Read Time: 01 hours

Synopsis

1. [Amendment to Preamble] Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in 1976, which inserted the words 'Socialist Secular and Integrity’ in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. "Power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament. Amending power extends to the PREAMBLE", CJI Khanna observed.
   Bench: CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar
   Case Title: Subramanian Swamy and Another vs. Union of India and Another
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: Secular nature of State does not prevent elimination of attitudes which impede development: Supreme Court
   Supreme Court says neither Constitution nor Preamble mandate a 'left or right' economic policy
2. [Bulldozer Demolitions] Supreme Court of India observed that Executive cannot become a JUDGE and decide that a person is guilty and therefore punish him by demolishing their house. "If executive demolishes the house of a person only on the ground that they are an accused, that is a violation of rule of law.." , top court said while laying down guidelines on demolition of structures.
   Bench: Justice BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan
   Case Title: In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: Executive violates ‘separation of powers’ by acting as judge and inflicting penalty of demolition on accused: SC
   Bulldozer justice is unknown to any civilized system, simply unacceptable: SC
   Unauthorized Constructions To Be Dealt With An Iron Hand, Not Kid Gloves: Supreme Court
    
3. [AMU Minority Status] Supreme Court of India by a 4:3 majority overruled the judgment in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union Of India which held that an institution established by a statute cannot claim minority status. "The onus to prove that an educational institution was established by the minority is on the claimants. The view taken in AZEEZ BASHA is overruled. The QUESTION WHETHER AMU IS A MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THIS JUDGMENT.", top court said
   Bench: Former CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma
   Case Title: Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa vs. Naresh Agarwal and Ors.
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: Assumption that minorities require some ‘safe haven’ for attaining education wholly incorrect: Supreme Court
    
4. [LMV License] Supreme Court has held a driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) of the Motor vehicles Act, for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class."For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.", Court has further said.
   Bench: Former CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra 
   Case Title: M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs. Rambha Devi & Ors
   Click here to read more
    
5. [Madarsa Education] Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004. Court has accordingly struck down the Allahabad High Court's decision striking down the state's legislation. "While the Marasas do impart religious instruction their primary aim is to provide education. The Madrasa Act to the extent that it aims to impart higher education is in contravention to UGC Act. Thus, only the provisions which relate to Faazil and Kaamil are unconstitutional...", court said.
   Bench: Former CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra 
   Case Title: Anjum Kadari vs. UOI
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: UP Madarsa Act furthers substantive equality for minority community: Supreme Court
    
6. [Redistribution of Private Property] Supreme Court of India's 9-judge bench by a majority of 8:1 has held that not every resource of an individual can be considered the material resources of the community. "There is a distinction between holding that private property may form part of the wealth of the community's material resources and it is wholly part of the community's wealth. The provision indicates that not all privately owned properties fall within its ambit...", court has said.
   Bench: Former CJI DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma and AG Masih
   Case Title: Property Owners Association vs. State of Maharashtra
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: [Private Property Judgment] 'Unjustified Criticism’: Justices Nagarathna and Dhulia Express Displeasure Over Comments on Former Judges
    
7. [Benami Act] The Supreme Court of India on Friday recalled its decision holding Section 3(2) and 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 unconstitutional on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary. Earlier top court had held that the Amendment Act of 2016 to the 1988 Act is prospective in nature and it cannot apply retrospectively. It was noted that the 2016 amendment cannot be held as merely procedural. 
   Bench: Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud led bench 
   Click here to read more
    
8. [Child Marriage] Tracing the full breadth of the law against child marriage, the Supreme Court of India has observed certain gaps in the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 (PCMA) in light of the Constitutional guarantees accruing to children. Absent a Constitutional challenge or a case being argued, top court has resisted from making declarations and has restricted itself to making suggestions for the scrutiny of the Union. Court has formulated specific guidelines for achieving the elimination of child marriage while bearing in mind the delicate socio-economic interplay.
   Bench: Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
   Case Title: Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: SC refrains from directing law forbidding child marriages prevails over personal law
    
