Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [February 1 to February 7 2021]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK

1. Violation Of Fundamental Right To Speedy Trial Is A Ground For Constitutional Court To Grant Bail In UAPA Cases: Supreme Court

[Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb]

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 56

The bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose held that Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on ground of violation of Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial.

"The presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a Statue as well as the powers exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can be well harmonized. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial." 

The court observed while dismissing the appeal filed by National Investigation Agency against the Kerala High Court order granting bail to the accused in palm chopping of Thodupuzha Newman College professor T J Joseph in 2011.

2. Collusive Commercial Transactions With Corporate Debtor Will Not Constitute 'Financial Debt' Under IBC : Supreme Court

[Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Spade Financial Services Limited]

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 55

Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee has held that collusive or sham transactions with a corporate debtor will not amount to "financial debt" within the meaning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016(IBC).

The Supreme Court was hearing appeals challenging the orders of the NCLAT and the NCLT which excluded two entities(AAA & Spade) from the Committee of Creditors constituted for the insolvency resolution of a corporate debtor.

The Bench also held that a financial creditor which is not a "related party" to the corporate debtor at present can also be excluded from the Committee of Creditors (CoC) if it is found that its removal of the "related party" label was a part of strategy to bypass the bar under Section 21(2), first proviso of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC).

3. Creditor Will Not Become 'Financial Creditor' Under IBC If A Corporate Debtor Has Only Given Security By Pledging Shares, Without Undertaking To Discharge Borrower's Liability: Supreme Court

[Phoenix Arc Pvt Ltd v. Ketulbhai Ramubhai Patel]

CITATION : LL 2021 SC 60

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah has held that if a corporate debtor has only offered security by pledging shares, without undertaking to discharge the borrower's liability, then the creditor in such a case will not become 'financial creditor' as defined under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC).

The Court held that such a creditor could be a secured creditor but will not be a financial creditor under the IBC entitled to take part in the insolvency resolution process.

"A person having only security interest over the assets of corporate debtor, even if falling within the description of 'secured creditor' by virtue of collateral security extended by the corporate debtor, would not be covered by the financial creditors as per definitions contained in sub-section (7) and (8) of Section 5". Apex Court held.

4. Corruption Is An Offence Against Society: Supreme Court Sets Aside Gujarat HC Judgment Acquitting An Accused

[State of Gujarat v. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave]

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 58

Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed that Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are offences are against the society. The bench made the observation while setting aside a Gujarat High Court judgment acquitting an accused in a corruption case.

"An Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal passed by the Learned trial Court, is required to bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Therefore, while dealing with the cases of acquittal by the trial Court, the Appellate Court would have certain limitations." The bench held.

5. Mere Recovery Of Currency Notes From Public Servant Does Not Constitute Offence U/s 7 Of Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court

[N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu]

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 59

Supreme Court has observed that mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

To prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe, the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed while setting aside a High Court judgment which convicted an accused in a corruption case.

In this case, the accused, a Sanitary Inspector of Madurai Municipal Corporation, was acquitted in a corruption case by the Trial Court. The High Court, allowing the appeal filed by the State, reversed the Trial Court judgment and convicted the accused.

In appeal, taking note of the evidence on record, the bench observed that the demand for and acceptance of bribe amount and cell phone by the appellant, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

6. 'Belief Of Commission Of Act Of Money Laundering' Has To Be Recorded Before Directing Freezing Of Bank Accounts Under PMLA: Supreme Court

[OPTO Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Bank]

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 61

The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI S.A. Bobde observed that before directing freezing of bank accounts under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Authority has to record the belief of commission of the act of money laundering.

The observation came while dealing with the case of Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement who had, through the communication addressed to the Anti Money Laundering Officer of some Banks, instructed them that the accounts maintained by the a company be 'debit freezed/stop operations' until further orders, with immediate effect. The High Court had upheld this, while disposing the writ petitions filed by the Company.

