Read Time: 01 hours
[Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute] Supreme Court sent a reminder to the Allahabad High Court for forwarding the details of all suits filed in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute. Court had earlier called for details on the matter from the Registrar of the High Court while hearing a plea filed by Committee of Management Trust, Shahi Masjid Idgah against the Allahabad High Court's May 26 order, directing for transfer of all suits related to claims on the birthplace of Lord Krishna, to itself. The matter will now be taken up on October 30, 2023.Bench: Justices SK Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: Committee Of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah vs. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. Click here to read more
[Chandrababu Naidu] Supreme Court posted the plea filed by Former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Chandrababu Naidu, seeking to quash the FIR registered against him in the skill development scam, for further hearing on October 9, 2023. While doing so, Court also called for the entire compilation of documents filed before the High Court by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Notably, no interim relief has been granted to Naidu and he will continue to remain in custody. Naidu filed the instant SLP challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order. It is Naidu's case that the High Court had rejected his plea disregarding the fact that all actions had been initiated without obtaining sanction mandated by Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Click here to read more
[Ram Setu] Supreme Court has dismissed a PIL seeking construction of a wall at Ram Setu for facilitating darshan at the spot. Court also refused to tag the instant petition filed by Hindu Personal Law Board, with the already pending plea by Dr. Subramanian Swamy. The present plea also sought to declare Ram Setu a national monument. Originally, Subramanian Swamy had filed two writ petitions before the Supreme Court. One challenged the Sethu Samudram project of the UPA government and the other sought declaration of Ram Setu as a national heritage monument. The former was disposed of as the Sethu Samudram project was dropped, while the latter is still pending before the court.Bench: Justices SK Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: Hindu Personal Law Board vs. Union Of India And Ors Click here to read more
[Sanjiv Bhatt] Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs. 3 lakhs on former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt for repeatedly filing petitions in relation to the judge hearing a drug planting case against him. Applications were filed by Bhatt before the High Court challenging the trial court's decision to reject three applications earlier filed by him with respect to the conduct of the trial in the case registered against him under the NDPS Act. After these applications were rejected by the High Court, he had approached the Supreme Court on multiple occasions.Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal Case Title: Sanjiv Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat Click here to read more
[ED Arrests – Judgment] In an important judgement, the Supreme Court has on October 3 held it mandatory for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), to disclose grounds of arrest as a matter of course and without exception in money laundering cases. The apex court also ruled that mere non-cooperation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002 would not be enough to render him or her liable to be arrested under Section 19. "The ED, mantled with far-reaching powers under the stringent Act of 2002, is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct and must be seen to be acting with utmost probity and with the highest degree of dispassion and fairness," the bench said.Bench: Justices A S Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar Case Title: Pankaj Bansal & Ors. vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Bribery Cases Against MPs, MLAs] While arguing against interference with the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao vs. State, the Supreme court was told that a regime of immunities was not in fact inconsistent with the Rule of Law. "One of the pillar of constitutionalism has been a regime of immunities, so there is no inconsistency with the rule of law…the offence of bribery is not dependent on the performance of promised favour..", submitted Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran. Supreme Court on September 21, 2023 had referred the judgement in PV Narasimha Rao, which held that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he/she took money to vote on the floor of the House, to a seven-judge bench.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud also comprising Justices Bopanna, Sundresh, Narasimha, Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra Case Title: Sita Soren vs. Union of India Click here to read moreAlso Read: Parliamentary Immunity Must Be Interpreted From Prism Of “Constitutional Morality”, SC Told
[Delhi Excise Policy Scam] Senior Advocate AM Singhvi told the Supreme Court that Enforcement Directorate (ED) had to show by way of evidence the involvement of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy scam. Singhvi made this statement while submitting that there was no money trail found against Sisodia. "No money trail leads to me..they are still trailing 100 crores..but still no bail..the star witness even does not say that he received any kickbacks.. this Dinesh Arora said he did not even meet the accused..all other accused, except one Aman Bhalla have been granted bail in the CBI case or have not been arrested only..this is extreme..".Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti Case Title: Manish Sisodia vs. Enforcement Directorate Click here to read more
