Read Time: 01 hours
[PIL Seeking Probe Into Death Of BJP Leader During Protests In Patna] The Supreme Court asked the litigant before it seeking a probe by a special Investigating Team headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), into the death of death of BJP leader Vijay Kumar Singh and grievous injuries to three other party members, to approach the High Court. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta asked the petitioner, "Why don't you approach the High Court? HC's power of judicial review over police brutality is not limited..". The bench further advised the petitioner to approach the High Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hearing this the petitioner chose to withdraw his plea.Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta Case Title: Bhupesh Narayan vs. State of Bihar and ors. Click here to read more
[Manipur Violence] CJI DY Chandrachud has observed that merely giving the probe into the incident of sexual assault and violence on two women in violence-hit Manipur, to CBI was not enough. "Merely giving it to the CBI cannot be enough.. we have to set out modalities.. who is going to record a statement under section 164 CrPC..what about a woman who has lost her family..justice has to come to her doorstep..", the CJI observed. The bench added that it could identify and constitute a committee, consisting of women ex-judges and some members from society to help with the situation in Manipur.Bench: CJI Chandrachud, Justices Manoj Misra & JB Pardiwala Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei vs. Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors. Click here to read more
[UAPA] The Supreme Court has observed that to bring within the scope of Section 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ('1967 Act'), it would not be sufficient to demonstrate that one is an associate or someone who professes to be associated with a terrorist organisation. There must be intention to further the activities of such organisation on the part of the person implicated under such provision, a bench had added. Section 38 deals with offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation. Court has further observed that the term “terrorist organisation” [as employed in Section 2(m) of UAPA], is not a mere nomenclature and this expression would mean an organisation that carries on or indulges in terrorist acts.Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dulia Case Title: Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra | Arun vs. State of Maharashtra Click here to read more
[Crypto-Currency] The Supreme Court sought response from the Centre on its intention to regulate cryptocurrencies and criminal cases associated with dealing in such market. With the growing intervention of digital currency in our everyday lives, the Top Court called it “unfortunate” that the Union Government has neither any legal framework to regulate transactions out of such currencies nor any expert agency for the same. The bench, while hearing a petition by an individual booked in fraud cases related to cryptocurrencies, said, “You (Union) still don’t have any law unfortunately. Do you have an agency at the national level to understand these cases and investigate properly? We want you to identify a national specialised agency, in the national interest. What kind of a quality investigation can you expect when you have a police constable, who gets promoted to an assistant sub-inspector or a sub-inspector, to handle such cases?”Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta Click here to read more
[Unitech Case] The Supreme Court ordered that it would hear the Enforcement Directorate's plea challenging Delhi High Court order granting bail to Preeti Chandra, wife of Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra on August 4. While doing so, CJI DY Chandrachud had asked the ASG SV Raju to file a two-page note on his submissions. Court has further allowed Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chandra to file a response. At the outset, ASG Raju told the bench that a group of companies was involved in the instant case which had accounts at Cayman islands. "She is a Dominican Republic citizen, that citizenship also has been procured so that she can run off after siphoning money..", ASG added.Bench: CJI Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala & Manoj Mishra Case Title: Enforcement Directorate vs. Preeti Chandra Click here to read more
[Manipur] The Supreme Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to stop recording the statement of the victims of sexual violence in the northeast state of Manipur. Advocate Nizam Pasha mentioned the issue before a CJI DY Chandrachud led bench and said, "I am requesting that this may be stopped for the moment as this court is already slated to hear the matter today at 2 PM...The victims should not be asked to repeat their experience again and again..". Agreeing with the bench's order, SG Mehta submitted, "I have no information regarding this.. they must be doing it in good faith, I will ask them to stop for time being..they must have started, otherwise Mr. Sibal will say that we are not doing anything..". Bench: CJI Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra Click here to read more
[Haryana Communal Clashes] The Supreme Court, refused to stay the rallies which are being held by Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal in parts of Delhi NCR, after communal clashes broke out in Gurugram and Nuh district. The bench was hearing a plea filed in the hate speech case [Shaheen Abdulla Vs. Union of India & Ors.] seeking a stay on the rallies organised by VHP & Bajrang Dal, purportedly against the communal violence. The rallies have been planned on August 2. According to the petition, they are expected to take place in 23 localities in Delhi including at the Delhi-Haryana border, Noida (from Sector 21A to Rajnigandha Chowk), Uttar Pradesh, Manesar. The interlocutory application in the main case concerning hate speech was mentioned at 2 pm, in which it has been averred that "considering the extremely precarious situation currently prevailing in the aforementioned areas a very legitimate apprehension of communal persecution has arisen that requires the urgent attention of this Hon’ble Court".Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SV Bhatti Case Title: Shaheen Abdulla vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[M. Sivasankar Bail] Former Principal Secretary to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, M. Sivasankar has been granted interim bail on medical grounds for two months by the Supreme Court. Court said that the accused officer should not visit any place except the hospital and his residence during the bail, which includes the time period for the surgery and for post-operative care. Sivasankar, an IAS officer, has been accused in multiple cases, including the LIFE mission housing project corruption case. According to news reports, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case is based on an FIR by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), according to which the project was funded by a foreign entity in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).Bench: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M. M. Sundresh Case Title: M Sivasankar vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Article 370] Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court that the central government abrogated through a political act Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. "...the govt of the day is staring at this provision and according to me through a political act, not a constitutional procedure declare that it was to be tossed out of the window..such a political act cannot be done by the parliament, it cannot take such a decision..", Sibal told a five judge bench hearing the pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370. The senior lawyer further told the constitution bench that while nobody could deny that Jammu and Kashmir was with the Union of India, there is a special relation which could not be jettisoned. "Was it not an exercise of political power without reference to Article 370..can such a power be exercised in the manner in which it was exercised..", he questioned.Bench: CJI, Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant Case Title: IN Re: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION Click here to read more
[Rahul Gandhi] Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi has defended the remarks made by him on the Modi surname by saying that as a Parliamentarian and a Leader of the Opposition, it was necessary for him to critically evaluate the conduct and performance of the ruling establishment. While making a case for stay on his conviction, Gandhi has submitted, "Defamation is only one of the 22 offences under the IPC that attracts only simple imprisonment. This is by itself an exceptional circumstance as far as the consideration for the stay of conviction is concerned." It is further Gandhi's case that while the complainant-respondent has said that he belongs to a Modi samaj, in fact there is no Modi Samaj or community established on record and there are only Modi Vanika Samaj or Modh Ghanchi Samaj existing.Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi Click here to read more
[Article 370 hearing-Day 2] Noting the petitioner's submission that the parliament could not have amended the Constitution to abrogate Article 370, CJI DY Chandrachud questioned if a new category was being created apart from the basic structure that could not be amended. "The Constitution is also a live document, can we say at some stage that there is no process to amend it, leaving the basic structure..", further remarked Justice SK Kaul. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which is hearing the pleas challenging the government's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370, was told by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal today that Article 370 could not be abrogated, as the constituent assembly of the state which had the power to do so, was non-existent.Bench: CJI, Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant Case Title: IN Re: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION Click here to read more
[Gyanvapi] The Anjuman Intezamia Mosque Committee has approached the Supreme Court of India challenging the Allahabad High Court's refusal to interfere with the order of the Varanasi Court passed on July 21 directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a survey of Gyanvapi without causing any damage. Advocate Nizam Pasha mentioned the impugned order before CJI Chandrachud's bench as it was rising at 4PM. "I have emailed the SLP to your lordships..let them not carry on", Pasha submitted. To this, CJI replied, "We will have a look at it right away..". In its petition, the mosque committee said the High Court has gone into the nature of the exercise proposed to be conducted by the ASI and has limited the extent and wide nature of the order passed by the District Judge. "Howsoever well intentioned such consideration may have been, the question before the High Court was not whether the techniques of the ASI are invasive or non-invasive but rather whether such an exercise, in a suit filed in 2021, given its sensitivity and orders passed by this court could at all be allowed," it said.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud led bench Case Title: Mentioning – Committee of Management Anjuman Intazamia Masajid vs. Smt Rakhi & Ors. Click here to read more
[Haryana Communal Clashes] The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta (SG) questioned the bona fides of the petitioner who has approached top court in a plea seeking a stay on VHP-Bajrang dal rallies across Delhi and Haryana, in order to ensure hate speech is not hollered. While the rallies had been planned on August 2 and were to take place in 23 localities in Delhi including at the Delhi-Haryana border, Noida (from Sector 21A to Rajnigandha Chowk), Uttar Pradesh, Manesar, the petitioners' have sought larger prayers concerning law and order problems, allegedly triggered due to the processions. The bench were hearing an interlocutory application filed in the main case concerning hate speech contours after various parts of Haryana saw violence earlier this week. On Wednesday, the bench had refused to stay the rallies and listed the application.Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SV Bhatti Case Title: Case Title: Shaheen Abdulla vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case] A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India stayed the conviction of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi in the 2019 criminal defamation case over his Modi surname remark. Justice BR Gavai led bench noted that no reasons were given by trial judge for imposing a two-year sentence on Gandhi which has incurred his disqualification. The bench has further noted that only on account of this sentence, Section 8(3) Representation of People Act, 1950 came into play and even a day lesser would not have attracted Section 8 and particularly when the offence under Section 499, of the Indian Penal Code is non-cognizable, compoundable and bailable, the judge was expected to give some reasons to impose the maximum sentence.Bench: Justices BR Gavai, Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi Click here to read more ALSO READ: What Resonated With The Supreme Court's While Staying Rahul Gandhi's Conviction In Modi Surname Remark Case? [READ ORDER]
[Gyanvapi] A CJI DY Chandrachud led bench of the Supreme Court of India has refused to stay the survey being carried out at the disputed Gyanvapi site by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI). Noting that before the Allahabad High Court, ASI had clarified that no excavation will be carried out and no destruction to any structure shall happen, the bench went on to observe, "We also order and direct that the entire process shall be conducted through non-invasive technology. There shall be no excavation at the site. The report of the ASI shall be remitted to the trial court and thereafter abide by the directions of the district judge." Top Court went on to add that the evidentiary value of the report of the ASI shall be tested during cross examination and the impugned order of the District Judge, Varanasi passed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC could not be considered to be without jurisdiction at this stage.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra Case Title: Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi vs. Rakhi Singh and Others Click here to read moreALSO READ: SLP Moved Before Supreme Court Challenging High Court's Nod To ASI Survey Of Gyanvapi
