Read Time: 01 hours
[Bihar Caste Census] Supreme Court refused to grant status quo on the Patna High Court's order giving a go ahead to the state government's decision to conduct a caste-based survey. 'Ek Soch Ek Prayas', an NGO, had approached the top court against the High Court's recent decision to uphold the Bihar government's caste-based survey. The bench adjourned the matter on a request made on behalf of Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, but refused to grant status quo. Justice Khanna expressed his surprise on the request and said, "What is this? No question of status quo... We haven't even issued notice...".Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti Case Title: Ek Soch Ek Paryas vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Bilkis Bano] Advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for Bilkis Bano, told the Supreme Court that convicts had chased Bano with a "bloodthirsty approach" to hunt Muslims and kill them. Top Court was further told that the CBI had opposed premature release of the convicts submitting that the crime was of such a nature that it could not be pardoned. The bench was further informed that during the 2002 Gujarat riots the accused had specifically targeted Muslims and murdered them. Gupta further argued that effect of such an incident on society has not been considered while granting remission to 11 convicts who gangraped Bilkis Bano in Gujarat in 2002.The matter will now be heard tomorrow.Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Manipur Violence] The Supreme Court has proposed to appoint a committee consisting of former women High Court judges, namely, Justice Gita Mittal, Justice Shalini Joshi and Justice Asha Menon, to look into diverse aspects of humanitarian nature such as rehabilitation, restoration etc in violence-stricken Manipur. Said committed, headed by Justice Mittal shall be looking into aspects like relief, remedial measures, rehabilitation, restoration of homes and religious places etc. The bench has further proposed to appoint former IPS officer, Dattatray Padsalgikar, who has wide experience to oversee the investigation by CBI.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei vs. Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors. Click here to read more
[Senthil Balaji] A division bench of the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals filed by Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader Senthil Balaji and his wife Megala, challenging the order granting Enforcement Directorate his custody in a money laundering case. Bench has further held that no plea of habeas corpus lies. On the court's decision to allow Balaji's custody to ED till August 12, 2023. Semnior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, submitted that Balaji was still unwell and may require medical attention. In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, "We will provide a doctor, no issues."Bench: Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh Case Title: Megala vs. The State represented by Depy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. Click here to read more
[Article 370] Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal concluded with his submissions in the pleas challenging abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India that granted special status to erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir. The Senior lawyer told a five-judge bench that the power under Article 3 of the Constitution does not extend to effacing the character of a State into a Union Territory. Referring to the government's majority in the parliament, through which it passed The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, Sibal said, "This majoritarian culture cannot destroy the edifice of what our forefathers gave us.. they cannot do what they like if they have a majority.."Bench: CJI Chandrachud with Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant Case Title: In Re Article 370 of the Constitution Click here to read more
[CJI on Justice Gogoi] CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that once a judge demits office, they are entitled to have any opinions. This comment came to be made by the CJI while responding to a submission made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal during the Article 370 hearing, wherein he referred to former CJI Ranjan Gogoi's statement made in the Rajya Sabha yesterday. "One of the judges has also said that basic structure is questionable..", Sibal told the five judge Constitution Bench. Hearing this, the CJI was quick to reply and say, "You should mention if they are a sitting judge..once they demit office, they can have any opinions.."Bench: CJI Chandrachud with Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant Click here to read more
[Nuh Violence] Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned a plea before CJI DY Chandrachud seeking action against calls made for boycott of Muslims following the violence in Nuh, Haryana. When the Constitution Bench hearing the Article 370 case was breaking for lunch, Sibal mentioned the plea saying there were instances where individuals have been urged to label those who employ people from a specific community as 'gaddars' (traitors). Filed by Shaheen Abdulla, the plea relies on a video that surfaced on social media wherein Samhast Hindu Samaj can be seen walking through a neighbourhood in Hisar, Haryana in the presence of Police officials issuing warnings to residents and shopkeepers that if they continue to employ/keep any Muslims, then their shops will be boycotted.Bench: CJI Chandrachud led Constitution Bench Case Title: Mentioning Click here to read more
