- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round Up...
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [September 18 to September 24]
Deepankar Malviya
25 Sept 2022 10:39 AM IST
![Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [September 18 to September 24]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/13/750x450_409634-sc-weekly-roundup-new.jpg "Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [September 18 to September 24]")
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK Not Necessary To Give Opportunity Of Hearing To Would-Be Accused Before Court Makes Complaint U/Sec 195/340 CrPC : Supreme Court Case Title: State of Punjab vs Jasbir Singh CrA 335/2020 The Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to a would- be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195/340 CrPC. The...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
Case Title: State of Punjab vs Jasbir Singh CrA 335/2020
The Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to a would- be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195/340 CrPC.
The Three Judges Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul , Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath were answering the reference made to it by a two judges bench. The issues referred were i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? (ii) what is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?
Is Same Day Sentencing In Death Penalty Cases Proper? Supreme Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench
Case Title: In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be considered While Imposing Death Sentences
The Supreme Court referred to a 5-judge bench the issue relating to hearing the accused before imposing the death penalty on him. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that there were conflicting judgments regarding the grant of hearing to an accused before imposing death sentence on him.
Larger Bench Judgement Will Prevail Regardless Of Number Of Judges In Majority: Supreme Court
Case Title: Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT of Delhi
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that a judgement delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority. To illustrate, the judgement of a 7-judge bench delivered with 4:3 majority will prevail over a unanimous 5-judge bench. A 5-judge bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M. M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia gave this ruling while answering the second issue in the case Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT of Delhi.
Supreme Court Asks Centre To Frame Policy For Employment Of Transgender Persons
Case Title: Shanavi Ponnusamy v. Ministry of Civil Aviation And Anr. WP(C) No. 1033/2017
The Supreme Court, bench comprising of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli by way of an interim order, asked the Central Goverment in consultation with the National Council for Transgender Persons to devise appropriate policy framework in terms of which reasonable accommodation can be provided to transgender persons in seeking recourse to avenues of employment in all establishment covered by the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (2019 Act), within a period of 3 months.
Case Title: State of Haryana vs Anand Kindoo
The Supreme Court observed that fixed term sentences exceeding 14 years can be awared in appropriate cases to strike a delicate balance between the victims' plea for justice and rehabilitative justice for the convicts.
This fixed term sentence can only be by the High Court or this Court and not by the trial Court, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Civil Hospital vs Manjit Singh
The Supreme Court set aside an NCDRC order that directed a hospital to pay compensation to a woman who delivered a child despite undergoing tubectomy procedure.
In this case, a woman underwent tubectomy procedure twice, though both the procedures remained unsuccessful. She gave birth to a male child in the year 2003. She filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum alleging medical negligence on account of failed tubectomy surgery. The same was dismissed on the ground that the hospital is not a consumer. The State Consumer Commission (SCDRC) affirmed this order. Later, National Consumer Commission (NCDRC) allowed revision petition and directed to pay compensation as per the guidelines and the policy of the State.
Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act 2014
Case Title: Harbhajan Singh versus State of Haryana and others (WP(c) 735/2014)
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vikram Nath upheld the validity of the Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act 2014 and dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Act.
Case Title: Har Naraini Devi vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 783 CA 22957 OF 2017
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed that any State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures is a special law. The court noted that the 1954 Act deals with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only
The Supreme Court observed that High Courts should refrain from excercising writ jurisdiction there is an alternate remedy available. When there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions, the bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
The bench observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against a judgment of High Court which allowed a writ petition filed against an order passed by Assessing Officer determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs O P Gupta SLP (Diary) 27824 OF 2020
When Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee, the Supreme Court observed in a recent Judgment.
In this case, the issue raised in the writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court was whether service rendered by the Writ Petitioner prior to resignation from the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, should be counted for the purpose of pension. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to count the earlier period of service rendered by the writ petitioner with the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation to compute his total pensionable service and release his pension and retiral benefits including arrears of pension with interest @ 9% p.a. within a period of three months. Writ appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Case Title: Selvakumar vs Manjula
The Supreme Court observed that, for attracting the provision of Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the prosecution must establish that an accused has forced and compelled the victim to render bonded labour.
