- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-up:...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: November 11, 2024 To November 17, 2024
Amisha Shrivastava
18 Nov 2024 6:03 PM IST
Nominal IndexCitationsM/S Crystal Transport Private Limited & Anr. v. A Fathima Fareedunisa & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.7709–7710 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 881Sonu Choudary v. State of NCT Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 3111 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 882Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2845/2015 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 883In Re: Directions in the matter of...
Nominal Index
M/S Crystal Transport Private Limited & Anr. v. A Fathima Fareedunisa & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.7709–7710 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 881
Sonu Choudary v. State of NCT Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 3111 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 882
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2845/2015 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 883
In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884
Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Miscellaneous Application No. 393/2023 in SLP (Crl) No. 12831/2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 885
Tinku v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 886
XYZ v. State of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 887
Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 888
Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 889
Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa, Criminal Appeal No. 3257 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 890
GOQII Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891
MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) WP (Crl.) No. 446/2024
Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka SLP(Crl) No. 15292/2024
Jan Suraaj Party v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 742/2024
Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Others v. Vivek Krishna Tankha, SLP(Crl) No. 15212/2024
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Beant Kumar and Anr., SLP(C) No. 26468-26469/2024
G. Venkateswarlu v. The Director, CFSL (CBI) & Ors.
Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP(Crl) No.13463/2024
Abubacker E. v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. 32949-2024
Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
Karuna @ Manoharan v. Union Territory of Puducherry and Ors.
Som Nath Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Kuldeep Mishra v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh W.P.(C) No.24/ 2024
Prajwala v. Union of India, MA 530/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56/2004
Anand Kumar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, W.P.(Crl.) No. 335/2024
Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000960 - / 2021
Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022
Maganti Gopinath v. Mohammed Azharuddin, SLP(C) No. 26427/2024
Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 538/2023
Jacob Vadakkanchery v. Union of India and Anr., Diary No. 48665-2024
Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7279/2024
Omanakuttan KG v. WhatsApp Applications Services Pvt. Ltd and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 736/2024
Jayanarayan Mishra v. State of Odisha, SLP(Crl) No. 1145/2024
Hindu Sena Samiti and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 437/2024
Re Pension Benefits For Employees Retd. From High Court of Bombay At Goa v. State of Goa
International Union of Food Agricultural & Ors v. Union of India
Ajay Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12213/2019
Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, SLP(C) No. 26367/2024
State of Jharkhand v. Alex David @ MU Henry SLP(Crl.) 8629/2022
Harmanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No. 7862/2024
Reports/Judgments
Partnership Act | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Share In Profits Derived From His Share In Assets Of Firm: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Crystal Transport Private Limited & Anr. v. A Fathima Fareedunisa & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.7709–7710 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 881
The Supreme Court held that if a partner is carrying on business with the assets of the firm, till a final settlement is made, the outgoing partner, would have the right to seek accounts and a share in the profits which might be derived from his share in the assets of the firm.
The bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that when an entity takes over the assets of a partnership without an outgoing partner's consent, the profits earned by the entity using the partnership firm's assets would be proportionally distributed to the outgoing partner.
Offence Within Restaurant Not 'House Trespass' As Per Sections 442, 452 IPC: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sonu Choudary v. State of NCT Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 3111 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 882
Observing that a restaurant cannot be said to be either a place used for human dwelling or worship or the custody of the property, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a person accused of the offence of "house trespassing after preparation for hurt" under Section 452 of IPC.
The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma noted that Restaurant does not meet the criteria of a "house" under Section 442 IPC because it is neither a dwelling, a place of worship, nor a place for the custody of property. Thus, the necessary element for an offence under Section 452 was not fulfilled.
Not Every Plaintiff Must Prove Sale Agreement's Execution If Another Plaintiff Having Firsthand Knowledge Proves Execution: Supreme Court
Case Details: Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2845/2015
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 883
The Supreme Court observed that not every plaintiff must prove the execution of a sale agreement if another plaintiff with knowledge of the transaction proves the execution.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that a plaintiff's absence should not be viewed adversely, as testimony from another plaintiff present can substantively support the claims of absent plaintiffs.
“The plaintiffs' interests were represented by their Power of Attorney holders, namely Shri K.D. Maheshwari and Shri Pankaj Maheshwari. Shri K.D. Maheshwari is himself one of the purchasers and a plaintiff in his own suit. He appeared as PW-1 in all the suits, either as the plaintiff or as the Power of Attorney holder for the other plaintiffs. He had personal, firsthand knowledge of the execution of the Agreement to Sell, being directly involved in the transaction and present at the time of its execution. His detailed testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims. Similarly, Shri Pankaj Maheshwari acted as the Power of Attorney holder for the plaintiff Bharat Kumar Lathi and also appeared as a witness. He had personal knowledge of the transaction and corroborated the execution of the Agreement to Sell and the payment of the consideration. Both Shri K.D. Maheshwari and Shri Pankaj Maheshwari were intimately connected with the transaction and were competent to testify about the facts in issue. Moreover, one of the plaintiffs did enter the witness box in his own suit, further reinforcing the plaintiffs' case. Unlike in Vidyadhar Vishnupant (supra), where the defendant deliberately avoided the witness box, here the plaintiffs ensured that competent and directly involved witnesses testified on their behalf.”, the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath observed.
