Read Time: 01 hours
[Senthil Balaji] A division bench of the Supreme Court has asked the Chief Justice of Madras High Court to place the habeas corpus petition filed against the arrest of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji before a larger bench as soon as possible, within a week. Notably, the division bench of the Madras High Court delivered a split verdict on the habeas corpus petition moved by the Senthil's wife. The plea was heard by the bench which differed in their opinion. While Justice Banu declared the Minister’s arrest to be illegal and held the habeas corpus petition maintainable, Justice Chakravarthy opined that since the petitioner had not made out a case to hold that the remand was illegal, thus the present plea was not maintainable.Bench: Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy Case Title: ED vs. Senthil Balaji Click here to read more
[Shiv Sena – Disqualification] Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena has approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker to decide the pending disqualification petitions against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and other MLAs in a time bound manner, preferably within two weeks. In a fresh writ petition, party leader Sunil Prabhu contended the Speaker has not convened any meeting with regard to the disqualification petitions despite three representations sent to him after the Supreme Constitution bench's May 11 order to him decide the matter within a reasonable period. "The petitioner has also sent more than three subsequent representations dated 15th May, 2023, 23rd May, 2023 & 02nd June, 2023 to convene a hearing in the said disqualification matters, however, the Respondent Speaker in brazen disregard to his constitutional duties as a neutral arbiter, has sought to delay the adjudications of the disqualification petitions, thereby, permitting the illegal continuance of Eknath Shinde as Chief Minister, against whom the disqualification petitions are pending," the plea filed by advocate Nishanth Patil states.Case Title: Sunil Prabhu Vs. The Speaker, Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Click here to read more
[Deposit of Money in cheating cases] The Supreme Court has disapproved a "disquieting trend", emerging over the years, in which the court asked the accused in cheating cases to deposit money as a condition of pre-arrest bail, creating an impression that that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. "Law regarding exercise of discretion while granting a prayer for bail under section 438 of the Cr. PC having been authoritatively laid down by this Court, we cannot but disapprove the imposition of a condition of the nature under challenge," the bench said.Bench: Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of NCT Delhi Click here to read more
[DERC Chairman] The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) challenging the decision of Delhi 's Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena to appoint retired Justice Umesh Kumar as chairman of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC). Although, the bench has not stayed the notification issued by the Delhi LG, the oath taking of Justice Kumar, former judge of Allahabad High Court, which was to take place day after tomorrow, has been deferred. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government told the bench that the appointment was challenged on the ground that it was unilaterally made by the LG without its concurrence.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha Case Title: GNCTD Vs. UOI Click here to read more
[Pennaiyar River Water Dispute] The Supreme Court recused from hearing the plea on the Pennaiyar river water dispute. The judges orally said, in a lighter vein, that they may start fighting with each other if they were to deal with the dispute. This statement was made in the backdrop of Justice Sundresh, hailing from Tamil Nadu, Justice Bopanna, being from Karnataka.Bench: Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. Click here to read moreAlso Read: Proposal To Set Up Pennaiyar Water Dispute Tribunal Awaits Final Decision By Union Cabinet, Centre Tells Supreme Court
[Teesta Setalvad] A special three-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued notice on the bail plea filed by Teesta Setalvad, challenging the Gujarat High Court's order denying her bail in an evidence fabrication case relating to the 2002 Gujarat riots. ASG SV Raju, appearing for the Gujarat government sought an adjournment seeking time to translate some documents. The Court thus decided to issue notice on the plea and listed the same for hearing on July 19. After a late-night hearing that took place at 9:15 PM on July 1st, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had stayed the Gujarat High Court's order denying bail to Setalvad and granted one week's interim relief to her.Bench: Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta Case Title: Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. State of Gujarat Click here to read more
[Shiromani Akali Dal Cheating Case] As many as three separate review petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court against the April 28, 2023 judgement which quashed a cheating and forgery case against veteran Punjab leader, late Parkash Singh Badal and his son Sukhbir Singh Badal for alleged dual constitutions of their party Shiromani Akali Dal. The pleas contended that the errors in the SC judgement have caused a very important criminal trial against the powerful politicians to get nipped in the bud or aborted at its nascent stage, despite abundant and compelling material and evidence pointing at their role in the offences alleged to have been committed.Case Title: Balwant Singh Khera Vs Parkash Singh Badal & Ors. Click here to read more
[Manipur Violence] The Supreme Court has directed the Manipur resident before it to approach the High Court with their plea challenging the state-wide internet shutdown imposed on May 3, 2023, in Manipur as a response to reported incidents of violence in the state. "Go before High Court no under Article 226, we have recommended appointment of a permanent CJ also just yesterday.. it will help. The moment we take it up, the High Court will stop looking into it.. saying that Supreme Court has stepped in", observed the bench. As per the petitioner, the shutdown is a grossly disproportionate interference with the citizens' constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) through the constitutionally protected medium of the internet.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & Manoj Mishra Case Title: Chongtham Victor Singh vs. State of Manipur Click here to read more
