unnecessarily delayed for no fault of the accused, the court must exercise its power to grant bail. The Court observed that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial.
Case Details: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 934
The Supreme Court, even while denying bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy case, refused to accept the Enforcement Directorate's contention that even mere generation of the proceeds of crime could constitute a money laundering offence. The central agency had drawn support from the Y Balaji ruling, in which an argument that such generation would not be sufficient to constitute an offence of money laundering was rejected as 'preposterous'.
Case Title: Bhisham Lal Verma V. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 935
The Supreme Court on Monday (30th October) held that a second petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition would not be maintainable.
Case Details: Pradeep Mehra V. Harijivan J. Jethwa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 936
Lamenting the long delay in the execution of decrees, the Supreme Court observed that under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Executing Court can only go into questions that are limited to the execution of decree and can never go behind the decree.
As per Section 47, all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
Case title: Manak Chand v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937
A false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation, and damage to the accused as well, said the Supreme Court while acquitting a man in a case for the offence of rape (Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code).
While a conviction in a rape case can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, the Court said that caution and diligence must be exercised in evaluating her statements.
Case Title: IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Geeta Devi and others., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19992 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 938
The Supreme Court on Monday (30th October) held that an insurance company cannot claim that it is not liable to pay compensation in a motor vehicle accident claim just because the vehicle owner did not verify the genuineness of the driving licence of the driver employed.
The Court said that the burden is on the insurance company to prove that there was a failure on the part of the vehicle owner in carrying out due diligence with regard to the drivers’ licence of the driver employed.
Case title: Sanjay Agarwal v. State Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 939
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 31) dismissed a batch of review petitions filed against a 2022 judgment which held that the definition of a secured creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 included any government or governmental authority and that a resolution plan which ignored dues to the government was liable to be rejected.
Plaint Cannot Be Rejected In Part Under Order VII Rule 11 Of CPC: Supreme Court
Case Title: KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS v. NANJUNDASWAMY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 940
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (31.10.2023) held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court also reiterated that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
“In simple terms, the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true. Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must fail. To put it negatively, where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be rejected” a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.
Case Title: Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 942
The Supreme Court today (October 30) expressed its dissatisfaction with the failure of States and the Union to fill up the vacancies of Information Commissions across the country. The court directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to prepare a chart on the number of vacancies and number of appeals/complaints in all the commissions. Further, it directed the Centre and the States to take requisite steps forthwith to fill up the vacancies.
Case Details: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 944
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 30) refused to grant bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia who is facing money laundering and corruption charges over alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped liquor policy in the national capital.
"Legal questions have been answered in a limited way. In the analysis, there are certain aspects, which we said are doubtful. But one aspect, with regard to transfer of money, Rs 338 crores, is tentatively established. We have therefore dismissed the application for bail," Justice Khanna said today, while pronouncing the order. He continued, "We are dismissing the application for bail, but we have made one pointed observation which is that they have assured that the trial will be concluded within six to eight months. So within three months, if the trial proceeds sloppily or slowly, he'll be entitled to file an application for bail."
News Updates
Supreme Court Issues Notice In PIL Seeking For Free Treatment For Children With Muscular Dystrophy
Case Title: Ratnesh Kumar Jigyasu And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1012/2023 PIL-W
The Supreme Court on Friday (06.10.2023) issued a notice in a petition seeking to commence a national program for the treatment of children with muscular dystrophy. The petition further sought for the formulation of a standard policy for issuing unique ID cards to patients of muscular dystrophy to enable them to get free treatment at any government or private hospital.
At a conclave organized by the online news portal, 'The South First' at Bengaluru, a member in the audience asked Justice Muralidhar about the perception that his order in the Delhi riots case cost him the elevation to the Supreme Court
Justice Muralidhar replied: "So, what is that upset the government, I am as clueless as you are, if at all they were upset. I only have this to say. It does not matter, because many did people feel that it was the right thing to do. In fact, it was. I was later told that many lives were saved with that intervention by the Court," Justice Muralidhar said.
Case Details: Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016
Alleging governmental inaction despite the Tehseen Poonawalla ruling, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves on Friday urged the Supreme Court to direct state governments to upload compliance data, including those pertaining to the appointment of nodal officers, on their official websites. While deferring the hearing on the request, the court observed that the counter-affidavits filed by some of the states demonstrated an 'active effort' on their part.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Upper Age Limit Relaxation For J&K Civil Judge Examination
Case Title: Mridulla Kirti and others v. High Court of J&K and Ladakh
Citation: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).41379/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 6) dismissed a petition seeking relaxation of the upper age limit of 35 years for the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Judge(Junior Division) Examination 2023/
Challenges To India's Bail System: Justice Akil Kureshi and Senior Advocate Rebecca John Discuss
Former Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court Justice Akhil Kureshi, speaking at a panel discussion titled ‘Untangling Bail Cases,’ said that there are two main challenges to bail cases: a. limited resources b. systematic flaws.
While discussing these challenges, Justice Kureshi also spoke about the ways to improve. “We need better and more judges, good legal aid support, prosecutors in sufficient number,” he stated.
Will Constitute 7-Judge Bench Soon To Hear Money Bills Issue, Says CJI DY Chandrachud
Today, the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud orally remarked that he would soon be constituting a seven-judge bench to hear the constitutional issue regarding money bills. The remark was made when Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra raised the issue and stated–
"This is about the money bills. The specific challenge is to the PMLA. A seven-judge bench was to be constituted."
Case Details: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16942 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the hearing of a batch of pleas challenging the constitutionality of the caste-based survey conducted by the Bihar government till January 2024. Notably, the court refused to pass any order of stay or status quo to restrain the State from acting on the caste survey data.
"We cannot stop state government or any government from taking a decision," a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti orally observed today.
Case title: Bhattulal Jain v. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1044/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 6) issued notice on a writ petition challenging the cash assistance offers announced by the Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan as 'election freebies'.
The bench issued a notice to the Union of India, the States of Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh, and the Election Commission of India and posted the matter after four weeks
Case Title: Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court| Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 351/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (06.10.2023) directed all High Courts to ensure that no member of the bar is denied access to video conferencing facilities or hearing through hybrid facility. The Apex Court has given all High Courts two weeks' time to comply with its order.
"After the lapse of two weeks from this order, no High Court shall deny access to video conference facility or hearing through hybrid facility to any member of the bar." the Court ordered
In relation to the defamation case filed by Professor Amrita Singh against 'The Wire', the Jawaharlal Nehru University(JNU) informed the Supreme Court on Friday (October 6) that it has not received any dossier which was allegedly prepared by Professor Singh describing the University as a "den of organised sex racket".
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday(October 6) stayed the additional financial emoluments of the interim vice-chancellors appointed to state-run universities by West Bengal Governor CV Anand Bose during the pendency of a plea by the state government challenging earlier appointments made by him. Noting the increasing friction between the Mamata Banerjee-led government and Governor Bose over the issue of the vice-chancellor appointments, the court also stressed the need for reconciliation "in the interest of educational institutions and the future careers of lakhs of students"
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressed happiness at the trend of more women getting appointed in district judiciary across the country. Before starting the court proceedings today, CJI said that he has a happy news to announce. Referring to 75 newly recruited civil judges of Maharashtra, who were present in Court No.1 today, CJI said :
"We wish to share a happy news. We have a batch of 75 judges of junior division from Maharashtra. Out of a batch of 75 young judges 42 are women. Of 5 direct recruits - 2 are women."
During the hearing presided over by a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti. The bench was considering two petitions filed by Sisodia, challenging the decisions of the Delhi High Court, which had previously denied him bail in connection with the investigations being conducted by the CBI and the ED.
Regarding allegations under the PMLA Act, Justice Khanna stated–
"Manish Sisodia is not involved in all this. Vijay Nair is there but Manish Sisodia is not in this part. How will you bring him under money laundering act? The money is not going to him. In case it is a company with whom he is involved, then we have vicarious liability. Otherwise the prosecution falters. Money laundering is entirely a different offence...We have to show that he is in possession of that property. You will have to go to the exact wording of the section and show how will you bring him in."
A constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on whether members of parliament and legislative assemblies could claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in contemplation of a vote or speech in the legislature.
A seven-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra is considering the correctness of the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment that was referred last month to a larger bench of seven judges.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, judge of the Supreme Court, participated in the 12th International Legal Forum of the Asia-Pacific Region on Thursday (October 5). The topic of the forum was, "Balance of Protection of National Interests and Rights of Participants of International Economic Relations".
In his address, Justice Kaul said that the judiciary should exercise restraint in interfering with awards passed by adjudicatory bodies under the Bilateral Investment Treaties. He said that usually, bilateral agreements provide for disputes to be resolved through arbitration. There have also been proposals to set up an investment court. Regardless of which method is adopted, Justice Kaul said, dispute resolution must become seamless to give investors the confidence they need to make investments uninhibitedly.
Case Title: Md Imran Ahmad and others v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 854
The Central Government has informed the Supreme Court that reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes will be given in temporary appointments which are to last for 45 days or more. It further said that instructions have been issued to all Ministries and Departments to strictly implement this reservation in temporary posts.
In A Historic First, Supreme Court Appoints Sign Language Interpreter For Deaf Lawyer
The Supreme Court on Friday appointed a sign language interpreter for deaf lawyer Sarah Sunny. Historically, the Supreme Court has never appointed an interpreter at its own expense.
"We have an interpreter today for Sarah. In fact, we are thinking that for the constitution bench hearings, we will have an interpreter so that everyone can follow", Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said. The interpreter was seen in the virtual hearing window along with Advocate Sarah Sunny.
The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 5) clarified that the question raised by it yesterday during the bail hearing of Manish Sisodia regarding the 'political party', which is alleged to be beneficiary, not being made an accused in the Delhi liquor policy scam case, was not meant to implicate anyone.
The Supreme Court on Thursday (05.10.2023) while considering a plea for medical termination of pregnancy of a married woman who is beyond 24 weeks pregnant, orally remarked that if such a plea is allowed it will open the doors of the Supreme Court to parents who get ‘cold feet’ in the last minute.
Case Title: Mohammed Faizal V U.T Administration of Lakshadweep
Disqualified Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal, belonging to the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), has approached the Supreme Court against the order of the Kerala High Court refusing to suspend his conviction in a case of attempt to murder passed on 3rd October. The Kerala High Court, however, had suspended his sentence of imprisonment.
Case Title: Somya Sanjay And Ors. v. National Law University Tripura Agartala And Ors.
Citation: WP(C) No. 41/2023
The Supreme Court recently asked the Consortium of the National Law Universities if the NLUs could accommodate students who had applied for admission in the National Law University Tripura for the academic year 2023-24.
The Court noted with dismay that the NLU Tripura could not commence its operations for the academic year 2022-23 due to a lack of facilities and teachers and all the 90 students who had been admission were given a refund of the fees. It described this state of affairs "unsatisfactory situation"
Case title: Mah.Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors., Citation: Civil Appeal No(S). 2502/2022
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 3) expressed doubts about the proposition that it can decide caste claims as a fact-finding Court. The Court was pondering on the further course of action in a batch of appeals raising the question of caste claims (Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. The State of Maharashtra and ors). In this matter, the Full Bench of the Apex Court recently held that an ‘affinity test’ is not an essential part of determining the correctness of a Caste/Tribe claim.
Case Details: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8167 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (04.09.2023,) while hearing the plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia against the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) over the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam, asked why the political party, which is alleged to be a beneficiary, is not made an accused in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Case Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara And Ors. v. UoI And Ors.
Citation: WP(C) No. 320/2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 4) reserved its judgment in a plea challenging the system of designating advocates as “senior” under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Act).
The petition was moved by Advocate, Mathews J. Nedumpara, who argued that such designation has created a class of advocates with special rights and the same has been seen as reserved only for the kith and kin of judges and senior advocates, politicians, ministers etc., resulting in the legal industry being “monopolized”.
In the wake of a series of raids by the Delhi police into the residences of journalists and writers associated with 'Newsclick', the Press Club of India and several other media organizations have written to the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud asking the judiciary to step in and put an end to the repressive use of investigating agencies against the media. They have sought for guidelines from the judiciary on police seizures of the electronic devices of journalists.
Case Title: State of Haryana Department of Irrigation The Secretary v. State of Punjab
Citation: Original Suit No. 6/1996
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while resuming its hearing in relation to the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute, came down heavily on the Punjab Government for not finding a solution to complete the construction of the canal. It further directed the Union of India to survey the portion of the land of Punjab allocated for the project and suggested finding an estimate for the extent of construction carried out by the Punjab Government.
A constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned whether immunity should be granted to legislators accused of corruption, merely on an apprehension that the absence of such immunity could be misused by the executive to target political opposition
Case Title: MOOSA @ TADA MOOSA @ MOOSA MOHIDEEN AND ANR v. Versus THE STATE REP. BY THE AD.S.P.SIT CBCID
Citation: Crl. A. No. 1205-1208/2011
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 4) denied bail to the life convicts involved in the Coimbatore serial bomb blast case, and refused to grant any relief.
The present matter, which revolved around the 1998 Coimbatore serial bomb blasts in which 58 people were killed and over 200 others injured, was heard by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and C.T. Ravikumar.
Case Details: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14275 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a firm reminder to the Allahabad High Court's registry to send requisite information and documents regarding the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, which is currently being heard by the high court. The mosque committee's lawyer also told the court that the filing of the suits praying for various reliefs with respect to the land dispute was a recent occurrence motivated by 'outsiders', even though different religious communities have lived in the region in communal harmony for the last 50 years
Case Title: Ajay Gautam V. Versus Delhi State Advisory Board For Animal Welfare And Anr., Citation: SLP(C) No. 16576/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 3) refused to entertain a petition seeking directions to be issued to Delhi State Advisory Board for Animal Welfare to ensure that no cattle markets are held in Delhi without obtaining prior permission of the competent authorities as per law on the occasion of Bakra-eid. Apart from this, petitioner sought for direction to strictly implement and enforce provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017.
Supreme Court Dismisses Hindu Personal Law Board's Plea To Declare 'Ram Setu' As National Monument
Case Title: Hindu Personal Law Board Through Its President Ashok Pandey Petitioner-In-Person Versus Union Of India And Ors, Diary No. 12741-2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 3) dismissed a plea seeking the construction of a wall at the Ram Setu site ‘in the sea’ for a few meters/kilometers so that everyone can have its its ‘Darshan’.
Case title: Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union Of India W.P.(C) No. 856/2023, Gaurav v. Union of India SLP C 18017/2023
The Supreme Court today ruled in favor of a candidate with cerebral palsy, declaring him eligible for reservation under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) Act, 2016 for admission in the MBBS course. The candidate was declared eligible by the expert board of AIIMS constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the Court earlier on 22nd September 2023.
The Court observed, “By cryptic and unreasoned opinion, the board rejected his claim that he should be considered as PwD and thus entitled to reservation. This court by its order dated 22nd September, 2023 was of the opinion that the expert report was insufficient and that it didn't contain any reasons why the appellant could not be considered disabled. Pursuant to the directions, the board again met and furnished reasons on 27th Sep and considered him eligible. The expert opinion has not been disputed by the respondent. The appellant is declared to be entitled to be eligible- treated as PWD and consequently his application has to be considered in such terms, on its merits, and processed accordingly.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement V Raman Bhuraria
Citation: Diary No.- 23447 - 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally remarked that imposing a bail condition requiring an accused to drop his Google pin location from his mobile phone to the Investigation Officer concerned throughout the period of his bail, is prima facie violative of his right to privacy
Case title: Shahin Ahmad v. State of UP
Citation: SLP(C) No. 014027 - / 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (3rd Oct) ordered that the Child Welfare Committee shall consider the issue of release of the minor sons of slain gangster-politician Atiq Ahmad afresh in light of the report prepared by the support person which indicated that they don’t wish to stay in the childcare institution.