[Manish Sisodia] Supreme Court has clarified its stance on the question posed by it to the Enforcement Directorate, asking it as to why the Aam Aadmi Party, was not made an accused in the liquor policy scam, when it could be a beneficiary under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This issue was raised before the bench hearing Manish Sisodia's bail application by Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, who submitted that a controversy had erupted about AAP being made an accused now in the Delhi Liquor Policy scam. "After your lordships indicated, the top newspapers are headlining that AAP is going to be made an accused...", he said. "We just posed a question after you showed us a chart yesterday on the list of accused persons..", responded Justice Sanjiv Khanna. "I was asked by the media today morning, I said we will not spare anybody who is guilty...and not accused somebody wrongly, just that..", Additional Solicitor General SV Raju added.Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna & SVN Bhatti Case Title: Manish Sisodia vs. Enforcement Directorate Click here to read more
[MP MLA bribe] Supreme Court's constitution bench has reserved its judgment on the issue regarding immunity from prosecution granted to lawmakers who take money to vote in the house. On September 21, 2023, the court had referred the judgement in PV Narasimha Rao, which held that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he/she took money to vote on the floor of the House, to a seven-judge bench. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench that such a privilege was granted to ensure that lawmakers vote and perform their duties fearlessly. "Court should not be influenced by extreme examples.. like an agreement being made for bribe inside the parliament.. it can also happen that the transaction to transfer such bribe also happens inside the parliament..", SG added.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices AS Bopanna, M Sundaresh, JB Pardiwala, PS Narasimha, Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Misra Case Title: Sita Soren vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Money Bill] Supreme Court on Friday, October 6, said that it will soon be constituting a 7-judge bench to hear the Money Bill issue. A CJI Chandrachud led bench made this observation after Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy mentioned the issue before it. "This is a specific challenge in regard to PMLA..", submitted Guruswamy. "We will soon be setting up a 7-judge bench..next week we are listing all pending 7-judge and 9-judge matters for directions..", replied the bench also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Article 110 of the Indian constitution defines a money bill as a bill that has provisions regarding imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax; regulating government borrowings and financial obligations, custody, and flow of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India. This issue came into light after the Aadhaar Act was passed in 2016 which was introduced by the Centre in Parliament as a money bill. Notably, the Rajya Sabha cannot amend or reject a money bill.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala & Manoj Misra Case Title: Mentioned before CJI Click here to read more
[Muscular Dystrophy] Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union of India in a plea filed by parents of children suffering from Muscular Dystrophy, seeking a comprehensive plan to deal with the disease. Muscular Dystrophy which affects mainly young boys is a genetic disease that causes progressive weakness and degeneration of skeletal muscles. As Advocate Utsav Bains was taking court through the petition, the CJI remarked, "We know about Muscular Dystrophy, Stephen Hawking had it.." The bench then went on to issue notice on the plea making it returnable within four weeks. Court has also directed Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to assist court in the matter. "In India there are about 5 lakhs such patients. But due to lack of awareness, lack of testing facilities, no clinical, trials of the drugs and high cost of treatment the Petitioners and other unfortunate parents are helpless and have to be mute spectators sadly witnessing their children die each day and an untimely death as well...", the petition states.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala & Manoj Misra Case Title: Ratnesh Kumar Jigyasu and Ors vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Bihar Caste Census] The Supreme Court on Friday refused to order status quo on the caste-based survey conducted by Bihar government. "We are not going to stay anything...you cannot stop the state government or any government from taking decisions..we are going to examine state's power to do this..more important part would be regarding breakdown of data..", said a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti. Bihar government had recently released the data so collected by it through the survey. Justice Khanna observed that the impugned judgement of Patna High Court was fairly detailed.Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti Case Title: Ek Soch Ek Paryas vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Hybrid Hearings] CJI DY Chandrachud led bench of the Supreme Court directed all High Courts across the country to ensure that video conferencing facility or hybrid mode of hearings is made available to all litigants and lawyers within two weeks. Court's order adds that links for Video Conferencing must be made available in the cause list of the concerned court and no separate application should be required for appearing through virtual mode. Furthermore, all High Courts have been asked to put in place a Standard Operating Procedure withing four weeks for enabling litigants to access virtual hearings.Bench: CJI with Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: Sarvesh Mathur vs. The Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court Click here to read more
