Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [April 24-29, 2023]

[Same Sex Marriage] While hearing the arguments by the petitioner's side on Day 4 in the plea seeking recognition of same sex marriage, CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that the link between Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) and personal laws could not be denied. These remarks came to be made by the CJI on hearing the submissions of Senior Counsel, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, who argued that at present, what was being sought from Court was a reading into the SMA. She added that once this once done, all other statutes would fall into place. The CJI also questioned Guruswamy on how far the Courts could go on laying down the law.
Bench: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha and Hima Kohli
Case Title: Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborthy v. Union of India & Anr. (a batch of petitions
Click here to read more

[Sexual Harassment against WFI wrestlers] Supreme Court issued notice to the NCT of Delhi in the plea moved by seven wrestlers seeking the registration of an FIR against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) President and BJP MP Brij Bhushan Singh over allegations of sexual harassment. "There are serious allegations of sexual harassment in the petition, which is instituted by professional international wrestlers who have represented India. The matter requires the consideration of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Issue notice, returnable on 28 April 2023. Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the NCT of Delhi", Court ordered.
Bench: CJI Chandrachud and Justice Narasimha
Case Title: XYZ and Others vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others
Click here to read more

[Same Sex Marriage Hearing-Day 5] Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (SG) extrapolated before Supreme Court, as to why the issue concerning same sex marriage recognition deserves to remain in the domain of the legislature. He touched upon the various notions of gender that exist in the LGBTQIA+ community and while touching upon the "+" that forms part of the terminology, he said that this represents gender fluidity, which in creates a set of people who are unrecognised per se. The basis of his submission rested on the question of whether in such a scenario, it would be appropriate for the court to legislate on the issue at hand. SG then argued on the consequences of court deciding the recognition of same sex marriage on other laws.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice PS Narasimha
Click here to read more

[Mohamad Faisal] A Lawyer has approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the order passed by Speaker of Lok Sabha on March 29, 2023 through which the lost membership of Mohammad Faizal Khan, the member of Lok Sabha from Lakshadweep, was restored. Khan's membership was restored after the Kerala High Court had stayed his conviction in an attempt to murder case. In the instant plea, moved by Lucknow based lawyer Ashok Pandey, a reference is made to the judgment of BR Kapoor vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, wherein it was held that the disqualification based on conviction and sentence will continue to operate till it is set aside in appeal.
Case Title: Ashok Pandey vs. The Speaker of Lok Sabha and Ors
Click here to read more

[PMLA – Chhattisgarh Government moves SC] State of Chhattisgarh has approached the Supreme Court challenging a few provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and S Ravindra Bhat by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi. "This suit raises some important constitutional questions on PMLA", Rohatgi told the Court. CJI thus ordered to list the same on May 4, 2023 while refusing to see any urgency in the matter.
Bench: Mentioned before a CJI led bench
Click here to read more

[Same Sex Marriage] The Supreme Court on Thursday deliberated on whether social security can be met out to same sex couples. The Chief Justice of India was engaging in a riveting exchange with the Solicitor General of India and pointed out that the government could introspect on whether issues that concern the same sex community can be smoothened out. "We want the government to make a statement to recognise this relationship between same sex couples not as a marriage maybe.... but by some name. We want some element of a broad sense of coalition. Our country has a representative form of democracy and it should reflect," the Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said, after the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (SG) stated that there was no positive obligation on the state to recognise marriages.
Bench: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha and Hima Kohli
Case Title: Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborthy v. Union of India & Anr. (a batch of petitions
Click here to read more

[ESZ For Protected Forests] Allowing an application filed by the Union of India, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered that directed that its earlier order mandating a 1-kilometre eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around protected forests would not apply in cases where the ESZ have already been notified (final and draft) by the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (“MoEF & CC”) or the proposals for which have been received in the Ministry. "We, however, direct the Central Government that wide publicity should be given to the draft notification which is required to be published under the provisions of clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules. We further direct that the final notification to be published under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules shall not be given effect for a period of 30 days from the date of issuance thereof", a Justice BR Gavai led bench has ordered.
Bench: Justice BR Gavai and Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol

[Hinduphobic book in library] The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Mirza Moziz Beg, an assistant professor at Indore’s Government Law College who has been embroiled in allegations of promoting Hinduphobia. "This Court, while directing notice to the respondents on 03.02.2023, had taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and had granted interim protection against arrest of the petitioner. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would not be justified, we are convinced that the petitioner is entitled to interim protection. Hence, the interim protection granted to the petitioner on 03.02.2023 is made absolute which shall ensure to the benefit of the petitioner till the completion of the process", a bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta has ordered. In December last year, the Supreme Court had stayed the arrest of the Principal at New Government Law College, namely, Professor Inamur Rehman.

