SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Arrest and Detention

Arnesh Kumar Guidelines - The Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines laid down for arrest under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and for other offences punishable by a maximum jail term of seven years in its 2014 Arnesh Kumar judgement - Also directed high courts and police chiefs to issue notifications and circulars in terms of the 2014 judgement to ensure strict compliance. (Para 12) Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583 : 2023 INSC 660

Armed Forces

'Discipline is a non-negotiable condition of service in Armed Forces': Supreme Court dismisses appeal of suspended army driver who overstayed leave. Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580 : 2023 INSC 656

Bail

Supreme Court grants bail to Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in Bhima Koregaon case. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Cannot grant interim protection to accused while rejecting anticipatory bail plea : Supreme Court 'amazed' at HC's self-contradictory order. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566

'Bail orders must be backed by reasons considering vital aspects': Supreme Court sets aside 'casual & cryptical' HC order. Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Cantonment

No legal right to seek de-sealing of property by cantonment board, when building plan not been sanctioned. Ram Kishan v. Manish Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568 : 2023 INSC 640

Cinema

'Everybody is getting touchy about everything now, tolerance for films, books going down': Supreme Court dismisses plea against 'Adipurush' movie. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Civil Law

Non-Participation in a proceeding of a restitution of conjugal rights has civil consequences. Poonam Anjur Pawar vs Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 579

Substantial questions of law not required to be formulated in second appeals arising out of States of Punjab & Haryana. Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562 : 2023 INSC 639

Constitution

Article 136 | SLP against NCDRC's order passed in exercise of its appellate/revisional jurisdiction cannot be entertained. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : 2023 INSC 649

Paradoxically, the right to vote isn't a fundamental right though democracy is an essential feature of the constitution. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Criminal Law

Not necessary to give opportunity of hearing to person summoned u/section 319 Cr.P.C. before adding him as accused. Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Merits of evidence has to be appreciated only during trial; not at the stage of summoning the accused. Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573 : 2023 INSC 654

Delay

Justice oriented approach to be adopted while dealing with delay condonation plea. Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572 : 2023 INSC 651

Election

Voter has the right to know the full background of the candidate; the right to vote based on informed choice is crucial to democracy. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Enforcement

The Supreme Court extended the term of the Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) till September 15 in "larger public interest". No further application would be entertained for grant of extension. The respondent will cease to be the director of ED with effect of midnight of 15th/16th September 2023. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Labour Law

Model Standing Order - Any settlement, the employee Union enters into with the Employer would not override the Model Standing Order, unless it is more beneficial to the employees - Certified standing orders have a statutory force. The Standing Order implies a contract between the employer and the workman - The employer and workman cannot enter into a contract overriding the statutory contract embodied in the certified Standing Orders. (Para 6 - 13) Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. Jet Airways Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 564 : 2023 INSC 646

Matrimonial Dispute

Power to impound passport - The Police took custody of the appellant’s passport in the exercise of powers under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and handed over the same to the Regional Passport Office. We fail to understand why the passport of the appellant was required for the purpose of the pending criminal case. Therefore, the exercise of calling upon the appellant to submit his passport was not legal. Thereafter, the passport was never impounded in exercise of power under Section 10 of the PP Act. There is nothing on record to show that the passport was seized under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. As there was neither a seizure of the passport nor impounding thereof, the appellant was entitled to return of the passport. As there was neither a seizure nor impounding of the passport, it was unauthorisedly retained by the Regional Passport Office. (Para 9, 10) Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645

The appellant was aggrieved by the condition of producing the passports of his son (who is a citizen of USA) and his wife. The appellant applied for the modification of the said order insofar as it directed him to return the passports of his wife and minor son. The contention of the appellant was that the passport of his son was lost in July 2021 and that the appellant has complied with the necessary procedure to get a new passport issued. He also contended that the appellant was not in possession of the passport of his wife. The direction by the High Court to return the passports of his wife and son as a condition for the release of the appellant’s passport was completely illegal. (Para 11) Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645