The Apex Court referring to sec. 17 of the PMLA observed that "It certainly is not the requirement that the communication addressed to the Bank itself should contain all the details. But what is necessary is an order in the file recording the belief as provided under Section 17(1) of PMLA before the communication is issued and thereafter the requirement of Section 17(2) of PMLA after the freezing is made is complied. There is no other material placed before the Court to indicate compliance of Section 17 of PMLA, more particularly recording the belief of commission of the act of money laundering and placing it before the Adjudicating Authority or for filing application after securing the freezing of the account to be made. In that view, the freezing or the continuation thereof is without due compliance of the legal requirement and, therefore, not sustainable."

Holding thus, the bench directed to defreeze of the accounts of the company.

7. Litigant Cannot Seek Recusal Of A Judge On The Ground That He/She May Not Get A Favourable Order: Supreme Court

[Neelam Manmohan Attavar v. Manmohan Attavar (D) through LRs]

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 65

The division bench of Apex Court comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah observed that a litigant cannot seek recusal of a judge from hearing his/her case on the ground that he/she may not get a favourable order. The observation came while the bench rejected a plea seeking recusal of Justice DY Chandrachud from hearing a case.

"We see no valid and good ground for recusal by one of us. Merely because the order might not be in favour of the applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for recusal. A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the Court by seeking a Bench of its choice. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant­ petitioner in person that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.) should recuse from hearing the present miscellaneous application is not accepted and the said prayer is rejected." The bench observed.

8. Illegal Occupants Of Government/Panchayat Land Cannot Claim Regularization As A Matter Of Right: Supreme Court

[Joginder v. State of Haryana]

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 66

The Supreme Court observed that persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularization.

"Regularization of the illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land can only be as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions stipulated in the Rules. If it is found that the conditions stipulated for regularisation have not been fulfilled, such persons in illegal occupation of the Government Land/Panchayat Land are not entitled to regularization", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.

In this case, the applicants who were in illegal possession of the land belonging to Gram Panchayat, made an application under Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. This application was rejected by the competent authority by holding that applicants were in illegal occupation of area more than the required area up to a maximum of 200 square yards. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the authority.

The bench in appeal held that the applicants were found to be in illegal occupation of the area of more than 200 square yards and therefore one of the conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) is not satisfied. 

9. Recruitment Of Candidates In Excess Of Notified Vacancies Would Be Unconstitutional: Supreme Court

[Gajanan Babulal Bansode v. State Of Maharashtra]

CITATION : LL 2021 SC 67

The Supreme Court observed that recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.

An authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Indu Malhotra and Vineet Saran observed while setting aside orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and High Court.

The observation came while dealing with a Government Circular issued by the State of Maharashtra dated 27.06.2016 which notified 828 vacancies for promotion to the post of Police Sub-Inspector through the LDCE– 2016. Later, vide a Government Resolution, it notified a policy decision to accommodate 636 additional candidates who had secured more than 230 marks in the LDCE – 2016 examination. This resolution is under challenge before the Administrative Tribunal. An interim 'status quo' order passed by the Tribunal was later vacated by it. The High Court issued a direction to the State to send the additional list of 636 candidates for training of 9 months during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal.

The bench therefore observed that the Government Resolution will remain stayed during the pendency of proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES 

1. Supreme Court Orders Release Of Comedian Munawar Faruqui; Stays Madhya Pradesh HC Order And Production Warrant In UP Case

A division bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai granted ad-interim bail to comedian Munawar Faruqui in a case registered by Madhya Pradesh police for alleged hurting of religious sentiments.

In doing so, the bench also took note of the submission of his counsel, Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, that the arrest was made in violation of Section 41A of Cr.P.C, without following the dictum laid in the Arnesh Kumar judgment. The Court also stayed the the production warrant issued in a case by UP Police.

The Bench was considering the special leave petition filed against the order passed by the High Court dismissing his bail application on January 28. Apart from the SLP challenging the HC order, Munawar Faruqui has also filed a writ petition against the MP police FIR.

Also read: 'Such People Must Not Be Spared': Madhya Pradesh High Court Reserves Orders On Munawar Faruqui's Bail Plea

2. Centre & UPSC Agree To Grant Extra Chance To Candidates Who Had Last Attempt In October 2020 & Are Not Age-Barred As One-Time Relaxation

The Central Government has informed the Supreme Court that the Centre and Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) have agreed to grant a "one-time, restricted relaxation to prospective candidates" who had given their last attempt of the UPSC exam in October 2020, and were not age-barred.

