Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [May 8-13, 2023]

[Manipur Violence] In the pleas seeking to secure the Manipuri tribal areas, the Supreme has ordered that due arrangements must be made in the relief camps organised by the government and all necessary precautions must be taken for rehabilitation of displaced persons. "Medical care should also be provided in relief camps", added a CJI Chandrachud led bench. Amidst tensions escalating in the State of Manipur, two Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) were filed before the Supreme Court against the High Court's order directing the Centre and the State governments to include the Meetei/Meitei community of the State in the Scheduled Tribe list of the Indian Constitution as a "tribe" of Manipur.
Bench: CJI Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & JB Pardiwala
Case Title: Manipur Tribal Forum vs. Union of India
Click here to read more

[Manish Kashyap] The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Youtuber Manish Kashyap, who sought consolidation of FIRs registered against him in Bihar and Tamil Nadu for sharing fake videos of attack on Bihar based migrant labourers. "We are not inclined to use our powers under Article 32. Petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate authorities for seeking remedy under National Security Act", ordered a bench of CJI Chandrachud with Justices Pardiwala and Narasimha. Appearing for Kashyap, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh told the bench that, "If I have to be under NSA then every newspaper including the Economic Times has to be under NSA..".
Bench: CJI Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & JB Pardiwala
Case Title: Manish Kashyap vs. Union of India and Ors
Click here to read more

[SHUATS Mass Religious Conversion Case] The Supreme Court acceded to the request made by State of Uttar Pradesh seeking time to file its reply in the pleas filed by Director and Vice Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Science (SHUATS) at Prayagraj, accused of converting persons by allurement and use of threats and coercion. "On request being made, we grant time of 4 weeks to the State of UP to file a counter affidavit. List in 2nd week of July", the bench said. The bench also extended the interim protection granted to the two accused petitioners.
Bench: CJI Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & JB Pardiwala
Case Title: Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Click here to read more

[Recognition of Dalit Christians] In the plea seeking reservation benefits to converted Dalit Christians, an intervention application has been filed by a Christian woman stating that the issue has not only country-wide repercussions but also direct negative impact on the core religious beliefs of the Christian community. The benefits sought by the petitions have been termed to be an upfront assault on the very existence of Christian religion and nothing short of a sin. In December last year, the Supreme Court had said that it will first look into whether it needs to await the report of the new Commission headed by Justice KG Balakrishnan on the issue of Caste Reservation eligibility for Hindu converts to Islam & Christianity or proceed on existing material available in a plea that challenged the "limited Scheduled Caste status" guaranteed solely to Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists.
Case Title: Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. UOI
Click here to read more

[Kerala Story] CJI DY Chandrachud ordered that the Special Leave petition filed against the Kerala High Court's refusal to stay the release of the film "The Kerala Story" shall be taken up on Monday, i.e., May 15. The SLP was mentioned by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who told Court that the High Court had rejected the interim reliefs prayed for. Notably, on May 5, a division bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justices N Nagaresh and Sophy Thomas had refused to stay the release of the film while noting that the film was about a terrorist organization, namely Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and had nothing to do with the religion of Islam or Muslims.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha & JB Pardiwala
Case Title: Mentioning
Click here to read more

[Bilkin Bano] The Supreme Court while hearing the pleas challenging remission granted to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, remarked that India stands at the 161st position in terms of journalistic freedom. To this statement made by Justice KM Joseph, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded saying that it depended on who was giving these rankings. This exchange took place at the end of the hearing, where the top court directed that a public notice be published in local newspapers in the state of Gujarat to served the unserved respondents in the matter.
Bench: Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna & A. Amanullah
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read more

[Karnataka Muslim Reservation] The Supreme Court refused to allow the prayer made by the Central Muslim Association to restrain the press from publishing speeches made by public functionaries on issues that are before Court. This prayer was made against a statement made by the Home Minister Amit Shah, saying that the ruling party had done away with the reservation for Muslims in the state of Karnataka, as promised. Prof Ravi Kumar Varma, appearing for Central Muslim Association made a prayer to restrain the press from publishing such speeches.
Bench: Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna & A. Amanullah
Case Title: Ghulam Rasool Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Click here to read more

[Anand Mohan release] In a plea filed by murdered IAS Officer G. Krishnaiah's wife, challenging the premature release of former MP Anand Mohan Singh, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari has issued notice to the State of Bihar. 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. On December 5, 1994, Mohan being the then MLA and his wife namely Mrs. Lovely Anand being the then MP were leading a procession of one Chhotan Shukla and raising slogans to take revenge from the administration, for killing of the said Chhotan Shukla.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant & JK Maheshwari
Case Title: Telugu Umadevi Krishnaiah vs. State of Bihar and Ors
Click here to read more

[BV Srinivas Sexual Harassment Case] National President of the Indian Youth Congress, Srinivas BV, has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking relief in the FIR registered against him in Assam over allegations of sexual harassment. Notably, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat had mentioned the Congress leader's plea before CJI DY Chandrachud seeking urgent listing. An opposition leader is being hounded in Assam, Kamat had submitted before the bench also comprising Justices Narasimha and Pardiwala, which had agreed to list the matter on May 15. Last week, the Gauhati High Court had refused relief to Srinivas in the sexual harassment case. A few days ago, his anticipatory bail plea under Section 438 of CrPC had also met the same fate.
Click here to read more