9. [Assam NRC] Supreme Court of India today by a 4:1 majority has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. "Section 6A was included to reduce the influx of migrants into Assam..Parliament has treated migration into Assam as a cause of concern even before the Citizenship Amendment Act, 1955..", court has held. Section 6A is a special provision on the citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord and provides that the people who entered India between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, and have been living in Assam, would be allowed to register themselves as citizens of India.
   Bench: Former CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
   Case Title: In Re Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
   Click here to read more
   ALSO READ: S. 6A Citizenship Act enacted due to special circumstances in Assam; has acquired unconstitutionality with time: Justice JB Pardiwala
    
10. [Caste-based discrimination among Prisoners] The Supreme Court of India has directed all States and Union Territories to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules while addressing the notions of institutional systemic discrimination among the prisoners. "References to “habitual offenders” in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future. All other references or definitions of “habitual offenders” in the impugned prison manuals/rules are declared unconstitutional....", court has held. 
    Bench: Former CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
    Case Title: Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
     
11. [Child Pornography] Supreme Court of India, in a landmark verdict has held that mere storage or possession of any pornographic material involving a child when done with a specific intent, without requiring any actual transmission, dissemination etc, is an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Court has further held that if the police as well as the courts while examining any matter involving the storage or possession of any child pornography, finds that a particular sub-section of Section 15 is not attracted, then it must not jump to the conclusion that no offence at all is made out under Section 15 of the POCSO.
    Bench: Former CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala
    Case Title: JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ANR. vs. S. HARISH & ORS.
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: Crucial to promote benefits of sex education given India's growing population: Supreme Court
    SC asks courts to not use term “child pornography” in any judicial order or judgment
     
12. [Collegium] The Supreme Court has held that the process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not the prerogative of a single individual but a collaborative and participatory process involving all Collegium members. It has further observed that the underlying principle is that the process of appointment of judges must reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives which ensures that principles of transparency and accountability are maintained.
    Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra 
    Case Title: CHIRAG BHANU SINGH & ANR. vs. HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
    Click here to read more
     
13. [Calcutta High Court observations on 'Sexual urges'] Supreme Court of India set aside the Calcutta High Court's order reminding female adolescents of their duty to protect their right to integrity of their body. Supreme Court had said that such observations were prima facie completely in violation of the rights of the adolescents guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
    Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
    Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: Judgment cannot contain personal opinions of judges; they should not preach: Supreme Court
     
14. [Tax on Minerals] Supreme Court's nine-judge bench declared that States have got legislative competence to levy tax on mineral-bearing lands. The court explained that the tax is different from royalty, as it is just a contractual consideration paid by the mining lesse to the lessor for enjoyment of mineral rights. Top Court by a majority view of 8:1, upheld the power of the states to impose tax and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 does not limit the power of the States in this regard. 
    Bench: Former CJI Chandrachud with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih
    Case Title: Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. vs. M/S Steel Authority of India & Anr Etc.
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: SC: Mineral Royalty judgment shall not apply prospectively
     
15. [SC/ST Sub-classification] Supreme Court of India in a landmark verdict has held sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on account of reservations is constitutionally permissible and has accordingly overruled the 2005 judgment of EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh which held such sub-classification to be contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution of India. It has been held that state legislatures are competent to introduce sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories.
    Bench: Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud with Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma
    Case Title: State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: State must evolve policy to identify SC/STs creamy layer and exclude them from benefit of affirmative action: Justice BR Gavai
    No caste system existed in primitive India; Gita only promotes varna system: Justice Pankaj Mithal
     
16. [Enrolment Fees for Advocates] Supreme Court of India has held that State Bar Councils (SBCs) and Bar Council of India (BCI) cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a pre-condition to enrolment. Court has added that the SBCs cannot charge “enrolment fees” beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as it currently stands. Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the fiscal pre-conditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls.
    Bench: Former CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala
    Case Title: Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
     