The Supreme Court observed that when multiple plaintiffs are involved in an agreement to sell, a power of attorney holder (who is also a vendee and a plaintiff) may testify on behalf of another plaintiff on matters requiring his personal knowledge.
The bench reasoned that since the power of attorney, who is also a plaintiff, witnessed the execution of the agreement to sell and had first-hand knowledge of the execution, therefore he can very well testify about matters requiring personal knowledge of the principal, such as the principal's state of mind or readiness and willingness to perform obligations under a contract.
'Bulldozer Reminds Of Lawlessness': Supreme Court Says Properties Can't Be Demolished Merely Because Of Criminal Accusations/Convictions
Case Details: In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884
Sending a strong message against the trend of "bulldozer justice", the Supreme Court held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.
Permitting such action by the executive is contrary to the rule of law and also a violation of the principle of separation of powers, as it is for the judiciary to pronounce on the guilt of a person.
The Court also held that the public officials who demolish the properties in such a manner should be held accountable.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the judgment in a batch of petitions filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and various other petitioners seeking directions to stop the trend of "bulldozer justice".
'Lackadaisical Approach In Implementing Arms Act': Supreme Court Forms Committee In Each State & UT To Curb Illegal Gun Menace
Case Details: Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Miscellaneous Application No. 393/2023 in SLP (Crl) No. 12831/2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 885
The Supreme Court constituted a Committee in each State as well as Union Territories after it found that the proliferation of factories, and workshops producing unlicensed arms, which are outside the regulatory framework, resulted in crimes against the Society as well as against the State. It also found that there is a "lackadaisical approach" in the implementation of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016.
In light of this, the Court observed that there is a need for strict monitoring of the manufacture, possession, sale, transportation etc., of the unlicensed arms by the State.
Earlier, the Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the aspect regarding the menace of unlicensed firearms and directed the State respondent to file an affidavit regarding the "number of cases it has registered under the Arms Act or under any other law enabling it to do so for the possession and use or any other aspect relating to unlicensed fire arms".
Compassionate Appointment Is Not A Vested Right: Supreme Court
Case Details: Tinku v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 886
The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be granted without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection.
The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is always subject to proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih was deciding the appeal filed by a man whose claim for compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father, a police constable, was denied. The petitioner's father died when he was 7 years old in 1997 and applied for compassionate appointment in 2008 after attaining majority. However, the Haryana Government rejected the claim citing the 1999 policy which introduced a three-year limit after an employee's death.
Ensure Victim's Presence Before Quashing Serious Offences, Especially Against Women, Based On Settlement: Supreme Court To High Courts
Case Details: XYZ v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 887
The Supreme Court advised High Courts to exercise caution before quashing non-compoundable cases based on settlement between the victim and the accused. Without ensuring that the settlement is genuine, quashing petitions should not be allowed.
Even if there is an affidavit of the victim accepting the settlement, it is advisable to seek the victim's presence, either physically or virtually, before quashing serious offences, especially those against women, the Court advised.
S.67 NDPS Act Statements Inadmissible': Supreme Court Cancels Conviction of Medical Shop Owner
Case Details: Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 888
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act after the prosecution failed to establish that the Appellant/accused conspired in the transportation of a psychotropic substance.
The case related to the seizure of pentazocine, a psychotropic substance, which was being transported as a railway parcel. The Narcotics Control Bureau apprehended accused no.1, who booked the consignment. The appellant before the Supreme Court was the accused no.2, a person running a medical store, who allegedly sold the contraband.
No Absolute Bar For Proclaimed Offender To Seek Benefit Of Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court
Case Details: Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 889
The Supreme Court noted that being declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. does not impose an absolute bar on the accused from seeking anticipatory bail.
“Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail.”, the bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar said.
However, the Court said that the relevant factors such as circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued have to be looked upon while considering the anticipatory bail plea of the proclaimed offender.
S. 138 NI Act | 'Capacity To Give Loan Not Shown, Contradictions In Statements': Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Cheque Dishonour Case
Case Details: Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa, Criminal Appeal No. 3257 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 890
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal in a cheque dishonour case by taking note of certain contradictions in the statements of the complainant, as well as his inability to show the financial capacity to advance the loan as well as the lack of acknowledgement of the loan in the Income Tax returns.
Although the signature of the accused in the cheque was established, the Court stated that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is not attracted in the instant case.
Raising doubts about the complainant's case, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih said :
“Admittedly, the Appellant was able to establish that the signature on the cheque in question was of the Respondent and in regard to the decision of this Court in Bir Singh (supra), a presumption is to ideally arise. However, in the above referred context of the factual matrix, the inability of the Appellant to put forth the details of the loan advanced, and his contradictory statements, the ratio therein would not impact the present case to the effect of giving rise to the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act 1881. The Respondent (accused) has been able to shift the weight of the scales of justice in his favour through the preponderance of probabilities.”
S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court
Case Details: GOQII Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
“The scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is limited to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. In the present case, the High Court exceeded this limited scope by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix. The High Court erroneously proceeded to assess the auditor's report in detail and dismissed the arbitration application. In our view, such an approach does not give effect to the legislative intent behind the 2015 amendment to the Act, 1996 which limited the judicial scrutiny at the stage of Section 11 solely to the prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.”, the bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.
