Read Time: 01 hours

1. [Karnataka Drought Relief Funds] The Karnataka government has approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Union government's Ministry of Home Affairs to take a final decision and release the financial assistance from National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) to the state for drought relief. It also asked the court to declare that the action of the Centre in not releasing the financial assistance for drought arrangement as per the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) is ex facie violative of fundamental rights of the people of State of Karnataka.
   Case Title: State of Karnataka Vs Union of India & Ors
   Click here to read more
    
2. [Kerala Governor] Kerala government has filed a plea in the Supreme Court, challenging Governor Arif Mohammed Khan's decision to reserve bills for assent of President as unconstitutional. It also sought a direction to declare withholding of assent by the President on four bills as unconstitutional. "The conduct of the Governor in keeping Bills pending for long and indefinite periods of time, and thereafter reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President without any reasons relatable to the Constitution is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution," it said.
   Case Title: State of Kerala Vs Union of India 
   Click here to read more
    
3. [Swearing in of K Ponmudi] The Tamil Nadu Governor today informed the Supreme Court of India that he had not intentions of defying the court's order by not swearing in Thiru K Ponmudi as a minister. This response came in from the Governor after the Supreme Court yesterday came down heavily on the Governor RN Ravi while hearing the Tamil Nadu government's application against his refusal to swear in Ponmudi, following Ponmudi's conviction being stayed by the Supreme Court itself in connection with a disproportionate assets case.
   Bench: CJI Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
   Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor, Tamil Nadu
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: Supreme Court: TN Governor questioned over refusal to swear in K Ponmudi as Minister (lawbeat.in)
   Tamil Nadu Govt Approaches SC Against Its Governor Refusing To Swear In Thiru K. Ponmudi As A Minister
    
4. [Arvind Kejriwal Arrest] Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal withdrew his petition filed before the Supreme Court of India challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had conducted searches at Delhi Chief Minister's residence yesterday following the Delhi High Court's decision to deny him protection from coercive action in an excise policy-related money laundering case.
   Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
   Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate Of Enforcement
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: Supreme Court: SG Mehta says Kejriwal's counsel misled court (lawbeat.in)
   [Kejriwal Arrest] Attempts to show ED in prejudiced manner thwarted: SG (lawbeat.in)
    
5. [BRS leader K Kavitha Arrest] Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader and daughter of former Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, K Kavitha has been denied any relief by the Supreme Court. Kavitha was recently arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi liquor scam case. "Don't get emotional, we are hearing the Vijay Madanlal challenge..as fair as bail is concerned, WE ARE VERY CLEAR YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TRIAL COURT...All of us are clear that only because it is a political person, we cannot grant relief..", Court said to Kavitha's counsel.
   Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M Trivedi and MM Sundresh
   Case Title: KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: Liquor Policy Scam: SC asks Kapil Sibal not to virtue signal (lawbeat.in)
    
6. [Patanjali Misleading Ads] Patanjali Ayurveda has issued an unqualified apology before the Supreme Court of India for issuing misleading advertisements. Submitting that it will ensure that such advertisements are not issued in the future, the affidavit filed through Patanjali's managing Director Acharya Balkrishna adds, "the Deponent begs to submit that its intention is only to exhort the citizens of this country to lead a healthier life by consuming products of the Respondent No. 5 including products for lifestyle ailments through the use of age old literature and materials supplementing and backed by ayurvedic research". This affidavit has been filed in light of the Supreme Court's recent order whereby it directed Baba Ramdev and Patanjali's Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna to personally appear before it.
   Case Title: Indian Medical Association & Anr vs. Union of India and Ors
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Baba Ramdev to personally appear before court (lawbeat.in)
    
7. [New law to appoint Election Commissioners] A division bench of the Supreme Court has refused to stay the new law on appointment to the posts of Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners. Referring to the judgment in Anoop Baranwal, wherein the parliament was asked to frame a law on the appointments, court said today, "The judgment says there was a vacuum but the court never said that we are inviting the parliament to make a law in a particular way..". Court further clarified that it could not be said by the petitioners that Election Commission was under the thumb of the executive.
   Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
   Case Title: Dr Jaya Thakur and Ors vs. Union of India and Anr.
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: Anoop Baranwal Judgment On CJI's Inclusion In EC Selection Committee Was A Pro-Tem Measure: Supreme Court
   Independence Of EC Not Attributable To Presence Of Judicial Member In Selection Committee, Centre Tells SC
    
8. [Police Protection] The Supreme Court has said High Courts must grant an ad-interim measure, such as immediate police protection, while dealing with a plea by intimate partners on the grounds that they are a same sex, transgender, inter-faith or inter-caste couple. "The court shall not pass any directions for counselling or parental care when the corpus is produced before the court. The role of the court is limited to ascertaining the will of the person. The court must not adopt counselling as a means of changing the mind of the appellant, or the detained/missing person," it said.
   Bench: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
   Click here to read more
    
9. [Electoral Bonds] The State Bank of India (SBI) has filed a compliance affidavit before the Supreme Court saying that is has disclosed all details of Electoral Bonds, which are in its possession and custody, to the Election Commission of India, including the bonds alphanumeric number. "The complete bank account numbers and KYC details of the political parties are not being made public as it may compromise the security of the account (cyber security). Similarly, KYC details of purchasers are also not being made public for security reasons, apart from the fact that such information is not fed/collated in the system. However, they are not necessary for identifying the political parties", the affidavit filed by SBI's Chairman adds.
   Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: BREAKING: Supreme Court Asks SBI To Completely Disclose All Details In Its Possession On Electoral Bonds
    