[Excise Policy Scam] Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia has approached the Supreme Court on India seeking bail in a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam case. Sisodia has challenged the Delhi High Court's July 3rd order whereby a single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma had 'denied' bail to him. Sisodia has challenged the Delhi High Court's July 3rd order whereby a single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma had 'denied' bail to him. Justice Sharma, while denying bail to Sisodia, had said, "The allegations are that deliberate loopholes were made to facilitate illegal and criminal activity. It is also pertinent to mention that investigations have revealed that 65% stakes were given to 'South Group' in Indo Spirits to make it a mechanism of continuous generation and channelization of proceeds of crime".Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Case Title: Manish Sisodia vs. Enforcement Directorate Click here to read more
[RDF Fee for food grains procurement] State of Punjab has approached the Top Court challenging refusal by the Union Government of reimbursing statutory charges (market fees and rural development fee “RDF”) levied by the State on procurement of food grains, done in pursuance of the national policy to ensure food security across the country. It is submitted that though the act of the State is constitutionally valid, as per Article 246(3) of the Constitution read with List III of the Seventh Schedule, market and rural development fee in their favour is not being disbursed by the Union. It is submitted that though the act of the State is constitutionally valid, as per Article 246(3) of the Constitution read with List III of the Seventh Schedule, market and rural development fee in their favour is not being disbursed by the Union.Click here to read more
[National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023] Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Delhi government's writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the Ordinance issued on May 19. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi mentioned the same before a bench of CJI led bench which agreed to hear the same on July 10th. Delhi Government has alleged that the ordinance "wrested" control over civil servants serving in the Government of NCT of Delhi from the Delhi government and "vested it to the unelected Lieutenant Governor". It has thus sought a direction to quash the Ordinance and to declare it unconstitutional.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Mishra Click here to read more
[Land Acquisition Compensation – NHAI] The Supreme Court has declared that any dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation awarded to landowners in lieu of land acquired under the National Highways Authority Act, 1956 would be referred to the court of district judge and not the district magistrate. "When it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so. Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge," the court observed.Bench: Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala Case Title: Vinod Kumar & Others v District Magistrate Mau & Others Click here to read more
[Teachers’ recruitment scam] The Supreme Court has set aside a Calcutta High Court order whereby it had cancelled the appointment of 32,000 primary school teachers in West Bengal who were untrained at the time of recruitment. A division bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan passed the order while asking the High Court to expeditiously hear the cash for school jobs scam case. By the impugned order the high court had ordered the West Bengal Board of Primary Education to organise a new recruitment process within three months for candidates who participated in the 2016 recruitment process. No new or other candidates will be permitted to participate in such a recruitment test the single judge bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had said while adding that, “A corruption of this magnitude was never known in the State of West Bengal.”Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan Case Title: Tuhin Kumar Haldi & Ors. Vs. Priyanka Naskar & Ors. Click here to read more
[Murder of former CM of Andhra Pradesh] The Supreme Court has declined to consider a plea to clarify its previous order related to grant of pardon and pre-arrest bail to an accused in the killing of former Andhra Pradesh Minister Y S Vivekanand Reddy after he turned approver in the high profile case related to murder of uncle of current Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy. The bench noted that the plea filed by M V Krishna Reddy, the first informant, seeking clarification of the order passed on October 10, 2022 involved questions of facts and law, which cannot be determined by such an application.Bench: Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar Case Title: D Siva Shankar Reddy Vs. CBI Click here to read more
[Yati Narsinghanand Contempt] The Supreme Court issued notice in a contempt plea filed against Yati Narsinghanand over his allegedly “derogatory remarks” about the Supreme Court of India and the Constitution of India. A division bench has issued notice in the plea by activist Shachi Nelli and has sought a response as well. In January 2022, the then Attorney General of India KK Venugopal had granted consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Narsinghanand in terms of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 3(a) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court of India, 1975.Bench: Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh Case Title: Shachi Nelli vs. Yati Narsinghanand Click here to read more
[Minor's Evidence] The Supreme Court has observed that before recording evidence of a minor, it is the duty of a Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to him with a view to ascertain whether the minor can understand the questions put to him and is in a position to give rational answers. Court has further observed that the judge must be satisfied that the minor is able to understand the questions and respond to them and understands the importance of speaking the truth.Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh BindalCase Title: Pradeep vs. The State of HaryanaClick here to read more
[Arikomban] The Supreme Court came down heavily on an animal rights body called Walking Eye Foundation for Animal Advocacy for filing a plea to know the whereabouts of tusker 'Arikomban'. While dismissing a plea that sought a detailed report on the health and movement of the elephant, CJI DY Chandrachud opined, "We are tired of hearing these PILs, the High Court can deal with such issues...". Bench: CJI and Justice Narasimha Click here to read more