Case Title: Greeshma @Sreekutty V. State of Kerala
The prime accused in the Sharon Murder case, Greeshma has approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of trial from Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala to Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu. Sharon Raj was allegedly poisoned by his girlfriend Greeshma to weasel out of their romantic relationship. Her mother and maternal uncle are also arrayed as co-accused for allegedly abetting the crime and for destroying the evidence.
Case Title: Supriyo v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
The Supreme Court is soon to deliver its judgment on the batch of petitions seeking legal recognition for queer marriages in India. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha had started hearing the matter on April 18 and reserved judgement in the matter on May 11, 2023. With Justice Bhat set to retire on October 20, 2023, the judgement on marriage equality is expected to come out soon.
Case title- Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India| Aisha Noori v. Union of India
Citation: W.P. Crl. 177/2023| W.P. Crl. 280/2023
The PIL petitioner who approached the Supreme Court seeking independent investigation into the police encounter killings in Uttar Pradesh has refuted the statements made by the State in its status report.
Advocate Vishal Tiwari, the petitioner, in his rejoinder said, "Encounter killings are often celebrated as achievements by state police officials, further encouraging arbitrary and unconstitutional actions. This is evident in the out-of-turn promotions and gallantry awards granted to officers involved in such killings."
On October 2, 2023, the Supreme Court, along with the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), celebrated Gandhi Jayanti and Lal Bahadur Shastri Jayanti at New Delhi. The occasion was marked by a cleanliness drive and the garlanding of Mahatma Gandhi's statue and photograph of Lal Bahadur Shastri in the Supreme Court compound.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 3) imposed a cost of Rupees 3 Lakhs on sacked IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt while dismissing the petitions filed by him alleging bias and unfairness against the presiding judge who is holding the trial in the alleged drug planting case against him.
Case Details: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12289 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 3) posted to next Monday (October 9) the petition filed by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu seeking to quash the FIR in connection with the skill development scam case.
The Court asked the State to produce the entire compilation of documents filed before the High Court and listed the matter for 09.10.2023.
Case Title: Union of India v. M Mohamed Abbas
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 9384/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (03.10.2023) upheld the order of the Madras High Court granting bail to Mohammad Abbas, a Madurai based lawyer who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for his alleged links with the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) organization.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman delivered a lecture on "The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials - The Rule of Law Vindicated", in Nagpur.
Without looking at the victor or the vanquished, arraign those who are responsible for war crimes. For it is only then that we can as human beings look forward to universal world peace that has thus far eluded us and probably will elude us in the near future”, Justice Nariman said.
He said Soli Sorabjee's tenure as a law officer was marked by his fierce independence. He said, “After his appointment, Soli said he was the Attorney General for the country and not the government.”
Justice Vishwanathan read out a letter from Nani Palkhivala in which he wrote- “I meant to write to you for an appointment as Attorney General but after reading your public statement, I would like to congratulate India on having you as the highest law officer of the government.”
Case Title: Greeshma @Sreekutty V. State of Kerala
Citation: Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 757/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (13.10.2023) dismissed the plea filed by the prime accused in the Sharon Murder case, Greeshma, seeking transfer of the trial from Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala to Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu.
While defending the transfer of a judicial member of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani told the Supreme Court on Friday (October 13) that there is a "racket" conducting disability pension cases at the AFT.
The AG also questioned the genuineness of the petition filed by Armed Forces Tribunal Chandigarh Bar Association (AFTCBA) challenging the transfer of Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary from Chandigarh Bench to the Calcutta Bench of the AFT
Case Title: Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association Chandigarh v. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1121/2023
The Supreme Court today (13.10.2023) sought the response of the Union of India on a plea seeking to divest the control of the Armed Forces Tribunal from the Ministry of Defence. While the bench rejected the prayer challenging the transfer of Justice Chaudhary, it kept the prayer concerning control of the tribunal alive.
Case title: Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 12876/2023
The Court expressed its concern and voiced the need for essential changes in the rules and practices of criminal case proceedings.
"This Court is of the opinion, that appropriate changes in the rules of practice directions are necessary. This order be brought to the notice of the Secretary-General, Registrar Judicial for suitable action in this regard to enable that in future, all necessary and vital information is disclosed to save unnecessary wastage of time and avoid adjournments. This order shall also be brought to the notice of Chief Justice of India, it said.
NCLAT Bench Defied Supreme Court Order? Supreme Court Directs Enquiry By Chairperson
Case Title: Orbit Electricals Private Limited v. Deepak Kishan Chhabaria
Citation: Conmt. Pet (C) No.1195/2023 In C.A. No.6108/2023
The Supreme Court today (13.10.2023) directed for an inquiry to be conducted by the Chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on allegations that a bench of the NCLAT had defied an order of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Law To Ban Screening For Nursery School Admissions In Delhi
Case Title: SOCIAL JURIST v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: SLP(C) No. 022296 - / 2023
The Supreme Court, on October 13, dismissed the appeal challenging the Delhi High Court’s order wherein the Court refused to pass any appropriate writ pertaining to expedite the finalization of Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015, which prescribes for prohibition of screening procedure in the matter of admission of children at pre-primary level (nursery/pre-primary) in schools.
Case Details: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12289 of 2023
Objecting to former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu's plea for quashing of criminal proceedings in connection with a skill development scam in the state, the state police's crime investigation department (CID) cautioned the Supreme Court on Friday(October 13) against nipping the investigation at the bud at this stage. The state agency, in particular, emphasized the losses to the tune of hundreds of crores suffered by the public exchequer to highlight the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a probe.
Case Title: The Temple of Healing v. Union of India
Citation: WP(C) 1003/2021
The Supreme Court on Friday (13.10.2023), raised serious concerns over the delays in the adoption process and the potential impact on both aspiring parents and children in need of loving homes. The remarks came from a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the simplification of adoption procedures in the country, filed by "The Temple of Healing," a charitable trust.
Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. The Speaker, Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly W.P.(C) No. 685/2023 + Jayant Patil Kumar v. The Speaker Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly W.P.(C) No. 1077/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 13) criticised the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for laying down a long schedule for hearing the disqualification petitions filed by the Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde factions of Shiv Sena against each other under the anti-defection law enshrined in the tenth schedule of the Constitution.
In the ongoing petition for medical termination of the pregnancy of a married woman who is 26 weeks pregnant, Supreme Court on Friday doubted the authenticity of the post partum psychosis precription provided by the petitioner to the court. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra granted liberty to AIIMS to conduct an independent evaluation of the mental and physical condition of the petitioner. It further directed the AIIMS medical board to examine if the medicines taken by the petitioner had any effect on the foetus.
Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Guidelines For Seizure Of Electronic Devices On November 2
The Supreme Court on Friday(October 13) agreed to hear a Writ Petition seeking guidelines for the seizure of personal electronic devices by investigating agencies on November 2, 2023.
The matter was mentioned by Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan before the Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, and she requested for an early hearing.
Case title: Legislative Council, UP v. Sushil Kumar
Citation: SLP(C) No. 22746/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (13th Oct) stayed the division bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the recruitment process of the staff of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council.
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Sutapa Adhikari & Ors.
Citation: Diary No. 39867 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday(October 13) dismissed West Bengal government's plea against a Calcutta High Court order granting protection to relatives and associates of Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari with respect to a police probe over alleged irregularities in contract works in Contai Municipality.
Case Title: Ashok Pandey v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 966/2023 PIL-W
In a strong expression of exasperation with frivolous Public Interest Litigations (PILs), the Supreme Court today (13.10.2023) imposed costs on a petitioner who had challenged the validity of the oath administered during the appointment of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The petitioner claimed that the oath was defective as the Chief Justice did not use the word 'I' before stating his name
Case Details: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12289 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a plea by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu for anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam in the case and directed the matter to be heard on Tuesday, October 17. After an apprehension was raised that the embattled legislator would be arrested in the meantime, the court also asked the State of Andhra Pradesh police to "stay its hand" till then.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL To Regulate Live Broadcasting Of Medical Surgeries
Case Title: Rahil Chaudhary v. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1141/2023 PIL-W
The Supreme Court on Friday (13.10.2023), issued notice to the Centre and the National Medical Commission in a plea challenging the live demonstration of medical surgeries to trainee doctors, professionals, and medical conferences. The PIL was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
When There Is An Oppressive State, The Hope Is In The Judiciary: Justice Dr. S Muralidhar
Former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court Dr. Justice S Muralidhar, while delivering a lecture on the 'Independence of the Judiciary’ at the Kerala High Court Auditorium on Thursday, highlighted the importance of the judiciary being a counter-majority organ of the State. He said that in a country like India, whenever there has been a strong executive, there has been a visibly weak judiciary.
