Home
/

Top Stories
/
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 15 to March 21, 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

21 March 2021 5:22 PM IST

Citation: LL 2021 SC 165

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy observed that the time period for investigation specified under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be extended by seeking to file supplementary charge sheet qua UAPA offences.

The Court while granting default bail to Fakhrey Alam, a person accused under Section 18 of the UAPA Act, reiterated that default bail under first proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental right and not merely a statutory right.

"We do not think that the State can take advantage of the fact that in one case there is one charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets are used to extend the time period in this manner by seeking to file the supplementary charge sheet qua the offences under the UAPA Act even beyond the period specified under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C beyond which default bail will be admissible, i.e., the period of 180 days. That period having expired and the charge sheet not having been filed qua those offences (albeit a supplementary charge sheet), we are of the view the appellant would be entitled to default bail in the aforesaid facts and circumstances.", the court said.

2. Delay In Raising Juvenility Claim Is No Ground For Rejection Of Such A Claim: Supreme Court

Case: Ram Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 8633/2017]

Citation : LL 2021 SC 172

The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari observed that the delay in raising the claim of juvenility is no ground for rejection of such a claim. The court was considering an application filed by one Isha Charan who has been convicted along with others under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced with imprisonment for life in relation to an incident which took place on 30-11-1982.

"The plea of juvenility had possibly not been taken before the Trial Court as the trial was concluded and the applicant Isha Charan was convicted before the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was enacted. However, Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, defines a "juvenile" or "child" as a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. A person who was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence is entitled to the protection. The claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case as held by this Court in Abuzar Hossain @ Ghulam Hossain vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2012) 10 SCC 489. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility is no ground for rejection of such a claim. Similar view has been taken in numerous subsequent cases of this Court.", the court said.

3. Criminal Proceedings Are Not For Realization Of Disputed Dues, Reiterates Supreme Court

Case: Manoj Kumar Sood Vs. State Of Jharkhand [ SLP (Crl) 1274/2021]

Citation: LL 2021 SC 171

The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari reiterated that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. A Criminal Court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial, the bench observed.

The bench also referred to Shyam Singh vs. State through CBI reported in (2006) 9 SCC 169, in which it was held that it is open to a Court to grant or refuse bail but to say that offence has been committed even at the stage of granting bail and to direct repayment of any amount is both onerous and unwarranted.

4. Factors Which May Not Be Relevant To Determine The Guilt Of Accused Can Be Considered At The Stage Of Sentencing: Supreme Court

Case: K.Prakash vs. State of Karnataka [CrA 336 OF 2021]

Citation: LL 2021 SC 169

The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy observed that factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt of the accused can be considered at the stage of sentencing.

In this case, the accused were convicted under Sections 344 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly conspiring with the other accused to kidnap a minor girl. They were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 344, IPC and a fine of Rs.2000/- and S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 366, IPC and a fine of Rs.5000/-. As the Karnataka High Court dismissed their appeals, they approached the Apex Court.

"Many factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt, must be seen with a human approach, at the stage of sentencing. While imposing the sentence, all relevant factors are to be considered, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of each case.", the bench said.

5. Impart Gender Sensitization Training To Judges; Include Such Courses In LLB & AIBE Syllabus: Supreme Court

Title : Aparna Bhat vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [CrA 329 OF 2021]

Citation : LL 2021 SC 168

The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat suggested that gender sensitization training should be imparted to Judges and public prosecutors. In doing so, the bench also observed that each High Court should formulate a module on judicial sensitivity to sexual offences, to be tested in the Judicial Services Examination. It also directed the Bar Council of India to take steps to include such courses as part of LLB and AIBE syllabus.

"The National Judicial Academy is hereby requested to devise, speedily, the necessary inputs which have to be made part of the training of young judges, as well as form part of judges' continuing education with respect to gender sensitization, with adequate awareness programs regarding stereotyping and unconscious biases that can creep into judicial reasoning. The syllabi and content of such courses shall be framed after necessary consultation with sociologists and teachers in psychology, gender studies or other relevant fields, preferably within three months." The bench said.

6. All Consumer Complaints Filed Before CPA 2019 Should Be Heard By Fora As Per Pecuniary Jurisdiction Under CPA 1986 : Supreme Court

Title : Neena Aneja and others vs Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.

Citation : LL 2021 SC 164

The Supreme Court held that consumer complaints filed before the coming into effect of the Consumer Protection Act 2019(CPA 2019) should continue in the fora in which they were filed as per the pecuniary jurisdiction under the previous Consumer Protection Act of 1986(CPA 1986).

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah set aside the directions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the previously instituted cases as per the 1986 Act should be transferred to the respective fora as per the new pecuniary limits under the 2019 Act.

"...we have come to the conclusion that proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019", the bench observed.