Orders
'What Procedure Followed In Tree Felling?': Supreme Court Issues Notice To Delhi Tree Authority & Officers
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Tree Authority and the Tree Officers appointed under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, in a plea seeking to prevent the Delhi government from permitting tree felling under the Act without prior permission from the court.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the plea that also seeks the constitution of an expert committee to evaluate the current tree protection measures in Delhi and submit recommendations for preserving existing trees and forests.
During the proceedings, Justice Abhay Oka stated, “What we propose to do is, we want to hear the tree officer and tree authority, what is the procedure they follow? What kind of checks and balances are there in the procedure they follow in tree felling. And then we propose to pass some order.” He added, “Some mechanism will have to be worked out; otherwise, indiscriminately powers are exercised.”
Gulfisha Fatima Case: Supreme Court Requests Delhi HC To Hear Bail Plea Soon
Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) WP (Crl.) No. 446/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Gulfisha Fatima seeking bail in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 over alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots.
The Court however requested the Delhi High Court to hear the bail application on the date fixed, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma considered the matter.
Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Plea Of Suspended Janta Dal (S) Leader Prajwal Revanna In Rape and Sexual Assault Case
Case Details: Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka SLP(Crl) No. 15292/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna seeking bail in the case over allegations of rape and sexual assault.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
'No Religion Encourages Any Activity Which Creates Pollution': Supreme Court On Firecracker Ban Violation In Delhi On Diwali
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
In the context of the use of firecrackers in Delhi which led to a worsening of air quality in Delhi-NCR, the Supreme Court observed that no religion encouraged any activity which created pollution.
"The right to live in a pollution-free atmosphere is a fundamental right of every citizen which is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that no religion encourages any activity which creates pollution. If firecrackers are burnt in this fashion it also affects the fundamental right to health of the citizens," the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih observed.
The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the manner of enforcement, saying that the ban order impsoed by the Delhi Government on October 14 was not taken "seriously" by the Delhi Police. The Court agreed that there was some substance in the grievance made by the Additional Solicitor General of India that the ban was imposed late. Yet, the Court said that the Delhi Police ought to have informed all licence holders to forthwith stop the sale of firecrackers.
Supreme Court Rejects Prashant Kishor's Party's Plea To Defer Bihar Bye-Elections
Case Details: Jan Suraaj Party v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 742/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition filed by Prashant Kishor's newly launched party - the Jan Suraaj Party - seeking postponement of bye-elections of four seats in Bihar, on account of Chhath Puja celebrations.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that it was too late to interfere with the elections, which are scheduled for November 13.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan's Plea To Quash Vivek Tankha's Criminal Defamation Case
Case Details: Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Others v. Vivek Krishna Tankha, SLP(Crl) No. 15212/2024
The Supreme Court exempted Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan from a bailable warrant issued in a criminal defamation case filed against him by Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha, subject to his participation in the proceedings.
The Court also issued notice on the plea of Chouhan (and others) challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which refused to quash the Magistrate's cognizance order on Tankha's complaint.
Tankha filed the defamation case over the alleged statements of Chouhan and others that he was against OBC reservations because of his appearance in a case relating to OBC reservations in MP Panchayat elections in the Supreme Court in 2021.
Before a bench of Justices Hriskesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani (appearing for Chouhan) apprised the Court about the background of the case and stated that the High Court passed an order without referring to what is defamatory.
Supreme Court Directs Punjab Govt, SEC To Notify Municipality Elections In 2 Weeks; To Be Completed In 8 Weeks Thereafter
Case Details: State of Punjab and Ors. v. Beant Kumar and Anr., SLP(C) No. 26468-26469/2024
While partially modifying a Punjab and Haryana High Court order which directed that Punjab municipality elections be notified within 15 days, the Supreme Court ordered that the election process shall commence within 2 weeks from and be completed within 8 weeks thereafter.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing Punjab's challenge to the High Court order which issued a mandamus to Punjab government which sought time to conduct the election on the ground that a fresh delimitation exercise was required to be conducted.
"Bizarre": Supreme Court Dismisses Man's Plea To Deactivate 'Machine' Controlling His Brain
Case Details: G. Venkateswarlu v. The Director, CFSL (CBI) & Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by a man who alleged that his brain was being controlled by other persons through a machine.
Terming the petition as bizarre, a bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed it, saying, "We see no scope or reason as to how we can interfere in this matter."
RG Kar Protest: Supreme Court Stays HC Direction For CBI Probe Into Alleged Custodial Torture Of Women By Kolkata Police
Case Details: State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Rebeka Khatun Molla @ Rebeka Molla and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 15481/2024
The Supreme Court stayed a Calcutta High Court order directing CBI probe into allegations of custodial torture of 2 women arrested amid protests that took place in West Bengal after the RG Kar Medical College rape-murder incident.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, while issuing notice on a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the High Court order. It asked the state government, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, to also submit a list of IPS officers (including women officers), who can be included in a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the custodial torture case instead of CBI.
Solid Waste Management Rules Remain On Paper: Supreme Court Warns Delhi of “Harsh Orders” Over Failure To Implement 2016 Rules
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court expressed concern over lack of implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, highlighting issues like unchecked waste accumulation at landfill sites, waste from construction, and the risk of fires at waste storage areas.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning pollution management in Delhi NCR, focusing on issues related to vehicular pollution, solid waste management, and stubble burning in the NCR states.