[Article 370 Hearing] The Supreme Court was told by Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium that the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution and Indian Constitution speak to each other and they are complimentary to each other. ".the two constitutions speak to each other through Article 370...The Article 370 was not a repository for untrampled power...it was a medium through which the India Constitution could be applied..and here lies the dual obligation, which has to be discovered in the words of S. 147 of J&K Constitution and Article 370 of the Indian Constitution..", the Supreme Court has been told.Bench: CJI Chandrachud with Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant Case Title: In Re Article 370 of the Constitution Click here to read more
[Umar Khalid] After Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra recused from hearing the bail plea filed by UAPA accused Umar Khalid, the Supreme Court adjourned the case today. When the matter was taken up, Justice AS Bopanna, who was also a part of the bench, said, "This will come before some other bench, here is some difficulty on part of my brother judge". Earlier last month, Supreme Court had decided to take up the matter on a later date after the Delhi Police sought for some time to file a response to Khalid's plea. Khalid was arrested in connection with communal clashes that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020, after violence between Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 supporters, and its protesters became out of control, leaving many people dead and several injured.Bench: Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: Umar Khalid vs. State of NCT Delhi Click here to read more
[Article 370 Hearing] The Supreme Court was told on Day 5 of the hearing on pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370, that the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir had not entered into a merger agreement with Union India like the other princely states, and therefore it had Constitutional autonomy. Senior Advocate Zafar Shah further told the CJI Chandrachud led Constitution bench, that this autonomy came from the Instrument of Accession and Article 370 of the Constitution itself. On the nature of the abrogated provision, Shah added that if Article 370 was not wanted, it had to be seen if it was temporary or had it become permanent, because the machinery was not available to remove it.Bench: CJI with Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant Case Title: IN Re: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION Click here to read more
[Sports Quota] The Supreme Court has said that the objective of sports quota is not to accommodate academic merit, but promotion of sports in the institution, the university, and ultimately, in the country, as it declared eligibility criterion of securing not less than 75% marks in the qualifying examination in an engineering course as "unwarranted and discriminatory". The bench said, "It is quite possible that a sportsperson, who has and continues to represent the country in international Olympic sports, and gained such excellence as to have bagged a medal or two, in say, wrestling, would be altogether excluded in the eventuality of a wrestler, of the same category (but who has never reached the national level) securing 80% marks in the qualifying examination. It exactly this consequence which this court had warned would be the “unequal application” of a uniform criteria, a wooden equality without regard to the inherent differences, which Article 14 frowns upon, and forbids."Bench: Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar Case Title: Dev Gupta vs. PEC University of Technology & Ors. Click here to read more
[INDIA Alliance] A division bench of the Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation petition seeking to restrain opposition political parties from using the acronym I.N.D.I.A for their alliance. The acronym stands for Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance. The bench called out the PIL for being filed for 'publicity' following which the petitioner withdrew the same. Notably, Delhi High Court last week issued notice on a similar plea seeking direction to opposition parties to prohibit from using the acronym I.N.D.I.A. (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance).Bench: Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: Rohit Kheriwal vs. ECI & Ors. Click here to read more
[Anand Mohan] The Supreme Court has directed murdered IAS Officer G. Krishnaiah's wife Umadevi to approach the State government of Bihar with her plea to access the official records on release granted to former MP Anand Mohan Singh. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Krishnaiah's wife, told the court that the state had not shared the official records. To this, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta said, "Why don't you apply before the state..". Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, for the State of Bihar added that 97 persons were released during the same time as Mohan. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari had issued notice to the State of Bihar in May this year on the plea filed by Umadevi, challenging the premature release of Singh. G. Krishnaiah, the then District Magistrate of Gopalganj, Bihar was alleged to be brutally murdered by a mob in December 1994 at the behest of Mohan.Bench: Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari Case Title: Telugu Umadevi Krishnaiah vs. State of Bihar and Ors Click here to read more
