Read Time: 01 hours
[Immunity For MPs And MLAs In Bribery Cases] An impleadment application has been filed before the Supreme Court of India in the matter concerning issue of immunity enjoyed by members of State Legislatures under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, 1950, for taking bribes in casting vote. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has approached the court seeking to assist the Constitution Bench, which is currently hearing the matter. "Corruption cases against influential persons are difficult to conclude due to complexity in prolonged legal procedures in aggregation with their money, political, bureaucratic powers. And if they are at all convicted, punishment/temporary monetary losses have no impact whatsoever on their social, financial & political life", the application addsCase Title: Sita Soren vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Bilkis Bano] The private respondents or convicts in the Bilkis Bano case have concluded their submissions in favour of the remission granted to them by the State of Gujarat. Notably, one of the convicts told the bench that a case where remission is granted, the only judicial review available was under Article 226 of Constitution of India. "An erroneous order cannot be challenged under Article 32, only an illegal order can be challenged..", the counsel added. "Is a right to seek remission a fundamental right?", asked the bench at this point. Another counsel told the bench that upon grant of remission, his client was released and enjoying liberty. This is connected to my right of personal liberty and cannot be curtailed under Article 32, he added.Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Assam NRC] Supreme Court has decided to take up the final hearing in the pleas pertaining to Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC), which is a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, from October 17. "We will start on October 17..so that we have a flavour of the matter when it opens… we can start reading etc..", ordered CJI Chandrachud refusing to accept the request made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to commence hearing in the case post Diwali. The bench has issued procedural directions in the matter while deciding that the title of the case shall be IN RE Section 6A of Citizenship Act.Bench: Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra Case Title: In Re Section 6A of the Citizenship Act Click here to read more
[Bribes taken by MPs/MLAs] The Supreme Court has referred the judgement in PV Narasimha Rao vs. State, 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. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani stated that there was no need for reference to a larger bench as the present case did not require checking correctness of PV Narasimha Rao judgment.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra Case Title: Sita Soren vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Firecrackers Ban] Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the blanket ban imposed by it on production and sale of firecrackers including green crackers. Court dismissed two applications moved by firecracker manufacturers to allow barium-based crackers. Recently, Supreme Court had told the Delhi Police that filing cases against people who burn firecrackers may not help in curbing sale of firecrackers. Court has also refused to interfere with the ban imposed by the Delhi government on the storage, sale and use of all types of firecrackers.Bench: Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh Case Title: Arjun Gopal and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. Click here to read more
[Hate Speech By Udhaynidhi Stalin] Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea by a Madras High Court lawyer seeking action against Udhaynidhi Stalin for hate speech against Sanatana Dharma. While doing so, it refused to tag the case with the ongoing Haridwar hate speech petitions [Shaheen Abdulla Vs. UOI], while pointing out that the context of this case is different. In the present plea, one of the prayers is to register FIRs against Udhaynidhi Stalin, PK Sekar Babu & Peter Alphonse.Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: B Jagannath vs. State of Tamil Nadu Click here to read more
[Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Premises] The Supreme Court refused to entertain an SLP filed against the Allahabad High Court's order passed in July whereby it had dismissed a plea filed by the Shri. Krishna Janambhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust seeking a direction for scientific survey of the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah premises. The court has held that the impugned order passed by the Mathura Civil Court cannot be held to be passed without jurisdiction as the same was passed before all suits on the subject were transferred to the High Court. "How can the High Court which is trying the suit, also sit in revision of the order of the trial court?", asked the bench.Bench: Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: Shri. Krishna Janambhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust vs. Sahi Masjid Eidgah Management Committee & Ors Click here to read more
[Manipur Violence] Supreme Court refused to call for a status report from former IPS officer, Dattatray Padsalgikar, whom the court had appointed to oversee the investigation being carried out by CBI in cases of violence at Manipur. When the matter came up, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising told the court that there was no update on the investigation being carried out by the CBI. On August 7, the top court had appointed a committee consisting of former women High Court judges, namely, Justice Gita Mittal, Justice Shalini Joshi and Justice Asha Menon to look into aspects like relief, remedial measures, rehabilitation, restoration of homes and religious places etc in violence-stricken Manipur. The committee has submitted three reports before the court till now.Bench: CJI Chandrachud, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei vs. Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors. Click here to read more
[Audit of EVM Source Codes] Supreme Court dismissed a PIL filed seeking independent audit of the source codes of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM). CJI at the outset told the petitioner that there was no material placed before it to doubt the EVMs. Before the court, the petitioner said, "We are voting on an EVM system whose source code/ brain of EVM machines is not being audited. It not even available on public domain.” CJI refuted this submission saying, "It cannot be made available in public domain, that will make it more vulnerable...".Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra Case Title: Sunil Ahya vs. ECI Click here to read more
[NCAHP Act, 2021] The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea seeking implementation of the provisions of the National Commission for Allied & Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 (“NCAHP Act”). Arguing that Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) play a very vital role in successful treatment delivery, the petition states that the non-implementation of the NCAHP Act is violative of Fundamental Right to practice any profession or carry out any occupation guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: JOINT FORUM OF MEDICAL TECHNOLOGISTS OF INDIA JFMTI & ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Click here to read more
[Judicial Vacancies] The Supreme Court has held that a State is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies if the rules do not mandate it and no candidate acquires indefeasible right to get appointed after qualifying the selection process. With this view, it has dismissed an appeal against denial of appointment to a man to the post of Additional District Judge in Haryana despite figuring in the final selection list. With regard to the appellant's contention that he could have been easily adjusted against the vacancy caused due to resignation of one of the selected candidates, the bench said the argument per se is bereft of merit inasmuch as all the vacancies notified stood filled up initially."If one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process," the bench said.Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: SUDESH KUMAR GOYAL vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Click here to read more