This force and compulsion must be at the instance of the accused and the prosecution must establish the same beyond reasonable doubt, the bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha said.
Case Title: Securities Exchange Board of India vs Abhijit Rajan
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramnian has held that merely because a person was in possession of unpublished price sensitive information at the time go trading in securities, it cannot be held that the transaction becomes the mischief of "insider trading", unless it is established that there was an intention to take advantage of the information.
A distress sale of shares will not become "insider trading" merely because the person was in possession of unpublished price sensitive information.
Case Title: Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh SLP(Crl) No. 529/2021
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday opined that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence, and whose appeals will not be heard in the near future, should be enlarged on bail, unless there are other reasons to deny them bail.
A division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka was considering a batch of petitions of life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before various High Courts.
Case Title: Maitreya Doshi vs Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd
The Supreme Court observed that approval of a resolution in respect of one borrower cannot discharge a co-borrower.
If there are two borrowers or if two corporate bodies fall within the ambit of corporate debtors, there is no reason why proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC cannot be initiated against both the Corporate Debtors, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.
Case Title: Ashok G. Rajani vs Beacon Trusteeship Ltd.
The Supreme Court observed that there is no bar to withdrawal of an admitted CIRP application before constitution of Committee of Creditors.
The settlement cannot be stifled before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors in anticipation of claims against the Corporate Debtor from third persons, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari said.
Case Title: D Swamy vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
The Supreme Court reiterated that the grant of ex post facto environmental clearance in exceptional cases is not impermissible.
Ex post facto clearances and/or approvals cannot be declined with pedantic rigidity, regardless of the consequences of stopping the operations, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Tata Communications Ltd.
The Supreme Court observed that administrative/executive orders or circular cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect in the absence of any legislative competence.
The dispute in this case pertains to charges for infrastructure facilities which are being provided by the BSNL to the batch of telecom service providers, which were increased by a circular dated 12th June, 2012, w.e.f. 1st April, 2009. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, while upholding the right of the BSNL to revise the rates of the infrastructure facilities in question held that the circular dated 12th June, 2012 shall be applicable prospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 2013, instead of 1st April, 2009 and upto 31st March, 2013.
Admirality Suit| Intra-Court Appeal Does Not Lie Against All Interim Orders: Supreme Court
Case Title: Owners And Parties Interested In The Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy vs Banque Cantonale De Geneve
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed that an intra-court appeal does not lie against an order of addition of a party in an admiralty suit.
"An appeal does not lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from an order of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for addition of a party in an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty Act", the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed. The court observed that all interim orders are not appealable.
Case Title: Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court observed that the failure to produce the accused before the Court at the time of consideration of the application for extension of time for investigation amounts to a violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
"The failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the Court and the failure to inform him that the application made by the Public Prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity. It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21.", the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
Case Title: Navika Kumar v UOI W.P.(Crl.) No. 286/2022
The Supreme Court, on Friday, directed that the FIRs registered Times Now anchor, Navika Kumar, over the remarks made by Nupur Sharma about Prophet Muhammed on a channel debate, be transferred to the IFSO unit of the Delhi Poolice.
The FIR registered by the Delhi Police IFSO Unit shall be taken as the lead case. The direction will be applicable to future FIRs which may be registered with respect to the same telecast. Investigation of any subsequent complaint on the same News hour debate shall be transferred to IFSO Unit.
NEWS THIS WEEK
Supreme Court Lists plea for transfer of investigation in NAN scam case on 26th September
Case Status: ED v State of Chattisgarh
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India, U.U. Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Ajay Rastogi heard the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking a plea for transfer of investigation in the Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam case, which relates to corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Chattisgarh. The bench directed the parties to place material on which they wish to rely in sealed covers. The matter is now listed for 26th September 2022 at 3 pm. The court further directed the parties to submit their written submissions on the maintenance of the petitions.