Motor Accident

The insurance company was liable to reimburse the claimant when he had duly placed on record the evidence of him paying the medical bills of a person injured in a motor accident in respect of which there is third-party insurance coverage. (Para 15, 16) Hem Raj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 574 : 2023 INSC 644

Murder Trial

Murder case - 'Cruel' is a relative term; if its ordinary meaning is used, exception 4 of Section 300 IPC can never be applied. Gursewak Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : 2023 INSC 648

Narcotic Drugs

NDPS Act - Conviction liable to be set aside if samples weren't drawn in magistrate's presence as per Section 52A. Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570

Natural Justice

Principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a strait-jacket formula and they would depend upon the facts of each case and the object and purpose to be achieved under a provision of law. (Para 33) Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

Passport

'Passport authority cannot retain passport without impounding': Supreme Court grants relief to husband in matrimonial dispute. Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645

Property

Use of expression 'ta khubzul badlain' in sale deed by itself will not be determinative of the true nature of the transaction. Yogendra Prasad Singh v. Ram Bachan Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 582 : 2023 INSC 658

Tax

Tax Evasion - Reward to informers - The Supreme Court directed the reward committee constituted by the Ministry of Finance under the "Reward to Informers” policy to take a fresh decision on the amount of reward awarded to a person who gave information regarding tax evasion by news agency M/s ANI Media Pvt Ltd. Ketan Kantilal Modi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 581

Special effects & 3d conversion services are not ‘video-tape production’ services under S. 65(120) of Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner of Service Tax-IV v. Prime Focus Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Terrorism

Mere possession of extremist literature not 'terrorist activity' under UAPA; No 'credible evidence' against Vernon & Arun. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Unlawful Activities

UAPA - 'Watali' precedent won't apply if evidence is of low probative value on surface level analysis. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Violence

Supreme Court dismisses West Bengal govt's plea challenging HC direction to transfer ram navami violence cases to NIA. State of West Bengal v. Suvendu Adhikari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 569 : 2023 INSC 647

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Army Act, 1950 - Discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a nonnegotiable condition of service. (Para 10) Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580 : 2023 INSC 656

Cantonments Act, 2006 - A property sealed by Cantonment Board alleging unauthorized construction cannot be requested to be ‘de-sealed’, while the building plan of that Property has not yet been sanctioned by the Cantonment. (Para 15) Ram Kishan v. Manish Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568 : 2023 INSC 640

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Sometimes the cinematic representations may not be an exact replica of text and there has to be a little play in the same. That however, does not go beyond certain limits is a reason why a body has been constituted to look into these aspects under the Act. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11, Order XII Rule 6 - Rejection of Election Petition - Judgement on Admissions - A plain look at the election petition reveals that apart from allegations pertaining to non-disclosure of criminal cases pending against the appellant, or cases where he was convicted, other averments and allegations have been made regarding non-compliance with stipulations regarding information dissemination and the manner of dissemination through publication in newspapers, the font size, the concerned newspapers’ reach amongst the populace, etc. The alleged noncompliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined in what are essentially summary proceedings under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC. Even if the allegations regarding non-disclosure of cases where the appellant has been arrayed as an accused, are ultimately true, the effect of such allegations (in the context of provisions of law and the non-disclosure of all other particulars mandated by the Election Symbols orders) has to be considered after a full trial. The admission of certain facts (and not all) by the election petitioner cannot be sufficient for the court to reject the petition, wholly. Even in respect of the undeniable nature of the judicial record, the effect of its content is wholly inadequate to draw a decree in part. (Para 26) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 32 - It cannot be said that nonparticipation in a proceeding of a restitution of conjugal rights is absolutely impactless. In fact, it has civil consequences - Transfer petition filed by wife allowed. Poonam Anjur Pawar vs Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 579

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Punjab Courts Act, 1918; Section 41 - In appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of CPC. (Para 8, 9) Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562 : 2023 INSC 639