Heera Gold Scam: Supreme Court Directs ED To Auction Two Properties, Asks Nowhera Sheikh To Deposit Rs 25 Crores
Case Details: Nowhera Shaik and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. MA 2227/2024 in MA 2227/2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 31/2020
The Supreme Court extended the period to surrender forf Nowhera Shaikh, the Managing Director of Heera Gold Exim Private Limited, to 3 months in a miscellaneous application filed in the main matter related to fraud and cheating of investors across the country. Apart from this, the Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate to auction 2 properties and pay 25 crores so that the investors' money could be paid back from the money recovered.
The main matter was disposed of after the Supreme Court cancelled her bail on October 18, on the failure to raise 580 crores to settle the claims of investors despite repeated chances given by the Court to do so.
'How Can Phone Used In 2016 Be Given Now?', Asks Malayalam Actor Siddique; Supreme Court Extends Interim Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case
Case Details: Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP(Crl) No.13463/2024
The Supreme Court extended by a week the interim anticipatory bail granted to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress. The hearing was adjourned till next week due to the ill health of the petitioner's counsel Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi.
When the hearing started, Rohatgi said that the police kept asking about his phone and laptop used in 2016. "I keep telling them I don't have those...How will I give it?" Rohatgi submitted.
When the bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma asked whether the petitioner was appearing before the investigating officer, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, for the State, submitted that though he was appearing and has appeared twice since then. But he was not cooperating with the investigation and was giving evasive responses. He has also questioned the relevance of the questions asked to him.
Supreme Court Directs Examination Of Ex-Chief Of Popular Front At AIIMS To Consider Medical Grounds For Bail
Case Details: Abubacker E. v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. 32949-2024
The Supreme Court directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to constitute a medical team for a thorough examination of E Abubacker, the former Chairman of the banned outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), to ascertain if he deserved bail on medical grounds.
A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar directed that Abubacker be taken to AIIMS within a period of two days and be admitted as an in-patient for the examination. The Court stated that he should be accompanied by police escorts. It also accepted the request made by the petitioner that his son be allowed to assist him during the examination period. The Court adjourned the hearing by two weeks for the report of the AIIMS team.
'How Can Discharge Order Be Stayed?': Supreme Court Expresses Surprise At HC Order
Case Details: Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea by Sikh leader Sudershan Singh Wazir challenging the Delhi High Court's recent order that stayed his discharge order in a murder case and directed him to surrender.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih stayed the direction to surrender and also directed that the trial proceedings against Wazir would not proceed until further notice.
During the hearing, Justice Oka questioned the High Court's decision to stay the discharge order issued by the trial court. “How order of discharge can be stayed? Staying an order of discharge is completely unheard of,” observed Justice Oka.
“We Will Bring The Home Minister Here”: Supreme Court Reprimands Puducherry Sentence Review Board For Non-Compliance With Order
Case Details: Karuna @ Manoharan v. Union Territory of Puducherry and Ors.
The Supreme Court strongly reprimanded the Sentence Review Board of the Union Territory of Puducherry for failing to consider a remission plea of a convict, despite a prior court direction.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered the Inspector General of Prisons, who is the Board's member-secretary, to submit an affidavit explaining the Board's conduct.
During the hearing, the Court expressed strong displeasure, warning that it will initiate contempt proceedings against the Board members, including the Home Minister, who chairs the board, for disregarding the Court's orders.
Supreme Court Dismisses AAP Leader Somnath Bharti's Plea To Transfer Criminal Case From UP to Delhi
Case Details: Som Nath Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Law Minister Somnath Bharti, seeking the transfer of a criminal case from Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, to New Delhi.
The case, arising from Bharti's remarks about Uttar Pradesh's healthcare and educational facilities while campaigning in Prayagraj in December 2020, involves allegations of criminal intimidation and promoting enmity between groups.
A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar in the morning session questioned the basis for seeking the transfer, with Justice Sundresh remarking, “He is an MLA; he can very well travel.”
The matter was passed over in the morning at the request of Bharti's counsel. When it was taken up again in the afternoon session, the Court dismissed the plea.
Supreme Court Disposes Of Petition Challenging Enrolment Fees Of UP Bar Council In Light Of Its Recent Decision
Case Details: Kuldeep Mishra v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh W.P.(C) No.24/ 2024
The Supreme Court disposed of a petition filed by a law graduate, challenging the enrollment fee charged by the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council, in light of its July 30, 2024 decision wherein it was observed that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs.750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs.125 for advocates belonging to SC/ST categories as specified in the Advocates Act, 1961.
On February 2, the court issued a notice in this writ petition where the petitioner appearing-in-person cited by the State Bar Council is Rs. 16,665 for lawyers to be enrolled at the U.P Bar. An additional sum of Rs. 5000/- would be charged for those wishing to expedite the processing within a single day. The petitioner challenged this fee as "exorbitant".
'Amendment To NIA Act May Not Protect Victims Of Sex Trafficking': Supreme Court Seeks Union's Fresh Affidavit
Case Details: Prajwala v. Union of India, MA 530/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56/2004
The Supreme Court gave one last chance to the Union Government to file a fresh affidavit in a petition seeking comprehensive victim protection protocol for victims of sex trafficking.
