Read Time: 01 hours
In this listicle, LawBeat brings to its readers a list of the top 50 judgments from the Supreme Court of India which were pronounced this year. This list is not exhaustive and includes judgments, which brought out new aspects of law.
SC Upheld Employees’ Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014 The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment upheld the validity of Employees’ Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014, which had raised the pensionable salary cap to Rs 15,000 a month from Rs 6,500 a month. 54 petitions both from exempted and unexempted establishments had sought invalidation of the Amendment Scheme. The amendment with a retrospective effect from March 1996, gave an option to the employer and employee for contribution on salary exceeding the aforesaid ceiling of Rs.6500 to retain the right to pension as per the scheme. Bench: Former CJI UU Lalit with Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justise Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION & ANR. ETC. vs. SUNIL KUMAR B. & ORS. ETC Click here to read more
Supreme Court upheld EWS Reservations introduced through the 103rd Constitution Amendment Upholding the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Reservation which was introduced through the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, Supreme Court ruled by a majority decision that the amendment, even if viewed from any angle, could not be in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. By a 3-2 split verdict, Supreme Court effectively held that reservations can be provided in India basis economic criteria in educational institutions and in public employment. While a bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala (majority) held that EWS reservations form a separate disadvantaged group, CJI UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat (dissenting bench) ruled otherwise, stating that the SC/ST/OBC’s cannot be excluded from the EWS reservations as they form bulk of the poorest population in India.Bench: Former CJI UU Lalit with Justices Ravindra Bhat, Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala Click here to read moreALSO READ: Parliament Entitled To Do Any Such Experiment Towards Avowed Objective Of Socio-Economic Justice: Supreme Court’s Majority Ruling On EWS Reservation
Non-reporting of sexual assault under POCSO Act The Supreme Court has held that non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime. A division bench further opined that such non-reporting is more often than not, done as an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime. Court was of the opinion that legal obligation for reporting of offence under Section 19(1) of POCSO Act is cast upon on a person to inform the relevant authorities specified thereunder when he/she has knowledge that an offence under the Act had been committed, in order to ensure that such offenders are not spared and should be properly booked. "...such provisions are included in with a view to ensure strict compliance of the provisions under the POCSO Act and thereby to ensure that the tender age of children is not being abused and their childhood and youth is protected against exploitation...", the bench also noted.Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar Case Title: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Dr. Maroti s/o Kashinath Pimpalkar Click here to read more
[PMLA] Handing over money with intent of giving bribe connects accused with Proceeds Of Crime By handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime, the Supreme Court held while interpreting Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). "Without such active participation on part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being proceeds of crime. The relevant expressions from Section 3 of the PML Act are thus wide enough to cover the role played by such person...", the Court further held.Bench: Former CJI UU Lalit with Justice Bela M Trivedi Case Title: ED vs. Padmanabhan Kishore Click here to read more
Unexplained Inordinate A Delay Crucial Factor For Quashing Criminal Complaint The Supreme Court remarked that while inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint. Adding that while the court did not expect a full-blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, it said that in such cases where the accused had been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it was only reasonable for the court to expect bare-minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities.Bench: Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Krishna Murari Case Title: HASMUKHLAL D. VORA & ANR. vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Click here to read more
Benefits of survivorship in father’s property Supreme Court recently observed that not granting the benefits of survivorship in father’s property to the daughter is bad law. A division bench while hearing a plea of a woman who was deprived of her share in the compensation with respect to a land that belonged to her father, urged the Central Government to amend the law as it is bad law stressing that it disqualifies a scheduled tribe (ST) woman from being considered on par with male counterparts in matters of her share in the paternal property. It was the woman's claim that there may not be any justification to deny the right of survivorship so far as the female member of the ST community is concerned.Bench: Justices MR Shah and Krishna MurariClick here to read more
Two Finger test perpetuates patriarchy The Supreme Court noted that the Two Finger test perpetuates patriarchy by bolstering the misconceived notion that women who are habituated to sexual intercourse cannot be raped. "....the probative value of a woman’s testimony does not depend upon her sexual history. It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped, merely for the reason that she is sexually active," said the Supreme Court. Court made the observation that the invasive and traumatising practice should be done away with from study materials in medical literature of study and any person who is found guilty of conducting such a test must be dealt with strictly and the act shall be construed as misconduct.Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud & Hima Kohli Case Title: The State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai Click here to read more