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - The parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC - Ordinarily, in a second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court. However, this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone - Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such finding. (Para 14, 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 102, 104 - the power under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound a passport. The reason is that the provisions of the PP Act which deal with the specific subject of impounding passports shall prevail over Section 104 of Cr.P.C. Moreover, under Section 102 (1) of Cr.P.C., the Police have the power to seize the passport but there is no power to impound the same. Even if the power of seizure of a passport is exercised under Section 102, the Police cannot withhold the said document and the same must be forwarded to the Passport Authority. It is, thereafter, for the Passport Authority to decide whether the passport needs to be impounded. (Para 8) Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - The contention that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial is clearly not contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C - The principle of hearing a person who is summoned cannot be read into Section 319 Cr.P.C. - The lateral entry of a person summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is only to face the trial along with other accused. (Para 32-34) Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - The merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial, by cross examination of the witnesses and scrutiny of the Court. This is not to be done at the stage of Section 319 - Scope and ambit discussed. (Para 4-5) Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573 : 2023 INSC 654

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 428 - Anticipatory Bail - Self-Contradictory orders passed by the High Court - On the one hand, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected and, on the other hand, the interim protection is granted for a period of two months - Appeal allowed and interim protection direction set aside. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - An order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from the vice of nonapplication of mind, rendering it illegal. (Para 19) Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - The primary considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grant of bail are: (i) The seriousness of the offence; (ii) The likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iii) The impact of the release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses; (iv) Likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. (Para 18) Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - While considering an application for grant of bail, a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offence/s alleged against an accused. (Para 22) Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 319, 190 - The exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not at the initial stage where cognizance is taken of the offence and the summoning order is passed before committal of the matter to the Sessions Court. That power exercised under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. is quite distinct from the power exercised by the Trial Court/Sessions Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C - Scope of Section 319 CrPC discussed. (Para 22-27) Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 319, 227 - When power is exercised the under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon a person to be added as an accused in the trial to be tried along with other accused, such a person cannot seek discharge as the court would have exercised the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on a satisfaction derived from the evidence that has emerged during the evidence recorded in the course of trial and such satisfaction is of a higher degree than the satisfaction which is derived by the court at the time of framing of charge. (Para 24) Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

Constitution of India, 1950 - Democracy has been held to be a part of one of the essential features of the Constitution. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, the right to vote has not been recognized as a Fundamental Right yet; it was termed as a “mere” statutory right. (Para 27) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - An order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside. (Para 20) Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope and grant of special leave - the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. The question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave. The provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution as such are not circumscribed by any limitation. But when the party aggrieved has alternative remedy to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, this Court should not entertain a petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit the legal procedure prescribed. The limitation, whatever they be, are implicit in the nature and character of the power itself. It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. The power will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles which govern the exercise of overriding constitutional powers. (Para 24) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : 2023 INSC 649

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226, 227 - Appeal against order of National Commission - the petitioner to first go before the jurisdictional High Court either by way of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Of course, after the High Court adjudicates and passes a final order, it is always open for either of the parties to thereafter come before the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition, seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 38) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : 2023 INSC 649

Constitution of India, 1950; Section 32 - Revocation of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification in respect of feature film ‘Adipurush’ for hurting religious sentiments and for distorting the sacred text – Held, it is inappropriate to interfere with film certifications based on the sensitivities of each individual. The Court should not become some kind of an appellate authority for the censor board. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 21(a)(i) - Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Section 58(1)(a)(i) or 58(1)(a)(ii) - Appeal against order of National Commission - An aggrieved party can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for grant of special leave to appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) only if it is passed by the Commission in its original jurisdiction. No further appeal will lie against the orders passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. (Para 17) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : 2023 INSC 649

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 12 - Doctor’s license cannot be suspended as penalty in contempt proceedings. (Para 19 -21) Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 577 : 2023 INSC 653