The Court noted that the amendments made to the National Investigation Agency Act may not serve the purpose of protection, as the NIA can at best prosecute the offenders. The Court also noted that the Bill introduced by the Uniion to deal with human trafficking in 2018 has lapsed.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal heard a miscellaneous application filed by the organisation Prajwala working in the areas of sex trafficking, in the main writ petition filed in 2004, for compliance with an order passed on December 9, 2015.
Supreme Court Asks Jammu & Kashmir UT To Frame Policy On Premature Release Of Convicts
Case Details: Anand Kumar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, W.P.(Crl.) No. 335/2024
The Supreme Court nudged the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to frame policy for premature release of convicts, considering that framing of the policy lies within the exclusive domain of the UT and it has no policy for remission on the basis of period of incarceration.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, while dealing with the case of a convict undergoing life sentence for the offense under Section 302 of the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was convicted for the murder of 3 colleagues and has spent about 18 years in custody.
Why Maternity Benefit Available To Adoptive Mothers Only If Adopted Child Is Below 3 Months Old? Supreme Court Asks Centre
Case Details: Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000960 - / 2021
The Supreme Court sought response from the Union in a petition challenging the provision of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 as per which maternity benefits are available to an adoptive mother only if the child in aged below 3 months.
The bench of Justices Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal was hearing a PIL filed by an adoptive mother challenging S. 5(4) of the 2017 Act which provides adoptive mothers a maternity leave for 12 weeks provided that the infant she has adopted is under 3 months. The petitioner Hamsaanandini is an adoptive mother to two children since 2017.
The bench inquired what was the legislative intent to set the leave condition for only those adoptive mothers with an infant less than 3 months.
Supreme Court Seeks Action Plan To Implement Menstrual Hygiene Policy For School-going Girls
Case Details: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022
The Supreme Court heard a petition seeking directions from the Union, the States and Union Territories for providing free sanitary pads to adolescent girl children from Classes 6-12 in all Government, Government-aided/unaided schools, and residential schools.
It passed an order for further action by States and UTs after the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the Union Government has formulated a uniform national policy 'Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls' and that a note will be submitted on how the stakeholders could come up with an action plan to implement the same.
Supreme Court Stays Proceedings In Mohd Azharuddin's Plea Challenging BRS MLA Maganti Gopinath's Election To Telangana Assembly
Case Details: Maganti Gopinath v. Mohammed Azharuddin, SLP(C) No. 26427/2024
The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in an election petition filed by Congress' Mohammed Azharuddin (ex-Indian cricket captain) challenging the election of BRS leader Maganti Gopinath from Jubilee Hills constituency in 2023 Telangana Assembly elections.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, while issuing notice on Gopinath's plea challenging Telangana High Court's rejection of his prayer to dismiss the election petition filed by Azharuddin.
Unfortunate That Many Lady Judicial Officers Have No Private Washrooms: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 538/2023
The Supreme Court heard the petition seeking sanitised toilets for men, women, specially-abled persons and transgender persons in Court premises and tribunals across the country.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal while hearing a Public Interest Litigation asked if there is any data on whether lady judicial officers have private washrooms in High Courts. This came after the counsel for the petitioner, AoR Charu Ambwani, submitted that pursuant to an order by this Court, all 25 High Courts across the country had filed an affidavit in regards to the toilets in High Court premises. The affidavits show that there are enough sanitised toilets.
The Court asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, for Union, if all lady judicial officers have access to private washrooms in the High Courts where they are working. When Bhati stated that this was not covered in the affidavit and therefore no data on it, Justice Pardiwala responded: "Unfortunately, no [it has not been ensured that all lady officers have access to private washrooms]."
The Court ordered Ambwani to file a note on the shortcomings, if any, in regards to the affidavit filed by the High Courts. It also asked Bhati to highlight what each High Court have said in their affidavit in regard to the order and what further directions are required to be passed. The Court will now hear it on November 26.
Punjab And Haryana Owe An Explanation: Supreme Court Reiterates Concern Over Reluctance To Prosecute Officials For Violating CAQM Orders On Stubble Burning
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court reiterated its concern over the reluctance of states of Punjab and Haryana to prosecute officials that have violated CAQM orders regarding stubble burning under Section 14 of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) Act.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning pollution management in Delhi NCR, focusing on issues related to vehicular pollution, solid waste management, and stubble burning in the NCR states.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Direct Doctors To Specify Side Effects Of Medicines In Prescriptions
Case Details: Jacob Vadakkanchery v. Union of India and Anr., Diary No. 48665-2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking mandatory disclosure by medical professionals/doctors of risks and adverse effects associated with drugs they prescribe to patients.
The petitioner sought a direction that all medical professionals should specify to a patients (in the form of an additional slip in the regional language) along with the prescription, all kinds of possible risks and side effects associated with a drug or a pharmaceutical product being prescribed.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for the petitioner), who argued that a large part of harm to patients is associated with adverse effects of medicines. It was also the counsel's submission that "informed consent" of a patient includes his being informed about contraindications, etc. of the treatment being prescribed.
High-Handedness By State: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Removing Chhattisgarh Woman Sarpanch From Office
Case Details: Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7279/2024
The Supreme Court set aside an order removing a woman Sarpanch from office in Chhattisgarh and directed enquiry into the officials who caused unwarranted harassment to her. The Court further imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on the state government.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter, coming down heavily on the state for causing undue harassment to the elected woman Sarpanch, on the pretext of delay in construction work.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Ban WhatsApp
Case Details: Omanakuttan KG v. WhatsApp Applications Services Pvt. Ltd and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 736/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Central Government to ban the operation of WhatsApp for alleged violation of the orders of the legal authorities in the country.
