- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 14 To November 20, 2022
Deepankar Malviya
20 Nov 2022 1:15 PM IST
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK Section 439(2) CrPC - Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Merely For Any Perceived Indiscipline By Accused Before Granting Bail : Supreme Court Bhuri Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956 | CrA 1972 of 2022 The Supreme Court observed that cancellation of bail cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
Bhuri Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956 | CrA 1972 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that cancellation of bail cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail.
"The powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused", the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed. It added that Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case.
Mohammed Sadiq vs Deepak Manglani | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 957 | CA 8028 of 2022
There is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies, to start a business, the Supreme Court observed while upholding an eviction order passed on the ground of bonafide requirement/need.
In this case, the landlord sought eviction of the tenant on two grounds: One, wilful default in payment of rent and two, bona fide requirement of the premises for the own use of the landlord. The applicable law was Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs C.I.T., Delhi | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 959 | CA 6964-Â6965 OF 2015
The Supreme Court held that Section 194H of the Income Tax Act is attracted in the case of Supplementary Commission amounts earned by the travel agent and therefore Airlines are liable to deduct TDS in this regard.
The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and MM Sundresh upheld the Delhi High Court judgment and overruled the Bombay High Court judgment in CIT v. Qatar Airways [2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2179] that had held otherwise.
Divya Bharti vs State of Bihar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 961 | SLP(Crl) 8498/2022
The Supreme Court set aside an anticipatory bail condition imposed by Patna High Court directing a Panchayat Teacher to return her salary.
The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed that such conditions are neither justified nor required to be imposed while granting anticipatory bail.
Laxmi Srinivasa R And P Boiled Rice Mill vs State Of Andhra Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 964 | SLP(C) 11225/2022
The Supreme Court observed that time period excluded under Section 14 of Limitation Act cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for which delay can be condoned.
Exclusion of time is different, and cannot be equated with condonation of delay, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and J K Maheshwari observed.
Randeep Singh vs State of U T Chandigarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 962 | SLP(Crl) 8206/2019
The Supreme Court reduced the sentence imposed on a husband convicted under Section 498A IPC after his wife submitted before it that she wants to join her husband and revive their matrimonial life.
In this case, the husband was concurrently convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court had imposed punishment of two years and the same was upheld by the Appellate Court. The High Court, in its Revisional jurisdiction did not interfere with the judgment of conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to six months.
Gurdev Singh vs Harvinder Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 963 | SLP(C) 19018/2022
The Supreme Court observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely on the ground that 'the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit'.
In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that reading of the plaint prima facie disclosed cause of action to the plaintiff.
The State Of Jammu And Kashmir (Now U.T. Of Jammu And Kashmir) And Ors Versus Shubam Sangra| Crl.A. No. 1928/2022
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which held that one of the accused in the Kathua rape-murder case was a juvenile.
The Apex Court has directed that the said accused Shubham Sangra should be tried as an adult.
A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Justice JB Pardiwala allowed the appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir against the orders of the CJM and the High Court.
State of Jammu & Kashmir vs Shubam Sangra | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965 | CrA 1928 OF 2022
We have started gathering an impression that the leniency with which the juveniles are dealt with in the name of goal of reformation is making them more and more emboldened in indulging in such heinous crimes, the Supreme Court remarked in a judgment seting aside the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which held that one of the accused in the Kathua rape-murder case was a juvenile.
MP Power Management Company Limited vs Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966 | SLP(C) 4609-4610 OF 2021
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday (16 Nov 2022), the Supreme Court explained the scope of judicial review of action by the State in a matter arising from a non- statutory contract.
The mere fact that relief is sought under a contract which is not statutory, will not entitle the State in a case by itself to ward-off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the contract, if the complaining party is able to establish that the action/ inaction is, per se, arbitrary, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs B. Sreenivasulu | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 967 | CA 8470 OF 2022
The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of entertaining writ petitions filed in SARFAESI matters without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy.
In this case, the Telangana High Court set aside the e-auction sale held by the Bank (secured creditor) under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on the following grounds (1) there was an error in the description of the scheduled property in eÂ-auction sale notice dated 25th February, 2015 and that was considered to be a serious infirmity in the process and cannot be sanctified and (2) since the auction purchase failed to deposit balance 75% of the bid amount within the stipulated time of 15 days which ought to have been deposited by him on or before 10th April, 2015, that admittedly deposited by him on 15th April, 2015, is in clear breach of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 2002. The High Court also reversed the decision of the Debt Recovery Tribunal which had dismissed the application of borrower in this regard.