Case Status: In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences | Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1 Of 2022
The Supreme Court referred to a 5-judge bench the issue relating to hearing the accused before imposing the death penalty on him. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that there were conflicting judgments regarding the grant of hearing to an accused before imposing death sentence on him.
Case Status: Ashutosh Taploo vs Union of India and Anr. - WP (C) 321/2022
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking investigation into the murder of Advocate Tika Lal Taploo in Kashmir valley in 1989 by militants. The petition also sought rehabilitation of family members and restoration of their properties in the Kashmir Valley and investigation and prosecution of people involved in the murder. The bench comprising Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice C. T. Ravikumar refused to hear the matter on the ground that another matter on similar grounds was not entertained by the Supreme Court a short while back.
Case Status: ED v State of Chattisgarh
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India, U.U. Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Ajay Rastogi, on Monday, heard the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking a plea for transfer of investigation in the Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam case, which relates to corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Chattisgarh.
The bench directed the parties to place material on which they wish to rely in sealed covers. The matter is now listed for 26th September 2022 at 3 pm. The court further directed the parties to submit their written submissions on the maintenance of the petitions.
The Supreme Court has kept in abeyance for a week, the order of Central government dismissing from service Gujarat cadre IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma, who assisted the CBI in the investigation in the Ishrat Jahan encounter killing case.
A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy directed that in the meantime, it is for Verma to take appropriate steps for amending the writ petition pending before the Delhi High Court, to lodge a challenge to order of dismissal.
Case Status: VA Pugazhendi v OPS
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging Madras High Court's order of quashing defamation proceedings against All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader Edappadi K. Palaniswami and former party leader O. Panneerselvam.
The plea was filed by VA Pugazhendi, former spokesperson of the AIADMK party, who had filed a defamation case against Edappadi K. Palaniswami and O. Panneerselvam after he was expelled from the party. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Ajay Rastogi noted that no case of defamation had been made out in the petition.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India issued notice on a special leave petition challenging the decision of the Bombay High Court to strike down a slew of submissions and allegations made in an election petition filed against Union Minister Nitin Jairam Gadkari.
Case Status: Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka SLP(c) 5236/2022 and connected cases.
The Supreme Court continued hearing the petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim students in educational institutions. Today was the seventh day of hearing by bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the Petitioners made elaborate submissions on religious and cultural diversity of India, Constituent assembly debates and protection of religious rights under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Pained That You've Put It To Religion" : Supreme Court Judge On Plea Against Wakf Act
The Supreme Court orally expressed reservations regarding the arguments made by a petitioner against the Wakf Act. A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy was considering a petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to transfer to Supreme Court the petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of the Wakf Act from the Delhi High Court.
Case Status: Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. vs. Bijesh Kumar M and Ors. - SLP (C) 21252/21262/2021
The Supreme Court issued notice in an appeal filed by Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee assailing the order of the High Court of Kerala where it was held that the Committee had no authority to donate money to the Chief Minister's Disaster Relief Fund and it amounts to violation of Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978. The bench of Chief Justice of India U. U. Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat ordered status quo in the matter and stayed the operation of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala.
Case Status: Maatrbhoomi Sevarth Foundation vs UOI, WP (C) PIL 764/2021
The Supreme Court of India stopped short of imposing costs while dismissing a petition which sought to direct the Governor of West Bengal to submit a report to the President under Art 356(1) in connection to the alleged manipulation of 2021 state elections. The petition also sought an NIA probe into the incident. Matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy
Case Status: In Re: Prajwala Letter Dated 18.2.2015 Videos Of Sexual Violence And Recommendations And Anr.vs …… And Ors. - SMW(Crl) 3/2015
The Supreme Court directed the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to furnish status report of the Government and the internet intermediaries to the Court within a period of six months, in the matter regarding the issues pertaining to child sexual abuse, child pornography and rape/ gangrape videos. The bench of Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice C. T. Ravikumar heard the matter.