The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted before a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar that the High Court's rejection of the PIL was simply based on the ground that the plea of "too premature".
However, without hearing anything further, the bench dismissed the petition.
'Leaders Expected To Set Example': Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Odisha BJP MLA Accused Of Slapping Woman Police Officer
Case Details: Jayanarayan Mishra v. State of Odisha, SLP(Crl) No. 1145/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Odisha BJP MLA and ex-Leader of Opposition Jayanarayan Mishra, accused of slapping a woman police officer during a protest in 2023.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, noting that grant of anticipatory bail to Mishra could prejudice the investigation. The order was dictated thus:
"At the relevant time, petitioner was Leader of the Opposition and is currently a Member of Odisha Legislative Assembly. People in leadership positions must set an example for public behavior. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and would require a professional investigation by the police, which might be prejudiced in the event of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner."
Calling out BJP-led Odisha government's mellowed stance on anticipatory bail plea of a BJP MLA accused of slapping a woman police officer during a protest in 2023, the Supreme Court remarked that the color of an officer's uniform does not change with change in government.
Hate Speech Not Same As Wrong Assertions Or False Claims: Supreme Court
Case Details: Hindu Sena Samiti and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 437/2024
The Supreme Court while dismissing a PIL seeking guidelines to prevent 'provocative speech' by political leaders, observed that the offence of hate speech cannot be equated to the act of wrong assertions or false claims that one may make.
The plea filed by Hindu Sena Samiti through its President Surjeet Singh Yadav stressed the need for guidelines to "prevent the growing menace of delivery of provoking public speech jeopardizing the sovereignty and endangering the security of the State."
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to entertain the PIL considering that the Court in the case of Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors. was already seized of the issue of hate speech.
Supreme Court Shocked At Goa Govt Notifying HC Service Rules Different From Chief Justices' Draft, Asks Chief Secretary To Appear
Case Details: Re Pension Benefits For Employees Retd. From High Court of Bombay At Goa v. State of Goa
The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Goa for notifying service rules for employees of Bombay High Court at Goa in the name of the HC Chief Justice which differ significantly from what was originally submitted to the Goa government by the Chief Justice.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih noted that the Chief Secretary of the state justified this conduct in his affidavit and directed him to appear before the court through video conferencing to give his explanation for the incorporation of altered Rules.
“The Chief Secretary has justified the act of framing Rules knowing fully well that the said Rules are not in terms of the Draft Rules submitted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The Rule have been published with the recital that they have been made by the Honorable Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. We are really shocked to know that instead of withdrawing the Rules the Chief Secretary of the state has made an attempt to justify the same. We therefore direct the chief secretary of the state to personally remain present in this court through video conferences next Friday to explain how the recital which we have quoted above has been incorporated in the body of the Rules”, the Court stated.
The Court was hearing a suo moto case concerning grievances from former employees of the Bombay High Court's Goa bench regarding delayed pensionary benefits.
Workers' Dues Of Rs 70 Crores: Supreme Court Mulls Ordering Sale Of Assam Tea Corporation's Assets
Case Details: International Union of Food Agricultural & Ors v. Union of India
The Supreme Court sought the details of all the properties of Assam Tea Corporation Limited (ATCL) and expressed that it will order sale of the assets so that the proceeds can be used to pay the dues of the tea garden workers.
A of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih Court directed the Chairman and Managing Director of ATCL to file a detailed affidavit by December 7, listing all of the corporation's properties, specifying their particulars to facilitate potential asset liquidation if required.
Supreme Court Deprecates Allahabad HC's Practice Of Disposing Quashing Petitions By Asking Petitioners To Seek Discharge
Case Details: Ajay Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court deprecated practice of the Allahabad High Court of directing petitioners seeking quashing of cases to instead apply to the trial court for discharge.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice AG Masih issued notice on the plea challenging the Allahabad High Court's order that had rejected an application quashing a forgery case. The Court posted the matter on January 10, 2024 and stayed the trial till then.
Medieval Tomb Illegally Occupied By Defence Colony Welfare Assn, Reports CBI; Supreme Court Appoints Expert To Inspect Damages
Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12213/2019
The Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA) of Delhi has illegally occupied Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500 years old tomb of archaeological importance, and made unauthorised alterations to it, stated the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a preliminary enquiry report submitted to the Supreme Court.
Taking note of the report, the Court appointed an expert, Ms Swapna Liddle, ex-convener of (INTACH) (Delhi Chapter of Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) and author of several books on the history of Delhi, to survey and inspect the building and ascertain the damage which has been caused and to what extent the building can be restored, and in what manner it can be done. The Court has sought the report within 6 weeks.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed the order in a petition filed by one Rajeev Suri seeking protection of the Gumti.
In August, the Court had directed the CBI to conduct an enquiry into the illegal occupation of the Gumti by the DCWA and the inaction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
Supreme Court Stays HC Order For CBI Probe Into Alleged Irregularities In Jharkhand Assembly Appointments
Case Details: Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, SLP(C) No. 26367/2024
The Supreme Court stayed a Jharkhand High Court order, whereby alleged irregularities in the appointments and promotions to Jharkhand State Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) were directed to be enquired into by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for petitioner-Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha.