[Freebies] Supreme Court issue notice on a plea by one Bhattulal Jain raising issues over the misuse of the Consolidated Fund of India by Chief Minsiters of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh to offer pre-poll freebies. A CJI DY Chandrachud led bench issued notice to the Union of India, Election Commission of India and the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, in the plea seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus to not misuse consolidated fund or grant in the name of public purposes, under Article 266(3), 282 of the Constitution of India, at the verge of elections.Bench: CJI with Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: Bhattulal Jain vs. Union of India and Ors. Click here to read more
[Hearing impaired Advocate] In a historic step towards inclusivity, the Supreme Court of India recently had a sign language interpreter in its midst to assist a hearing impaired lawyer, Advocate Sarah Sunny. "I was just thinking that we should appoint an interpreter for constitution bench hearings as well..", CJI Chandrachud added. Sunny was present in court with another lawyer to argue a matter on her behalf. After the case was argued, which the bench comprising of Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, refused to interfere with, the bench asked Sarah about her experience.Click here to read more
[Bail] The Supreme Court has cancelled anticipatory bail granted to director of a firm which was accused of defaulting in repayment of US Dollor 6.5 Million loan amount taken by African country, Republic of Djibouti after entering into agreements for development of 15,000 hectares of agriculture lands. The court passed its order on a special leave petition filed by the Government of Republic of Djibouti. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that accused S Rama Krishna Karuturi, director of M/s Karuturi Global Limited has not been cooperating with the investigation. "On going through the nature of the allegations and the conduct of the respondent no 2, we do not think respondent no 2 ought to have been favoured with an order for anticipatory bail," the bench said.Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Click here to read more
[Bail conditions] The Supreme Court has come to rescue of a man who was granted bail in a cheating and forgery case by the High Court but he continued to languish in jail for about three years due his failure to comply with a condition to deposit Rs 50 lakh. Court diluted the condition imposed by the High Court's Indore bench. Top court also pointed out impugned order even while granting bail imposed a condition that the petitioner should deposit Rs 50 lakh which he could not comply. Bench: Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar Click here to read more
[Gandhis, AAP-Tax assessment] Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of pleas filed by Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Aam Aadmi Party, and others challenging the Income Tax department’s decision of transferring their tax assessments from faceless assessment to its Central Circle. A division bench has ordered so after observing that it need time to read the files. Court questioned the delay of 5 months is filing writ petitions challenging the impugned order. "Delay can be fatal in cases like these...", observed Justice Khanna. Court further observed that transfer of cases was the department's prerogative and it was not concerned with the politics of the issue.Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti Case Title: AAM AADMI PARTY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) AND ORS. Click here to read more
[2009 Jagdish Tytler Forgery Case] The Supreme Court has recently granted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) a six-month extension to finish the trial of Congress leader, Jagdish Tytler and arms dealer Abhishek Verma in a forgery and corruption case. In October 2022, the Top Court gave a six-month deadline to the CBI for concluding the trial, however, the agency sought more time to complete the proceedings. Tytler and Verma are charged under the Penal Code, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly conspiring to defraud Chinese telecom firms.Click here to read more
[Compensation to Landowners] The Supreme Court has directed a "fact finding committee" formed by the Uttar Pradesh government to immediately look into records of the Noida authorities and submit a report within two weeks with regard to allegations of illegal payment of huge sums of money as compensation to landowners without any entitlement. The top court, however, emphasised the need for a "fair and independent probe" into the matter while stating that there were numerous cases of such nature that could not be done at the instance of one or two officers. "Prima facie, the entire Noida setup appears to be involved", court opined. Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan Case Title: VIRENDRA SINGH NAGAR vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Click here to read more