8. Accused Can Be Summoned U/s 319 CrPC Even On The Basis Of Examination-In-Chief Of Witness: Supreme Court

Case: Sartaj Singh vs State of Haryana [CrA 298-299 OF 2021]

Citation: LL 2021 SC 161

The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that an accused can be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of even examination in chief of the witness and the Court need not wait till his cross examination.

The bench observed that If on the basis of the examination in chief of the witness the Court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the proposed accused, the Court may in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC array such a person as accused and summon him to face the trial.

9. Person Ineligible U/s 29A IBC To Submit Resolution Plan Cannot Propose Scheme Of Compromise & Arrangement U/s 230 Companies Act 2013: Supreme Court

Case: Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd [CA 9664 of 2019]

Citation: LL 2021 SC 160

The Supreme Court held that a person who is ineligible under Section 29A of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code to submit a resolution plan, cannot propose a scheme of compromise and arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah also upheld the constitutional validity of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which stipulate that a person who is not eligible under the IBC to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor shall not be a party in any manner to such compromise or arrangement.

The Court observed thus while dismissing the appeals against National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and also a writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Regulation 2B Of Liquidation Process Regulations. NCLT, in these cases, held that a person who is ineligible under Section 29A of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code to submit a resolution plan, is also barred from proposing a scheme of compromise and arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.

10. Supreme Court Nullifies Kerala High Court Direction That Final Report Under Section 173(2) CrPC Should Be Filed Even For Removal Of Accused

Tittle : State of Kerala vs Anil Kumar and others

Citation : LL 2021 SC 173

A bench comprising Justices Mohan Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran has held that the general directions issued by the Kerala High Court regarding the deletion of parties from the array of accused in the final report should not be given effect to.

The bench observed that the directions will have no general application and will apply only to the facts of the particular case. The Court held so while disposing of a special leave petition filed by the State of Kerala against the general directions issued by a single bench of Justice P Somarajan of the Kerala High Court.

The High Court had "deprecated" the practice of police filing casual reports before the Magistrate to remove or delete parties from the array of accused. The High Court had also observed that it was possible to file a 'refer report' under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and held that such reports should be filed even with respect to persons who have been dropped as accused in the case, along with the necessary documents and statements as per Section 173(5). It further directed that notice should be given to the informant regarding the removal or deletion of accused.

IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES

1. Maratha Quota Case : Indira Sawhney Decision Delivered After Much Discussion; No Need To Revisit, Datar Argues In Supreme Court

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court started hearing this week, the challenge against the constitutionality of Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provides for a quota to Marathas in jobs and education.

On the first day of the hearing, Datar commenced his submissions on the issue of whether the 50% limit as set by the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment could be crossed and as to whether the 9-Judge Bench judgement should be revisited. Datar submitted that there was not a single Judgement which doubted the competence of Indra Sawhney and referred to multiple Constitution Bench judgements which had been referred to a 9-Judge or an 11-Judge Bench.

2. Bail To Unitech Promoters: Supreme Court Pulls Up Delhi HC, CMM-Says 'Shocking Exercise Of Judicial Power, Breach Of Judicial Discipline'

The Supreme Court this week pulled up Delhi High Court and a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for going over its head in entertaining the bail applications of Unitech promoters Ajay and Sanjay Chandra, when the apex court had categorically denied them bail in August last year.

Issuing notice to the accused, the bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah stayed the grant of bail by the CMM, directing the accused to surrender to the Tihar jail by March 22. A status report had come to be filed on behalf of the Delhi Police, Economic Offences Wing, together with an interlocutory application for staying the order passed by Dr Pankaj Sharma, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 13 January 2021 granting bail to the accused.

3. 'Advocates Can Only Earn Livelihood If They Come Into Contact With People' : SC Says Lawyers' Demand For Vaccine Priority Need Consideration

The Supreme Court this week orally observed that the concerns of the legal fraternity regarding priority for COVID-19 vaccination were genuine, which require consideration.

"Advocates can only earn livelihood only if they come into contact with people. They need assurance that they will not die if they come into contact with people", the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde told the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The bench, also including Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, was considering the transfer petitions filed by vaccine manufacturers Bharat Biotech and Serum Institute of India seeking to withdraw to the Supreme Court the suo moto case taken by the Delhi High Court on vaccine priority for legal fraternity.

4. SC Dismisses Plea Challenging Reduction In Quota Reserved For Appointment To UP Higher Judicial Service Through Limited Competitive Exam

Supreme Court this week declined to entertain the challenging the constitutional validity of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2014 to the extent that it has reduced the quota reserved for appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service through limited competitive examination from 25% to 10%.

A three-judge Bench of CJI Bobde, Justice Bopanna and Justice Ramasubramanian has allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea and approach the High Court. The plea argued that reduction in the quota set out for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (L.D.C.E) candidates and ensuing consequences have resulted in completely defeating the entire purpose and objective behind introducing this method for appointment to the U.P Higher Judiciary services.