The Supreme Court bench of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, issued notice in appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging a fresh FIR registered, in 2020, by the Chhattisgarh police to probe the allegations of larger political conspiracy in the Maoist attack that had killed senior Congress leaders in Bastar in 2013 and stayed further investigation by the local police in the second FIR lodged in 2020.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar And Ors. SLP(C) No. 16081/2022
The Supreme Court bench of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, in a plea pertaining to the OBC reservation in the upcoming municipal body polls in Bihar, allowed the parties to mention the matter before the Patna High Court, where it is pending adjudication, for an early listing as the High Court is already seized of the matter.
Supreme Court Seeks Status Report From Union On Appointment Of Ad-Hoc Judges In High Courts
Case Title: Lok Prahari through its General Secretary V N Shukla IAS (Retd) vs Union of India and others
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, AS Oka and Vikram Nath sought a status report from the Union regarding any recommendation being made for ad-hoc judges under Article 224 A of the Constitution of India which enables a Chief Justice of a High Court, with the previous consent of the President, to request a former High Court judge to "sit and act as a judge" of the High Court to hear cases.
Case Title: Indian Olympic Association V. Union Of India & Ors. - Diary No. 25767/2022
The Supreme Court bench of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli asked the Union Ministry Youth Affairs and Sports to discuss with the Director of Olympic Solidarity and NOC Relations, International Olympic Committee and revert to the Apex Court, primarily, on the issue of appointing a neutral person to run the day-to-day administration of the IOA.
Case Title: K. Purushottam Reddy vs Union of India and Ors. – W. P. (C) 488/2022
The Supreme Court bench of Justice K. M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy issued notice on a writ petition seeking the implementation of Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. This Section provides that the number of seats in the legislatures of the successor states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana would be increased from 175 and 119 to 225 and 153 respectively. It has also been contended that delimiting the assembly and parliamentary constituencies of only the newly minted union territory of Jammu and Kashmir has created an unreasonable classification, and the non-inclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the process is, therefore, unconstitutional.
Case Title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 427/2022
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. M. Sundresh directed the State Legal Services Authorities to form a scheme for empanelment of paralegals in police station for dealing with POCSO offences, using the Delhi State Legal Services Authority's scheme as a model, within three months.
Must Acknowledge Court Masters' Exemplary Devotion To Duties: Supreme Court Justice Indira Banerjee
Justice Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court on Monday took a moment to thank and appreciate her court masters for their "exemplary devotion to duties". After a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Banerjee pronounced its judgement on a petition moved by Trimurti Fragrances, she said the court masters were at her residence till 1:30 am, the night before, so that judgements could be delivered on time, the next day.
Shortage of Life-Saving HIV Drugs In India | Supreme Court seeks Centre's Response
Case Title: Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors. – WP (C) 686/2022
Case Title: Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka SLP(c) 5236/2022 and connected cases.
The Petitioners' side concluded arguments in the ongoing case before Supreme Court against Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim students in educational institutions. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave closed the arguments. A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia heard the Petitioners for eight days.
Case Title: Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka SLP(c) 5236/2022 and connected cases.
On the eight day of the hearing in the Hijab case, Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia orally remarked that the Karnataka High Court should not have gone into the question of essential religious practice. Justice Dhulia also commented that the High Court relied on a term paper of a student in the judgment.
"High Court should not have gone into it(essential religious practice test). They have relied on a term paper of a student, and they have not gone to the original text. Other side is giving another commentary. Who will decide which commentary is right?", Justice Dhulia said.
Case Title: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community And Anr. v. State of Maharashtra And Anr. WP(C) No. 740/1986
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari, agreed to consider whether the practice of ex-communication prevalent in the Dawoodi Bohra Community is a 'protected right' under the Constitution of India, 1950. Bench will commence with the hearing of the matter from 11th October, 2022.
