Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 27- April 1, 2023]

[Bilkis Bano] Supreme Court issued notice in all the Public Interest petitions filed against the remission granted to 11 convicts who gangraped Bilkis Bano in Gujarat in 2002. Notably, a bench also issued notice on the petition filed by Bano herself, who was represented by Advocate Shobha Gupta. Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing on behalf of one of the convicts who was granted remission by the State of Gujarat, argued before Court that a PIL could not be filed in matters of criminal jurisprudence. "They are not maintainable...there is no locus standi..", he told the Court. "There is something very weird happening in court now, anyone is filing a PIL in a criminal matter,” he added.
Bench: Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna
Cause Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India & Ors. | Batch petitions
Click here to read more

[RSS Route March in Tamil Nadu] The Supreme Court has reserved it verdict in the plea moved by the Tamil Nadu Government challenging the Madras High Court order allowing the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to take out its route march in the state on rescheduled dates. Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for RSS, had argued before Court that the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b) must not be curtailed in the absence of a very strong reason. Jethmalani further assailed the condition imposed by the state that the procession be conducted indoors and stated that RSS was aiming to make a public statement and the march was not just for the organization.
Bench: Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal
Cause Title: Phanindra Reddy, IAS & Ors. vs. G. Subramanian
Click here to read more

[Hathras Gang Rape] "You should not challenge such orders..", observed CJI DY Chandrachud, while dismissing the Uttar Pradesh government's petition challenging the Allahabad High Court's order directing relocation of the Hathras gang rape victim's family and employ one of the family member of the deceased victim under the Government or Government Undertaking. AAG Garima Parshad, appearing for the State of UP, told the that the deceased's family sought to be relocated to Delhi/Noida. Court was further told that whether elder married brother of the victim could be a "dependent" was a question of law. The bench refused to accept these submissions while asking the AAG to not challenge such orders. In July last year, the Allahabad High Court had directed the State Government to consider employment of one of the family member of the deceased victim under the Government or Government Undertaking commensurate with the qualification possessed by them.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & JB Pardiwala
Cause Title: State of UP vs. R, Father of Victim
Click here to read more

[Mohd Faisal] Supreme Court had questioned Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal as to what fundamental right of his was violated, while hearing his plea seeking permission to attend the Lok Sabha as his conviction in a murder case has been stayed. The bench made this observation when they noticed that the instant plea was filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India. Faisal's counsel had mentioned the plea before Court after lunch thinking that the matter would not be taken up today. When the counsel for Faisal told Court that the speaker had not allowed the parliamentarian to sit, and that the speaker should withdraw his order of disqualification, the bench asked, "This is under Article 32..What Fundamental right has been violated?" To this the counsel said, the right to represent his constituency. On hearing this, Justice Joseph asked, "Is that a fundamental right?"
Bench: Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna
Cause Title: UT Administration of Lakshadweep vs. Mohammed Faizal
Click here to read more

[Atiq Ahmed – Umesh Pal Murder – SC] The Supreme Court refused to provide any relief to 5-time MLA and alleged mafia Atiq Ahmed, who had approached the Court raising apprehensions of danger to life on being shifted to a Uttar Pradesh jail in connection with the Umesh Pal murder case. "State machinery will take care of you", said the court, while refusing to entertain Ahmed's plea. On hearing this, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition, with liberty to move the High Court. The bench also advised Ahmed to approach the High Court for protection. Ahmad was shifted to Naini Central jail in Prayagraj from Sabarmati central jail in Gujarat amid heavy security on Monday evening.
Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi
Cause Title: Atiq Ahmad vs. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read more

[Gyanvapi] Supreme Court agreed to hear the Hindu's side plea in the Gyanvapi dispute to consolidate all suits, on April 21, 2023. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain had mentioned the matter today before Court. Jain told court that the Varanasi judge had deferred verdict on the issue for the fourth time. Last year, court had directed that the Civil Suit pertaining to the Gyanvapi dispute be transferred from the court of Civil Judge Senior Division Varanasi to the court of District Judge for further proceedings. The court directed that all interlocutory and ancillary proceedings be decided by District Judge.
Bench: CJI DY Chandarachud, Justices PS Narasimha & JB Pardiwala
Cause Title: Rakhi Singh and Ors v. State of UP
Click here to read more