Supreme Court Stays Commercial Suit Proceedings Against Aditya Birla Finance Over SARFAESI Proceedings
Case Details: Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. v. Shashikant Gangar & Ors., Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26357/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a special leave petition filed by Aditya Birla Finance Ltd against a judgment of the Bombay High Court which held that a commercial suit won't be barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act when there are allegations of fraud.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar also stayed the further proceedings before the Commercial Court.
Supreme Court Flags Rising Incidents Of Foreign Accused Absconding After Bail, Seeks Union's Response
Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Alex David @ MU Henry SLP(Crl.) 8629/2022
The Supreme Court expressed concerns about the recurring instances of foreign citizens, who are accused of crimes, jumping bail and becoming untraceable.
The Court observed that a procedure needs to be laid down, if not already there, to deal with such instances.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a challenge made by the State of Jharkhand to the bail granted by the High Court to a Nigerian citizen in a cyber fraud case.
Supreme Court Keeps In Abeyance Its Order On Arrest Of Prisoners Who Were Given Premature Release In UP
Case Details: Surendra @Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) arising out of Diary No. 28783 of 2023
The Supreme Court kept in abeyance its order requiring the arrest of prisoners who were given premature release in Uttar Pradesh based on a January 10 order of the Allahabad High Court.
In this case, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal on October 15 directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file an affidavit on the life convicts who were given premature release based on the High Court's order which passed general directions on the premature release of prisoners.
Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From Registry On Why Counter Affidavit Filed By Non-Party Was Accepted
Case Details: Harmanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No. 7862/2024
The Supreme Court sought an explanation from the Registrar (Judicial) how a party (complainant in this case) was able to file a counter-affidavit when its application seeking impleadment was not allowed by the Court.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed against the May 17 order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejection of the anticipatory bail of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 324 read with 34 and Sections 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Other Developments
'Verify Age When Person Appearing To Be Under 30 Buys Liquor': Plea In Supreme Court To Tackle Drunk Driving, Alcohol-Related Crimes
Case Details: Community Against Drunken Driving v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 29463-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India on a public interest litigation seeking implementation of a robust policy for mandatory age verification system at all points of alcohol sale.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate PB Suresh, who argued that under-age drinking is very rampant in India and there is no robust system in place.
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Challenging Bail Granted To One Accused In Tailor Kanhaiya Lal Murder Case
Case Details: Yash Teli v. NIA New Delhi and Anr.
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging bail granted to Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the 2022 beheading case of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal.
A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar issued notice in the petition filed by Kanhaiya Lal's son, Yash Teli.
The petition challenges the Rajasthan High Court's decision to grant bail to Javed in September 2024, based on the court's assessment that prima facie evidence did not suggest Javed's involvement in a conspiracy with the two main accused in the case.
No Oral Mentioning For Urgent Listing, Send Requests By Email Or Written Letters: CJI Sanjiv Khanna
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna clarified that he would not entertain oral mentioning of matters for urgent listing. CJI said that requests for urgent listing should be made through e-mails or written letters stating the urgency.
Supreme Court Seeks Gujarat Authorities' Response On Contempt Petition Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Dargah In Somnath
Case Details: Haji Mangrolisha S House v. D.D. Jadeja and Ors., Diary No. 50311-2024
The Supreme Court called for response on a contempt petition filed against Gujarat authorities, alleging illegal demolition of Pir Haji Mangroli Shah Dargah between September 27-28, without any prior notice and in violation of Court's stay order on demolitions.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard the matter. It has next been listed on December 2.
Supreme Court Adjourns Jharkhand Govt's Plea Against CBI Probe Into Mining Case
Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Central Bureau of Investigation SLP(Crl) No. 5595/2024
The Supreme Court adjourned by two weeks the plea of Jharkhand Government challenging the High Court's order for a CBI investigation into alleged illegal stone mining and attack on protesting villagers and complainant in Sahibganj district
The case involves alleged close associates of the incumbent Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren. The CBI has filed an FIR against the accused persons under various Sections of Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, SC/ST Act and Jharkhand Mines & Minerals Concession Rules, 2004.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge to the Jharkhand High Court which in February dismissed the Government's plea for quashing the FIR registered by the CBI without taking the consent of the State Government to proceed with the investigation.
'Stand On Your Own Legs': Supreme Court Asks NCP(Ajit Pawar) To Not Use Photos & Videos Of Sharad Pawar For Maharashtra Elections
Case Details: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024
While hearing the dispute related to the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), the Supreme Court orally asked Ajit Pawar group to not use the photos and videos of Sharad Pawar in their campaign materials for the Maharashtra assembly elections.
The Court told NCP (Ajit Pawar) that they have to fight the elections based on their separate identity. The Court asked Ajit Pawar to instruct the members of his party to not use the pictures and videos of Sharad Pawar.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an application filed by Sharad Pawar seeking to restrain Ajit Pawar from using the clock symbol for the Maharashtra assembly elections. Previously, the Court had directed Ajit Pawar to publish disclaimers in newspapers regarding the clock symbol.
