Read Time: 01 hours
[DERC Chairperson] The Supreme Court directed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena to set aside their political differences and come up with a name for the Chairman of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC). Senior Advocate AM Singhvi told the bench that DERC was headless. "Can we allow the DERC to become functional, both these constitutional functionaries may sit together and come up with a name..either you allow them to function, you have to come up from political bickering..", the CJI orally observed then. The Supreme Court on July 4, 2023 had issued notice on a plea by GNCTD challenging the decision of Delhi 's Lieutenant Governor to appoint retired Justice Umesh Kumar as chairman of the DERC.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & Manoj Misra Case Title: GNCTD vs. UOI Click here to read more
[Challenge To GNCTD (Amendment) Ordinance 2023] The Supreme Court on Monday (July 17) deliberated on its inclination to refer to a 5-judge Constitution bench the Delhi Government's plea challenging the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 which "wrested" control over civil servants from the Delhi government to the Lieutenant Governor. The bench observed that the issue whether the powers under Article 239AA(7)(a) of the Constitution could be invoked to make the law of the instant nature was not considered in its recent Constitution Bench. It is to be noted that on May 20, the Centre had filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against May 11 judgment.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & Manoj Misra Case Title: GNCTD vs. UoI Click here to read more
[Manipur] The Supreme Court asked the State of Manipur to approach the High Court against its order directing the Manipur Government to restore internet partially in the State. A CJI led bench has also directed the State of Manipur to apprise the High Court of the difficulties faced by it in implementing the High Court's order. On July 7, the Manipur High Court had directed to lift the ban on providing internet through Internet Lease Line (ILL) across the state after ensuring that all the stakeholders have complied with the safeguards given by the Expert Committee, constituted earlier by the court.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: State Of Manipur vs. Aribam Dhanajoy Sharma Alias Paojel Chaoba And Ors Click here to read more
[Bilkis Bano] A Supreme Court division bench ordered that all pleas filed against the remission granted to 11 convicts who gangraped Bilkis Bano in Gujarat in 2002 shall be hear for final arguments on August 7, 2023. Top Court further recorded that a publication has been effected on June 1, 2023 to intimate all the respondents and an affidavit in that regard has been submitted. "Notice on respondent has been served by direct service or by publication. This fact is not disputed by SG Mehta for state of Gujarat and the counsels for other private respondents", the court has recorded.Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Cross verification of Votes] The Supreme Court sought a response from Election Commission on a plea by an NGO to cross verify the count in EVMs with votes that have been verifiably ‘recorded as cast’ by the voters themselves, through the VVPATs. A bench sought a reply from the poll panel on the petition filed by 'Association for Democratic Reforms' after hearing advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the NGO. The bench, however, asked Bhushan if we are not sometimes over suspicious. To this, Bhushan contended that sometimes the registers and the vote counts do not match, as only few VVPATs were being tallied with EVM vote counts.Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: Asscn of democratic reforms Vs. ECI & Anr. Click here to read more
[Mizo Tribes] The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition challenging rules for reservations in technical courses for higher studies in the state of Mizoram. The bench issued notice in the plea by Mizoram Chakma Students union, against the notification of the Mizoram (Selection of Candidates for Higher Technical Courses) (Amendment) Rules in May 2021. It is the case of the petitioner(s) that the notification discriminates against non-Mizo Scheduled Tribes of Mizoram and that it is violative of Articles 14, 15, 16(4) and 21 of the Constitution.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra Case Title: Mizoram Chakma Students Union Vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[V. Senthil Balaji] Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's holding that the Enforcement Directorate has the right to get his custody. Justice Karthikeyan of the Madras High Court had further opined that once an arrest and remand are made legal, a habeas corpus plea would not lie, therefore, in the present case, though the habeas corpus plea may be maintainable, it was not entertainable. Further, on the point of exclusion of Balaji's period of hospitalization from the period for custodial interrogation, Justice Karthikeyan held that it was permissible.Case Title: Megala vs. The State represented by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. Click here to read more
[Rahul Gandhi Defamation] The Supreme Court agreed to hear Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi's plea challenging the Gujarat High Court's recent refusal to stay his conviction in the 2019 criminal defamation case over his Modi surname remark on Friday, July 21. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi mentioned the plea by Gandhi seeking listing of his plea on Friday or Monday. The bench agreed to list the same on coming Friday after inquiring if the list for that day was prepared or not. Gandhi had approached the top court on July 15 after a single judge bench of Justice Hemant Prachchhak had tabled the verdict in the 'Modi' surname remark case upholding his conviction.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi Click here to read more
