Read Time: 01 hours

1. [Bilkis Bano] Two convicts in the Bilkis Bano case have moved the Supreme Court challenging the January 8 verdict cancelling their remission arguing that it is "in teeth of" a 2002 constitution bench order and seek for the case to be referred to a larger bench for adjudication. Court has been told that an anomalous situation has arisen wherein two different coordinate benches of the same strength have taken opposite views on the issue of premature release as well as on which policy of the state government would be applicable to the petitioners for remission.
   Click here to read more
    
2. [Immunity for parliamentarians from taking bribes] In a landmark verdict, a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court has overruled the MAJORITY VIEW of PV Narasimha Rao judgment, which held that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he/she took money to vote on the floor of the House. "The purpose of Article 105 of the Constitution is destroyed when a person is induced to take a bribe. A member engaging in bribery erodes probity in public life", court said, overruling the judgment.
   Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices Bopanna, Sundresh, Narasimha, Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra
   Case Title: Sita Soren vs. Union of India
   Click here to read more
    
3. [HRA] The Supreme Court has asked the Union government to pay House Rent Allowance to personnel below the rank of officers serving in the Central Industrial Security Force if they were not provided family accommodation. Court referred to the Delhi High Court's judgment in Jaspal Singh Mann Vs Union of India (2006) which interpreted Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2010.
   Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
   Case Title: Union of India vs. Paramisivan M
   Click here to read more
    
4. [NDPS] The Supreme Court has on March 1, 2024 acquitted three men of the charges of carrying over 80 kgs of narcotics substance ganja, declaring that the conviction recorded by the trial court and upheld by the high court was illegal on the face of the record and suffered from the highest degree of perversity. The court said that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused and the evidence of the police witnesses was full of contradictions and is thoroughly unconvincing. 
   Bench: Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta 
   Case Title: Mohammed Khalid And Another vs. the State of Telangana
   Click here to read more
    
5. [Manish Sisodia] Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia has requested the Supreme Court for an early hearing of his curative plea challenging the court's decision rejecting his bail plea in the excise policy scam case. "The trial court has said it will not hear the bail plea till the curative is decided..", Senior Advocate AM Singhvi appearing for Sisodia told bench
   Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
   Click here to read more
    
6. [Farmers Protest] Supreme Court has allowed withdrawal of a plea seeking direction to the central government to consider farmers' reasonable demands, and free movements of public and transportation vehicles across border of the city of Delhi. "Such petitions should not be filed for publicity", said the bench while allowing withdrawal of PIL.
   Bench: Justices Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan
   Case Title: Agnostos Theos vs. Union of India & Ors
   Click here to read more
    
7. [AAP Office debacle] Supreme Court asked the Aam Aadmi Party to vacate its office premises which has been allotted for the expansion of the district judiciary by June 15, 2024.The bench has further asked AAP to approach Land and Development Office for allotment of alternate land. Further, L&DO has been asked to process the application in accordance with law within 4 weeks. Court orally also remarked that after 2017, AAP had no lawful right to continue possession of the premises.
   Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
   Case Title: Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs. UP Public Service Commission Through its Secretary & Ors
   Click here to read more
    
8. [Appointment of Arbitrator] The Supreme Court has on March 1, 2024 asked Parliament to consider bringing an amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prescribing a specific period of limitation within which a party may move the court for making an application for appointment of arbitrators under Section 11 of the Act, 1996. Court said in many other matters, it has been observed that the applicability of Section 137 (of the Limitation Act) to applications under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is a result of legislative vacuum as there is no statutory prescription regarding the time limit. 
   Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
   Click here to read more
    
9. [Udhyanidhi Stalin-Sanatan Dharma remarks] The Supreme Court came down heavily on Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin over his remarks made on 'Sanatan Dharma'. A division bench further observed that he being a Minister, Stalin should have known the consequences of his remark. "You abuse your right under Article 19(1)(a) (of the Constitution). You abuse your right under Article 25. Now you are exercising your right under Article 32.. Do you not know the consequences of what you said? You are not a layman. You are a minister. You should know the consequences," Justice Datta said.
   Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
   Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
10. [Electoral Bonds] State Bank of India, the only authorised bank which sold Electoral Bonds, has filed a plea in the Supreme Court for extension of time till June 30, 2024 for disclosing details of such bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, contending decoding it is a complex exercise and would require time. "The timeline of three weeks fixed by the court in its judgement dated 15.02.2024 would not be sufficient for the entire exercise to be completed. Therefore, an extension of time may kindly be granted by this Court in order to enable the SBI to comply with the judgement," an application filed by SBI stated.
    Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: SBI's Non-Disclosure Of Details On Electoral Bonds By March 6| Contempt Petition Filed Before Supreme Court
     