DNA Tests Encompass Right To Privacy, Cannot Be Performed As A Matter Of Course Commenting on its intrusive nature, the Supreme Court recently held that merely because DNA testing is permissible under the law, it cannot be directed as a matter of course to be performed, particularly when a direction to that effect would be invasive to the physical autonomy of a person. A division bench further observed that the consequence of DNA testing is not confined to the question as to whether such an order would result in testimonial compulsion, but also encompasses right to privacy as well.Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath Case Title: INAYATH ALI & ANR. vs. STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. Click here to read more
Individual Freedom Cannot Be Taken Away Without Following Prescribed Procedure The Supreme Court held that the right of personal liberty and individual freedom which is probably the most cherished is not to be taken away arbitrarily, in any manner, from a person even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed by law. Court further held that once a detenu is able to satisfy the High Court under the exercise of jurisdiction Article 226 of the Constitution that the grounds of detention did not satisfy the rigors of proof as a foundational effect which has enabled him in making effective representation in assailing the order of detention in view of the protection provided under Article 22(5) of the constitution, the same renders the order of detention illegal.Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar Case Title: THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. vs. BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND & ANR. Click here to read more
Delay In Prosecuting Corrupt May Make Future Generations Accustomed To Corruption The Supreme Court opined that delays in prosecuting the corrupt breeds a culture of impunity and leads to systemic resignation to the existence of corruption in public life. "Such inaction is fraught with the risk of making future generations getting accustomed to corruption as a way of life", Court held.Bench: Justices BR Gavai and PS NarasimhaCase Title: VIJAY RAJMOHAN vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU Click here to read more
Hijab Verdict A division bench of the Supreme Court which heard the challenge to the Karnataka High Court decision upholding the ban on wearing hijabs in pre-university institutions in the state, delivered a split verdict in the matter. Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the appeal, holding hijab not an essential religious practice that impinged on the fundamental rights, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia overturned the Karnataka High Court verdict while opining, "that a girl child already has a lot of problems that she faces in the rural India. The question in my mind is, whether we are making her life difficult".Bench: Justices Gupta and Dhulia Case Title: Aishat Shifa vs. State of Karnataka Click here to read moreALSO READ: LawBeat | [Hijab Verdict] One of the best sights in India-a girl child leaving for school with a bag on her back-Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaBREAKING| Justice Gupta On Hijab In Pre University Colleges - Upholds Government Order - Hijab Not An Essential ERP Infringing Fundamental Rights
Section 125 CrPC Is A Measure Of Social Justice The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, court said. While granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to an aggrieved wife before it, Court said, "The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute...", Bench: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: ANJU GARG & ANR. vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG Click here to read more
MTP Act |Right To Safe And Legal Abortion To ALL Women In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court held that even unmarried women are eligible to seek termination of pregnancy of 20-24 weeks, from a consensual relationship. It was further held that the benefit of Rule 3B(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, would be extended to all women under 18 years of age. The Court was also of the opinion that when a choice is available to other women, then excluding unmarried women from the purview, is unreasonable and unconstitutional, when the issue pertains to health.Bench: Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice JB Pardiwala Case Title: X vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. Click here to read moreALSO READ: Supreme Court Allows Termination Of 24 Week Pregnancy Basis Medical OpinionRegistered Doctors Must Refrain From Imposing Extra-Legal Conditions On Women Seeking To Terminate Their Pregnancy: Supreme CourtLawBeat | Violence by husband is a reality; can take the form of rape: Top Court
[IBC] If Two Borrowers Fall Within Ambit Of Corporate Debtors, CIRP Proceedings Can Be Initiated Against Both 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 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) cannot be initiated against both the Corporate Debtors, the Supreme Court held. "Needless to mention, the same amount cannot be realised from both the Corporate Debtors. If the dues are realised in part from one Corporate Debtor, the balance may be realised from the other Corporate Debtor being the co-borrower. However, once the claim of the Financial Creditor is discharged, there can be no question of recovery of the claim twice over", further clarified the Top Court.Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari Case Title: MAITREYA DOSHI vs. ANAND RATHI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD. AND ANR. Click here to read more
Fundamental Right To Establish Educational Institutions Cannot Be Restricted Through Executive Instructions The Supreme Court recently held that the fundamental right to establish educational institutions can be subject to reasonable restrictions which are found necessary in general public interest, but the same cannot be done by way of executive instructions. "...the requirement of law for the purpose of clause (6) of article 19 of the Constitution can by no stretch of imagination be achieved by issuing a circular or a policy decision in terms of Article 162 of the constitution or otherwise. It has been held that such a law must be one enacted by the legislature", Court has held.Bench: Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha Case Title: PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA vs. RAJEEV COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND ORS. Click here to read more
Arbitrator can grant Post-Award Interest on part of 'Sum' due under Section 31(7)(B) Supreme Court held that an Arbitrator has the discretion to grant post-award interest only on the principal sum due under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Court also noted that the issue before it was whether the phrase ‘unless the award otherwise directs’ in Section 31(7)(b) of the Act only provides the arbitrator the discretion to determine the rate of interest or both the rate of interest and the ‘sum’ it must be paid against.Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna Case Title: Morgan Securities And Credits Pvt. Ltd. vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. Click here to read more