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan TP(C) No. 1118/2014
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice S.K. Kaul and also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari , stated that from 28th September, 2022 it is to commence with the hearing of the matter where its indulgence is sought to consider the extent of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950, to dissolve marriage.
The 5-Judge Bench was of the opinion that the real issue is the exercise of power under Article 142 when there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, but one party is not consenting to divorce.
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters | W.P.(C)NO.55/2019 and connected issues
Case Title: Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka SLP(c) 5236/2022 and connected cases.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia continued hearing the petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim students in educational institutions.The Petitioners' side concluded its arguments and the Bench commenced hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State of Karnataka.
Azam Khan's Son Disqualification Challenge:Supreme Court Reserves Judgement
Case Title: Mohd Abdullah Azam Khan Vs Nawab Ali Khan
Justice SK Kaul Stresses On Need To Set Time Limit For Arguments, Cites Example Of US Supreme Court
While hearing an issue related to retrospective application of immunity against arrest, sitting in a Constitution Bench, Supreme Court Judge, Sanjay Kishan Kaul impressed upon the Counsels, representing the parties, the importance of assigning time-limits and abiding by it while making submissions. Hearing the matter preliminarily, the Constitution Bench led by Justice Kaul asked the Counsels how long they would take to make their submissions. While the concerned Counsels, including the Solicitor General agreed to complete their arguments in two half day sessions (2 hours each), another Counsel sought two more hours, stating that he has some in-depth research on the issue at hand.
Case Title: UoI And Ors. v. M/s. Union Carbide Corporation And Ors. Curative Petition (C) No. 345-347/2010
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari, on Tuesday, asked the Solicitor General to seek instructions from Centre regarding its present stand on the curative petition filed by it, in 2010, seeking additional compensation for Bhopal gas tragedy victims from US-based Union Carbide Corporation (now owned by Dow Chemicals). Accordingly the Apex Court deferred the matter to 11th October, 2022.
Case Title:
Case Title: Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. UoI And Ors. SLP(C) No. 10985/2021
Case Title: Satyendra Kumar Jain vs Directorate of Enforcement SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 30017/2022
Case Title: Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka SLP(c) 5236/2022 and connected cases.
Case Title: Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka SLP(c) 5236/2022 and connected cases.
On the ninth day of hearing in the Hijab case, Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia asked how the State will prepare its students to face the religious and cultural diversity in the world, if it restricts religious apparel in schools in the name of equality and discipline. Justice Dhulia also remarked that display of religious symbols may be an opportunity for the students to look at the country's diversity and be "culturally sensitive".
'No Criminality Found in Radia Tapes': CBI To Supreme Court, Seeks Disposal of Ratan Tata's Plea
Case Title: Ratan TATA v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 398/2010
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Tiwari Versus Manish Sisodia And Ors | Slp(Crl) No. 351/2021 Ii-C, Vijender Gupta vs State Govt of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 658/2021 II-C
The Supreme Court of India bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramnian reserved its judgement on the two petitions moved by BJP MP Manoj Tiwari and the party's Leader of Opposition in Delhi, Vijender Gupta against Delhi High Court's refusal to quash the summoning order issued by a Magistrate in the defamation case filed by Delhi's Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.
The defamation case was filed by Sisodia in 2019 against BJP leaders — Members of Parliament Manoj Tiwari, Hans Raj Hans and Pravesh Verma, former MLA Manjinder Singh Sirsa, Rohini constituency; MLA Vijender Gupta, and Spokesperson Harish Khurana — for allegedly making defamatory statements about his involvement in corruption of nearly Rs 2,000 crore in the building of classrooms in Delhi's government schools.
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters | W.P.(C)NO.55/2019 and connected issues
Case Title: Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT of Delhi.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority. To illustrate, the judgment of a 7-judge bench delivered with 4:3 majority will prevail over a unanimous 5-judge bench.