“When there is an oppressive state, the hope is in the judiciary,” he said. Justice Muralidhar opined that the constitution protects both the strong and the weak, but more the weak. “It is the judiciary that can act as a check on excesses by the majority and protect the weak against the strong”, he said
Case Title: In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And The Indian Stamp Act 1899
Citation: Curative Pet(C) No. 44/2023 In R.P.(C) No. 704/2021 in C.A. No. 1599/2020
A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court today reserved its judgment on the issue of whether an unstamped/insufficiently stamped arbitration agreement was unenforceable
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a curative against its 2020 ruling in Bhaskar Raju and Brothers and Anr V. s Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram & Other Charities and Ors.
I See A Great Future In Legal Profession In This Country: Justice Aniruddha Bose
To begin with the topic, Justice Bose stated that lawyers contribute to the great judgments but somehow the judges who write them get the name. He went on to say that at least, in our system, lot of reliance is placed on lawyers by the judges for arriving at a decision.
“We call it an adversarial system, that is between the two litigants but with lawyers it is a collaborative system.”
He added “Earlier, who were the litigants? The big landlords/ zamindars…. Today, even every estranged homemaker, evicted agricultural tenant, dismissed workmen can come with ease to the Supreme Court and find a helping hand from a lawyer. So, the composition of litigant has changed which speaks volumes of success of a system.”
Former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu has approached the Supreme Court against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court denying him anticipatory bail in the state FiberNet scam in the state.
A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi will hear this matter today. The bench will also hear his petition to quash the FIR in the skill development scam case at 2 PM today.
Supreme Court Agrees To List Curative Petition Against Maratha Quota Verdict
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 13) said that it will list the curative petition against the Maratha quota verdict in the due course.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the State of Maharashta, mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for urgent listing. "We are processing the curative petition, we will list it," CJI DY Chandrachud said
The curative petition is filed against the judgment delivered by a 5-judge bench in May 2021 which struck down the Maharashtra legislation providing reservation for Maratha community in the Socially and Economically Backward Class.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Darwinian Theory Of Evolution
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 13) dismissed a PIL challenging the Darwinian theory of evolution and Einstien's equation (E=MC²)
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed in the order :
“The petitioner wants to prove that Darwinian theory of evolution and Einstein's equation are wrong and he wants a platform for the said purpose. If that is his belief, then he can propagate his own belief. This cannot be a writ petition under article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which has to deal with the issues of fundamental rights.”
Supreme Court Extends Nawab Malik's Bail On Medical Grounds By Three Months
The Supreme Court on Thursday (12.10.2023) extended the interim bail granted to former Maharashtra Minister and NCP MLA Nawab Malik on medical grounds in a money laundering case by three months. On August 11th, the Supreme Court had granted him interim bail on medical grounds for two months after being behind bars since February 2022.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Regulate Advertisements By Corporate Hospitals
Case Title: Narayan Aniruddha Malpani v. National Medical Commission And Ors
Citation: Diary No. 34769-2023 PIL-W
The Supreme Court on October 10 issued notice on a writ petition which seeks directions to regulate advertisements by corporate hospital. The petitioner highlighted that while private medical practitioners are prohibited from advertising, such a restriction is not applicable to corporate hospitals
The Central Government on Thursday (October 12) objected to the Supreme Court giving priority hearing for the money bill issue, saying that matters should not be prioritised based on "political exigencies".
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was passing directions for the pre-hearing steps in various matters before 7-judge bench and 9-judge bench. Deciding to pass a common order for directions in all matters, the CJI remarked– "The idea is to get these matters ready for hearing. So we will pass a common order in all these matters in terms of the circular of 22nd August 2023. The compilation of documents, pleadings, precedents - that must be filed in three weeks and written submissions as well."
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Sharma v. National Commission For Minority Educational Institutions & Ors.
The petition filed in the Supreme Court in relation to the minority status of the Jamia Millia Islamia, a Central University in New Delhi, has been withdrawn.
The petition had been filed in the Apex Court against the order of the Delhi High Court that had deferred the hearing of the plea since a similar legal issue relating to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University is pending before a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2286/2006.
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6857 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday cited paucity of time to adjourn the hearing of the bail application of former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid in connection with the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. He has been behind bars for over three years, since September 2020, awaiting his trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for his alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy surrounding the communal violence that broke out in February 2020 in the national capital
The Supreme Court on Thursday (12.10.2023) underlined the importance of balancing the rights of a woman to autonomy and choice with the rights of an unborn child. The three-judge bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the plea for medical termination of the ongoing pregnancy of a married woman who is 26 weeks pregnant.
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a clutch of pleas against the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and gang rapes, including that of Bilkis Bano, during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. Last year, on Independence Day, the life convicts were allowed to walk free, sparking widespread controversy.
Case Title: Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5216 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday(October 11) refused to restrain a trial court from passing an order of conviction against Samajwadi Party leader Abdullah Azam Khan in a forgery case.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing Khan’s special leave petition challenging an April 2023 order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to stay his conviction in a 15-year-old case that led to his disqualification from the Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly in February.
Supreme Court Bench Split On Abortion Of 26-Week Pregnancy Of Married Woman, Refers To Larger Bench
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 11), while hearing the recall application filed by the Union against the Court's order allowing medical termination of a 26-week pregnancy of a married woman, referred the matter to a larger bench.
While Justice Hima Kohli said that her "judicial conscience" does not allow her to permit the termination of pregnancy in the light of the latest medical report about the possibility of the survival of the foetus, Justice BV Nagarathna said she found no reason to interfere with the "well reasoned order" passed by the Court initially on October 9. In view of disagreement, the matter has been referred to larger bench for consideration.
The Supreme Court has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with IIT Madras for collaborating on using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies for transcription tools, summarization of page transcript, translation Tool, exclusive streaming platform for court trials, process automation and large languages models. The move comes after CJI DY Chandrachud's visit to IIT Madras in July this year.
Bilkis Bano's lawyer told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that her rapists were treated with 'kid gloves' and favoured by the Gujarat government despite the gruesome and barbaric nature of the crime they committed.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a clutch of pleas against the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to the 11 convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and violent sexual assault during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat
Supreme Court To Hear Godhra Train Carnage Case Appeals In March 2024
Case Title: Abdul Raheman Dhantiya @ Kankatto @ Jamburo v. State of Gujarat
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 522-526 of 2018
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 11) posted a batch of appeals relating to the 2002 Godhra train carnage case for hearing in the second week of March 2024. The case includes the appeals filed by convicts and also the appeals filed by the State against certain acquittals. The State has also filed appeals challenging the High Court commuting the death penalty of eleven persons to life sentence.
Case Title: Secondary Teachers and Employees Association & Anr. Etc. v. State of West Bengal
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18894-18918 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 9) stayed the retrospective application of Section 10C of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997, which was introduced by way of an amendment in 2017 and enables the transfer of a teacher from one school to another at the state government’s behest.
Case Title: Yuvraj v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: Petition for Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 12659/2023
The Supreme Court is set to consider the question of whether an Anticipatory Bail filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by a juvenile in conflict with the law as the per Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is maintainable.
Case title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Adani Enterprises
Case: SLP(Crl) No.-010683 / 2019
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (10 Oct) directed that the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI) v. Adani Enterprises Ltd would be heard along with the case of Senior Intelligence Officer v. Sanjay Agarwal where 2 questions framed earlier by the Supreme Court have relevance in the present case.