No punishment less than imprisonment for life can be given for conviction U/S 302 IPC The Supreme Court held that there cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC). Court further noted that the punishment for murder under Section 302 IPC shall be death or imprisonment for life and fine, and therefore, the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine. "Any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC", thus held the division bench.Bench: Justices MR Shah and Krishna MurariCase Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nandu @ Nandua Click here to read more
Arbitrators cannot unilaterally issue binding Orders Determining Their Own Fees The Supreme Court held that arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their own fees. "A unilateral determination of fees violates the principles of party autonomy and the doctrine of the prohibition of in rem suam decisions, i.e., the arbitrators cannot be a judge of their own private claim against the parties regarding their remuneration", the Court opined.Bench: Justices Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Sanjiv KhannaCase Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Afcons Gunanusa JVClick here to read more
IBC Overrides Customs Act The Supreme Court held that in case of any conflict, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will override the Customs Act. A former CJI Ramana led bench observed that, "The IBC would prevail over the Customs Act, to the extent that once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act." Bench: Former CJI NV Ramana with Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli Case Title: SUNDARESH BHATT, LIQUIDATOR OF ABG SHIPYARD vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS Click here to read more
Family May Take Form Of Domestic, Unmarried Partnerships Or Queer Relationships The Supreme Court observed that familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships. Noting that the dominant understanding of the concept of a "family," both in law and in society, is that it consists of a single, unchanging unit consisting of a mother and father (who remain constant over time) and their children, the Court added, “This assumption ignores both the numerous circumstances that may lead to a change in one's familial structure, as well as the fact that many families do not conform to this expectation in the first place. Domestic, unmarried partnerships and queer relationships are all examples of familial relationships”. Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna Case Title: Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Others Click here to read more
Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 3(2) Of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 Supreme Court held Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 which stated that whoever enters into any benami transaction shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, to be unconstitutional on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary.Bench: Justices Krishna Murari and Hima KohliCase Title: Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Click here to read more
Guidelines For Trial Courts To Deal With Victims Of Sexual Harassment The Supreme Court recently laid down guidelines for the trial courts to deal with the aggrieved persons, who are victims of sexual harassment, in an appropriate manner which include allowing proceedings to be conducted in camera, installation of a screen to ensure that the aggrieved woman does not have to see the accused while testifying, ensuring that the counsel for the accused conducts the cross-examination of the aggrieved woman in a respectful fashion and without asking inappropriate questions. Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB PardiwalaCase Title: Anusha Deepak Tyagi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Click here to read more
Heinous crimes cannot be quashed on basis of a settlement The Supreme Court held that heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC is not to be exercised for the asking, the Court further held. Court also held that orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent, where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to extract money from the accused.Bench: Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V Ramasubramaniam Case Title: DAXABEN vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Click here to read more
Mother after death of biological father, can decide surname of the child The mother, who is the only natural/legal guardian of the child after the death of the biological father, can decide the surname of the child and can give him the surname of her second husband whom she remarries after the death of her first husband, the Supreme Court held. "A surname refers to the name a person shares with other members of that person's family, distinguished from that person's given name or names; a family name. Surname is not only indicative of lineage and should not be understood just in context of history, culture and lineage but more importantly the role it plays is with regard to the social reality along with a sense of being for children in their particular environment. Homogeneity of surname emerges as a mode to create, sustain and display ‘family'", the Court observed.Bench: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari Case Title: MRS. AKELLA LALITHA vs. SRI KONDA HANUMANTHA RAO & ANR. Click here to read more
PMLA Challenge The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The bench however held that the challenge to the passage of amendments to the act in 2019, as money bill be considered by a larger bench. The bench further held that the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report under PMLA proceedings is not mandatory since ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to FIRs. Over 200 petitions were filed challenging the provisions of the Act. It was argued before the court that the powers of Enforcement Directorate to arrest, force confessions, and seize property were unbridled.Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar Case Title: Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Ors. vs Union of India & OthersClick here to read moreALSO READ: PMLA Judgment- What Has The Supreme Court Held In The 545 Page Judgment?
