Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [September 12-17, 2022]

Read Time: 11 minutes

  1. [Premature Release of life convicts] The Supreme Court has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider for premature release of five hundred and twelve convicts undergoing imprisonment for life in terms of the policy dated 1 August 2018, known as the “Standing Policy regarding premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment on the occasion of every Republic Day (26th January)”. Court has further clarified that the restriction that a life convict is not eligible for premature release until attaining the age of sixty years, which was introduced to the said policy by an amendment on 28 July 2021, will stand deleted.
    Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
    Click here to read more
     
  2. [Hyderpora Encounter] The Supreme Court has refused to allow exhumation of body of one Amir Magrey, one of the four persons killed during an encounter between the police and militants in Srinagar’s Hyderpora area in November 2021. Court noted that after a body has been buried, it is considered to be in the custody of the law; therefore, disinterment is not a matter of right. Court further opined that the Union of India may consider enacting an appropriate legislation on exhumation so as to tackle such situations as the one on hand.
    Bench: Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala
    Case Title: Mohammad Latief Magrey vs. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.
    Click here to read more
     
  3. [Allegations Against Judicial Officers] The Supreme Court while dismissing a batch of transfer petitions, highly criticised the practice of 'demoralising judicial officers', and strongly reprimanded it. The Court was of the opinion, "Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the Judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant. We deprecate such a practice. If such a practice is continued, it will ultimately demoralise the judicial officer. In fact, such an allegation can be said to be obstructing the administration of justice".
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari
    Case Title: Anupam Ghosh and Anr. vs. Faiz Mohammmed and Ors.
    Click here to read more

     
  4. [Unfair Trade Practise] The Supreme Court recently held that delivering a used car that was used as a “Demo-­Test Drive Vehicle” can be said to be unfair trade practice. "Even to deliver the defective car against the new car was also not permissible. Not to deliver the new car despite the full sale consideration paid and/or to deliver the defective car can be said to be unfair trade practice. Therefore, as such the district forum and the state commission were absolutely justified in directing the respondent no.1- dealer to replace the delivered car and to deliver a new car.", observed a division bench
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari
    Case Title: Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr.
    Click here to read more

     
  5. [Section 300 IPC] In a case of patricide, where while both the father and the son were drinking together, a quarrel broke out between them and the son inflicted a total of eleven injuries on his father's head, chest and abdomen, the Supreme Court refused to accept the plea on behalf of the son that the case would fall under Section 304 Part-I (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and not Section 302 of the IPC. A division bench held that it was clearly a case of mercilessly beating on all the vital parts of the body and reigning blows, albeit with a wood piece, on head and on different parts of the head again and again.
    Bench: Justices SK Kaul and PS Narasimha
    Case Title: CHHERTURAM @ CHAINU vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
    Click here to read more

     
  6. [Establishing Educational Institutions] 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 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

     
  7. [Bail] The Supreme Court cancelled the bail of an accused while holding that he played a serious role in the crime of catching hold of the deceased and making it possible for his co-accused to inflict injuries on the deceased.
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari
    Case Title: Nitu Kumar vs. Gulveer & Anr.
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more

     
  8. [Compensation] The Supreme Court while hearing an appeal against an impugned order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, enhanced the compensation of Rs.14,82,000­ to Rs. 62,35,000 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. Considering the five operations, prolonged hospitalisation, and suffering face by the complainant, Court was of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/ awarded by the High Court under the head of pain, shock, and suffering can be said to be on a lower side.
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari
    Case Title: Ramesh vs. Karan Singh & Anr.
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more