Finance Act, 1994; Sections 65(105) (zi), 65(119), 65(120), 66 - Export of Service Rules, 2005 - Service Tax Rules, 1994 - The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the 3D conversion services provided by the assessee, including services such as ‘imparting special effects’, ‘post production service’, ‘digital asset management and content service’ and ‘digital restoration service’, will not fall under the ambit of ‘video-tape production’ under Section 65(120) of Finance Act, 1994. While adjudicating the service tax demand raised on the assessee, the CESTAT found that there was no evidence that the material received by the respondent/ assessee, M/s Prime Focus Ltd, from its clients was recorded in video or that the assessee had, at any time, handled video as media. The Tribunal had thus held that the assessee was entitled for exemption as exports as it had exported services in accordance with Export of Service Rules, 2005 and Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Commissioner of Service Tax-IV v. Prime Focus Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Limitation Act, 1962; Section 5 - Justice oriented approach rather than the iron- cast technical approach to be adopted - Supreme Court restored an appeal before lower appellate court which had dismissed it on the ground that the delay of 52 days was not properly explained. (Para 3-6) Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572 : 2023 INSC 651

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 52-A - the process of drawing of samples under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate. The entire exercise of collecting the sample must be certified by the Magistrate to be correct. Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570

National Investigating Agency Act, 2008; Section 6 - The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court order transferring the investigation in six FIRs related to Ram Navami violence from March 31 to April 3 to the National Investigation Agency. In the present case, after the High Court's order, the Central Government has exercised its suo motu powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act to ask the NIA to investigate these cases. The Centre's subsequent notification has not been challenged by the State Government. Section 6(1) of the NIA Act casts an obligation on the part of the police officer to inform the State Government about any scheduled offence and later, the State Government is obliged to forward such information to the Central Government. However, the power of the Central Government to refer the investigation to the NIA is not constrained by the report submitted by the State Government. (Para 7 – 10) State of West Bengal v. Suvendu Adhikari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 569 : 2023 INSC 647

Passports Act, 1967; Section 10 - Without impounding of the passport, the Passport Authority cannot unauthorizedly retain a passport handed over by the Police in the name of a pending criminal case. (Para 11) Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645

Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A, 323 / 504 / 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Section 3 & 4 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Matrimonial Offences - Denial of anticipatory bail and a further direction to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail – Held, there are no startling features or elements that stand out or any exceptional fact disentitling the appellant to the grant of anticipatory bail. Once the chargesheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the Trial Court. Therefore, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand, and is hereby set aside. (Para 12) Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583 : 2023 INSC 660

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 4 to Section 300 - The term 'cruel manner' is a relative term. Exception 4 applies when a man kills another. By ordinary standards, this itself is a cruel act - If we assign a meaning to the word ‘cruel’ used in exception which is used in common parlance, in no case exception 4 can be applied. (Para 11) Gursewak Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : 2023 INSC 648

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - For attracting the offence under Section 149 IPC, one simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly -Any specific individual role or act is not material. No overt act needs to be assigned to a member of an unlawful assembly. (Para 4) Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573 : 2023 INSC 654

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 and 304 Part 1 - Appellant's conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part 1 IPC. Gursewak Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : 2023 INSC 648