[Fodder Scam] The Supreme Court on Monday. March 27, tagged the plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) challenging the grant of bail to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Lalu Prasad Yadav in the 'Doranda Treasury case' of Jharkhand— the fifth case related to the fodder scam, along with other pending petitions. The bench said, "We are not issuing notice, but tagging the matter with the pending similar appeals filed by the CBI". During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju and Advocate Rajat Nair sought issuance of notice in the matter, however, the bench said it will hear the matter collectively and was hesitant to issue notice.
Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi
Click here to read more

[Palghar Sadhu Lynching] Supreme Court has directed the State of Maharashtra to file an affidavit before it stating that it is referring the investigation into the 2020 Palghar sadhu lynching case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. In the Palghar case, two sadhus who were travelling from Mumbai to Surat were stopped by a mob of over 200 people and were consequently attacked by them. When the case was taken up last week, a CJI Chandrachud led bench was informed that State of Maharashtra had filed an affidavit saying that it had no objection to CBI investigation.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & JB Pardiwala
Cause Title: Mahant Siddhanand Saraswati vs. State of Maharashtra
Click here to read more

[Chhawla Rape Case] The Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 28, dismissed the review petitions filed against the acquittal of the three persons who were sentenced to death for the gang-rape and murder of a 19-year-old girl in Delhi’s Chhawla area in 2012. The bench dismissed the review petitions filed by the Delhi Police and the victim's parents while observing that, "After having considered the judgment and other documents on record, we do not find any error either factual or legal, apparent on the face of record requiring review ofthe aforestated judgment passed by this Court".
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi
Cause Title: The State of Delhi vs. Rahul and Anr
Click here to read more

[Hate Speech Hearing] Solicitor General Tushar Mehta while making submissions in a plea seeking action against hate speeches being made across the country, told the Supreme Court that the petitioner was being selective in highlighting cases. SG Mehta referred to the petitioner's "noble service" and said that this public spirited man is not bringing instances from his own state (Kerala) before the court. Court was further told that it should not consider cases of hate speeches only arising in Maharashtra but should also look at similar instances in States like Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
Bench: Justices KM Joseph & BV Nagarathna
Cause Title: Shaheen Abdulla vs. Union of India and Ors.
Click here to read more

[Uniform laws on divorce, adoption etc] A CJI Chandrachud led bench has dismissed a batch of pleas seeking uniform laws for all citizens relating to divorce, adoption, guardianship, succession/inheritance and maintenance. At the outset, Court suggested that the petitioner, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay approach the Law Commission. "Why do we have to direct them to prepare a report", the CJI added. When SG Tushar Mehta appeared before Court, he informed the bench also comprising Justices Narasimha and Pardiwala that, "It is legislative domain, the government is concerned with the issue, but it cannot be in a writ petition".
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Narasimha & JB Pardiwala
Cause Title: Ashwini Upadhyay vs. UoI
Click here to read more

[Classification of accounts as Fraud] The Supreme Court has held that borrowers must be given an opportunity to explain before their account is classified as fraud under the Reserve Bank of India (Frauds Classification and Reporting by Commercial Banks and Select FIs) Directions 2016 ["Master Directions"] on Frauds. "The principles of natural justice demand that the borrowers must be served a notice, given an opportunity to explain the conclusions of the forensic audit report, and be allowed to represent by the banks/ JLF before their account is classified as fraud under the Master Directions on Frauds. In addition, the decision classifying the borrower’s account as fraudulent must be made by a reasoned order...", the judgment adds.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
Case Title: State Bank of India & Ors vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors
Click here to read more

[Plea before SC] A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of the appointment of faculty members in IITs made since 2008. The plea also seeks direction for providing an opportunity to north and Hindi-speaking states for the faculty position in IITs. The plea has been filed against the recruitment process of IIT faculty alleging that it is completely based on recommendations and interrelations of existing professors. “The candidates applying for the faculty positions are completely unaware of the short-listing criteria and the weightages given for different rounds of the selection process. The IITs never published the details of shortlisted candidates. The IITs usually don’t inform the candidates who are not being called or shortlisted for interviews” the plea reads.
Case Title: Dr. Sachchida Nand Pandey vs Union of India & Ors
Click here to read more

[Plea Alleging Violence Against Christians] While refusing to issue notices to states where incidents of violence against Christians are allegedly high, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 29, directed the Central Government to file a reply in the plea seeking directions from the Top Court to stop violence against Christians in the country. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, told Court that there was an exponential rise in attacks against Christians since last year. "In Chhattisgarh alone 600 attacks, PUCL has come out with a report... Christians are being attacked, and then FIRs are registered against them only..", Gonsalves told the bench
Bench: CJI Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Narasimha
Case Title: MOST REV. DR. PETER MACHADO AND ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Click here to read more