Supreme Court Seeks Union, Delhi Authorities' Response On PIL Seeking Urgent Implementation Of Land Pooling And Green Development Area Policies
Case Details: Delhi Dehat Vikas Manch v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 40060-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India and Delhi authorities on a public interest litigation seeking implementation of Land Pooling and Green Development Area policy in the national capital.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, seeking a response from the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Delhi government, DDA and others.
NDPS Act| What Are Consequences If Chargesheet Is Filed Without FSL Report? Supreme Court Hears Reference
Case Details: Jagdish Singh v. State of West Bengal SLP No. 3850 of 2023 and Other Connected Matters
The Supreme Court highlighted the need to consider the 'irreversible consequences' and effects on the rights of an accused when a chargesheet is filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 without the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report within the time limit.
The Special bench led by Justice Suryakant comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the issue of whether a person accused of committing offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 is entitled to default bail on the failure of the prosecution to furnish the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory(FSL) along with the chargesheet within the prescribed time.
Supreme Court Seeks Video Of Delhi High Court Bar Association Meeting On Women's Reservation Proposal
Case Details: Aditi Chaudhary v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42332-2024
The Supreme Court sought the production of a video recording from the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) General Body Meeting (GBM) held on October 7, 2024.
This meeting had seen the rejection of a proposal to reserve seats for women in the association's Executive Committee. The Court scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 18 at noon, where it will review the recording to evaluate the discussions that took place concerning the reservation issue. Senior Advocate and DHCBA President, Mohit Mathur, confirmed to the Court that he would present the recording on the next date of hearing.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that it wished to examine if the reservation proposal had been dismissed following adequate deliberations.
Justice Surya Kant Appointed As Chairman Of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
Justice Surya Kant, second senior most puisne judge of the Supreme Court, has been appointed as Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC). This nomination was made by the Chief Justice of India.
Preventing Advocates From Listing Their Services Online Creates Uneven Playing Field: Sulekha.com To Supreme Court
Case Details: Sulekha.com New Media Private Limited v. PN Vignesh & Ors.
Digital platform Sulekha.com has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the Madras High Court judgment directing the Bar Councils to take action against advocates soliciting work through online portals and online service providers allowing advocates' advertisements.
The petition filed through Advocate Utkarsh Sharma, contends that the High Court's interpretation could lead to economic and class barriers within the legal profession by enabling only advocates who can afford individual websites to have an online presence.
“The substantial costs and expenditures of resources will lead to creation of economic barriers for certain lawyers; leading to creation of different classes within advocates, i.e. one who could afford their own websites and the others who cannot. Additionally, the advocates in bigger and urban cities will be at an unfair advantage over their colleagues in emerging cities and rural parts of the country”, the petition reads.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti, noting that a similar matter was pending, ordered the present petition to be tagged with Justdial.Com, Just Dial Limited v. PN Vignesh & Ors, and issued notice returnable within four weeks.
Supreme Court To Hear Plea For SIT Probe Against Arunachal CM Over Public Contracts' Allotment In Feb 2025
Case Details: Save Mon Region Federation and Anr v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 54/2024 PIL-W
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in February 2025 a PIL seeking directions for SIT probe into the alleged irregular allotment of public contracts to the companies owned by relatives of the incumbent chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Mr Pema Khandu.
The bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the matter and directed to list the matter in the week commencing February 2, 2025. The bench was informed that the replies have come from the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
Supreme Court To Address Delhi's Severe Pollution On Monday; Amicus Curiae Raises Concerns Over Lack of Pre-emptive Action
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court will address the issue of severe level of air pollution in Delhi-NCR on Monday.
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, acting as amicus curiae mentioned the matter before a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, raising concerns over worsening air quality, noting that Delhi has once again reached a “severe” pollution level.
Singh said that the Court has previously permitted pre-emptive actions to prevent such high pollution levels, but no action has been taken by the authorities.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To West Bengal Govt On Contempt Plea Assailing Use Of Spikes, Burning Mashaals To Scare Away Elephants
Case Details: Prerna Singh Bindra v. Niraj Singhal, IFS, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 780/2024 in W.P.(C) No. 489/2018
The Supreme Court issued notice to the West Bengal government on a contempt petition filed against it, assailing continued use of sharp spikes and burning mashaals to drive away elephants in the state.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, upon hearing Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar (for petitioner), who submitted that West Bengal government has failed to effectively address human-elephant conflicts and violated orders dated 01.08.2018 and 04.12.2018 passed in Prerna Singh Bindra v. Union of India.
No Regular Hearing Matters To Be Listed On Tuesdays-Thursdays In Supreme Court, Only After-Notice Misc Matters
After Justice Sanjiv Khanna took charge as the Chief Justice of India, a new notification has been issued regarding the hearing of the cases in the Supreme Court.
As per this notification, regular hearing matters will not be listed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Instead, miscellaneous matters in which notice has been issued will be listed on these days. Bail matters and transfer petitions will also be listed.
Separate Central Law To Deal With Offences Against Medical Professionals Not Required: National Task Force To Supreme Court
The National Task Force, in its report filed in the Supreme Court in the RG Kar suo motu case, has opined against the need for a central law to protect healthcare professionals. According to the NTF, the provisions of the existing penal laws are sufficient to deal with crimes against medical professionals.
The NTF stated that various States have enacted laws to specifically deal with violence in medical establishments. In the absence of such laws, the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita can address such crimes.