Representation of People Act, 1951 - Democracy being an essential feature of the Constitution and the right to vote being a statutory right, the voter has the right to know about the full background of a candidate. (Para 28) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Representation of People Act, 1951 - the right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. (Para 27) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 33A, 33B - Disclosure of past criminal antecedents of every candidate - Providing information is vital for a vibrant and functioning democracy. (Para 13) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Representation of People Act, 1951; Sections 81, 84 r/w. 100(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) & (iv) – the appellant questions judgment and order of the High Court dismissing an application which sought rejection of the election petition – Held, If the appellant’s contentions were to be accepted, there would be a denial of a full-fledged trial, based on the acknowledgement that material facts were not suppressed. Whether the existence of a criminal case, where a charge has not been framed, in relation to an offence which does not possibly carry a prison sentence, or a sentence for a short spell in prison, and whether conviction in a case, where penalty was imposed, are material facts, are contested. This court would be pre-judging that issue because arguendo if the effect of withholding some such information is seen as insignificant, by itself, that would not negate the possibility of a conclusion based on the cumulative impact of withholding of facts and non-compliance with statutory stipulations (which is to be established in a trial). For these reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. (Para 28) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - Sale deed - Normally, on the execution and registration of a sale deed containing recitals regarding the payment of consideration and delivery of possession, the sale is complete even if the sale price is not paid and, therefore, it will not be possible to cancel the sale deed in its entirety. However, the exception to the said rule is the practice of ta khubzul badlain. The use of the expression ta khubzul badlain in a sale deed by itself will not be determinative of the true nature of the transaction. It cannot be read in isolation. All the terms and conditions and recitals in the document will have to be considered to decide the real nature of the transaction. (Para 13) Yogendra Prasad Singh v. Ram Bachan Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 582 : 2023 INSC 658

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002 - In National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 held that the expression “prima facie true” would mean that the materials / evidence collated by the investigating agency in reference to the accusation against the accused concerned in the chargesheet must prevail, unless overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, materials must show complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offences. What this ratio contemplates is that on the face of it, the accusation against the accused ought to prevail. In our opinion, however, it would not satisfy the prima facie “test” unless there is at least surface-analysis of probative value of the evidence, at the stage of examining the question of granting bail and the quality or probative value satisfies the Court of its worth. In the case of the appellants, contents of the letters through which the appellants are sought to be implicated are in the nature of hearsay evidence, recovered from co-accused. Moreover, no covert or overt terrorist act has been attributed to the appellants in these letters, or any other material forming part of records of these two appeals. Reference to the activities of the accused are in the nature of ideological propagation and allegations of recruitment. No evidence of any of the persons who are alleged to have been recruited or have joined this “struggle” inspired by the appellants has been brought before us. Thus, we are unable to accept NIA’s contention that the appellants have committed the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation. (Para 36) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002 - In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the factors for granting bail under normal circumstances were discussed. It was held that the nature and seriousness of the offences, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with; the larger interest of the public or the State would be relevant factors for granting or rejecting bail. Juxtaposing the appellants’ case founded on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case for granting bail. Allegations against them no doubt are serious, but for that reason alone bail cannot be denied to them. While dealing with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act, we have referred to the materials available against them at this stage. These materials cannot justify continued detention of the appellants, pending final outcome of the case under the others provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act. (Para 43) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002 - Mere participation in seminars by itself cannot constitute an offence under the bail-restricting Sections of the 1967 Act. (Para 29) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002; Section 43D - A bail restricting clause cannot denude the jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court in testing if continued detention in a given case would breach the concept of liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, would apply in a case where such a bail-restricting clause is being invoked on the basis of materials with prima facie low-probative value or quality. (Para 42 - 43) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002; Section 15 - Mere possession of literature even if it inspires or propagates violence by itself would neither amount to a ‘terrorist act’ within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act, nor any other offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. (Para 26) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. Jet Airways Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 564 : 2023 INSC 646
2. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563
3. Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645
4. Commissioner of Service Tax-IV v. Prime Focus Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561
5. Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580 : 2023 INSC 656
6. Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 577 : 2023 INSC 653
7. Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562 : 2023 INSC 639
8. Gursewak Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : 2023 INSC 648
9. Hem Raj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 574 : 2023 INSC 644
10. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 578
11. Ketan Kantilal Modi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 581
12. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559
13. Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583 : 2023 INSC 660
14. Poonam Anjur Pawar vs Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 579
15. Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572 : 2023 INSC 651
16. Ram Kishan v. Manish Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568 : 2023 INSC 640
17. Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560
18. Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573 : 2023 INSC 654
19. Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570
20. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566
21. State of West Bengal v. Suvendu Adhikari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 569 : 2023 INSC 647
22. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : 2023 INSC 649
23. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655
24. Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652
25. Yogendra Prasad Singh v. Ram Bachan Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 582 : 2023 INSC 658