Sidram vs Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968 | CA 8510 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that compensation for future prospects can be claimed in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement.
The bench said that it has come across the opposite view taken by High Courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases – and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death, the court said.
Inspector General of Registration vs G.Madhurambal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969 | SLP(C) 16949/2022
The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court judgment holding that a registering authority cannot demand stamp duty to keep a copy of a sale certificate on the file of Book No.1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908.
In this case, the husband of the writ petitioner before the High Court had got a sale certificate was issued in his favour. The same was forwarded to the Registeration authority for making entries in Book-I as contemplated under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908. Before th High Court, the writ petitioner contended that the Sale Certificate was presented before the authority only for the purpose of filing it in Book No-I as per Section 89 of the Act and thus it does not require any stamp duty and registration fees.
Sirikonda Madhava Rao vs N. Hemalatha | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 970 | SLP(C) 14882-14883/2022
The Supreme Court observed that the objection as to admissibility of a document on the ground of sufficiency of stamp, has to raised when the document is tendered in evidence.
Thereafter, it is not open to the parties, or even the court to reexamine the order or issue, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and J K Maheshwari observed.
Pawan Kumar Goel vs State of U P | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971 | CrA 1999 OF 2022
The Supreme Court held that impleadment of additional accused subsequent to the filing of a cheque bounce complaint is not permissible once the limitation prescribed for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has expired.
X vs. State of Karnataka | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 972 | CrA 1981 OF 2022
Setting aside a bail granted to a rape accused, the Supreme Court observed that the 'need of custodial trial' is not a relevant aspect while considering a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The relevant aspects which are required to be kept in mind while considering the bail application are seriousness of the offence alleged; material collected during the investigation; statement of the prosecutrix etc., the bench of Justices MR Shah and Hima Kohli observed.
Leelamma Mathew vs Indian Overseas Bank | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 973 | CA 7128 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that the bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under section 34 of the SARFAESI Act shall be applicable only in a case where the Debt Recovery Tribunal and/or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to decide the matter under the SARFAESI Act.
Vinay Prakash Singh vs Sameer Gehlaut | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 974 | MA 1902 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that the benefit of Section 428 CrPC can be invoked only if detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry or trial is in the 'same case'.
Section 428 CrPC provides when the period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence or imprisonment. It reads as follows : Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term [not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine], the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him.
Food Corporation of India vs Abhijith Paul | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 975 | CA 8572Â-8573/2022
The Supreme Court observed that scope of contractual expressions must be understood as intended by the parties to the contract.
The process of interpretation, though the exclusive domain of the Court, inheres the duty to decipher the meaning attributed to contractual terms by the parties to the contract, the bench of Justices A S Bopanna and P S Narasimha observed.
NEWS THIS WEEK
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea challenging the recent notification of the Union Government which authorised the sale of fresh tranche of electoral bonds for the assembly elections in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh.
The petition was mentioned before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for urgent listing. The counsel sought urgent listing saying that that the sale of Electoral Bonds will be over soon.
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Union Government to ensure that all filings by it in tax matters before the High Courts and Tribunals are in the e-filing mode. The Court further directed that the operations of the Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal, which is being set up, are comlpetely paperless right from the beginning.
"We are of the view that the Union Government must now take all expeditious steps to ensure that filing by the Union Government of all appeals and proceedings before the High Courts as well as the revenue tribunals including CESTAT and ITAT should take place in the e-filing mode. The High Powered Committee shall accordingly proceed to take necessary steps to achieve the above goal so that e-filing can be made universal within a period of 3 months", a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala ordered.
The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing in a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 after the Union Government sought for time to file its counter-affidavit.
During the mentioning round before the Chief Justice of India, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta requested for adjournment in the case. "I need to consult with the Government for filing a detailed counter. I would need consultation at higher level. If some time can be given", SG Mehta submitted.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Mohammed Tahir Hussain challenging the Delhi High Court's order which refused to stay the proceedings in the three FIRs registered against him in connection with 2020 Delhi riots.