A 5-judge bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M. M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia gave this ruling while answering the second issue in the case Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT of Delhi.
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters | W.P.(C)NO.55/2019 and connected issues
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India - WP (C) 943/2021
"Where is our nation headed", asked the Supreme Court orally on Wednesday expressing deep concerns at the hate speeches in the media going unregulated. Stressing on the need to have a firm regulatory mechanism against hate speech, the Court asked the Government of India "why it is standing as a mute witness when all this is happening".
A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing a batch of eleven writ petitions which seek the directions to regulate hate speech. Among the batch were petitions filed against the "UPSC Jihad" show aired by Sudarshan News TV, speeches made at Dharam Sansad meetings, and pleas seeking regulation of social media messages communalising COVID pandemic.
We Read BJP Leader's Tweet, Doesn't Make Us Think Of Sisodia As Corrupt: Supreme Court
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Tiwari Versus Manish Sisodia And Ors | Slp(Crl) No. 351/2021
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday observed that the tweets posted by Leader of Opposition, Vijender Gupta do not make it think of Delhi's Deputy Chief Minister, Manish Sisodia as a corrupt person.
A Bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramaniam, while hearing Gupta's plea challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court which refused to quash the summoning order issued by a Magistrate in the defamation case filed by Sisodia, observed: The most fundamental aspect of a defamation is, that we are third parties, no? The tweet is intended to harm the reputation of your client. How will it harm the reputation? An opinion should be formed in the mind of the person reading the tweet that you are a corrupt man. As third parties we read the tweet, we don't get that impression. If we don't get that impression, where is the harm to the reputation?"
Vedanta University: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Land Acquisition Dispute
Case Title: Anil Agarwal Foundation V. State Of Orissa
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on appeals filed by the Orissa government and Anil Aggarwal Foundation against Orissa High Court's 2010 decision of quashing the land acquisition for establishment of Vedanta University. Aggarwal, who plans to establish the university, is Chairman of Vedanta Resources, the mining company
The bench of Justices M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari heard Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the land owners and Senior Advocate C. A. Sundaram for the Foundation.
Case Title: Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka SLP(c) 5236/2022 and connected cases.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the Karnataka Government's decision allowing the ban of hijab in educational institutions has resulted in denial of education to Muslim girls.
He argued that the State's priority should be to ensure that girls are getting educated. "We have a slogan "Beti bachao, beti padhao". Should it not be the priority of the state to ensure education of the girls rather than a misplaced priority on discipline which undermines autonomy and eventually results in denial of education?", he submitted before a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Supreme Court Concludes Hearing In Hijab Case, Reserves Judgment
Case Title: Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka SLP(c) 5236/2022 and connected cases.
After a marathon hearing over a period of 10 days, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim students in educational institutions.
Case Title: Indian Olympic Association V. Union Of India & Ors. | Diary No. 25767/2022
Case Title: K. Sree Krishna vs The State Of Telangana
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer challenging the Telangana Government order making masks mandatory for general public.
Case Title: Hafiz Naushad Ahmad Azmi V. Union Of India , Ministry Of Affairs Ors| W.P.(C) No. 1229/2021
The Supreme Court of India granted an additional time of six weeks to four states to constitute Haj committees and file a compliance report in that regard. The respective states/union territories are Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and Puducherry.
A Division Bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian also directed the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Rajasthan to file affidavits within for weeks in the matter.
Case Title: Case Title: Narmada Bachao Andolan And Ors. v. UoI And Ors. MA 2279/2018 in WP(C) No. 328/2002
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters
The Supreme Court had on Day 6 observed that "There is no anthropological study which shows that there are families who suffer for generations from poverty if they're not backward." The observation came when Sr. Adv. Vibha Dutta Makhija referred to the 103rd Amendment and stated that other measures to alleviate poverty were not empowering measures and it was this measure, as introduced by the 103rd amendment, which had become an empowering measure to persons who suffered from systematic poverty.