5. 'You Can't File A Petition Against Observations' : SC To Centre On Plea Against Findings In Rhea Chakraborty Bail Order

While considering a case related to Rhea Chakraborty, the Supreme Court this week told the Central Government that a petition cannot be challenged against mere observations in a bail order.

A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India was considering the petition filed by the Central Government through the Narcotics Control Bureau against the observations made by the Bombay High Court while granting bail to actor Rhea Chakraborty in the NDPS case registered in connection with the death of Sushant Singh Rajput.

The bench highlighted that the Centre's petition does not challenge the bail order and only challenges observations.

"We find the new things you do very difficult to understand. You cannot file a petition challenging the observations. You can only challenge the order. The observations are prima facie", the CJI told the SG.

6. "Insurer Should Deposit Award In Bank Account Maintained By MACT By RTGS/NEFT': SC Issues Directions For Uniform Procedure In Granting Motor Accident Compensation

The Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions regarding process of disbursement of compensation as well as expediting the matter before the MACTs across the country.

According to these directions, jurisdictional police station has to submit an Accident Information Report about the accident to the tribunal and insurer within first 48 hours either over email or a dedicated website. They shall also submit a detailed accident report to them within three months.

7. HC's Power To Grant Interim Relief, Stay On Coercive Steps To Protect Personal Liberty Must Be Preserved Subject To Guidelines: Supreme Court

"When the Bombay High Court (in Arnab Goswami's case) closed the door (in refusing to grant interim bail pending consideration of the plea for quashing of criminal proceedings), we opened it and we said that it cannot be shut completely. Although the power must be exercised sparingly, but the judicial discretion has to be there", observed Justice D. Y. Chandrachud this week.

The bench of Justices Chandrachud, M. R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna was considering the contours of the power of quashing under section 482, CrPC and the power to grant interim relief by way of bail/anticipatory bail, stay on coercive steps i.e. a stay on arrest and investigation.

8. "Amicus Can't Run The Govt, CBI Administration":SG Tushar Mehta Requests Court To Demarcate Role Of Amicus Curiae

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta earlier this week while addressing Supreme Court's Bench led by Justice NV Ramana urged the Court to demarcate lines upto which the Court can be assisted by Amicus.

"I request Your Lordships to demarcate lines upto which the Court can be assisted by Amicus. I'll move an application. We've been seeing this for decades" SG Mehta submitted.

SG Mehta also said "I'm not imputing motives on any Individual. But role & ambit of their assistance needs to be decided by Court. They cannot be running the government. "

SG Mehta made these statements while making submissions before the Top Court in a PIL regarding killings in fake encounters by police personnel and personnel in uniform of the armed forces of the Union.

9. Supreme Court Allows Discharge Of NHRC Officer From SIT Probing Alleged Fake Encounters In Manipur

Supreme Court this week allowed request of Senior Superintendent of Police Mahesh Bhardwaj in the NHRC seeking discharge from the SIT formed to investigate alleged fake encounters in Manipur

A three judge Bench led by Justice Ramana has allowed the officer to he discharged to his parent department to join on his promoted post, and has directed the Centre provide a suitable officer to the NHRC expeditiously. The Bench was hearing applications filed in the PIL regarding killings in fake encounters by police personnel and personnel in uniform of the armed forces of the Union.

10. Filings Have Gone Down; Virtual Functioning Affecting Struggling Lawyers : Sr Adv Vikas Singh Tells Supreme Court

Arguing on behalf of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in its plea seeking quashing of the SOP issued by Supreme Court's Registry on hybrid hearings, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh this week highlighted various grievances faced by lawyers and the legal community amid covid 19 pandemic.

"The unsuccessful and struggling lawyers are the real sufferers today. As an individual I do not have difficulty but that is not the point. My convenience is not to be taken as a yardstick. The average number of bar cannot do this." Singh narrated the impact of virtual functioning before the Bench comprising of Justice SK Kaul and Justice Subhash Reddy.

Read Also: Supreme Court Calls For Meeting Between Judges Committee & SCBA To Resolve Differences On Hybrid Hearing SOP

11. Supreme Court Launches E-Copying Software To Facilitate 'Contactless', 'Doorstep' Delivery Of Certified Copies Of Judgments

The Supreme Court has launched a web-based e-Copying software to facilitate doorstep and contactless delivery of certified copies of Supreme Court judgments/proceedings. Therefore, it will not be necessary for stakeholders to physically come to the counter of the Registry to apply and obtain such copies.

The e-Copying software, which has been made available on the website of the Supreme Court of India viz. www.sci.gov.in, will facilitate entitled stakeholders to get such copies, as admissible, under Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and A Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017.