ASG SV Raju submitted to the Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar that the extra chance would be given, only to the extent of providing an extra attempt, limited to the exam in 2021. Further, it would granted only to those candidates who had given their last attempt in CSE-2020 and were not age-barred.

On earlier ocassion, the bench told ASG SV Raju "It's just a one-time relaxation. If it has been done before, why not this time".

3. Maratha Quota: Constitution Bench of Supreme Court To Begin Final Hearing From 8th March

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court fixed the dates for hearing of the challenge against the constitutionality of the Maharasthra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provided for a quota to Marathas in jobs and education.

The Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan has directed for hearing to commence on 8th March and to be concluded by 18th March, 2021.

4. Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case : President Competent Authority To Decide Perarivalan's Pardon, Says Tamil Nadu Governor

The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that the Tamil Nadu Governor has proposed that the President of India is the competent authority to deal the request of remission of sentence in case of AG Perarivalan, the convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case

The Ministry of Home Affairs has submitted an affidavit, filed in pursuance of the Court's order dated 22.01.2021, stating that the Tamil Nadu Governor, after considering facts and circumstances of the case, recorded that the President would be the competent authority and the Central Government will process the proposal in accordance with the law.

5. Any "Senior, Responsible Officer" From Facebook Can Appear Before Delhi Legislative Assembly: Dr. Abhishek Singhvi Clarifies Before Supreme Court

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of Delhi Legislative Assembly informed the Supreme Court this week that "any senior, responsible officer from Facebook" can come and appear before the Assembly and not necessarily Mr. Ajit Mohan.

The bench headed by Justice SK Kaul continued the hearing in Facebook India Vice President, Ajit Mohan's challenge to the two summons issued by the Delhi Legislative Assembly's Committee Peace and Harmony in connection with the Delhi riots that broke out in February 2020.

Dr. Singhvi has also submitted before the bench that the Delhi Assembly is competent to discuss Delhi's Peace and Harmony issue as the same falls under the subject of good governance for GNCTD.

Earlier this week, Arvind Datar concluded his arguments on behalf of Facebook by submitting that the Delhi Assembly lacked competence to summon Facebook for enquiry into Delhi riots. Harish Salve has already concluded his submissions on behalf of Mr. Mohan.

Also Read: Delhi House Panel Cannot Deal With 'Law And Order' As It Is Union's Subject : Salve Submits For Facebook VP

Also Read: Only Centre Can Control Internet Intermediaries; Legislative Assembly Cannot : Salve Submits For Facebook VP

6. 'Approach High Court' : Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal Of Petitions Challenging "Love Jihad" Ordinance Of UP

The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI S.A. Bobde allowed the withdrawal of two writ petitions challenging the controversial Uttar Pradesh Ordinance on Unlawful Religious Conversions with the liberty to approach the High Court.

"The High Court is already seized of the matter. We would like to have the benefit of the High Court's view on this as well", the CJI told the counsel for the petitioners.

The court had also dismissed a petition last month filed by the UP Government seeking transfer of the petitions pending in the High Court to the Supreme Court.

7. 'We Are Sure Govt Is Enquiring': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Pleas Seeking Probe Into Tractor Rally Violence

A bench headed by CJI S.A. Bobde refused to entertain a batch of petitions seekingenquiry into the violence during farmers' tractor rally held in the national capital on the Republic Day. The Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach the appropriate Government Minstry.

"We are sure that the government is enquiring into it and taking appropriate action. We read a statement of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in press that that Law will take its own course. So the government is already investigating it." CJI observed at the outset.

The bench while hearing petitioners, dismissed similar PILs seeking protection of common men and police officers during protests, seeking judicial enquiry by a retired SC/HC judge into the events or NIA/CBI investigation.

8. Supreme Court Asks Petitioner Challenging WhatsApp Business's Privacy Policy To Move Delhi High Court

The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI declined to entertain a petition by Confederation of All India Traders against the new privacy policy of social media chat platform WhatsApp, since a similar plea was challenged before the Delhi High Court.