Those 2 questions are as follows-
- Whether the Customs/DRI Officers are police officers and, therefore, are required to register FIR in respect of an offense under Sections 133 to 135 respectively of the Customs Act, 1962?
- Whether the provisions of Sections 154 to 157 respectively and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would apply in respect of the proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, in view of Section 4(2) of the Code
Case Title: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 13029/1985
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 10) called upon the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to inform the Court about the steps taken concerning air pollution in and around the National Capital.
Case title: M/S AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. vs. LATHA RAJANIKANTH, SLP(Crl) No. 009818 - / 2022, LATHA RAJANIKANTH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA SLP(Crl) 8327/2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 10) restored a cheating case against Tamil superstar Rajinikanth's wife Latha on a complaint filed by a Chennai-based advertising company in relation to the alleged non-payment of dues for the promotion works for the 2014 film "Kochadaiiyaan". The Court however granted Latha Rajinikanth to file an application before the Trial Court seeking discharge from the case
Case Title: Varun Thakur v. High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: Diary No. 32303 - 2023
The Supreme Court on (October 10) heard an appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order wherein a Suo Motu case was taken up by the Court in the wake of a strike by the lawyers in the State against a scheme for disposing of pending cases.
In the impugned order, the High Court directed “If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend the court, it shall be presumed that there is disobedience of this order and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act.”
Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna on Wednesday admonished the Union Government for orally mentioning before the Chief Justice of India an application to recall an order passed by a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna.
Justice Nagarathna said that she was ‘disturbed and concerned’ by the action of the Union approaching the Chief Justice for interference of an order passed by another bench without filing an application for the same. Justice Nagarathna expressed her concern that if such a precedent is set there will be a breakdown of the system of the court.
The Supreme Court collegium has recommended the transfer Acting Chief Justice of Manipur High Court MV Muralidaran to the Calcutta High Court. The original recommendation was made earlier this week.
In a resolution signed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, the collegium has said that this decision has been made for "better administration of justice" after consulting with the chief justice of the Calcutta High Court as well as Supreme Court judge conversant with the affairs of the Manipur High Court
The Supreme Court has asked the State of Gujarat to explain the time span taken to decide applications filed by prisoners seeking remission. The Court further asked the State to inform the number of petitions pending in High Courts and Supreme Court seeking premature release.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Alleged Illegal Detention Of Rohingya Refugees
Case Title: PRIYALI SUR v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1060/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 10) issued notice in a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to be issued to the Union of India for releasing Rohingya refugees who have allegedly been illegally and arbitrarily detained in jails and detention centres across the country.
Supreme Court Issues Notice on Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea in 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case
Case Details: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: Diary No. 35852 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on the bail plea of Dalit rights activist and advocate Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case. The Nagpur-based lawyer is also among the 16 accused in the Bhima Koregaon case and is currently lodged in Navi Mumbai's Taloja prison.
AAP Leader Raghav Chadha Moves Supreme Court Challenging Suspension From Rajya Sabha
Aam Aaadmi Party(AAP) MP Raghav Chadha has approached the Supreme Court challenging his suspension from the Rajya Sabha. Chaddha, a Rajya Sabha member from Punjab, was suspended from the upper house on August 11 for allegedly obstructing the house proceedings. The suspension is to continue the duration of the pendency of Privileges Committee proceedings against him.
In a writ petition filed against the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, the AAP leader has challenged the "indefinite suspension" as illegal and arbitrary.
In a turn of events, the Supreme Court today asked All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to defer the medical termination of pregnancy for a 26-week pregnant married woman, who was permitted to proceed with the medical termination of her pregnancy just yesterday. Upon apprehension raised by the doctors at AIIMS that the foetus would have a viable chance of being born, the Union of India sought recall of the Supreme Court order which had permitted the medical termination of the pregnancy.
A bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud noting that the "AIIMS doctors are in a very serious dilemma", stated that a bench would be constituted tomorrow to hear Union's recall application.
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Chanda Kochhar
Citation: Diary No. 13670 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether a plea by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a January order by the Bombay High Court granting two weeks' bail to former ICICI Bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar in the ICICI Bank-Videocon loan fraud case has become infructuous now. After Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju pointed out that bail had been continuing since January despite the period prescribed, the court asked why the central agency was not objecting to its continuance before the high court.
Case Details: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12289 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, while hearing former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu's plea, asked the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (AP CID) whether the order of a special court remanding the legislator to custody would be valid even if the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act do not survive or are dropped on grounds of non-compliance with the prior sanction provision(Section 17A).
Case title: State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
Citation: ORIGINAL SUIT No. 3/2020
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court highlighted the issues for consideration in an original suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution by the State of Rajasthan alleging discrimination in the treatment of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund for COVID-19 (CM Relief Fund) as compared to the Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situation Fund (PM CARES Fund) in the context of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities.
Case Title: Jayant Patil v. Speaker, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly
Citation: WP(c) No. 1077/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 9) listed the petition filed by Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar faction) seeking a direction to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker to expeditiously decide their petitions seeking disqualification of Ajit Pawar and seven other MLAs under the anti-defection law on October 13, 2023.
Case Title: Wildlife Rescue And Rehabilitation Centre And Ors. v. Union Of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 743/2014 PIL-W
While dealing with an Intervention Application (IA) in a petition concerning captive elephants in the State of Kerala on Tuesday, the Supreme Court orally remarked that certain issues were best dealt with High Courts as the High Courts were more aware of local conditions of a State.
Further, the Supreme Court bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra added that the Apex Court could not be rendered dysfunctional by micro managing all issues across the country.
Supreme Court To Hear Challenge Against Electoral Bonds Scheme On October 31
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms And Anr. v. UoI
Citation: WP(C) No. 333/2015
The Supreme Court will hear the batch of petitions challenging the Electoral Bonds scheme on October 31, 2023. A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra heard the preliminary issues today. The petitioners have decided to not argue on the scheme being passed as a money bill as of now since the issue pertaining to money bills is yet to be decided by a seven judge bench in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd.
Case Title: Tarunabh Khaitan V Union of India
Citation: WP(C) No. 1074/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Central Government in a petition filed by Constitutional scholar and Public Law Chair at the London School of Economics, Professor Tarunabh Khaitan, challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 that automatically terminates Indian citizenship upon acquisition of another citizenship.
Case Title: Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union Of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1373/2018 PIL-W
The Supreme Court will hear a PIL, on November 20, challenging the constitutionality of the some of the latest amendments in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act) on the ground that they violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Article 14 (Equality before law) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The mentioned amendments were brought out by The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
The Supreme Court on Monday (09.10.2023) allowed the medical termination of pregnancy of a married woman who is 26 weeks pregnant. The petitioner, who is a mother of two children, told the Apex Court she is suffering post-partum depression and that she is not in a position to raise a third child, emotionally, financially and mentally. The Court was also informed that she has been undergoing psychiatric treatment for a year.
Case Title: Hyderabad Cricket Association v. Chairman Cricket Club
Citation: SLP(C) No. 6779/2021
Former Indian cricket captain Mohammed Azharuddin filed an application in the Supreme Court challenging the removal of his name from the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) voters’ list by Single Member Committee (constituted by the Apex Court for the elections of the HCA).
However, the Court did not pass any order in favour of Azharuddin today and adjourned the matter till October 31. The HCA elections are scheduled to be held on October 20.
Case Title: Central Bureau Of Investigation v. The State Of West Bengal
Citation: Diary No. 35059-2023
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court issued notice in an appeal filed by the CBI against the Calcutta High Court’s order transferring the investigation of the alleged suicide of Lalan Sheikh, the prime accused in Bogtui Carnage Case, to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Dr. Pranav Kumar, an IPS Officer. Sheikh died in December 2022 while he was in CBI custody allegedly due to suicide.
Case Title: Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra And Anr.