Hussain's SLP was filed after the Delhi High Court refused to stay the proceedings on September 16, this year.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, dismissed a petition seeking declaration of National holiday on the birth anniversary of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The petition also sought directions to raise a Memorial Hall and Museum of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in New Delhi and other States capitals.
A Bench comprising CJI, Justice Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala junked the petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Forceful conversion of religion will not only affect the Union of India but also affect the freedom of religion and conscience of individuals, the Supreme Court of India observed on Monday.
Terming this as a "very serious issue", a Bench of Justices MR Shah and Hima Kohli asked the Union of India to make its stand clear by filing a counter affidavit in the matter within November 22.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday came down heavily on lawyers who have been striking in Odisha over a long-standing demand for a permanent bench of the Orissa High Court in the western part of the state, at Sambalpur. The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka, categorically directed the lawyers to resume work from Wednesday, cautioning that failure to comply with the order and "fall in line", would result in the Supreme Court holding the recalcitrant lawyers guilty of contempt of court and even the suspension or cancellation of their licenses.
Supreme Court Indicates That It Will Launch Online RTI Portal Next Week
The Supreme Court, on Monday, indicated that it would launch the online RTI portal for the Supreme Court website next week.
"We are most likely to launch the online RTI portal next week."
When a matter pertaining to the online RTI portal for High Courts and lower judiciary was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Election Commission of India to file its response in a writ petition which sought for ban of political parties which use names and symbols with religious connotations.
The petition also seeks the strict enforcement of certain provisions of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 which prohibits luring of voters and promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens on the ground of religion.
Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of High Courts In Plea To Establish Gram Nyayalayas
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts in a petition which seeks directions to the States to establish "Gram Nyayalayas" as per the Gram Nyayalayas Act 2008.
A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian added High Courts as respondents in the case, after noting that their presence was necessary for adjudicating the matter.
While considering a civil appeal, the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul noted that the reference on the issue of illegitimate children's right in father's ancestral property in the case of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1 is still pending consideration of larger bench.
Since there are now different Benches constituted to hear the reference matters, it may be advisable to put a quietus to the issue so that the matters pending in this Court or in the High Courts can be dealt with, the bench also comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka said.
Supreme Court Dissolves Committee Formed For Pollution & Traffic Management In Ghaziabad
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi on Tuesday disposed of the matter regarding the improvement of the environment of Kaushambi and surrounding areas within the Ghaziabad Municipal Areas. The petition before the top court highlighted several issues ranging from haphazard traffic management to environmental pollution and unrestricted dumping of municipal solid waste.
In a PIL seeking life-time ban on convicted politicians, Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, in his latest affidavit (17th Report) apprised the Bench that 962 cases pertaining to MPs/MLAs are pending for a period in excess of 5 years, as per information received from 16 High Courts. It appears that High Courts of large states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Telangana are yet to file their affidavits. High Courts in Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Sikkim UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh have also not filed affidavits in this regard. As per the report, the UT of Lakshadweep has not furnished the requisite information.
The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court judgment dismissing challenge against appointment of two persons as Vice Presidents of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
No recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a writ of quo warranto could have been taken, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala observed.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on whether free speech by public functionaries, including inter alia ministers, MLAs, MPs, should have greater restrictions than those imposed by Article 19 (2).
The five-judge constitution bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna heard the issue. The matter was referred to a larger bench in 2016, on a writ petition filed by father of a rape victim from Bulandshahar, where it was alleged that a minister and prominent political personality of the state (Azam Khan) had termed the entire incident as a "political conspiracy only and nothing else". Later, Azam Khan had tendered apology for calling the gang rape a "political conspiracy", which was accepted by the Court, but the court had proceeded to consider larger issue.
In a petition seeking proper implementation of reservation policy in the NEET-PG Counselling, the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, asked the Union Government to file an Affidavit.
Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan appearing before a Bench comprising CJI, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice J.B. Pardiwala submitted that seats belonging to meritorious reserved candidates (MRCs) who are entitled to get admissions against the 50% seats of the general category, were being allotted reserved category seats in violation of the judgments of the Apex Court in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Ors., Samta Aandolan Samiti And Anr. v. UoI and Tripurari Sharan And Anr. v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav And Anr.