11. [Contempt Proceedings] The Supreme Court has recently held that in addition to punishing a contemnor for disobeying its orders in a contempt cases, the High Court can also ensure that such a contemnor does not continue to enjoy the benefits of his disobedience by merely suffering the punishment meted out to him. It has been said the court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the court order and in that regard, the court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings.
    Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
    Click here to read more
     
12. [Hate Speech] The Madhya Pradesh government has informed the Supreme Court that it has taken a number of steps, including nominating nodal officers in each district, setting up of social media cell and activating the vigilance system, for effective prevention of hate speech and hate crimes. "In compliance of the order dated 25.08.2023, if any incident occurs in district under Section 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 IPC, then, on not receiving any complaint for taking effective action on such incidents, it has been directed to conduct proceedings by taking Suo Motu Action," an affidavit by the state government said.
    Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs Union of India & Ors
    Click here to read more
     
13. [Shanan hydel Power Project] The Supreme Court has issued summons in the Punjab Government's suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the Himachal Pradesh government restraining them from interfering in the lawful peaceful possession and smooth functioning over the Shanan Power House Project. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was further informed that the Union government had on March 1 via a letter asked the states to maintain status quo.
    Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
    Case Title: State of Punjab vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors
    Click here to read more
     
14. [Remand Order] The Supreme Court has said that the appellate court is the final court of fact and law and an order of remand cannot be made under Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure on a mere asking. "The High Court, in our considered view, ought not to have remitted the matter after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. While doing so, the High Court found that the respondent did not adduce sufficient evidence in support of Exhibit B-3. Such an approach cannot be countenanced," the bench said.
    Bench:  Justices M M Sundresh and S V N Bhatti
    Click here to read more
     
15. [Religious Conversion] Hearing the Uttar Pradesh's SLP on cancellation of bail granted to Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui, accused of running an illegal mass religious conversion racket in the state, the Supreme Court has allowed time till March 19 for rejoinder submissions to be filed. AAG Garima Prasad requested for some time to file additional submissions in response to the counter filed by Maulana. "Bail of some other accused has been cancelled, we would like to place those details on record", a division bench was told.
    Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
    Case Title: State of UP Vs Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui
    Click here to read more
     
16. [Karnataka Deputy CM DK Shivkumar] Supreme Court of India has dismissed the money laundering proceedings initiated against Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar. Court has also quashed the proceedings against Shivakumar's aide Anjaneya Hanumanthaiah. The instant special leave petitions were filed by the Congress leader and his aide against a 2019 Karnataka High Court verdict upholding the summons issued to them by the Enforcement Directorate.
    Bench: Justices Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan
    Case Title: DK SHIVAKUMAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) AND ORS
    Click here to read more
     
17. [Murder] The Supreme Court has converted conviction of a man from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder for his act of pouring kerosene oil in an inebriated state on his nine-month pregnant wife, who got burnt on bursting of stove, resulting into her subsequent death due to the burn injuries in year 2007. Court ordered release of Dattatraya after converting his conviction from Section 302 to 304 Part II of the IPC and reducing his sentence from life term to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
    Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale
    Click here to read more
     