[SSC Scam & Justice Gangopadhyay] The Supreme Court on Friday, April 28, directed the Acting Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to assign TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee's ongoing case concerning alleged bribes for jobs scam in primary school teachers' state service commission recruitment, to another bench of which Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay is not a part. The bench was hearing a challenge by Abhishek Banerjee against a High Court order which ordered a CBI probe against the leader, who is also the nephew of CM of state Mamata Banerjee & is her close aide. The issues in the case concern alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' staff in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC).
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud & Justice PS Narasimha
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee vs Soumen Nandy
Click here to read more

[Bihar Caste Census] A division bench of the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging the caste-based survey which is being conducted in the state of Bihar. "While not entertaining the present SLP, we allow the petitioners to move an application for early hearing on interim relief before the High Court. Same to be preferably decided within 3 days of filing", Court has ordered. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had submitted before the Court that this was a serious case and the High Court had refused to grant interim relief. Rohatgi had further told the bench that the census was being carried out with such urgency due to elections being close in the state.
Bench: Justices MR Shah and JB Pardiwala
Case Title: Youth for Equality vs. The State of Bihar
Click here to read more

[Ban on Talaq-e-Hasan] The Supreme Court was informed by the Union of India that it will file a counter to the plea challenging constitutional validity of the practice of Talaq-e-hasan and other forms of unilateral divorce. Talaq e Hasan is an Islamic form of unilateral divorce in which a husband can divorce his wife by saying the word "talaq" once a month, for three months. A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha also pulled up the husband of the petitioner and asked him what he was doing to take care of his 1.5 year old son. The PIL plea filed by Benazeer Heena through Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay notes that "Muslim women can’t give Talaq-E-Hasan & other forms of unilateral extra-judicial talaq but Muslim men can."
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud & Justice PS Narasimha
Case Title: Benazeer Heena Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read more

[WFI Sexual Harassment Case] The Supreme Court has directed the Commissioner of Police (Delhi) to adequately assess threat perception with respect to the alleged minor girl victim in the Wrestling Foundation of India (WFI) sexual harassment case and thereafter, make necessary security arrangements. Before the court, the Solicitor General of India’s statement that the Delhi police will file an FIR in light of a cognisable offence being made out was also recorded. As stated on the last date, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal filed an affidavit in a sealed cover highlighting alleged security issues concerning victims. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also informed Court that there was more than what met the eye and there are some aspects to the issue that even the sportspersons were probably not aware of.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud & Justice PS Narasimha
Case Title: XYZ and Others vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others
Click here to read more

[Atique Ahmed Murder] The Uttar Pradesh Government informed Supreme Court on Friday that it will file a comprehensive affidavit stating the steps taken by it for looking into the murder of gangster and politician Atique Ahmed and his brother while in police custody on April 15 and Atique’s son Asad on April 14. The bench was hearing a plea seeking probe into gangster and politician Atique Ahmed's murder in Prayagraj while they were in police custody. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for state government of Uttar Pradesh and said that since Special Investigation Teams (SIT) had already been constituted to look into the murders and there was no need to issue notice in the present petition. The bench also pondered over whether the SIT could broaden its ambit and probe into incidents that occurred prior to the murder.
Bench: Justices Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari vs. Union Of India and Ors
Click here to read more

[Clean chit to Badals] The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by former Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal, his son and Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) President Sukhbir Singh Badal in a case of alleged forgery of the alleged dual constitution of the SAD. The bench pronounced the order in petitions challenging the dismissal of petitions by High Court which sought quashing of criminal case against them before Punjab's Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by a resident of Hoshiarpur. Court said, “Ingredients of offences (cheating and forgery) not made out. Summoning order nothing but an abuse of law.”
Bench: Bench led by Justice MR Shah
Case Title: Sukhbir Singh Badal, Prakash Singh Badal vs. Balwant Singh Khera
Click here to read more

[Adani-HIndenburg Issue] The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has filed an application before the Supreme Court, seeking an extension of 6 months to complete its investigation into the Adani-Hindenburg issue. On March 2nd, Court had directed SEBI to complete the investigation into the issue within a period of two months and file a status report before it. In its application, SEBI has informed the Supreme Court that pursuant to its order, SEBI has attended two meetings called by the Expert Committee on April 2 and 26, 2023 respectively, during which detailed presentations were made by SEBI before the Committee.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India & Other Connected Matter
Click here to read more