WhatsApp updated its privacy policy on January 4, 2021 and made it compulsory for its users to accept its terms and conditions, failing which the accounts and services would be terminated after February 8, 2021 for the respective user. Later, following public outcry, WhatsApp informed that it was pushing back the new privacy policy and assured users that no accounts will be suspended on February 8.

9. Supreme Court Directs Distribution Of 9122 Crores To Unit Holders Under Franklin Templeton's Six Mutual Fund Schemes

A division bench of Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Sanjeev Khanna this week directed that amount of 9122 crores that is cash ready with Franklin Templeton as on 15th January 2021 be distributed amongst the unit holders under the six mutual fund schemes. The Court has stated that the distribution is to be done in proportion to their respective interest in assets of scheme and will be undertaken by SBI Mutual funds as agreed by both Franklin Templeton Trust and SEBI.

The bench was hearing plea by Franklin Templeton challenging a Karnataka HC order which restrained winding up of six of its debt schemes without obtaining the consent of its investors by a simple majority. The Bench was examining objections to the e-voting results to decide if disbursal or payment to the unit holders should be made.

The Bench has further directed the process to preferably be completed in period of 20 days from date of this order and has given liberty to the parties to can move an application and approach the Court in case of any difficulty in the process.

10. Supreme Court Seeks WhatsApp, Facebook, Google Pay, Amazon Pay Response On Plea Seeking Data Protection On UPI Platforms

A bench headed by CJI S.A. Bobde, earlier this week, sought response of WhatsApp India, Facebook, Google Pay, Amazon Pay and the Union Government on a plea seeking directions to ensure that data collected by Unified Payment Interface(UPI) platforms is not shared with parent company or any other third party under any circumstances.

The direction was issued to the respondents on the PIL filed by Rajya Sabha MP Binoy Viswam who belongs to the Communist Party of India(CPI).

11. Uniform Marriage Age For Men & Women : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Transfer Petitions From High Courts

Supreme Court bench headed by CJI S.A. Bobde issued notice on petition seeking transfer of petitions pending before the Rajasthan High Court & Delhi High Court which have sought uniform age of marriage for both men & women. The plea was filed by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

The plea states that it has been filed in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations and conflicting views on interpretation of Articles 14, 15 & 21 and judgments involving gender justice & equality. Moreover, the petition seeks transfer of the petitions pending in the High Courts to the Supreme Court.

12. 'This Script Is Well Written' : Supreme Court On Mukul Rohatgi's Advice To Withdraw Sonu Sood's Plea

The remark came after a bench headed by CJI S.A. Bobde allowed Actor Sonu Sood's plea for withdrawal of his petition pending before Bombay City Civil Court at Borivili Division, Dindoshi, Bombay, in view of the application for regularisation filed pursuant to the notice dated 2 24.10.2020 under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Regulation and Town Planning Act, 1966

The plea, filed by actor Sood, challenged Bombay High Court's recent order dismissing his appeal against Civil Court's rejection in granting temporary injunction against the Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation.

SIGNIFICANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE WEEK

1. Daughter Being In Parents' Custody Doesn't Always Amount To Illegal Detention : Supreme Court In 'Spiritual Guru's Habeas Plea

Supreme Court bench headed by the CJI S.A. Bobde this week refused to entertain a petition filed by a 'spiritual guru', challenging the verdict of the Kerala High Court which dismissed his habeas corpus petition seeking release of his 'spiritual live in partner' allegedly under illegal detention of her parents.

The Court expressed disinclination to entertain the petition observing that the High Court has not found that the woman was under "illegal detention" of her parents. The bench observed that there was a "big difference between custody and detention" and that custody will not always amount to "illegal detention".

"There is a big difference between custody and detention. If a daughter is said to be in her parents' custody, it does not mean that she is detained." CJI remarked at the outset.

However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court to seek a finding on the question of illegal detention.

2. Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Order Directing State To Reconstruct Migrants' Huts Destroyed During Lockdown

A bench comprising of Justices SK Kaul, Hrishikesh Roy and Dinesh Maheshwari stayed an order passed by the Karnataka High Court, by which it had directed the state government to reconstruct at its own cost the huts/shanties of migrant workers in Bengaluru, which were burnt down near the Kachakaranahalli slum in Bengaluru East, by unknown miscreants, when the occupants had left for their native places after the announcement of the lockdown.

The SLP filed by the State Government states that the land in question was undisputedly a government land, with respect to which notifications for slum clearance were already issued. Furthermore, it was stated that an alternate plot of 4 acres was identified for the rehabilitation of Kachakaranahalli slum dwellers. However despite these facts, the HC ordered for the re-construction of huts at the very same land at the cost of the government.

3. Request For Inspection, Recounting Of Ballot Papers Not To Be Considered Unless Specific Genuine Ground & Valid Reasons Cited: SC

A bench headed by CJI S.A. Bobde, while dismissing pleas by two defeated candidates in 2015 Kerela Panchayat Elections, observed that a request for inspection, recounting of ballot papers etc. have to be considered only if it is accompanied with a really genuine ground, supported by valid reasons.

The bench was hearing two SLPs against the December 14, 2020 orders of the Kerala High Court holding that a mere filing of the application with vague pleadings will not entitle the party to get an order to open the ballet box and to recount the votes casted earlier, and that such a prayer can be granted only if valid reasons are assigned by the party who approach the court with such a request.

4. Supreme Court Requires States/UTs To Furnish Details Of Financial Stability Of Parents/Guardians Of Children 'Restored' In Pandemic

A bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao required the state governments/Union Territories to provide information in 2 weeks about the financial stability of the families of those children who were restored to their parents/guardians from the Child Care Institutions on account of the COVID situation, in the wake of increasing risks of child trafficking etc.

The observation came after the bench noted submissions of Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, amicus curiae in the matter.

The bench also asked the states and the Union Territories to furnish the position as to the children who had been restored to their parents/guardians during the pandemic and how many of them have been sent back to the CCIs. The bench also required the state governments and the Union Territories to furnish information relating to the vacancy positions in the Child Welfare Committees and Juvenile Justice Boards in two weeks.

PETITIONS THIS WEEK IN THE APEX COURT

1. "Section 124A IPC Is A Threat To Fundamental Rights" : Plea In Supreme Court Challenges The Constitutional Validity Of Sedition Law

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court urging it to declare the law against Sedition under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code as ultra-vires the Constitution of India. The plea states that a colonial provision like section 124A which was intended to subjugate the subjects of British crown should not be permitted to continue in a democratic republic, under the continuously expanding scope of the fundamental rights.

The petitioners, Advocates Aditya Ranjan, Varun Thakur and V. Elenchezhiyan, have filed the plea being aggrieved by the increased chilling effect of blatant misuse of section 124-A of IPC on the constitutional democracy and on the fundamental rights and under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.

2. Shashi Tharoor, Rajdeep Sardesai Move Supreme Court Against Multiple FIRs For Tweets On Sikh Youth's Death During Farmer Protests

Petition has been filed by Congress Leader and Member of Parliament Dr Shashi Tharoor and Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai against multiple FIRs registered in different states for allegedly sharing unverified news about the death of a protestor during the farmers' tractor rally on 26th January. Journalists Mrinal Pande, Zafar Agha, Paresh Nath and Anant Nath have also approached the Supreme Court challenging FIRs.

According to an NDTV report, multiple police cases have been filed in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor and six journalists for allegedly "misreporting" and "spreading disharmony" on Republic Day when a tractor rally by farmers turned violent in Delhi. All of them face charges including sedition, criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity under the Indian Penal Code.

3. Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Inquiry By NIA To Find The Truth About Protests That Took Place In Delhi On Republic Day

AOR Narender Kumar Verma on behalf of social activist KK Ramesh has filed a plea seeking directions on the National Investigation Agency to conduct an inquiry into the protests which took place in Delhi on Republic Day ,26th January, 2021.