GST exemption for Hajj The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking GST and Service Tax exemption on the Hajj pilgrimage, while holding that no religious ceremony is performed or conducted by the Haj Group Organizers (HGOs) and the religious ceremony is conducted by Haj pilgrims or by someone else in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Service rendered by HGOs to Haj pilgrims is to facilitate them to reach at the destination to perform rituals/religious ceremonies, the Court further held.Bench: Justices Khanwilkar, Abhay Oka and CT Ravikumar Case Title: All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
IBC does not aim to penalize solvent companies, temporarily defaulting in repayment The Supreme Court, while distinguishing between the nature of debt given by a Financial Creditor and Operational Creditor, held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) certainly does not aim to penalize solvent companies, temporarily defaulting in repayment of its financial debts, by initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). With this view, Court delved into the legislative intent behind the use of the word 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC and the word ‘shall’ in Sub-Section (5) of Section 9. The Top Court added that the conscious use of different words, in the otherwise almost identical provisions showed that ‘may’ and ‘shall’ in the two provisions are intended to convey a different meaning. "It is apparent that Legislature intended Section 9(5)(a) of the IBC to be mandatory and Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC to be discretionary. An application of an Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP under Section 9(2) of the IBC is mandatorily required to be admitted if the application is complete in all respects and in compliance of the requisites of the IBC and the rules and regulations thereunder, there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt, if notices for payment or the invoice has been delivered to the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor and no notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor. The IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an operational creditor", the division bench held.Bench: Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice JK Maheshwari Case Title: VIDARBHA INDUSTRIES POWER LIMITED vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED Click here to read more
Minimum width of 1km ESZ to be maintained in protected forests Accepting that uniform guidelines may not be possible in respect of each sanctuary or national park for maintaining Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ), the Supreme Court ordered that a minimum width of 1 kilometer ESZ ought to be maintained in respect of the protected forests. “Each protected forest, that is national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to.....”, ordered the Top Court.Bench: Justice L Nageshwar Rao, BR Gavai and Aniruddha Bose.Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors. Click here to read more
Applications for appointment on compassionate grounds to be decided within six months Considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, a division bench of the Supreme Court last week observed that the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. Court was further of the view that if the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds has to be achieved then such applications should be considered well in time and not in a tardy way.Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna Case Title: Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa and others Click here to read more
Actual use of violence not always a sine qua non for an activity falling within organised crime While interpreting clause (e) of Section 2(1) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA), 1999, the Supreme Court last week observed that actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non for an activity falling within the mischief of organised crime, when undertaken by an individual singly or jointly as part of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. "Threat of violence or even intimidation or even coercion would fall within the mischief. This apart, use of other unlawful means would also fall within the same mischief...", further observed the court.Bench: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose Case Title: ABHISHEK vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Click here to read more
Supreme Court upholds constitutional validity of National Medical Commission's Licentiate and CRMI Regulations The Supreme Court recently held that Regulations 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations 2021, (‘the Licentiate Regulations’) and Schedule-II 2(a) and 2(c)(i) of the National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021, (“CRMI Regulations”) are not ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. In the case before the Court, a student who could not get admission to a medical college of his choice in India and wished to join an Under Graduate Medical Course in Anna Medical College, Mauritius approached the top court alleging that the National Medical Commission of India brought the Licentiate and CRMI Regulations, were imposing heavy and arbitrary burden upon students who want to pursue medical education abroad. While upholding the said regulations, Court noted that the problem of unrecognised institutions offering diplomas/ degrees in medicine and untrained individuals practicing medicine, was not new, but a century-old phenomenon in India, and to deal with this, statutory measures have been undertaken to regulate the recognition and registration of foreign medical degrees in India.Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramaniam Case Title: ARAVINTH RA vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. Click here to read more
[Section 138 NI Act] Pilot Study In 5 States With Highest Pendency With a view to arrest the judicial docket, in regard to complaints and trials for offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court has ordered a pilot study under which retired judicial officers and retired court staff shall be employed in five judicial districts with the highest pendency in five states with the highest pendency, to operationalise Special Courts under the NI Act. These five states with the highest pendency are, namely, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The pilot study shall be conducted for a duration of one year from September 1, 2022 to August 31, 2023, Court directed.Bench: Justice L Nageshwar Rao, Justice BR Gavai and Justice S Ravindra Bhat Case Title: IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881 Click here to read more
Recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and States Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and States as the ‘recommendations’ of the GST Council are the product of a "collaborative dialogue" involving the Union and States and which are, in effect, recommendatory in nature. "To regard them as binding edicts would disrupt fiscal federalism, where both the Union and the States are conferred equal power to legislate on GST", a three-judge bench. Court noted that recommendations of the GST Council are not based on a unanimous decision but on a three-fourth majority of the members present and voting, where the Union’s vote counts as one-third, while the States’ votes have a weightage of two-thirds of the total votes cast. Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant & Vikram Nath Case Title: Union of India & Anr. vs. Ms Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Click here to read more
Sedition Law On Abeyance The Supreme Court directed that the 'Sedition Law' be put on abeyance till further orders. The Centre and State governments have also been asked not to register any cases under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The bench noted that the Union of India may reconsider the aforesaid provision as there is a requirement to balance. Bench: Former CJI NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima KohliCase Title: S.G. VOMBATKERE Vs. UNION OF INDIAE | EDITORS GUILD OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.Click here to read more
Right to establish an educational institution can be regulated Placing reliance on the Eleven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, the Supreme Court reiterated that, "...the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated. However, such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration." With this view, the Top Court went on to uphold the validity of the Notification dated May 21, 2012 ("the Notification"), vide which the Dental Council of India ("the Council"), had substituted Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 ("the Regulations").Bench: Justices Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai Case Title: DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA vs. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR. Click here to read more
NSEL Scam Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Bombay High Court, by which certain notifications attaching the property of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (MPID Act) had been quashed. In July 2013, about 13,000 persons who traded on the platform of NSEL claimed that other trading members had defaulted in the payment of approximately Rs 5,600 crores. After an inspection of accounts of NSEL and 63 Moons under Section 209A of the Companies Act, Economic Offences Wing registered cases against the directors and key management personnel of the NSEL and 63 Moons and against trading members and brokers of NSEL under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the MPID Act.Bench: Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela M TrivediCase Title: The State of Maharashtra vs 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. Click here to read more
Matters relating to a crime must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel Noting that a DVD recorded by the Investigating Agency in a case was played and published in a program named “Sutta Mutta” by Udaya TV, the Supreme Court said that all matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel. "If at all there was a voluntary statement, the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Law. The public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law. Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in the domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in administration of Criminal Justice", added the Top Court.Bench: Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha Case Title: VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETC. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA Click here to read more
"Every sinner has a future", Judgement commuting death sentence of rapist While commuting the punishment awarded to a person accused of raping and killing a four year old girl, from death sentence to life imprisonment, Justice Bela M Trivedi remarked that, “The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. The bench was also of the view that one of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by the Supreme Court over the years, also was to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender."Bench: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: MOHD. FIROZ vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Click here to read more
'Dilapidated wall' cannot be conferred status of religious place for offering Namaaz The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any proof of dedication or user, a dilapidated wall or platform cannot be conferred a status of a religious place for the purpose of offering prayers/ Namaaz. With this view, the top court dismissed an appeal filed by the Waqf Board, Rajasthan challenging an order of the Rajasthan High Court directing the Board not to interfere with the action of Jindal Saw Limited and others in removal of the structure forming part of Khasra No. 6731 at Village Pur, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam Case Title: WAQF BOARD, RAJASTHAN vs JINDAL SAW LIMITED & ORS. Click here to read more
Powers of preventive detention are draconian Holding that the personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding, the Supreme Court remarked that, "The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and even draconian." Tracing the origin of preventive detention to the colonial era, Court has held that these powers have been continued with strict constitutional safeguards against abuse. "Article 22 of the Constitution was specifically inserted and extensively debated in the Constituent Assembly to ensure that the exceptional powers of preventive detention do not devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of state authority....", added the division bench.Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant Case Title: Mallada K Sri Ram vs The State of Telangana & Ors Click here to read more
One Rank One Pension Scheme The Supreme Court upheld the central government’s implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) Policy for the Armed Forces. OROP meant a uniform pension would be paid to retired servicemen of the same rank with the same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement. Court held that there was no legal mandate that pensioners who hold the same rank must be given the same pension. It added that all pensioners who held the same rank many not form a homogeneous class. The court further remarked that a new pensionary benefit can be made applicable from a prospective date, with the only condition that it cannot split up a homogenous class.Bench: Justices Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath Case Title: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union Of India Click here to read more