Opining that the common man is interested in real solutions and not meetings, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday pulled up the state governments of Punjab and Haryana for not taking any effective steps to prevent flooding near the Ghaggar river basin.
A Bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh noted that both the Punjab and Haryana state governments took no concrete steps on the recommendations made by the Central Water and Power Research Station, Pune. The Bench further reminded that every government's first priority should be public interest.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, closed a contempt petition filed by Advocate Rahul Mehra pertaining to the Indian Olympic Association by recording the statement of the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta.
As Mr. Mehra mentioned the matter, the Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kolhi and J.B. Pardiwala took it on Board. The allegations made in the contempt petition was that the Indian Olympic Association has not complied with the order of the Apex Court dated 10.10.2022 wherein it had held that once the constitution of IOA has been drawn up by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, in consultation with the IOC and Olympic Council of Asia, it ought to be formally adopted by the General Assembly of IOA. Once the new constitution has been adopted & concurred by IOC, it shall be adopted by IOA-General Body under mandatory direction by this court.
Supreme Court Waives Requirement Of Solvency Certificate For Gautam Navlakha To Avail House Arrest
The Supreme Court on Tuesday waived the condition that activist Gautam Navlakha, who is lodged in Mumbai prison in the Bhima Koregaon case, should obtain a solvency certificate for availing the benefit of house arrest.
Last week, the Court had allowed Navlakha's request to be placed under house arrest in consideration of his medical condition. However, the Court had imposed several conditions, including the requirement to furnish surety of Rs 2 lakhs
The Supreme Court was yesterday informed that there has been almost 500% rise in reported Hate speech cases against politicians and public functionaries since 2014.
The submission was made on behalf of the petitioner in a case concerning the extent of the right to free speech of public functionaries such as Ministers.
The case stems from the Bulandshahar rape incident wherein a Minister of the State, Azam Khan had dismissed the incident as a "political conspiracy and nothing else".
Supreme Court Stays Execution Of Death Row Convict, Allows His Psychological Assessment
The Supreme Court recently stayed the execution of a death row convict and granted permission to a representative of the Project 39A of the National Law University Delhi to visit the convict lodged in Yerwada Jail in Pune for his psychiatric and psychological evaluation.
A bench of Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice J. B. Pardiwala allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Project 39A which has been set up under the auspices of National Law University Delhi to provide pro bono legal representation particularly to convicts who have been sentenced to death.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging, inter alia, the practice of designating Advocates-on-Records under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 read with Article 145 of the Constitution. The Bench, comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, held that there was no doubt that the apex court had the power to designate a special class of advocates and confer on them special privileges to act and plead before them. "[These rules] are not vulnerable to invalidation on the mere ground that it may work injustice in a particular case," the Bench noted.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken in pursuance of the order of the Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) which prohibited the public feeding of street dogs.
The Court also stayed the High Court's observation that persons who feed street dogs must adopt them.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari stayed the following observation in the High Court's order : "If these so called friends of stray dogs are really interested in protection and welfare of the stray dogs, they must adopt the stray dogs, take home the stray dogs or at least put them up in some good dog shelter homes and bear all the expenses for their registration with Municipal Authorities and towards their maintenance, health and vaccination".
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday directed that no coercive action will be taken in pursuance of an order of the Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) prohibiting the feeding of stray dogs in public places in Nagpur. Noting that the menace of stray dogs had allegedly "increased beyond tolerable levels", the High Court had mandated in October that anyone interested in feeding street dogs would have to formally adopt the dogs and register them with the municipal authorities first, and then feed the stray animals inside their own homes. Taking a different stand prima facie, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and J.K. Maheshwari stayed the observation of the High Court that laid down this precondition.
The 2016 banknote demonetisation was a major step to fight "the menace of fake currency notes, storage of unaccounted wealth, and financing of subversive activities" and was not a "standalone or isolated economic policy action", submitted the Union of India in an affidavit. This policy was "a well-considered decision" and "an important action" in a series of economic policies and events, that were aimed at "strengthening and expanding the formal economy, diluting the informal economy, rooting out of black money, and eradicating fake currencies", the Centre informed the apex court. The Central Government further stated that it had also been in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India about the proposed policy since February of that year.