[Assam Evictions] A CJI Chandrachud led bench of the Supreme Court asked persons aggrieved by the eviction drive that was conducted in the greater Dhalpur area in Assam’s Darrang district, to approach the High Court seeking rehabilitation. Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for the petitioner, told the supreme court that 22 bullets were pumped into the chest of a person who had objected. "We are getting used to this sort of brutality...", Singh added. To this, the CJI said, "Don't turn this into a political speech..submit facts..". The bench further opined that as the eviction had taken place, the question now was of rehabilitation.Bench: CJI with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra Case Title: Debabrata Saikia vs. State of Assam Click here to read more
[West Bengal Panchayat Polls] The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea by the National Human Rights Commission against the Calcutta High Court's order which set aside the rights panel's decision to appoint its observers for the panchayat elections in West Bengal. The bench said even though NHRC had ‘good intentions’, the interference by it undermined the autonomy and independence of the State Election Commission. The court said the NHRC exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing directions.Bench: Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Case Title: National Human Rights Commission And Ors. vs. The West Bengal State Election Commission And Ors Click here to read more
[Nawab Malik] Supreme Court granted medical bail to NCP Leader and Former Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik in a PMLA case registered by the Enforcement Directorate against him. "We will grant for two months...Let counter be filed. List after 10 weeks. We make it clear that this order is passed strictly on medical condition and we have not entered into merits of the matter...", ordered a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Malik told the bench that the complaint was already filed. "I don't know why I am required..I have been in hospital for 16 months..The report is by JJ hospital, it is a government hospital...He is right now in Criticare hospital..his mother and brother died of kidney failure.. his one kidney is already failed..", added Sibal.Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M Trivedi, and Ujjal Bhuyan Case Title: Nawab Malik vs. ED Click here to read more
[Delhi Excise Policy scam] The Supreme Court has sought the Enforcement Directorate's response in a plea filed by Abhishek Boinpally, a Hyderabad-based businessman and accused in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case. When the Enforcement Directorate sought an adjournment, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Boinpally, urged that the case be heard. Court then went on to issue notice returnable in October 2023. Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti Case Title: ABHISHEK BOINPALLY vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Click here to read more
[Judges' opinion] CJI DY Chandrachud has remarked that once a judge demits office, they are entitled to have any opinions. This comment came to be made by the CJI while responding to a submission made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal during the Article 370 hearing, wherein he referred to former CJI Ranjan Gogoi's statement made in the Rajya Sabha yesterday. "One of the judges has also said that basic structure is questionable..", Sibal told the five judge Constitution Bench. Hearing this, the CJI was quick to reply and say, "You should mention if they are a sitting judge..once they demit office, they can have any opinions.." Bench: CJI Chandrachud led Constitution bench Click here to read more
[Women's reservation] The Supreme Court has questioned The Central Government on it delay in filing a response to a PIL filed by National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) seeking a writ of mandamus to the Union of India to place the Constitution (One hundred & Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2008 or the current draft of the Women’s Reservation Bill before both the Houses of the Parliament. "Why are you shying away?” Justice Khanna said. ASG Nataraj responded saying that the Bill was to be tabled. "That is separate. Why have you not filed a reply? Say in it if you want to implement it, or not. Such an issue should not be thrown on the backburner. It’s too important....”, Justice Khanna further remarked.Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti Case Title: National Federation of Indian Women vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Quashing of FIRs] The Supreme Court has said the High Court owes a duty not only to just look at the FIR but to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation, when a plea is filed before it for quashing the complaint. Court further said in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.Bench: Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala Case Title: IQBAL @ BALA & ORS. vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Click here to read more
[Proof beyond reasonable doubt] The Supreme Court has said that howsoever strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt as it set aside the Delhi High Court and trial court's concurrent findings holding two men guilty of murdering his father. "It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused," the bench said.Bench: Justices B R Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: KAMAL vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