17. [GM Mustard] Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in a batch of pleas challenging the validity of the Government's decision to allow environmental release of genetically modified mustard/ HT mustard /DMH 11 in five states. While Justice BV Nagarathna has opined against the release, Justice Sanjay Karol has upheld the government's decision to allow release of the genetically modified mustard.
    Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol
    Case Title: Gene Campaign & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: Supreme Court directs Centre to evolve National Policy on Genetically Modified crops
     
18. [Electoral Bonds] Supreme Court held the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme to be unconstitutional. "Electoral Bonds Scheme is Unconstitutional, Union of India has FAILED to establish least restrictive measures of the Electoral Bonds Scheme for political funding..", court has said. Accordingly, Supreme Court has directed banks to stop issuance of Electoral Bonds. State Bank of India was further asked to disclose information on electoral bonds issued and cashed out since the court's interim order of Aril 2019 and share with the Election Commission of India within three weeks.
    Bench: Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
    Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India and ors
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: Unlimited corporate contribution to political parties antithetical to free and fair elections: Supreme Court
    Electoral Bonds within validity period to be returned to issuing bank: Supreme Court
    BREAKING: Supreme Court refuses petition seeking review of Electoral Bonds judgment
     
19. [Maintenance for Muslim Women] Supreme Court of India has held today that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. While reserving its order, the top court had noted that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not preclude a divorced Muslim woman from filing a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her former husband.
    Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and AG Masih
    Case Title: Mohd Abdul Samad vs. The State of Telangana & Anr
    Click here to read more
     
20. [Bribery by Legislators] 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: Former CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra.
    Case Title: Sita Soren vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
     
21. [Misuse of Section 498A] Supreme Court has expressed concern over misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for wreaking vengeance on husband and family members and has asked the Union government to take into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions come into force.  Apex court said every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other side may not amount to cruelty and mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.
    Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
    Case Title: Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana
    Click here to read more
     
22. [100% EVM VVPAT verification] Supreme Court of India rejected all the pleas filed before it seeking 100% verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips. The plea also sought a direction to declare as unconstitutional the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and the practice and procedure of ECI to the extent that they violate the fundamental right of the voters to verify through VVPATs that their vote has been ‘recorded as cast’ and ‘counted as recorded'.
    Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta 
    Case Title:  Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. Election Commission of India 
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: “No doubt”: Supreme Court thrusts on EVM security
    Recent trend developing of vested interest groups trying to undermine achievements of the nation: Supreme Court
     
23. [Adani-Hindenburg Report] Supreme Court refused to transfer the probe against Adani Group over allegations made by Hindenburg Research to an independent agency. Court observed that no willful or deliberate violations were done by SEBI and the court could not ordinarily supplant powers to investigate. It has further added that PIL pleas based on UNSUBTANTIATED reports must not be pursued and the bar and advocates must be conscious of this.
    Bench: Former CJI Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
    Case Title: Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: SEBI to probe loss suffered by Indian investors due to Hindenburg Research's conduct: Top Court
     
24. [Bilkis Bano] Supreme Court quashed the Gujarat Government's order granting remission to 11 convicts who had gangraped Bilkis Bano in Gujarat in 2002. "We fail to understand why the state of Gujarat did not file a review petition against the direction of this court asking it to consider the remission applications, when the appropriate government was in fact the State of Maharashtra.", court said. Court further called the impugned orders to be a usurpation of power by the state of Gujarat.
    Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
    Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: Supreme Court rejects Gujarat government's review plea against critical remarks made in Bilkis Bano judgment
     
25. [Sacred Groves] Supreme Court has issued comprehensive directions for protection of 'orans' sacred groves in Rajasthan, by directing to grant those a legal status of 'forest' under the Forest Conservation Act, given their ecological, cultural, and spiritual significance. Court also recommended the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to create a comprehensive policy for the governance and management of sacred groves across the country and create policies and programs that protect the rights of these communities and involve them in forest conservation as India is home to thousands of community-protected forests known as ‘sacred groves’. 
    Bench: Justices BR Gavai, SVN Bhatti and Sandeep Mehta
    Case Title: IN RE: TN GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
    Click here to read more
    ALSO READ: SC commends Rajasthan's Piplantri Model of planting 111 trees for every girl born