Petition Challenging Delimitation Exercise In Jammu & Kashmir : SC To Hear Plea On November 29
The Supreme Court on Wednesday postponed the hearing of the petition challenging the delimitation exercise carried out for redrawing the Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to November 29 after hearing the submission of the Solicitor general of India Tushar Mehta who requested for some time to file additional documents in the matter.
A bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka ordered that the additional documents be filed within a week's time and posted the plea to November 29. The court further ordered the petitioner to file a brief synopsis of five (5) pages limited to the issues pertaining to the petition.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the Indian Air Force (IAF) to consider 32 Women Short Service Commission Officers (WSSCOs) in the present batch of appeals, who were released from service between December, 2006 and December, 2009 and were not considered for grant of Permanent Commission (PC), for grant of one-time pensionary benefits deeming that they have completed 20 years of service.
The power of the executive to look into the conduct of the previous government cannot be compared with the power of courts to 'review' a decision, the Supreme Court expressed on Wednesday.
"We are not on merits but the High Court's reasoning. The power of Courts to review cannot be compared with government's power to investigate", a Bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued the hearing on whether Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. can be invoked after judgment is reserved.
The 5-Judge Bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna is hearing the matter. Earlier, Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh , for the petitioner, submitted that in his opinion his case is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh v. state of Punjab which sets out circumstances under which power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. can be exercised. SG Tushar Mehta submitted that interpretation of the same would be required. Mr. Patwalia apprised the Bench that an application has been filed by the Union Government to intervene in the matter, which he would be opposing, because the parties are only the accused and the Punjab government.
Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Of Gautam Navlakha & NIA In Relation To House Arrest Tomorrow
On Thursday, the Bench led by CJI, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud directed two applications, one filed by activist Gautam Navalakha and another to be filed during the course of the day by the National Investigation Agency, to be listed tomorrow before the Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph
Last week, the Court had allowed Navlakha's request to be placed under house arrest in consideration of his medical condition. However, the Special NIA Court at Mumbai yesterday refused to pass orders to execute the house arrest of Navlakha, after the NIA objected to the location of the house chosen by Navlakha.
On Thursday, while hearing Counsels on the Amazon-Future Group dispute, the Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud expressed concern that Future Group (Senior Advocate, Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan's client) was trying to defeat the order of the Apex Court and intending to stall the proceedings before the Singapore Arbitral Tribunal.
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Challenging Collegium System For Judges' Appointment
The Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, on Thursday, agreed to list a plea challenging the present collegium system for appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The petition, in essence, seeks a new mechanism for judges' appointment.
The matter was mentioned by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara before a Bench comprising CJI, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
Will Adopt Gujarat Model For Court Infrastructure : UP Govt Tells Supreme Court
The Uttar Pradesh Government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it is taking endeavours to adopt the Gujarat model for the judicial infrastructure in the State.
Additional Advocate General of UP Garima Prashad told a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh that a team of government officials visited the court complexes at Ahmedabad, Vadodara etc., and were impressed by the infrastructure facilities.
Not Getting Good Candidates For District Judges, All Chief Justices Saying This : CJI DY Chandrachud
In a plea filed by lawyers who had appeared for Mains Examination conducted for recruitment of ADJs in the State of Rajasthan assailing the result dated 01.10.2022, the Supreme Court, on Thursday, asked the petitioners to approach the concerned High Court.
"We are of the considered view there is no reason why a petition cannot be filed before HC under Article 226…Should the petitioner institute proceedings before the HC, we will request the Ld. CJ to ensure that it is assigned to a bench of the court so that finality can be brought down to the process of recruitment expeditiously."
Delhi Govt vs Centre Services Dispute : Supreme Court Defers Hearing To 8th December, 2022
The Supreme Court, on Thursday agreed to defer the hearing of the dispute between the Delhi Government and the Union Government regarding control of administrative services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi to 8th December, 2022, at the request of the Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta. However, the request of the Solicitor was opposed by Advocate, Mr. Shadan Farasat, the Counsel appearing for the Delhi Government.
In a plea challenging the decision of AIIMS, New Delhi to cancel the open and on-spot rounds for INI-CET (Institute of National Importance Combined Entrance Test) July 2022 session, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday that it cannot pass an order contradictory to an earlier order passed by another bench which had rejected the AIIMS's application for extension of the counselling period beyond 31st August.