[Aarey Forest] The Supreme Court on Friday, April 28, refused to entertain a plea argued by Senior Lawyer Indira Jaising in the ongoing Aarey Tree felling issue. She informed the court that she was appearing for some affected forest dwellers. Court stated that issues such as this cannot be brought to the top court and the petitioner should have approached the respective high courts instead.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud & Justice PS Narasimha
Case Title: IN RE FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST
Click here to read more

[Hate Speech] With reference to its order passed in October last year, wherein it had directed the Police authorities in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and UT of Delhi NCR to take suo moto action against those indulging in hate speeches, the Supreme Court has directed all the States and Union Territories across the country to do the same. A division bench has added that action should be take regardless the religion of the maker of such speech, and not doing the same would amount to contempt, court has warned.
Bench: Justices KM Jospeh and BV Nagarathna
Click here to read more

[Municipality Recruitment Scam] Supreme Court refused to stay a single bench order of the Calcutta High Court directing the (CBI) Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter relating to the scam of municipality recruitments in the State of West Bengal. However, the court has stated that status quo will be maintained in the ongoing CBI & ED investigations for a period of one week since the date of passing the order, considering that the petitioner will approach the high court instead, to appeal against the April 21st order.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha
Case Title: State of West Bengal Vs. Soumen Nandy & Ors.
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Divorce] A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty and is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act)."..a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the facade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties", a division bench has observed.
Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala
Case Title: SHRI RAKESH RAMAN vs. SMT. KAVITA
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Uphaar Fire Tragedy] The Supreme Court on Thursday, April 27, allowed Ansal Theatres, to move an application before the concerned trial court for de-sealing of the theatre hall and other premises. Court has added that said application will be dealt with by the trial court within ten weeks. Ansal Theaters and Club hotels Pvt. Ltd. had moved the Top Court seeking the de-sealing of the theatre, wherein last week the Court had also sought a reply from the CBI. In the plea moved in 2010, it was stated that even after the victims were paid the compensation due, the theatre and its premises were not returned to them.
Bench: Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case Title: Ansal Theatres and Clubotels P. Ltd. vs. State of NCT
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Default Bail] The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, April 25, held that without completing an investigation of a case, the chargesheet can't be filed by an Investigating Agency only to deprive an accused of his right to default bail under Section 167 of CrPC. A Division bench stressed that the right of default bail is not merely a statutory right but a fundamental one that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution. Court said, “Without completing the investigation in a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.”
Bench: Justice Krishna Murari and Justice CT Ravikumar
Case Title: Ritu Chhabaria vs. UOI & Ors.
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Manoj Bajpayee Defamation case] The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Kamaal R Khan (KRK) seeking to transfer the defamation case filed against him by Actor Manoj Bajpai, from Indore to Mumbai. Court observed that jurisdiction was not a ground for transfer of case. Court also considered Khan' conduct as highlighted in the reply filed by Bajpayee and opined that this was not a case for transfer. In March this year, the Indore district court had issued an arrest warrant against KRK for not remaining present for the defamation case filed against him for posting tweets in 2021, allegedly calling Bajpayee a drug addict.
Bench: Justices AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta
Case Title: Kamaal Rashid Khan vs. Manoj Bajpayee
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Swami Shraddhanand] A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has denied parole to Swami Shraddhanand who is currently undergoing life imprisonment for the murder of his wife Shakereh Khaleeli. Court also allowed Shraddhanand to withdraw his writ petition which was in fact filed 10 years ago. Notably, the bench was told by Shraddhanand's lawyer that the direction in the said order convicting him that "he shall not be released" was being misunderstood. "Temporary parole not covered by this order, Ram Rahim released every 3 month..", Court was further told.
Bench: Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case Title: Swamy Shraddhanand vs. State of Karnataka
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Interviews by Judges] Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on Monday during the hearing in a plea against the order of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court directing the CBI and the ED to question TMC national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee in the Primary Teachers' Recruitment scam case, orally stated that judges have no right to give TV interviews on pending matters. Court took strong note of the purported interview given to a news channel about the case by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, who had issued at least ten orders directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate irregularities in West Bengal School Service Commission recruitment scam. The CJI said, “I just want to say that judges have no business granting interviews on matters which are pending. If he said that about the petitioner, he has no business participating in the proceedings. The question is whether a judge who has made statements like these about a political personality - should be allowed to participate in the hearings. There has to be some process.”
​​​​​​​Click here to read more