[Jallikattu Review] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has approached the Supreme Court of India challenging its judgment that upheld the validity of 2017 Tamil Nadu law for allowing bull taming sport 'Jallikattu'. "The Judgement is a retrograde step which undoes dynamic and beneficial constitutional interpretation and contradicts established environmental law and animal welfare jurisprudence...", the review petition states. A five-judge bench headed by Justice KM Joseph had affirmed the validity of Maharashtra and Karnataka laws enacted in 2017 to allow bull carts race and 'Kambala' respectively.Case Title: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. Click here to read more
[Ram Navami Violence] In a plea filed by the State of West Bengal, challenging a Calcutta High Court order transferring probe to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the incidents of violence during Ram Navami, CJI DY Chandrachud on Monday (July17) asked the parties to check if all the FIRs filed pertained to the same incidents. "Who is appearing for NIA? Have you done this exercise to verify if all FIRs refer to one single incident..Check if the FIRs overlap, we have to ultimately look at the heart of the incidents..you sit with SG Mehta and prepare a short note..", CJI directed.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra Case Title: State of West Bengal vs. Suvendu Adhikari Click here to read more
[Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam] The Supreme Court has stayed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation into the liquor scam at Chhattisgarh. As a result, the bench granted interim protection to accused Yash Tuteja (son of IAS officer Anil Tuteja) and others. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Chhatisgarh stated that the ED was harassing state officers and it was “shocking” to see how the agency was proceeding. In April, the government had approached the Supreme Court stating that the central agencies were being misused by those in power, in order to intimidate, harass and disturb the normal functioning of an opposition government in the state.Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: Yash Tuteja Vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Teesta Setalvad] A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Teesta Setalvad in an evidence fabrication case relating to the 2002 Gujarat riots. Noting that the considerations taken in the order of September 2, 2022 by the Supreme court when Setalvad was initially granted relief were still available, the bench said, "The fact that custodial interrogation was available for 7 days after she was arrested in June last year also does not change. She had admittedly not been called for investigation after her release. As the chargesheet has been filed, we find that custodial interrogation is not necessary. So far as concern of influencing witnesses, that can be taken care of. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be released on bail which as per the order which was ordered in September last year."Bench: Justices AS Bopanna, BR Gavai and Dipankar Datta Case Title: Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. State of Gujarat Click here to read more
[Akhil Gogoi] Akhil Gogoi, Member of Assam Legislative Assembly from Sibsagar, has approached the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A (Sedition Law) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with related offences which employ similar logic of sedition (inasmuch as they entail the very same ingredients as sedition) as being ultra vires of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution read with Articles 14 and 21. The MLA has further challenged the vires of criminalizing ‘political and speech acts’, however critical of the Government and its policies.Case Title: Akhil Gogoi vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Marital Rape] The Supreme Court agreed to list the pleas pertaining to the issue of criminalization of marital rape challenging the exception 2 of Section 375, Indian Penal Code as much as it excludes married women from filing rape charges against her husband. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising mentioned the plea before the bench. The senior counsel further informed the Court that her plea in the matter was meant to address a child sexual abuse case. To this, the CJI said, "We first have to resolve the exception concerning the issue..". Advocate Karun Nundy told the bench that the point in the marital rape case was a very short one and Sr Adv Jaising would address the same.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & Manoj Misra Case Title: Khushboo Saifi vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Vacancies in Industrial Tribunals] The Supreme Court of India has directed the Union government to fill in the vacancies at the Central Government Industrial Tribunal by August 31, 2023. On July 5, the top court had issued notice in a plea filed by Labour Law Association which states that as many as nine out of twenty two benches of the Central Government Industrial Tribunals were vacant and three more would fall vacant in 2023. When the matter was taken up on Monday (July 17), the bench noted that a Search-cum-Selection Committee chaired by Justice Abhay S Oka was constituted by a notification issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment on 6 March 2023, which had carried out the selection process and had made nine recommendations on 26 and 27 June 2023.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Parasimha & Manoj Misra Case Title: Labour Law Association vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Manipur Violence] CJI DY Chandrachud expressed deep concern over a video making the rounds wherein two women were seen paraded around naked in Manipur. "It is very very deeply disturbing. Please tell us what action has been taken to make the perpetrators pay and to make sure that such actions are not repeated. Using women as an instrument during a communal strife..grossest of constitutional abuse..", the CJI remarked. The bench then went on to direct the Centre and State government to apprise it of the steps taken against such perpetrators of violence.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & Manoj Misra Case Title: DINGANGLUNG GANGMEI vs. MUTUM CHURAMANI MEETEI & ORS. Click here to read more