Supreme Court Asks State Govts To Submit Data On Those Who Have Jumped Bail, Parole
Case Title: Kuldeep @ Monu vs State of Haryana and Ors | Crl.A. No. 1000/2011
The Supreme Court of India asked the state governments to inform the Court about the number of persons who have jumped bail or parole and whether proceedings have been initiated against them.
A Division Bench comprising of Justices SK Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka also directed that a copy of the order dated February 17, 2020 be forwarded to all state governments. In the order, the Court had proposed to have a national portal regarding such persons who have jumped bail and parole.
Case Title: WP(C) 1070/2019 Radha Kumar and Ora vs UOI and Ors
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant said that it will list the petitions challenging the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 after Dussehra vacations.
"We will certainly list that", Chief Justice of India UU Lalit said, when an urgent mention was made by Senior Advocate Prashantho Chandra Sen for listing of the case.
Case Title: Chandra Shekhar v UOI W.P.(C) No. 465/2022
"This Is A Policy Matter": Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea On Regulation Of Alcoholic Drinks
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar v UOI & Ors W.P.(C) No. 649/2020 PIL
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Indira Banerjee refused to entertain plea filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to prohibit or regulate the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks in the State of NCT Delhi.
At the outset, the bench noted that the matter pertained to policy making and was not something which the court needed to adjudge upon.
In relation to the stray dog menace in Kerala, the expert committee led by former Kerala High Court judge Justice S Siri Jagan has submitted its report before the Supreme Court, pursuant to the order passed on September 9.
The committee in its report indicated towards a rise in the stray dog bites every year. "Not only media reports, but also visual verification on the streets also points to an exponential increase in the stray dog population in the State of Kerala. The number of reported dog bite victims who have sought care in institutions under the Health Services Department has also shown a steady increase over the past several years", the Committee, also comprising Sri. V. Hari Nair, Law Secretary to the Government of Kerala, and Smt. (Dr.) P.P. Preetha, the Director of Health Services-in-charge the Government of Kerala, stated.
Supreme Court Stays Lokayukta Proceedings Against Former Karnataka CM Yediyurappa In Bribery Case
Case Title: B.S. Yediyurappa v. Abraham T.J
The Supreme Court, issued notice in a plea challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court, whereby a bribery complaint, filed against former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa, his son B.Y. Vijayendra and others alleging offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, had been restored.
A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli stayed further proceedings by the Lokayukta in respect of B.S. Yediyurappa, the petitioner before it.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Ors. vs Roopesh – SLP (Crl.) No. 6981-6983/2022
The Supreme Court bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari allowed the State of Kerala to withdraw the petition filed by it seeking to restore the UAPA charges against alleged Maoist leader Roopesh.
The State had approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Kerala High Court discharging alleged Roopesh of charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Kisan Mahapanchayat Vs. Union Of India | W.P.(C) No. 854/2021
"This is not an ongoing issue", the Supreme Court of India bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed while considering a petition filed by Kisan Maha panchayat seeking permission to allow Satyagraha at Jantar Mantar to protest against the farm laws(which have now been repealed).
"Matter has become infructuous. What's there in it now? Jantar Mantar issue. We can't debate on theoretical issues. Can't waste Court's time", the Court observed before the matter was passed over to the second half. However, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that only the transfer petition is infructuous and accordingly, the Court passed an order to that effect.
Case Title: Siby Mathew SLP(Crl) 4097/ 2022, CBI vs Jayaprakash | SLP(Crl) No. 8008-8010/2021
Justice KM Joseph of the Supreme Court of India recused from two petitions filed by CBI assailing the anticipatory bail granted by the Kerala High Court to five police and intelligence bureau officials in the case related to the alleged framing of ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in the 1994 ISRO espionage case.
During the hearing, a Bench headed by the Justice Joseph ordered for both the petitions to be listed before a different bench.