[Hate Speech hearing] Justice KM Joseph last week remarked that the state was impotent as it was not acting in time over the issue of curbing hate speeches across the country. "Why do we have a State at all if it is remaining silent?", the judge remarked while hearing a a petition seeking contempt action against authorities in the State of Maharashtra over their alleged failure to act against hate speeches during rallies. On the importance of brotherhood and tolerance, Justice Joseph observed, “Suppose everyday you sit in court & everyone in the vicinity says something bad about you...Most important thing for a man is dignity. If it is being demolished on a regular basis...Some statements are made like, “Go to Pakistan”. These persons actually chose this country. They are like our brothers & sisters…If we want to become a superpower, the first thing we need is rule of law...”.
Bench: Justice Joseph and Nagarathna
Case Title: Shaheen Abdulla vs. Union of India and Ors.
Click here to read more

[Open Ballot] The Supreme Court recently dismissed a PIL seeking to allow secret ballot in polls for the Rajya Sabha and State Legislative Councils, noting that the open ballot system is necessary to prevent cross-voting and to maintain party discipline. The bench also dismissed the challenge to sub-section 1 of Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which stipulated that in order to be a candidate for Rajya Sabha and state legislative council elections, a person, if not nominated by a political party, must have the support of ten elected members. "This lies purely in the realm of legislative policy. There is nothing per se discriminatory in the provision. Parliament is entitled to regulate the manner in which the nomination per se is presented. In view of the above discussions, the petition is dismissed,” the bench has said in its order.
Bench: CJI Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Narasimha
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Hate Speech hearing] Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court last week that the speech made by a DMK leader in June last year calling for butchering all Brahmins should also be considered hate speech. “If you want equality, you should butcher all Brahmins. This is what he said. Just because it was said some by someone famous, it cannot be pardoned..it is hate speech...”, SG Mehta added. Hearing this submission, Justice KM Joseph smiled, to which the SG said, "This is not a matter which should be laughed at...". KM Joseph then asked the SG if he knew who Periyar was. Notably, Periyar, known as the father of the Dravidian Movement, had in his time made statement encouraging killing of brahmins.
Bench: Justice Joseph and Nagarathna
Case Title: Shaheen Abdulla vs. Union of India and Ors.
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[E-filing] The Supreme Court recently affirmed mandatory e-filing in Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs). while passing certain directions to make e-filing more accessible for everyone. A CJI DY Chandrachud, led bench has highlighted that e-filing not only provides for transparency and efficiency but also facilitates 24/7 access to justice and enforces convenience of lawyers and litigants. The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association had challenged the notification of the Ministry of Finance which amended Rule 3 of the Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals Electronic Filing (Amendment) Rules, 2023 and provided for e-filing of pleadings by applicants before DRT/DRAT as mandatory without any limit. It was argued that the amendment to the rules were made without holding deliberations with all stakeholders.
Bench: CJI Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Narasimha
Case Title: MP High Court Bar Association vs. Union of India
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Sahara India] Supreme Court has allowed an application by preferred by the Union of India, Ministry of Corporation seeking transfer of Rs. 5,000 Crores out of unutilized amount of Rs. 23,937 Crores, lying in “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account” to be disbursed against the legitimate dues of depositors of Sahara Group of Cooperatives Societies. Court has further ordered that the disbursement shall be supervised and monitored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge Supreme Court with the able assistance of Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae as well as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies in disbursing the amount to the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies. "Rs. 15 lakhs per month be paid to Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of this Court and Rs. 5 lakhs per month be paid to Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae towards their honorarium", the order adds.
Bench: Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar
Case Title: Pinak Pani Mohanty vs. Union of India
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Same-sex marriage] Jamait Ulama-I-Hind has filed an intervention application in the plea before Supreme Court seeking recognition of same-sex marriage stating that recognition of marriage is on the basis of established and sustainable societal norms and shall not keep changing on the basis of variable notions based upon newly developed value system emerging from a different worldview in a different paradigm. Court has been further told that the concept of same sex marriage goes to attack the family system rather that making a family through this process. The IA further submits that the petitioners are seeking to dilute the concept of marriage, a stable institution, by introducing a free-floating system of "same-sex marriage‟.
Case Title: Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborthy v. Union of India & Anr. (a batch of petitions)
​​​​​​​Click here to read more