The plea further prays for the formulation of strict rules and guidelines "against agitation and procession by political parties or any organization religious or non-religious all over India". It also seeks for a ban against processions or agitations in favour of the three contentious farm laws till the matter is decided by the Supreme Court.

4. Plea In SC Seeks Safety And Protection For Protesting Farmers, Stop Propaganda Against Sikh Community, Probe In To The Death Of Sikh Youth During Farmers Protests

The plea filed by Advocates Sanpreet Singh Ajmani and Pushpinder Singh seeks directions to the authorities to ensure safety and protection of the farmers, who are protesting at the borders of the points i.e. Singhu, Ghazipur and Tikri, and ensure the supply of basic amenities such as water and electricity to them.

It also seeks an independent probe in the unfortunate incident of death of a young boy namely Navneet Singh resident of Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand during the protest, who had allegedly sustained gunshot injury, but, in his PMR, the cause of death has been reported as "shock and hemorrhage as a result of ant mortem head injury" andsubsequently, the eye witness to the said incident has also been reported dead.

SUPREME COURT IN NEWS THIS WEEK

1. 'PM Modi Most Loved, Popular, Vibrant & Visionary Leader' : SC Judge Justice MR Shah Says At Gujarat HC Event

Supreme Court judge Justice MR Shah termed Prime Minister Narendra Modi "our most popular, loved, vibrant and visionary leader", while speaking at a virtual function related to the release of a commemorative stamp on the occasion of the diamond jubilee of the Gujarat High Court.

"I am glad and feel proud & privileged to participate in this important function of release of commemorative stamp of Gujarat HC on completion of 60 years and that too by our most popular, loved, vibrant & visionary leader, Hon'ble Prime Minister Narendabhai Modi", Justice Shah said while starting his address.

2. Our Supreme Court Has Become Number One In World In Hearing Cases Through Video Conferencing : PM Modi

"Our Supreme Court has become number one in the world in hearing cases through video-conferencing", said Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the commemorative function of 60 Years of Gujarat High Court.

Prime Minister Modi was celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of the Gujarat High Court with the release of a commemorative postage stamp. Justice MR Shah of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Vikram Nath of the Gujarat High Court, Union Minister of Law and Justice Ravi Shankar Prasad, Chief Minister of Gujarat Vijay Rupani, and Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta were also in attendance in the virtual event.

3. Senior Advocates Appeal To AG To Request Government To Extend Vaccination For COVID-19 To Members Of Legal Fraternity

During an exchange that took place this week before the Constitution Bench hearing the Maharashtra Reservation Matter, Senior Advocates appealed to the Attorney-General to request the government to ensure that vaccination for COVID-19 was made available at its earliest to senior members of the Bar.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi remarked, "I think the AG should exercise his constitutional right and request the government to ensure that the vaccine is given to all senior lawyers of the Bar".

During the discussion, which also included Senior Advocates Arvind Datar, Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan, Rohatgi informed the Court that only 50% people were turning up for vaccination and that stocks were piling.

4. Physical Court Hearings To Resume Soon With Virtual Courts In Hybrid Manner: Chief Justice Of India Assures

The Chief Justice of India SA Bobde this week has assured that the physical court hearings will resume in a hybrid manner with virtual courts at the earliest, after considering the medical advice and clearing the existing impediments with relation to health of the Stake holders, Technology Infrastructures and availability of Registry staff.

Earlier this week, a meeting was called by the CJI which was attended by the Solicitor General, the Chairman Bar Council of India, officer bearers of Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh. The resumption of physical hearings in a hybrid manner will be based on normal listing of cases and not based on consent of the Advocates On Record or Advocates.

The development came after the Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association had written to the Chief Justice of India seeking resumption of physical hearings with the existing virtual Courts in a hybrid manner.

5. Supreme Court Collegium Recommedations

The following recommendations have been given by the Supreme Court collegium this week:

A. Appointment of Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi and judicial officers Rajendra Badamikar and Khazi Jayabunnisa Mohiuddin as Karnataka High Court Judges.

B. Elevation of 8 Judicial Officers as Judges of the Calcutta High Court

C. Elevation of 2 Judicial Officers as Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court

D. Elevation Of 11 Judicial Officers As Allahabad High Court Judges