[Adultery/Right to Privacy] The Supreme Court is all set to consider an appeal filed by an aggrieved husband questioning whether calling of booking details for a hotel stay, call records etc. to prove charges of adultery violate the right to privacy.A Delhi High Court's order has been challenged before court whereby it had held that 'Right to Privacy' by a husband could not be claimed against the production of records sought by the wife to substantiate her case of divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery.Bench: Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar Case Title: Sachin Arora vs. Manju Arora Click here to read more
[Sarv Sewa Sangh, Varanasi] Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea by Sarv Sewa Sangh, Varanasi challenging the demolition notice issued on June 27, 2023 by Northern Railways, Indian Railways. Notably, on last Monday, the Allahabad High Court has disposed of a writ petition, which challenged the proposed demolition of Varanasi’s Sarv Sewa Sangh Bhawan after directing the petitioner to raise their grievances in a related suit already pending before the lower court in Varanasi.Bench: CJI and Justice Narasimha Click here to read more
[1996 Lajpat Nagar Blast] The Supreme Court has sentenced four convicts of the 1996 Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case to life imprisonment for the remainder of their lives without remission, in view of severity of the offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons. In a strong indictment of the prosecution over delay, Court said a prominent market in the heart of the capital was attacked but the case has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention, thereby comprising national interest.Bench: Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol Case Title: Mohd Naushad vs. State (Govt of NCT Delhi) Click here to read more
[Mohammad Shami] Supreme Court has directed the Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas to decide the criminal revision petition filed by Mohammad Shami, wherein the cricketer had challenged the arrest warrant issued by the Magistrate in a case filed by his wife under Sections 498A and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, in one month's time. "Thereafter the proceedings have not been heard and the stay on trial has continued for the last four years. We find merit in the contention of the petitioner. We accordingly direct the Sessions judge to take up the criminal revision and dispose it within one month. If that is not possible, the Sessions judge will decide an application against the stay...", accordingly the CJI has ordered.Bench: CJI with Justices Narasimha and Manoj Mishra Case Title: Hasin Jahan vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[The Kerala Story] The Supreme Court allowed Delhi resident, Puneet Kaur Bajwa, to withdraw her plea filed against the states which had banned or restricted screening of movie 'The Kerala Story' on account of the court's previous order staying the orders passed by states banning the movie.Bench: CJI with Justices Narasimha and Manoj Mishra Case Title: Puneet Kaur Bajwa vs. State of Kerala and Ors Click here to read more
[Caste system] The Supreme Court recently came down heavily on a litigant seeking a direction for reclassification of the caste system to eliminate discrimination. A division bench observed that the instant plea was a clear example of a PIL which is an abuse of the process of the Court and must be discouraged by the award of appropriate costs.Bench: CJI with Justices Narasimha Case Title: ADVOCATE SACHIN GUPTA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Click here to read more
[RRTS project] The Supreme Court came down heavily upon the Delhi government after it expressed lack of funds for fulfilling its contribution in the construction of the Delhi-Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS) project. A bench directed the AAP government to file an affidavit within two weeks enumerating details of funds spent by it for advertisements in the last three financial years. "If you have money for advertisements, why don’t you have money for a project that will ensure smooth transport?” observed the court after Delhi government’s counsel told it that there was a lack of funds.Bench: Justices S K Kaul and Sudhanshu DhuliaClick here to read more
[POCSO] The Supreme Court has granted bail to a Inamudin, an accused in a POCSO Case, after observing that the appellant had already been in custody for nine months, apart from the fact that him and the alleged victim had filed a plea seeking police protection on account of being an interfaith couple. According to the facts stipulated in the special leave petition, challenging a Rajasthan High Court order rejecting his bail, the appellant, a muslim man and his partner, a hindu girl is an interfaith couple, who were living together and had moved a protection plea before the State. On rejection of the same, FIR was lodged against the appellant under the aforesaid charges, by parents of the girl. Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: Imamudin v. State of Rajasthan Click here to read more
[Forest Communities] The Supreme Court has declared that there are other people integral to forest dwelling communities than that of SC/ST and Adivasis who get usually recognised as such. It also held that the substantial right of possession of land can't be granted or denied to anyone without a hearing by the competent authority. "Forest communities do not only consist of people from recognised Adivasi and other backward communities, but also other groups residing in the said land. These other groups, who do not get recognition under the law as a forest dwelling community due to several socio-political and economic reasons, are also an integral part of the said forest communities and are essential to their functioning," a bench has said.Bench: Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah Case Title: Hari Prasad Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Click here to read more
[Prosecution for non-signing of statement] The Supreme Court has said that no person can be prosecuted for refusing to sign a statement made to a police officer, while warning a Deputy Superintendent of Police for showing audacity to justify a charge sheet filed against a woman for the offence. "Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it," the court added.Bench: Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta Case Title: Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