[Powers of Magistrate] Supreme Court has declared that a magistrate does not have power under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code to get the revenue records corrected after an inquiry. The appellant Sanjay Kumar stated that in the instant case, the magistrate under the proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC constituted a team to make an appropriate local enquiry under Section 148 of the CrPC.Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah Case Title: SANJAY KUMAR vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. Click here to read more
[CrPC] The Supreme Court has said a magistrate can invoke power under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code to transfer the case to the sessions judge at any stage of the proceedings before signing the judgement. "Section 323 CrPC gives a discretion to the Court to exercise its power at any stage of the proceeding before signing judgement. It is, evident from the statute that the power under Section 323 CrPC may be invoked by the Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding prior to signing of the judgement," a division bench has held. Bench: Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala Click here to read more
[Review] The Supreme Court has said that an application for clarification in a judgement cannot be entertained which comes in guise of review of the verdict. "Having given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced and the averments made in the Miscellaneous Application, we are of the considered view that this application is nothing but an application for review in disguise styled as an application for clarification of the judgment dated 9th March, 2017," the bench said declining to entertain miscellaneous applications filed with regard to a judgement delivered on March 9, 2017.Bench: Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar Case Title: K.S. PALANISAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS vs. HINDU COMMUNITY IN GENERAL AND CITIZENS OF GOBICHETTIPALAYAM REP BY SUNIAPPA CHETTIAR & ORS Click here to read more
[Eyewitness] The Supreme Court has said that an eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot narrate blow by blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay, as it relied upon ocular evidence over the medical expert's opinion to uphold conviction of a man in a murder case.The top court dismissed an appeal filed by Rameshji Amarsing Thakor, against a Gujarat High Court judgement which had reversed the trial court's order of acquittal. "We are satisfied that the Trial Court had ignored the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and referred to very minor contradictions in support of its judgement of acquittal. The contradiction in number of injuries was not fatal to the prosecution case. Nor can the prosecution case altogether be negated because the fatal injuries, in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon could not have been caused by the recovered knife," the bench said.Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: Rameshji Amarsing Thakor vs. State of Gujarat Click here to read more
[Second Appeal] The Supreme Court has emphasized that a regular second appeal cannot be examined without framing a substantial question of law. Court explained the legal position in the matter of exercise of power under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.The High Court's order was found to have revealed that despite the recalling of the substantial question of law framed on July 29, 2009, no new question of law was framed and considered thereunder. The bench pointed out the impugned judgment would reveal that referring to the said substantial question of law that was recalled, it was held that it could not even be considered as a question of law and it could, at the most, be a case of professional misconduct and too, required to be proved. Bench: Justices CT Ravikumar Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: ASHOK KUMAR GOEL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS.& ORS. vs. RAM NIWAS GOEL Click here to read more
[Appeal against remand order] The Supreme Court has said that an appeal against an order of remand is not available as a matter of right and it cannot be entertained unless a substantial question of law is involved. A division bench has added that when there is an order of remand by the First Appellate Court, an appeal from the said order under clause (u) of Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code is not available as a matter of right. "This is consistent with the public policy and, therefore, the view taken by this Court is that for all purposes, an appeal under clause (u) of Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the CPC will be treated as a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC," the bench said.Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: SHAHID HUSSAIN vs. MAHTABA BEGUM AND ORS. AND ETC. Click here to read more
[Cryptic Orders] The Supreme Court has set aside the High Court's "cryptic" order, declining to quash a criminal case of kidnapping for purpose of marriage against a man lodged 24 years ago, though he continued to cohabit with the 'victim' woman and became father of two grown up children. "No purpose will be served by compelling the appellant to undergo trial which will affect a well settled family of husband and wife and two grown up children," said the bench.Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Click here to read more
[Viscera Report] The Supreme Court has said lack of poison in the viscera report alone cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the fact the victim has not died of it. "We find it difficult to take the view that in the absence of any positive viscera report, the prosecution could be said to have failed to establish its case", said the apex court as it dismissed an appeal filed by Buddhadeb Saha, his father and a younger brother against concurrent findings of the Calcutta High Court and Burdwan court holding them guilty of dowry death, and other offences and punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment following suicide of his wife Tuli Shah within two months of their marriage in 2011.Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: Budhadeb Saha vs. The State of West Bengal Click here to read more
[Section 482 CrPC] The Supreme Court has said that the high courts have to exercise their power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code sparingly but not when an apparently false case is lodged as a counterblast to a criminal case. With this view, court has allowed an appeal filed by one Ram Murti Shukla and another person against the Allahabad High Court's order rejecting their plea for quashing of summons issued against them by Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area/III Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in complaint case under Section 392 of IPC.Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: RAM MURTI SHUKLA & ANR vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Click here to read more
[Criminal Procedure Code] The Supreme Court has said that the Criminal Procedure Code is procedural in nature and technical defects and irregularities cannot come in way of substantial justice. This observation was made by court while exercising its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Court allowed an appeal against the Jharkhand High Court's judgment. The high court had dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code against an order by the judicial magistrate discharging an accused in a cheque dishonor case just before the final arguments, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S V N Bhatti Case Title: BIJOY SHANKAR MISHRA vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