10. [Fact Check Units] A CJI DY Chandrachud led bench of the Supreme Court has stayed the notification issued yesterday by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology for setting up Fact Check Units under the Press Information Bureau. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the court to allow his to bring documents on record as he was not aware of the petition, but his request was denied. Court was further told that the Bombay High Court was to hear the matter from April 15.
    Bench: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
    Case Title: Kunal Kamra vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Kunal Kamra Files Plea To Stop Union From Notifying FCUs Under IT Amendment Rules, 2023
     
11. [Rohingya Migrants] The Central government through the Ministry of Home Affairs has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court of India in the plea seeking to release Rohingyas who have been illegally detained in jails and detention centers without assigning any reason or for violation of the Foreigners Act. In response to the plea filed by Priyali Sur, the MHA has submitted that illegal Rohingya migrants have no right to reside within the territory of India, as it is expressly against Article 19. Court has further been told the petition seeks to recognise a new legislative class of “refugees” which is not recognised under Indian law.
    Case Title: Priyali Sur vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
     
12. [CAA] Even after persistent requests being made for stay on the grant of citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, the Supreme Court refused to pass any such orders. "They don't even have the infrastructure in place..", CJI DY Chandrachud replied to a submission being made to it being recorded in the order that grant of citizenship would be dependent on the outcome of this case. Court has thus ordered that a 5-page note be file on the aspect of stay by April 2 by the petitioners, to which a reply be filed by the respondents by April 8. The case will now be heard on April 9, 2024.
    Bench: CJI Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
    Case Title: State of Kerala vs. Union of India 
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: CAA: Indira Jaising Opposes Indian Citizenship For Persecuted Hindus In Supreme CourtSupreme Court: Kerala seeks stay on CAA rules (lawbeat.in)
     
13. [Cauvery river dispute] The Supreme Court has formulated issues for consideration in the issue involving water-sharing of river Cauvery between the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, one of them being, " Whether the Suit premised on the bifurcation of waters of River Cauvery as “Karnataka Cauvery Water” and “Tamil Nadu Cauvery Water” is at all maintainable?" In August last year, Tamil Nadu had approached the top court for the first time seeking a direction to Karnataka to release Cauvery water after the 2018 judgement where the top court allocated water among river basin states modifying 2007 Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal final award.
    Bench: Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
    Case Title: State or Karnataka vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
    Click here to read more
     
14. [Delhi Jal Board Funds] The Aam Aadmi Party government has moved the Supreme Court of India seeking release of Delhi Jal Boards' funds amounting to INR 3,000 crores. AAP government had earmarked INR 4,839.5 crore for the Jal Board, out of which only Rs 1,598 crore was released in May last years as the first instalment, and the subsequent instalments were not released.
    Bench: CJI Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
    Click here to read more
     
15. [Bhima Koregaon] The Supreme Court has granted two weeks' time to National Investigating Agency to file its reply in the bail application filed by Hany Babu, an accused in the Bhima Koregoan case. Court also refused the petitioner's request that they may be heard today as the matter had already been delayed enough.
    Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar 
    Case Title: Hany Babu vs. NIA
    Click here to read more
     
16. [Sharad Pawar vs. Ajit Pawar] The Supreme Court has allowed Ajit Pawar led NCP faction to provisionally use the clock symbol for its party. Furthermore, Court has directed the Election Commission of India to provisionally recognise the NCP led by Sharad Pawar for the purpose of contesting upcoming Lok Sabha and state elections. ECI has been further asked to allow the Sharad Pawar faction to use the symbol of a man blowing a trumpet.
    Bench: Justices Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan
    Case Title: Sharad Pawar vs. Ajit Pawar
    Click here to read more
     
17. [PMLA Review] The Supreme Court has posted the pleas challenging the top court decision of July 27, 2022 wherein it had upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to July. Court has however allowed the petitioners before it to file for bail before appropriate forum in the meantime.
    Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M Trivedi and MM Sundresh
    Case Title: KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM vs. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
    Click here to read more
     
18. [Himachal Pradesh Congress MLAs disqualification] The Supreme Court issued notice in the plea moved by six MLAs from Himachal Pradesh belonging to the Congress party challenging their disqualification from the state assembly. The bench however refused to stay the disqualification. Senior Advocate Harish Salve appeared for the disqualified MLAs. He told the bench that the alleged whip issued by Congress party on February 15, ahead of the Rajya Sabha elections, was not received by the petitioners.
    Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
    Case Title: Chaitanya Sharma & Ors. vs. Speaker, Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors
    Click here to read more
     
19. [Satyendra Jain] A division bench of the Supreme Court refused to allow Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Leader Satyendar Jain's bail plea in a money laundering case registered against him by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). "The appeals are dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender forthwith", ordered a division bench.
    Bench: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
    Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement
    Click here to read more
     
20. [IT Act] The Supreme Court has on March 19, 2024 said that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act cannot be relied upon to abort the criminal proceeding related to allegation of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the scope of adjudication in both the proceedings is vastly different. It has said that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act relate to the assessment of income of the assessee and not to the source of income or the allegation of disproportionate assets.
    Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and K V Vishwanathan 
    Case Title:  Puneet Sabharwal Vs CBI
    Click here to read more
     
21. [Obscenity in web series] The Supreme Court has said that use of vulgar and expletive-filled language could be distasteful, unpalatable, uncivil, and improper, but that by itself is not sufficient to make the content ‘obscene’. Court has accordingly allowed an appeal filed by Apoorva Arora and another against the Delhi High Court's order that had rejected a plea to quash a criminal case of obscenity lodged against actors and makers of the Web Series named 'College Romance'.
    Bench: Justices A S Bopanna and P S Narasimha
    Case Title: Apoorva Arora & Anr Etc Vs State 
    Click here to read more