Citation: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 867 of 2021 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2419 of 2019
The Supreme Court on Monday revealed that almost all of the 70 recommendations made by various high court collegiums had been forwarded by the Centre after the court's last rebuke.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a petition filed by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru seeking contempt action against the Union Ministry of Law and Justice for not adhering to the timeline set by the Court in a 2021 judgment for clearing collegium proposals
Case Title: Nipun Cherian V. Honb’le High Court of Kerala
The Supreme Court on Monday (09.10.2023) while considering the plea of Nipun Cherian, the President of political party 'V4 Kochi', against the order of the division bench of the Kerala High Court that sentenced him to four months imprisonment in a suo motu contempt proceeding initiated by it, for his statements against a sitting judge of the High Court, sought the response of the High Court of Kerala and directed the relevant additional details to be brought on record
Case Title: Anil Kumar v. Election Commission Of India
Citation: SLP(C) No. 21693/2023
The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a petition challenging the “First Level Check" of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verified Paper Trails (VVPATs) conducted by the Election Commission of India in July this yer at eleven district offices in Delhi for their use in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.
While hearing former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's plea, the Supreme Court on Monday (October 9) asked if the Court can adopt an interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 which will defeat the objectives of the Act.
Section 17A, inserted after the 2018 amendment made to the PC Act in July 2018, mandates that prior sanction from the competent authority must be obtained before launching an investigation against a public servant. Naidu is challenging his arrest in connection with the skill development scam case on the ground that the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (AP-CID) has not obtained the sanction of the Governor before adding him as the 37th accused in the case.
Supreme Court Closes All Cases Pending In High Courts Against 'Adipurush' Movie
Case title: SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD vs. KULDEEP TIWARI
Citation: T.P.(C) No. 1802-1809/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday(October 9) put a closure to all cases pending in different High Courts against the movie "Adipurush".
Hearing a transfer petition filed by the producer of the film seeking to transfer to the Top Court the cases from different High Courts, the Court ordered to put a closure to all such pending proceedings. The Court in no uncertain terms opined that “All these matters must closed now”.
Case Title: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 360/2021 PIL-W
In a step towards utilising technology to ensure access to justice, the Supreme Court today directed all State Information Commissions (SICs) to provide for hybrid mode of hearing for complaints and appeals. The bench also directed the SICs to ensure that e-filing is streamlined for all litigants.
Appointment Of Manipur High Court Chief Justice Will Be Notified Soon : Centre Tells Supreme Court
Two weeks after the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the central government's delay in notifying Delhi High Court judge Siddharth Mridul's elevation as the chief justice of the Manipur High Court, the Centre has assured the court that his file has been 'cleared' and the notification will be issued shortly.
Case Title: Mohammed Faizal V U.T Administration of Lakshadweep
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 12819/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (09.10.2023) stayed the recent order of the Kerala High Court passed on October 3rd, refusing to suspend the conviction of disqualified Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal, of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP),in a case of attempt to murder.
Case Details: Swami Ram Dev v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 265 of 2021
The Supreme Court on Monday(October 9) issued notice on yoga guru and Patanjali Ayurved founder Ram Dev's plea for protection against coercive action in criminal proceedings initiated against him for his alleged remarks questioning the efficacy of modern medicines like remdesivir and fabiflu and linking them with COVID-19 deaths.
The Supreme Court on Monday(October 9) directed the Chairperson of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to file in a sealed cover, a report to the Registrar General of Supreme Court, indicating the circumstances under which he had passed an order of transfer of Justice DC Chaudhary from the regional bench of AFT in Chandigarh to regional bench of AFT in Calcutta.
Justice Bhat began by expressing his deep gratitude for the privilege of serving as a member of the bench of the highest court in the country.
"I count myself to be amongst one of the most lucky person to have ended my career here, as a member of the bench of the highest court of the country," Justice Bhat stated
Umar Khalid Files Petition In Supreme Court Challenging UAPA Provisions
Former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid, who is an undertrial prisoner in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi on Friday (October 20) tagged the petition along with earlier petitions filed challenging the constitutionality of UAPA provisions.
Case Details: Sanatan Suraksha Parishad v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1170 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday tagged another petition over Tamil Nadu minister and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin's controversial remarks about 'Sanatana Dharma', with two other pleas already pending before the court
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the plea by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu for anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam in the state till November 9.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi was hearing Naidu's special leave petition against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court refusing to grant him anticipatory bail earlier this week.
Case title: Ashok Pandey v. The Speaker of Lok Sabha And Ors
Citation: Diary No. 17457 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea by a Lucknow-based lawyer challenging the restoration of Nationalist Congress Party Leader Mohammed Faizal's Lok Sabha membership.
Case Details: BV Srinivas v. State of Assam
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6210 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Friday granted anticipatory bail to Indian Youth Congress (IYC) president BV Srinivas in a sexual harassment case, by making 'absolute' a May 2023 order by which the court had granted him pre-arrest bail as an interim measure.
Popular Front of India Approaches Supreme Court against Central Govt's Ban under UAPA
Case Details: Popular Front of India v. Union of India
Citation: Diary No. 26236 of 2023
The Popular Front of India (PFI) has approached the Supreme Court against a home ministry notification designating it and its affiliated organisations as 'unlawful associations' under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Case title: BHARAT RASHTRA SAMITHI v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 001187 - / 2023, Diary Number 43294/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 20) refused to entertain the petitions filed by political party BRS (Bharat Rashtra Samithi) challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India(ECI) to allot to other political parties symbols, which BRS claimed, were "deceptively similar" to its symbol (Car).
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 20) took note of some "positive developments" in judicial appointments, as the Centre has notified a slew of appointments and transfers of High Court judges over the last two weeks.
At the same time, the Court reiterated its concerns about the segregation of names and the pendency of certain collegium proposals.
Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1164 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a plea challenging the constitutionality of the recent amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a writ petition filed by retired civil servants, including a former secretary and an additional secretary to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). Also among the petitioners are five former principal chief conservators of forests and ex-members of a standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL)
Case Details: Prashant Umrao @ Prashant Kumar Umrao v. Inspector of Police
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4351 of 2023
The Tamil Nadu government informed the Supreme Court on Thursday (October 19) that only one first information report (FIR) has been registered in the state against Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Prashant Umrao for allegedly spreading fake news about attacks against Bihari migrants in the southern state. The court was further told that chargesheet will be filed in respect of the FIR.
Supreme Court Designates 47 Former High Court Judges As Senior Advocates
The Supreme Court, in its full court meeting held on October 16, decided to confer senior designations on 47 former judges of the High Courts. Nine among them are former Chief Justices of the High Courts.
Supreme Court Allows Woman To Undergo Surrogacy With Donor Egg, Despite New Amendment Disallowing It
Case Title: Arun Muthuvel V. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No.756/2022
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (18.10.2023) allowed a woman with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) Syndrome, a condition that prevents her from producing eggs, to undergo surrogacy using a donor egg. The Apex Court did so, by staying the operation of a recent amendment to the Surrogacy Rules, with respect to the petitioner. The amendment introduced in March 2023, prohibits the use of donor eggs for gestational surrogacy of an intending couple.
Case title: Ashraf v. Union of India
Citation: SLP(C) No. 17025-17084/2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Oct. 18) issued notice on the special leave petitions filed by the passengers seeking compensation for their losses in the tragic Air India Express Flight IX-1344 crash at Karipur International Airport, Kozhikkode in 2020. The Court also tagged it along with the civil appeals pending on the same issue arising out of the 2010 Mangalore air crash.
Case Title: Directorate Of Enforcement v. M/S Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd
Citation: Crl.A. No. 1269/2017
In a significant development, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court agreed to hear applications seeking reconsideration of the judgment in the 'Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary' which became controversial for strengthening the powers of the Directorate of Enforcement.