[Sale Certificate] The Supreme Court has said that the plenary assigned to it under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable in a case. "It cannot be gainsaid that the court in exercise of powers under Article 142 cannot ignore any substantive statutory provision dealing with the subject. The plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 are inherent in nature and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes," a division bench has held.Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: UOI vs. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Click here to know more
[Summons to Jharkhand Chief Secretary] The Supreme Court has taken a serious view of the failure of Jharkhand government to assign a 20-year-old case related to wages, to a counsel and summoned the Chief Secretary of the state to explain why no one was present despite the service of notice. Court took exception to absence of counsel from Jharkhand, while hearing a writ petition filed by Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karmachari Mahasangh and others. The bench said, "This is a matter relating to grant of wages to the employees for the last about 20 years. Notice to the respondents was issued vide order dated 14.11.2022."Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal Case Title: BIHAR STATE ARDH SARKARI ARAJPATI KARAMCHARI MAHA SANGH & ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Click here to know more
[Bail Order] The Supreme Court has set aside an unusual condition imposed by the Patna High Court directing the trial court to verify injury caused upon a victim in an assault case before allowing pre-arrest bail to an accused. "Obviously, after coming to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to pre-arrest bail, such a condition could not have been imposed as it cannot be termed as a condition of bail", court has said.Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: BALIRAM YADAV @ BALIRAM KUMAR NIRALA vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Click here to know more
[Vigilant Litigants] The Supreme Court has allowed filing of written statement in a suit for recovery of money by holding that its previous orders passed during the period of Covid-19 pandemic not only extended the period of limitation but expanded the protection by excluding the period even for computing outer limits within which the court or tribunal can condone delay. It has also said “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt” meaning thereby, the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights is a fundamental legal maxim on which statutes of limitations are premised. Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Vishwanathan Case Title: Aditya Khaitan & Ors. vs. IL and FS Financial Services Limited Click here to know more
[Enforcement Directorate-grounds of arrest] In an important judgement, the Supreme Court has on October 3 held it mandatory for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), to disclose grounds of arrest as a matter of course and without exception in money laundering cases. The apex court also ruled that mere non-cooperation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002 would not be enough to render him or her liable to be arrested under Section 19. Bench: Justices AS Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar Case Title: Pankaj Bansal & Ors. vs. Enforcement Directorate Click here to know more
[SC imposes costs] The Supreme Court has found as "uncalled for" a bid by an applicant seeking anticipatory bail to file a lengthy synopsis of 60-page while challenging a 5-page High Court order and imposed Rs 25,000 cost upon him. "In this case, the High Court rejected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. There is an application filed by the petitioner for seeking permission to file a lengthy synopsis and list of dates. The impugned order runs into 5 pages. However, the synopsis is of more than 60 pages which was uncalled for in the facts of the case," the bench said. Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: SANDEEP KUMAR GARG vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR Click here to know more
[Departmental Proceedings] The Supreme Court has said acquittal in a criminal case would not entitle a delinquent employee any benefit in the departmental inquiry, as nature of the proceedings are separate and distinct. Court has thus allowed an appeal filed by the State Bank of India against the Gauhati High Court's orders and restored dismissal of employee P Zandega from service.In the instant case, three different FIRs were lodged against the employee in Aizwal for not having entered in cash deposit rolls their challans deposits. He was arrested and subsequently granted bail.Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol Case Title: State Bank of India vs. P Zadenga Click here to know more
[Minority Language] The Supreme Court has emphasised at the need for prescribing minimum marks for mother tongue in linguistic minority schools in order to encourage proficiency of the mother language among children. "India is a vast country with many diversities including languages. There are sentiments involved in respect of preserving one’s mother tongue i.e. the native language spoken by the people of the States. Persons whose mother tongue is different from the language of the State also reside in that State but would like to maintain their culture and language," a division bench has held.Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: Forum of Tamil vs. Tamil Nadu Click here to know more
Please Login or Register