[GNCTD Ordinance Challenge] The Supreme Court has referred the challenge made by the Delhi government to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 to a Constitution bench. Allegedly, the ordinance "wrests" control over civil servants from the Delhi government to the Lieutenant Governor. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the Kejriwal led government, told the bench that any reference to the Constitution bench would paralyze the system. He added that the impugned ordinance did not meet the bare textual requirement.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & Manoj Misra Case Title: GNCTD vs. UoI Click here to read more
[DERC Appointment] The Supreme Court observed that it would appoint a Chairman for the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) on a pro-tem basis as the Delhi Government and Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena were unable to agree upon a name for the same. After hearing the parties, the CJI said, "One thing which we can do is we can appoint somebody on a pro-tem basis..and that person can continue till we decide on the ordinance..we will consult half a dozen people and tell them that we are not going to appoint you for 3 or 5 years..we also have to do some homework..". The matter will now be taken up on August 4, 2023.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & Manoj Misra Case Title: GNCTD vs. UoI Click here to read more
[GST] The Supreme Court recently held that power to arrest a person by an empowered authority under the GST Act may be termed as statutory in character and ordinarily the high courts should not interfere with exercise of such power under writ jurisdiction. The bench clarified that such power of arrest can be exercised only in those cases where the Commissioner or his delegatee has reasons to believe that the person has committed any offence specified in Clause (a),(b), (c) or (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 132 which is punishable under clause (i) or (ii) or sub-section (1) or sub- Section (2) of the said Section.Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: State of Gujarat Etc vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer and Another Etc. Click here to read more
[Accidental death] The Supreme Court has converted the conviction of a Delhi police constable from murder to that of causing death due to rash and negligent act in a case of accidental fire in a police station. The 1994 incident, triggered after the deceased continued to talk on the office telephone despite repeated requests against it, has resulted into demise of his colleague. "There is a failure on the part of the appellant who was holding a sophisticated automatic weapon to ensure that the change lever was always kept in a safety position. This was the minimum care that he was expected to take while he approached the deceased," the bench said. Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal Case Title: Aravind Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi Click here to read more
[Rahul Gandhi Defamation] The Supreme Court refused to grant an interim suspension on the disqualification of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi from the Lok Sabha following his conviction in the n the 2019 criminal defamation case over his Modi surname remark. "I would just like to point out that the petitioner has suffered for 111 days already..he has already lost one parliament session. Elections to Wayanad constituency will happen shortly..I am sure Mr Jethmalani is not concerned with disqualification..an interim suspension may be given...", Senior Advocate AM Singhvi appearing for Gandhi told the bench today. While not agreeing to his request, the bench said, "We will have to hear the other side too..".Bench: Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi Click here to read more
[Krishna Janmabhoomi] Supreme Court has orally observed that maybe it would be better if the issue involving the Krishna Janmbhoomi- Shahi Idgah dispute was settled at the High Court level as it would maybe have a better ability to handle a suit of this nature. "I am only talking on the aspect of experience. I really feel this matter should be tackled at a different level and dealt with soon..We will say that High Court should deal with parity..", added the bench. Court was of the opinion that it would be in the larger interest that all the suits are consolidated and tried by a higher authority.Bench: Justices SK Kaul & Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah Vs. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors/ Click here to read more
[Akhil Gogoi] The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea moved by Member of Assam Legislative Assembly from Sibsagar, Akhil Gogoi, seeking a stay of the proceedings against him under Sec. 124A, essentially for having engaged in protests against the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. Notably, Gogoi has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 124A (Sedition Law) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with related offences which employ similar logic of sedition (inasmuch as they entail the very same ingredients as sedition) as being ultra vires of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution read with Articles 14 and 21. Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & Manoj Misra Case Title: Akhil Gogoi vs. Union of India Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