A three-judge bench of Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi on Wednesday (October 18) listed the matter for hearing on November 22
Case title: Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai v. State of Manipur
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 498/2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 18) stayed the arrest of a transgender rights activist by the Manipur police in relation to social media posts made by her with regard to the alleged misappropriation of the transgender persons' welfare fund by the social welfare department and restrained the Manipur police from registering any fresh case based on such posts.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (18.10.2023), granted bail to Congress Leader Afzal Lakhani who has been accused of making 'Anti-Indian', and 'Pro-Pakistani' Facebook Posts and posting derogatory remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his late mother Hiraba. The Gujarat High Court had denied him bail in June this year stating that 'people staying in India must be faithful to it'.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 796/2021 PIL-W
The Supreme Court on Wednesday(October 18) refused to entertain a PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to declare that Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs have similar rights to administer their religious places without State interference like Muslims, Parsis and Christians. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra remarked that the petition needed to raise more specific prayers to be considered by the court.
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Delhi Police in the pleas by NewsClick founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha and human resources head Amit Chakraborty challenging their recent arrest.
Case Details: Aam Aadmi Party v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13038 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned until November 7 the hearing of the pleas by Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Wadra, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and several charitable trusts challenging the decision of income tax authorities to transfer their tax assessments to the central circle. Notably, the court also orally directed the respondent authorities from not passing any assessment order in the meantime, after the petitioners accused them of rushing the assessments.
Case title: Prakasam v. State Through Inspector and Anti-Corruption Wing
Citation: SLP (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s).20390/2023
The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Union of India on the question of formulating appropriate guidelines for the uniform issuance of these vital documents through digital means. This order was passed in a case where the court was considering the re-evaluation of the sentence of a convict in a corruption case due to his old age.
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: Diary No. 42896-2023
The Supreme Court today while hearing the plea by News Click Chief Editor Prabir Purkayastha petition challenging his arrest by the Delhi Police under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) adjourned the matter to tomorrow. The plea of Human Resources head Amit Chakraborty was also listed today before the Apex Court. The UAPA case was registered following allegations of the news portal receiving money for pro-China propaganda
Case Title: Orbit Electricals Private Limited v. Deepak Kishan Chhabaria | Conmt. Pet (C) No.1195/2023 In C.A. No.6108/2023
In an unprecedented development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 18) issued notices to two members of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to show cause for not initiating contempt proceedings against them for delivering a judgment in violation of a status quo order passed by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Designates Former CJ Of Orissa High Court Justice S Muralidhar As A Senior Advocate
The Supreme Court of India has designated the Former Chief Justice Of Orissa High Court as a Senior Advocate.
The decision was taken by the Chief Justice of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court of India in a full Court Meeting held on October 16, 2023.
Case Details: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13356 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of a plea by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu for anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam in the state, with an assurance to the embattled legislator that he would not be arrested by the state crime investigation department despite a production warrant that has been issued by the department in connection with this case.
Case title: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8167 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved for order the bail plea of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia who is facing money laundering and corruption charges over alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped liquor policy in the national capital. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader has been in custody since February of this year and is being investigated by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 1550 of 2020
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned until January next year an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the bail granted to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief and former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in a fodder scam case.
Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. The Speaker, Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 685/2023
The Supreme Court today granted a "final opportunity" to the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for laying down an appropriate schedule for expeditious hearing of the disqualification petitions filed in relation to rift within the Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party. On the last hearing, the court had criticised the Speaker for laying down a long schedule for the Shiv Sena cases and had asked the Speaker to give an appropriate time-estimate for hearing the petitions.
No Interim Bail For Chandrababu Naidu In Skill Development Scam Case; Supreme Court Reserves Verdict
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a plea by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu for quashing of a first information report (FIR) in the skill development scam case. However, despite fervent appeals on behalf of the Telugu Desam Party president, the court declined to grant interim bail
Case Details: Pawan Khera v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13143 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Uttar Pradesh government's response to a plea by Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera for quashing criminal proceedings against him over an alleged remark about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. DK Shivakumar
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9097 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a plea by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging Karnataka High Court's decision to stay an investigation against Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case. But the court refused to ex-parte stay the impugned order despite the central agency's fervent appeals.
In a surprising turn of events at the Supreme Court today, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud took swift action during a court proceeding when he confiscated the mobile phone of a person who was engaged in a phone conversation inside Courtroom 1. Miffed by the lack of decorum exhibited by the lawyer, the CJI asked the lawyer to be careful in the future.
Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1155/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 16) issued notice on a writ petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Raghav Chadha challenging his suspension from the Rajya Sabha on August 11 during the monsoon session.
Thinking Of Making AAP An Accused In Delhi Liquor Scam Case, ED Tells Supreme Court
In a major development in the Delhi liquor policy scam case, Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju told the Supreme Court that the Directorate of Enforcement is contemplating making the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) an accused in the money laundering case and invoking Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to probe the aspect of vicarious liability.
The Supreme Court Committee on Accessibility chaired by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, on Monday released its Audit Report on the physical and functional access of the Supreme Court to persons with disabilities. The Committee that was set up by Chief Justice Chandrachud on 28th November 2022, released its report today (16.10.2023) making several recommendations geared towards removing barriers to access to the Supreme Court.
Case Details: Reshma Prasad v. State of Bihar
Citation: Diary No. 36554 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition against the Bihar government including ‘hijra’, ‘kinnar’, ‘kothi’, and ‘transgender’ as an item in the caste list, while conducting its caste-based survey in August, in view of a clarification issued later by the government allowing non-binary persons to disclose their gender identities in a separate column. The court is also hearing a batch of pleas doubting the constitutionality of the caste-based survey
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Chanda Kochhar
Citation: Diary No. 13670 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a plea by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the bail granted to former ICICI Bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar and her husband, Deepak Kochhar, in the ICICI Bank-Videocon loan fraud case
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) about the delay in the trials that former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia is facing in the Delhi excise policy scam case. Sisodia has been slapped with money laundering and corruption charges over alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped liquor policy in the national capital. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader has been in custody since February of this year and is being investigated by both the CBI and the ED, but in neither cases, have the arguments on charges begun before the special courts trying the legislator.
Case Title: Abhishek Yadav and Others v. Army College of Medical Sciences
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 730/2022
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 15) expressed grave concerns regarding the non-payment of stipends to MBBS interns, likening the situation to "bonded labor". A bench comprising of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a plea as per which 70 percentage of medical colleges do not pay any stipend or are not paying the minimum set stipend to doctors who are doing MBBS internships
Case Details: Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 897
Many first generation lawyers have made their mark in the profession and have attained prominence and have been conferred with senior designations, observed the Supreme Court while rejecting an argument that the "senior designation" system was benefiting only a special class of lawyers which comprise of the kith and kin of judges, prominent lawyers, politicians and Ministers.
Case Title: Indian Sperm- Bank Association V. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: WPC 1051/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (16.10.2023), issued notice to the Centre in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed challenging certain provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulations) Act of 2021 and the Rules of the Assisted Technology (Regulations) Rules, 2022.
Under the Act, a gamete bank cannot supply the sperm or oocyte of a single donor to more than one commissioning couple. The PIL contends that provisions of the new Act and Rules will lead to a scarcity of donor semen samples, which will result in escalation in cost for treatment making assisted reproductive techniques unaffordable for common people.
Case Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur V Union of India
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking immediate of implementation of the Women’s Reservation Bill passed by the Parliament in September 2023, before the Parliamentary General Election in 2024. Last month, the President of India signed into law the women’s reservation bill that had been unanimously passed by both houses of parliament.
Supreme Court Refers Electoral Bonds Case To Constitution Bench
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 16) referred the petitions challenging the anonymous electoral bonds scheme to a Constitution Bench of five judges.
"In view of the importance of issue raised, and with regard to Article 145(4) of the Constitution of India, the matter be placed before a bench of at least five judges," Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud pronounced this morning when the matter was mentioned. CJI said that the matter will be retained on the board on October 31.
Case Title: MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: SLP(C) No. 17415-17416/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre in an appeal against the order of the Delhi High Court that had held that a member of a rifle club or rifle association cannot possess a third firearm other than for the limited period of using it for target practice or participation in a competition.
Case title: Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: Criminal Appeal No.3233 OF 2023
The Supreme Court recently exposed a shocking case of abuse of legal procedures before the Rajasthan High Court where after denial of interim relief under Section 482 CrPC for quashing FIR, the accused (respondents herein) filed a civil writ petition for consolidation of all FIRs and also managed to get protection from any coercive action.