Supreme Court Adjourns Plea Challenging Release Of Genetically Modified Mustard Seeds To Nov 29
The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned to November 29 the hearing in a plea challenging the environmental clearance granted for Genetically Modified Mustard Seeds. The Union of India has filed a detailed affidavit in the matter regarding the process of decision making, the regulatory frameworks and its impact on the nation. An intervention application has also been filed on behalf of the Swabhimani Shetkari Sangathan.
Centre Seeks Review Of Supreme Court Order Releasing 6 Convicts In Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case
The Central Government has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the November 11 order allowing the release of all convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case saying that the order was passed without hearing it.
Since the matter related to the assassination of a former Prime Minister, the Court ought to have heard the Union Government before passing the order, the review petition stated. The Centre pointed out that the petitions/applications were filed in the Supreme Court without making Union Government a party.
The National Investigation Agency has filed a fresh application in the Supreme Court seeking to vacate the order allowing the shifting of activist Gautam Navlakha to house arrest from the Taloja prison in Mumbai where he is lodged in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case.
The NIA said that the medical reports cited by Navlakha, which were relied upon by the Court to grant him relief, are biased since they are prepared by Jaslok hospital, where the main doctor, Dr S Kothari, is his direct brother-in-law.
"How do you actually get somebody who is above politics?", the Supreme Court of India asked on Thursday, noting the reality of persons having 'political bias',
A Constitutional Bench headed by Justice KM Joseph was considering a batch of petitions recommending reform in the process of appointment of members of the Election Commission of India. The Bench also comprised of Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar.
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on 'whether section 319 of the Cr. P. C. can be invoked after judgment is reserved'.
The 5-Judge Bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna was hearing the matter.
Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Andhra CM For Accusing Justice NV Ramana Of Bias
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday has agreed to consider a writ petition against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy for accusing Justice N.V. Ramana, who was next in line to be the Chief Justice of India at the time, of impropriety, in a letter that was subsequently released to the media.
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Singh, who appeared in person, informed the Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, "This is a one-page writ petition, in which I say that it was improper of the sitting Chief Minister of a state to make unsubstantiated allegations against a sitting judge of this court." The petitioner explained, "On October 6, the letter was written to the Chief Justice of India. On October 10, a press conference was addressed by the principal advisor to the chief minister, where this letter was circulated. The next day, on October 11, it was published in all English and regional language newspapers. On the very day, I filed this small writ petition."
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgement on an appeal preferred by the Andhra Pradesh government challenging a High Court order staying the government orders sanctioning the constitution of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to probe into the allegations of land scam in Amaravati during the previous dispensation under the Telugu Desam Party.
The Bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh. In the course of the hearing, Justice Shah orally observed, "If subsequent governments are not permitted to reopen the decisions taken and is only allowed to put a seal of approval, previous governments will be immune against all consequences. No one will be in a position to do anything then. Even if it is an administrative action with some mala fide or oblique reason, it can be enquired into."
Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Friday recused from hearing the petitions challenging the order issued by the Central Government on November 17, 2021 to extend the term of the ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra by one more year.
The petitions have been directed to be listed before a bench in which Justice SK Kaul is not a member. "I cannot take up the matter", Justice Kaul said.
Recent years have witnessed many litigants appearing as party-in-person before various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court. While some appear out of sheer will, a huge chunk of them appear-in-person due to the lack of knowledge that they are entitled to free legal aid.
One such party in person appeared before the Supreme Court today. With folded hands and a set of documents, he began making his submissions in Hindi. This prompted a bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy to observe that they don't understand hindi.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Friday scolded a young counsel for not having his brief.
"A lawyer without a brief is like Sachin Tendulkar without his bat. This looks bad. You are in your gown and band but have no paper. You must always have your brief with you."
NEET : Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Granting Grace Marks For Wrong Question
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Madras High Court order granting an unsuccessful NEET candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category four grace marks for a question in which wrong answers had been provided by the testing agency. Admittedly, the petitioner, who scored 92 marks against the cut-off of 93, did not attempt the particular question, fearing that he might get negative marks. However, in a relief to the aggrieved candidate whose appeal before the National Testing Agency was soundly rejected, a Bench of the High Court led by Acting Chief Justice T. Raja, in October, directed that he be granted the additional marks, therefore, enabling him to meet the prescribed cut-off.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to frame stringent and effective rules, regulations and guidelines to control population explosion in the country and ascertain the feasibility of making Two Child Norm as a mandatory criterion for government jobs, aids, subsidies as well as right to vote, right to contest and right to free shelter.
A bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka dismissed the IA on account of being withdrawn by the petitioner and stated that the prayers sought for in the Application was outside the purview of the court and was best left for the government to consider.
Listing Of Chhattisgarh NAN Scam Matter Before Justice MR Shah's Bench Attracts Controversy
The listing of the petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in relation to the Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam in Chhattisgarh has attracted a controversy, with the Chhattisgarh Government taking objection to the bench led by Justice MR Shah hearing it.
The matter was being heard by a bench comprising the previous Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice S Ravindra Bhat. The previous hearings in the case had created news after the ED made a serious allegation that the accused in the case were in touch with the Chief Minister and a High Court judge. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta had also handed over certain sealed cover documents to the bench led by CJI Lalit to corroborate the allegations. On October 20, the said bench could not hear the matter due to the paucity of time and directed for the listing of the matter on November 14 before the "appropriate bench".
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the application filed by the National Investigation Agency seeking to vacate the order allowing the shifting of activist Gautam Navlakha to house arrest from the Taloja prison in Mumbai where he is lodged in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case.
A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy also engrafted certain additional conditions for the house arrest of the septuagenarian, such as the sealing of the kitchen door leading to the exit point and the locking of the grills of the hall. The bench noted that Navlakha has complied with the condition of installing CCTV cameras at both the exit points.
Supreme Court Stays HC Order Granting Parole To POCSO Convict To Beget A Child With Wife
The Supreme Court today stayed the order of the Rajasthan High Court granting parole of 15 days to a convict on the ground for want of progeny.
A bench comprising Justices A. S. Bopanna and P. S. Narasimha issued notice on the plea filed by the State of Rajasthan where the State has submitted that grant of parole is not a matter of fundamental right.
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a PIL seeking mandamus for the creation of a separate Indian Environment Services as part of All India Services on the lines of Indian Administrative Services (IAS) and Indian Police Services (IPS). The above direction was sought in pursuance of the TSR Subramanian Committee Report.
A Bench of Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka, observed that a mandamus cannot be issued to create a service based on a committee's report.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday cautioned that it would take a serious view if the National Investigation Agency is looking for ways to defy the Court's orders.
A Bench comprising of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy orally made this statement while dismissing the NIA's application seeking to vacate the Court's order dated November 10 which permitted the transfer of Bhima Koregaon case accused Gautam Navlakha from Taloja jail to house arrest.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a writ petition challenging the decision of the Assam government to discharge the members of 200 additional Foreigners Tribunals, who were appointed to, inter alia, dispose of the appeals of people left out of the National Register of Citizens. The appointments had followed an order of a Bench headed by the then Chief Justice, Ranjan Gogoi, in May 2019, directing the relevant authorities to operationalise 200 additional Foreigners Tribunals by September of that year.
The Supreme Court on Friday took serious objection to the averments in a petition which attributed motives to a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in deciding a case and issued contempt notice to the lawyers connected with the Special Leave Petition- Advocate ML Sharma, Advocate-on-Record Deepak Goel.
The Court also issued contempt notice to Vijay Singh, Assistant Accountant in Municipal Counsel at Tikambarh who has signed the affidavit.
The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up a private medical college for compelling a post-graduate student to pay five lakhs in lieu of compulsory service after completing her course. A Single Judge Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2020 had held that the appellant college refusing to release the original documents and the certificate of the petitioner till she deposited the bond money was "unsustainable in law". Therefore, the medical college was directed to refund the amount, along with interest, within a period of 30 days. The decision of the writ court was upheld in appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court. Against this decision, the private medical college preferred an appeal before the apex court, with a Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli presiding over it.
The Supreme Court directed a Trial Court in Kolkata to complete trial in a criminal case arising out of an FIR that was registered three decades ago.
An FIR was registered in the year 1990 against the accused in a cheating case under Sections 120B/419/420/467/468/471/477A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused filed a discharge application before the Trial Court which was dismissed. Against this, he approached the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the order.