[Manish Sisodia Bail] The Supreme Court has rejected the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) minister on the ground of his wife's ill-health. The top court said that the medical records reveal that her condition is stable. The bench said to Mr. AM Singhvi appearing for the accused minister in the Delhi liquor scam that his wife's condition can be managed with medication. Though Singhvi stated that the accused may be given a few weeks on bail, the bench was not inclined to grant him the relief. Instead, it listed the case next month, on September 4 and ordered the Enforcement Directorate to file its reply. It will now hear both the cases seeking interim bail as well as regular bail together.Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna & SV Bhatti Case Title: Manish Sisodia vs. CBI, ED Click here to read more
[ECI Appointment of Arun Goel] The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the appointment of Arun Goel as the Election Commissioner. The NGO was represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan who argued before a bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna that the appointment was arbitrary and was effectuated in haste. "His files were cleared by the highest offices in a day," he said, adding that the process itself was arbitrary. The bench also comprising Justice SV Bhatti however did not seem inclined to entertain the petition, on account of the issue of appointments already decided by a constitution bench in Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India.Bench: Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar Case Title: ADR vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[DERC Appointment] The Supreme Court has appointed Justice Jayant Nath, former judge of the Delhi High Court as Chairman for the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC). A CJI led bench took the decision to appoint Justice Nath after a joint request was made in this regard by the Delhi Government and Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena. "The Delhi CM and Lieutenant Governor may jointly decide in consultation with Mr Nath, the honorarium payable to him...", further ordered the bench.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: GNCTD vs. UOI Click here to read more
[Kuno Cheetah site] The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) has told the Supreme Court that none of Cheetahs, translocated from Namibia and South Africa to Kuno National Park in Madhya Pradesh, has died due to unnatural reasons such as poaching, snaring, poisoning, road hits, electrocution etc. It maintained that mortalities are not unduly alarming, though the situation is troubling and in need of redressal and curtailment. "The provisional diagnosis of mortality events point towards natural causes... the NTCA today has no reason to believe that the mortalities were caused on account of any inherent unsuitability at the Kuno site," the authority said in a written response filed on July 31.Case Title: Centre for Environmental Law WWF-I vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Senthil Balaji] The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict in the plea filed by Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji challenging Madras High Court's decision holding that the Enforcement Directorate had the right to get his custody. Court also declined the ED's request to pass urgent orders allowing the agency to take Balaji into custody. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before the bench that the issue regarding applicability of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was already settled, and did not require any reference to a larger bench.Bench: Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh Case Title: MEGALA vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR Click here to read more
[Termination of woman lawyer's bar membership] The Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea by a woman lawyer accusing a district bar association in Kakdwip, West Bengal of arbitrarily terminating her membership and harassing her. Allegedly, the lawyer was not allowed to use the toilet and other facilities in the court premises. After hearing the petitioner, Court suggested that she may read Fali Nariman's book where the senior lawyer talks about maintaining good relations with bar colleagues.Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: Bina Das vs. Kakdwip Court Bar Association & Ors Click here to read more
[Land dispute] The Supreme Court has transferred ownership of a large tracts of 142.39 acres of prime land in Telangana's Ranga Reddy district in favour of specialised Greyhounds Commando Force, formed to fight Naxalites, giving a quietus to a dispute pending since 1994. A division bench used its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to hold that the subject land in its entirety would be vested in the state government and its ownership and possessory rights, free from all encumbrances, would stand transferred in favour of the Greyhounds.Bench: Justices Surya Kant and J K Maheshwari Case Title: Yadaiah & Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Ors. Click here to read more
[License for Minerals] The Supreme Court has declared that no one can claim to have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of license of a mineral unless facilitated accordingly by a statute. Court has held there is no right vested over a pending application for lease of a government land or over the minerals beneath the soil in any type of land over which the government has regulatory control. "In other words, a mere filing of an application ipso facto does not create any right. The power of the government to amend, being an independent one, pending applications do not come in the way," the bench said.Bench: Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh Case Title: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. vs. SHARWAN KUMAR KUMAWAT ETC. ETC Click here to read more
[Sudden Provocation] The Supreme Court has altered conviction of a woman from murder to culpable homicide for killing her husband on a sudden provocation, as the man declined to pay Rs 500 to their daughter for attending National Cadet Corps camp. In the case, the bench said after a careful scrutiny of the testimony of Priyanka, daughter of the deceased, it will be difficult to sustain conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. "We further find that it will also be necessary to take into consideration the background in which the offence took place. There used to be persistent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. In one of such incidents, the leg of the appellant was fractured by the deceased, and a case was already pending against him for the said offence," the bench noted.Bench: Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala Case Title: Nirmala Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