This move was allegedly aimed at circumventing the roster Judge who had denied them relief under criminal jurisdiction. The Court opined that this abuse of the legal process not only undermines the roster system but also disrespects the importance of following established judicial procedures
Case title: Voluntary Arunachal Sena v State of Arunachal Pradesh
Citation: SLP(C) No. 034696 / 2010
The Supreme Court while resuming its hearing in a SLP raising allegations regarding awarding of government tenders by the state government of Arunachal Pradesh, a decade ago, directed the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) to inform the Bench on the following points:
“Whether very close relative(s) to the Executive Head of the State can be awarded Government contracts;
In the event this question is answered in the affirmative, what would be the norms for awarding contract to such persons?
Case title: Government of India, Ministry of Finance v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Citation: SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 37743/2023
The Supreme Court recently issued a notice in a case that raises the issue of whether a property acquired before the alleged act of scheduled offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act(PMLA), 2002 can be called “proceeds of crime” liable to be attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
Another issue that arises in the case is whether the PMLA would override the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act and the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks Ac and Financial Institutions Act.
Speaking of his minority judgment in the recent verdict on the same-sex marriage, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that it is sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution and that he stands by what he said.
"I do believe it's sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution and I stand by what I said" he said at a panel discussion on 'Perspectives from the Supreme Courts of India and the United States', hosted by Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, who retired as a judge of the Supreme Court on October 20, has taken on a new role as a Distinguished Professor at Dr B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat.
Supreme Court To Pronounce Judgment On Manish Sisodia'a Bail Applications On October 30
The Supreme Court will pronounce judgment on the bail applications filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi liquor policy scam case on October 30.
Breaking Barriers: How Justice Ravindra Bhat Expanded Scope Of Disability Rights
Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who retired as a Supreme Court judge on October 20, has made immense contributions to the expansion of disability rights jurisprudence in our country. He has advanced a pragmatic and purposive interpretation of the statutory provisions to further inclusivity and accessibility for persons with disabilities in the public sphere.
Supreme Court Notifies 5-Judge Bench To Hear Electoral Bonds Case On October 31
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will start hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Electoral Bonds scheme on October 31.
The bench consists of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. On October 16, a 3-judge bench comprising CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra had referred the matter to a 5-judge bench "in view of the importance of issue raised".
Justice Ravindra Bhat's Scholarly Legacy: A Look At His Important Judgments
In the world of jurisprudence, there exist those who simply interpret the law, and then there are those exceptional few who redefine it. Justice Ravindra Bhat, who recently retired from the Supreme Court on October 20, 2023, undoubtedly belongs to the latter category.
It would be an injustice to confine Justice Bhat's illustrious career to this single, albeit contentious, ruling. His retirement marked the end of a distinguished judicial career that spanned various dimensions of law, human rights, and social justice. Throughout his distinguished career, his legacy has revolved around the advancement of inclusivity, a redefinition of disability rights, and an unyielding commitment to the cause of social justice.
Arguing before the Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra in the batch of petitions challenging the Electoral Bond Scheme, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that 99% of Electoral Bonds went to the ruling parties in the Centre and in the States while the opposition parties were left with less than 1% of bonds.
He added that total donations declared by BJP by means of Electoral Bonds was more than three times the total donations of Electoral Bonds declared by all other national parties put together
Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, in a statement filed before the Supreme Court in the electoral bonds case, has submitted that the citizens do not have the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution regarding the funding of a political party.
Case Title: Orbit Electricals Private Limited v. Deepak Kishan Chhabaria
Citation: Conmt. Pet (C) No.1195/2023 In C.A. No.6108/2023
A judicial member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Mr.Rakesh Kumar, tendered his resignation in the wake of the Supreme Court issuing a contempt notice against him over passing a judgment defying an interim order of the Apex Court
Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. The Speaker, Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 943
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 30) directed the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions filed in relation to Shiv Sena rift and the Nationalist Congress Party rift by December 31, 2023 and January 31, 2024 respectively.
Supreme Court Adjourns Senthil Balaji's Plea For Bail On Medical Grounds Till Next Week
Case Details: V Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13929 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 30) adjourned the hearing of Tamil Nadu minister and DMK leader Senthil Balaji's plea seeking bail on medical grounds until next week. Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June this year in connection with a cash-for-job money laundering case.
Supreme Court Expresses Concerns At Indefinite Suspension Of AAP MP Raghav Chadha From Rajya Sabha
Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1155/2023
While hearing the writ petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Raghav Chadha challenging his suspension from the Rajya Sabha on August 11 during the monsoon session, the Supreme Court expressed grave concern over the indefinite suspension of a Member of Parliament and its impact on the right of the people to be represented.
Case Details: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 30) mulled over the idea of appointing an expert agency working in the field of child welfare to visit the victim of the Muzaffarnagar student slapping case and provide counseling to him in his home, after being informed that he was badly traumatized from the incident.
The court also expressed dissatisfaction over the state government insisting that the child visit a counselling centre to receive counselling in accordance with a previous order. "The child is so traumatized. You expect him to come to the counselling centre?" the education department was asked during today's hearing.
Case Details: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14275 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 30) revealed that the Allahabad High Court's registry has furnished relevant information and documents relating to the suits over the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute pending before the high court.
Case Title: Government Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 678/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 30) clarified that it had not dealt with the legality of the Delhi Lieutenant Governor's order as per which appointments of more than 400 private persons as advisers, fellows, and consultants by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government were terminated and the issue could be decided by the Delhi High Court.
The Tamil Nadu Government has moved Supreme Court alleging that the Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu Dr RN Ravi has positioned himself as a "political rival" to the State Government and is obstructing the State Legislative Assembly's ability to carry out its duties by excessively delaying the consideration of bills that the Assembly has passed.
Asserting that the Governor’s inactions have caused a "constitutional deadlock between the Constitutional Head of the State and the Elected Government of the State", the State has sought for a specified timeline by which the Governor shall dispose of all pending Bills, files, and Government orders forwarded by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
Atrocious': Supreme Court Shocked By Plea Challenging Articles 20 & 22; Pulls Up Lawyers
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 31) expressed shock at a writ petition filed challenging the constitutionality of Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution and pulled by the lawyers for filing such a petition.
The Court asked the drafting counsel, Advocate-on-Record, and the arguing counsel involved in the case to file affidavits explaining the circumstances under which such a petition was filed.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 31) asked the Governments of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi to file affidavits setting forth the steps they have taken to control air pollution including the measures to curb crop burning.
Advocates-on-record cannot be reduced to mere signing authorities, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday (October 31), while lambasting the practice of signing off on petitions without examining their content. The Court has called for suggestions from the bar for framing a "comprehensive policy" to curb the practice of AoRs merely acting as signing authorities and filing frivolous petitions.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (31.10.2023), reserved for judgment the appeal filed by the makers of the TVF web series ‘College Romance’, who had challenged the Delhi High Court order that upheld registration of FIRs against them under Section 67 and 67A of Information Technology Act,2000 for showcasing vulgar and obscene content.
Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing In SNC Lavalin Case
Case Title: Kasthuri Ranga v. State Rep. By Addl. Superintendent Of Police CBI And Ors. Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 7801/2017
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (31.10.2023) adjourned the appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the discharge of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other accused in the SNC Lavalin Case.
Case Details: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 5388 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 31) questioned whether a government could sue or be sued through a minister, while hearing Delhi government’s plea against the appointment of Lieutenant-Governor VK Saxena as the head of a solid waste management panel.
Case Details: Umar Khalid v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 513 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 31) decided to hear former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid's plea challenging various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, along with his pending bail application in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, on November 22.
No Way To Prohibit Trading Of Electoral Bonds Since They Can Be Transferred, Says Supreme Court
While hearing the batch of petitions challenging the anonymous electoral bonds scheme, the Supreme Court today commented on the lack of control over transactions involving Electoral Bonds owing to the transferability of the bonds.