18. [Acquittal of GN Saibaba] The Maharashtra Government has approached the Supreme Court of India against the Bombay High Court's acquittal of Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba in a case registered against him alleging links with Maoists. A division bench of the high court at Nagpur comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes pronounced the judgement acquitting Saibaba.
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
19. [TMC leader Shahjahan Sheikh] The West Bengal government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court order directing a CBI probe against TMC leader Shahjahan Sheikh for attacking officers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Senior Advocate AM Singhvi mentioned the plea against today before a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta. Court went on to ask the senior counsel to mention the plea before Chief Justice of India.
    Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
20. [Murder conviction upheld] The Supreme Court has said a dying declaration even without independent corroboration can be the sole basis of conviction, as it confirmed conviction of a man for setting ablaze his widowed sister in law, while relying solely upon the statement of the deceased. Court has accordingly upheld the Allahabad High Court's judgment which dismissed a plea against conviction of appellant Pappi alias Mashkoor for murder of Shahin Parveen on December 1, 2016.
    Bench: Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
21. [Kerala Borrowing Ceiling] The Kerala government submitted before the Supreme Court of India that it was in a state of emergency with regard to its financial conditions. Court accordingly asked the Union of India to consider how much of financial assistance it could provide to the state. "You have a meeting today on the exceeding amount with all conditions in place..except withdrawal of suit..because of the suit the dialogue must not stop..", the bench directed asking for a meeting to be held today at 4.30 PM.
    Bench: Justices Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan
    Case Title: State of Kerala vs. Union of India
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
22. [Jim Corbett National Park] The Supreme Court came down heavily upon then Uttarakhand Minister Harak Singh Rawat and DFO Kishan Chand for acting as "law unto themselves" by allowing illicit felling of trees in the name of establishing Tiger reserve at Pakhrau on a mass-scale on the pretext of promotion of tourism in Jim Corbett National park. The Court has called it “a classic case of politicians and bureaucrats throwing public trust doctrine into dustbin”.
    Bench:  Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
23. [Dying Declaration] The Supreme Court has said just because a man has strained relationship with his wife, it does not mean he has caused burn injuries to her. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan acquitted Suraj Bhan of the charges of murdering his wife, more than 13 years after he remained in incarceration. In the case, the bench said, "there is no evidence on record to show that they had a strained relationship. Secondly, only on the ground of strained relationship, one cannot jump to a conclusion that the appellant is the author of the burn injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted".
    Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
24. [Palliative Care] The Supreme Court of India has sought the Union of India's response in a Public Interest Litigation seeking palliative care for all persons in India. Palliative care is end of life care that aims at improving quality of life for both terminally ill patients and in the protection of their dignity and autonomy.
    Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
    Case Title: Dr. Rajshree Nagaraju vs. Union of India and Ors
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
25. [Compensation for Road Accidents] The Supreme Court has on March 6, 2024 said the assessment of compensation cannot be done with mathematical precision and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for assessment of just and fair compensation. Court allowed a plea by Vethambal and others, family of deceased Ravisankar, 52, who was killed in a road accident while riding a motorcycle at Tirunelveli.
    Bench: Justices C T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
26. [Shiv Sena Disqualification Petitions] The Supreme Court has directed the Eknath Shinde faction to file its reply in the plea by Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena challenging the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker's decision of January 10, 2024 dismissing its disqualification petition filed against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and other MLAs. "We will list it for the week commencing April 8. The original records shall be summoned from the office of the tribunal which heard the disqualification petitions. Reply to be filed on or before April 1, 2024", a CJI led bench ordered.
    Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
    Case Title: Sunil Prabhu vs. The Speaker, Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
27. [Sabarimala Temple] The Supreme Court has set aside Kerala High Court's order allowing a PIL by a firm in contract issued by tender for supply of raw material, particularly cardamom for 'Aravana Prasadam' in the Sabarimala Temple, saying the Travancore Devaswom Board's decision authorising the Chief Executive Officer to procure cardamom from local sources, cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. Court said the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition filed by Ayappa Spices & Ors and it should have dismissed the writ petition on the question of maintainability itself. 
    Bench: Justices A S Bopanna and P S Narasimha 
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more​​​​​​​
     
28. [MMT Trademark] The Supreme Court of India dismissed a trademark infringement case by Make My Trip(MMT) filed against Booking.com and Google. "This is not a case of use of trademark at all.. suppose you want to book a ticket on make my trip, you will not open Booking.com at all..", CJI DY Chandrachud opined. Court was told that under Google Ads, when MMT was being searched as a keyword, the search results showed the result of Booking.com.
    Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
    Case Title: Make My Trip vs. Google LLC 
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
29. [Article 370] The Supreme Court has on March 7, 2024 said describing August 5, the day abrogation of Article 370 for Jammu and Kashmir happened as a “Black Day” is an expression of protest and anguish and if every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution, will not survive. The apex court also said to extend independence day greetings to people of Pakistan is a goodwill gesture and cannot be said to create disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups just because the person doing it belonged to particular religion.
    Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
30. [MP judicial services] A CJI DY Chandrachud led bench of the Supreme Court has registered a suo motu case against the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from applying for appointment in the state judicial services as per the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules. Top Court has converted a letter petition into the suo motu plea and issued notice to the Secretary General of Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Union of India. Court has also appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal as the amicus curiae in the case.
    Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
    Case Title: In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
31. [Central Hajj Committee] Supreme Court of India has directed the Union of India to take expeditious steps for formation of the Central Hajj Committee. A CJI DY Chandrachud led bench has directed that an affidavit be filed on the status of the process. "Affidavit to be filed. We will keep it sometime in April", the bench said. The court was hearing a contempt petition filed in October last year by a former member of the Central Haj Committee, Hafiz Naushad Ahmad Azmi.
    Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
    Case Title: HAFIZ NAUSHAD AHMAD AZMI vs. KATIKITHALA SRINIVAS, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIRS
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
     
32. [Bhima Koregaon] National Investigation Agency (NIA) has submitted before the Supreme Court that Gautam Navlakha owed the central agency as sum of ₹ 1.64 crore towards expenses for the security provided to him during his house arrest. ASG Raju told court that the 70-year-old, arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, had only paid ₹ 10 lakh till now as part of expenses incurred for his security. Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Navlakha, objected to the agency's calculation of the amount payable and called the demand to be "extortion". 
    Bench: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti 
    Case Title: National Investigation Agency vs. Gautam Navlakha
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more