Gender-Cap for employment in bars stems from stereotypical notions The Supreme Court has held that the condition allowing a bar licensee in the State of Maharashtra to keep only four women singers/artists and four male singers/artists to remain present on permitted stage was void. Court added that the impugned gender-cap appeared to be the product of a stereotypical view that women who perform in bars and establishments, like the appellants, belong to a certain class of society.Bench: Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat Case Title: HOTEL PRIYA, A PROPRIETORSHIP v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Click here to read more
Misuse of Section 498A IPC Holding that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever, the Supreme Court has remarked that this has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. "...false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law", added the Court.Bench: Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari Case Title: KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS. v STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Click here to read more
Antrix vs. Devas Multimedia The Supreme Court upheld the order of winding up passed against Devas Multimedia Private Limited, while remarking that all the grounds of attack to the concurrent orders of the NCLT and NCLAT raised by Devas were unsustainable. "We do not know if the action of Antrix in seeking the winding up of Devas may send a wrong message, to the community of investors. But allowing devas and its shareholders to reap the benefits of their fraudulent action, may nevertheless send another wrong message namely that by adopting fraudulent means and by bringing into India an investment in a sum of INR 579 crores, the investors can hope to get tens of thousands of crores of rupees, even after siphoning off INR 488 crores", observed the court.Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian Case Title: DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. v ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. Click here to read more
Evidence recording of Child Victim/ witness of Human Trafficking to be taken via Video Conferencing Accepting the suggestions made by Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agrawal and Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy relating to the Standard operating procedure for permissibility of recording evidence of children through video conferencing the Supreme Court directed the same to be put in practice as a regular feature. The court further directed that "the procedure need not be restricted only to the period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic."Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai Case Title: IN RE Children in Street Situation Click here to read more
Anticipatory Bail under PMLA While clarifying that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) would not apply to offences under ordinary law, the Supreme Court stated that once prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the PMLA Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA Act must get triggered — although the application is under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar Case Title: The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate vs. Dr. VC Mohan Click here to read more
Scheduled Caste belonging to one state cannot claim caste-based benefit in another state The Supreme Court held that a person of the Scheduled Caste belonging to a particular state, being an ordinarily and permanent resident of that state cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste from another state. In the case before court, the appellant being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab was denied from claiming the benefit of a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan, which was granted to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person.Bench: Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna Case Title: BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS v. JASSA RAM & ORS. Click here to read more
Deposit 50% of compensation amount to challenge NCDRC order in Complaints filed before Consumer Protection Act, 2019 The Supreme Court clarified that the onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded, in order to challenge an order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act. In terms of Section 67 of the 2019 Act, no appeal against the order of National Commission shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless the person has deposited fifty per cent of the amount required to be paid. Whereas, under the 1986 Act, by virtue of a proviso inserted vide Central Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. March 15, 2003, the condition was that no appeal shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless the person who is required to pay the amount deposits fifty per cent of the amount or fifty thousand, whichever is less.Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramaniam Case Title: ECGC Limited vs Mokul Shriram EPC JV Click here to read more
Consumer Protection Act and RERA are concurrent remedies The Supreme Court reiterated that Consumer Protection Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other. In fact, they are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy, added the top Court. The bench was further of the view that if Statutes provide more than one judicial fora for effectuating a right or to enforce a duty-obligation, it is a feature of remedial choices offered by the State for an effective access to justice. Court added, “....RERA is to be read harmoniously with the Code, as amended by the Amendment Act. It is only in the event of conflict that the code will prevail over RERA. Remedies that are given to allottees of flats/apartments are therefore concurrent remedies, such allottees of flats/apartments being in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as well as the triggering of the Code.”Bench: Justices UU Lait, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha Case Title: EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. vs. SUSHMA ASHOK SHIROOR Click here to read more
Examining representation made against Preventive Detention"Even if, it may not be a case of lethargy of the Competent Authority to consider the representation, the time period of over two months spent in doing so, cannot be countenanced. It does not require such a long time to examine the representation concerning preventive detention of the detenu....", observed the Supreme Court while setting aside an an order passed by the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, whereby the High Court rejected the writ petition challenging the detention order dated July 20, 2021 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate under the Tamil Nadu Act, 14/1982-Serving of Orders against Kalyanaodai Senthil @ Senthil, aged 53 years, who was then confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore.Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar Case Title: S. AMUTHA v THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