Case Title: J. Mohammed Nazir v. Mahasemam Trust | SLP(c) 16303/2022
The Supreme Court of India bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and B. V. Nagarathna issued notice on a Special Leave Petition alleging that an order pronounced by the Madras High Court and subsequently uploaded on its website was later replaced by a different order.
The impugned order dated September 9, 2022, was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Senior Advocate K. Subramanian, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, alleged that the initial order was later deleted, and a modified order was uploaded in its place. The operative portion, containing a direction issued to the respondent to deposit Rs 115 crores in Indian Bank Annanagar, Chennai trust, was deleted, claimed Subramanian.
Supreme Court Extends Tenure of Judicial And Administrative Members Of CAT, Kolkata Bench
Case Title: CAT Bar Association Kolkata And Anr. v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 662/2022
In a plea filed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bar Association Kolkata seeking filling up of vacancies at the Kolkata Bench of CAT, the Supreme Court, extended the terms of one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member, who are at present running the said Tribunal, till further orders.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat, granted bail to the former IL&FS director Ramchand Karunakaran. Karunakaran was arrested in 2019 for alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
On the occasion of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Indira Banerjee, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) organised a farewell function in her honour. On her thoughts on demitting the office, Justice Banerjee stated–
Supreme Court To Hear Plea Challenging Firecrackers Ban In Delhi On October 10
BJP MP and former BJP Delhi President, Manoj Tiwari, on Friday, approached the Supreme Court of India against firecracker ban. The matter, which was mentioned before the bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat and has been listed for 10th October 2022.
The PIL filed by Tiwari pertains to the blanket ban on sale, purchase and usage of firecrackers during Diwali celebrations in Delhi. Through the PIL, he submitted that despite clear orders of the Supreme Court refusing to put a blanket ban on firecrackers, various State governments had still imposed a blanket ban on the storage, sale and use of all types of firecrackers in year 2021 and subsequently taken coercive step against the buyer, purchaser and users of the same
Case Title: Lal Bhanu @ Musstt. Lal Banu v. Union of India And Ors.
The Supreme Court, issued notice in a petition impugning the order of Guwahati High Court, which had affirmed the order of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered India from Bangladesh after the cutoff date, i.e., 25.03.1971.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Action Against Deceitful Religious Conversion
Cast Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India and Ors. – WP (C) 63/2022
The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL which sought a declaration that "fraudulent religious conversion and religious conversion by intimidation, threatening, deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits" offend Article 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India. It was also sought by the petitioner that directions may be given to the Centre and State to take strict steps to control it and alternatively, the court may direct the Law Commission to prepare reports as well as to draft a bill to control "Deceitful Religious Conversion" within three months.
Case Title: MG Devasahayam vs Union of India and anr | W.P.(C) No. 1253/2021
A plea has been moved before the Top Court seeking a common electoral roll for parliamentary, assembly and local body polls. The petition filed by MG Devasahayam also seeks for compensation to those who were denied the right to vote due to deletion from the voters list.
Supreme Court judge Justice DY Chandrachud on Saturday said that the Supreme Court will join the National Judicial Data Grid in the near future and that it will result in all the decisions of the Supreme Court being available in a free text search portal.
Justice Chandrachud added that those judgments will have accessibility features built into them for the easy access of persons with disabilities. Justice Chandrachud made these revelations while speaking at the Third Professor Shamnad Basheer Memorial Lecture organized by the LiveLaw.
Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in the petition challenging the order of Gujarat Government allowing premature release of 11 convicts sentenced to life in the Bilkis Bano case for gangrape & murder, asking the petitioners to array the 11 accused as respondents, one of the accused persons has now filed a counter affidavit.
On 25th August 2022, while hearing a petition filed by CPI (M) MP Subhasini Ali, journalist Revati Laul & Prof Roop Rekha Verma, a Bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath issued notice to the State of Gujarat and directed the impleadment of the accused persons.