[The Kerala Story] CJI DY Chandrachud agreed to hear on Friday, May 12, the plea filed by the producers of The Kerala Story, challenging West Bengal's decision to ban the screening of the film. Yesterday, a plea was filed by the makers of the movie challenging the ban in West Bengal as well as the de facto ban imposed on the move in Tamil Nadu wherein an "alert" was issued anticipating protests, due to which theatres withdrew from releasing the film. Today, Senior Advocate Harish Salve mentioned the instant plea before a bench also comprising Justice PS Narasimha. The CJI then said that as it was going to hear the plea challenging the Kerala High Court's decision to not stay the release of the film on May 15, this plea could also be heard then.
Click here to read more

[SC Judgment on Central Vs. State laws] The Supreme Court said that a state law even if it runs contrary to the provisions of the central law on a subject can't be invalidated on the ground of manifest arbitrariness and discrimination after receiving assent of the President. The top court rejected a plea against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 for being repugnant to central law of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013."The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”
Bench: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar
Case Title: CS Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu
Click here to read more

[LG Vs Delhi] The Supreme Court has held that the Delhi Government (GNCTD) will have control over administration of services, except in those areas which are specifically excluded from its legislative domain. Issues of governance concerning the national capital have been at odds between the Centre and the Aam Aadmi Party led Delhi government ever since it assumed office in 2014. The top court reserved its verdict on January 18 this year. Lt. Governor will be bound by decisions of the council of ministers of ministers except in matters which are outside the cabinet's executive domain, i.e. police, public order and land.
Bench: DY Chandrachud, Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha
Case Title: GNCTD Vs. Union of India
Click here to read more

[Shiv Sena Vs. Shiv Sena] The Supreme Court held that the Governor of Maharashtra was correct in calling upon Eknath Shinde, the current Chief Minister of Maharashtra, who represented BJP as the largest party at that moment, to form the government in the state. A CJI Chandrachud led Constitution bench has further held that the Governor was not justified to call Uddhav Thackeray to prove that he had not lost the confidence of the house as the Governor did not have relevant material to rely on to do so.
Bench: DY Chandrachud, Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha
Case Title: Subhash Desai Vs Governor Maharashtra
Click here to read more
Read More: Top Court Refers Decision Of Nabam Rebia To A 7-Judge Bench

[Same Sex Marriage] Top Court reserved verdict in the plea’s seeking recognition of same sex marriage. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran submitted before the bench that lack of recognition of same-sex marriage amounted to denial of equal protection of laws. The counsel had cited an example of a child telling his/her friend that he/she had two fathers/mothers and how would the former take it. Moreover, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had placed before Supreme Court yesterday, the response received from seven states on the issue.
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

[Invocation of SC/ST Act - Restraint] The Supreme Court has asked police authorities not to invoke stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a mechanical manner without going by factual aspects of a complaint as the stringent law leads to serious consequences for the accused. Besides the FIR for offences of cheating, forgery and others under the SC/ST Act, the complainant also initiated civil suits and failed to get any relief. The bench further said that the Supreme Court has been consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & A. Amanullah
Case Title: Sri Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka
Click here to read more

[Bail Guidelines to be followed] The Supreme Court has made it categorical that its judgment in 'Satender Kumar Antil v Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr' (2022) is the law of land and the principles laid down by it for bail to an accused, including those not arrested at the time of filing of the charge sheet, must be followed by all concerned courts. "The judgment of this court including the one in Satender Kumar Antil’s case is the law of the land. There is no question of anyone violating the principles laid down.”
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil Va CBI
Click here to read more

[Unlawful Occupant in Scheduled Area] The Supreme Court has declared that all Central and State laws would remain applicable in a scheduled area of a State, unless a specific notification is issued by the Governor, restricting the use of a statute over there. The court also held that the power of the Governor in such instances would not supersede the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal
Case Title: Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read more

[The Kerala Story ban] The Supreme Court has observed that there was no reason for state of West Bengal to ban the film "The Kerala Story" when it was successfully running throughout India. A bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud said that it was for the audience to decide what they should do with a movie, instead of mandating bans. The Court was hearing a plea by the makers of the film seeking a challenge to the ban on the filming of the movie which has created an outrage amongst certain sections. Next hearing on May 17.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha
Case Title: Sunshine Pictures vs. State of West Bengal
Click here to read more

[Promotion of Judicial Officers – Gujarat] The Supreme Court has declared a Select List prepared by the Gujarat High Court on March 10, 2023 and the subsequent notification issued by the State Government on April 18, granting promotion to the cadre of District Judge to the judicial officers as illegal and contrary to the Rules and Regulations and to the decision of the top court in the case of All India Judges’ Association (2002).
Bench: Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar
Case Title: Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. vs. High Court of Gujarat and Ors.
Click here to read more

[Ritu Chhabria Judgment Challenge] A special bench of the Supreme Court has ordered that trial courts and high courts across the country, while considering an application for the grant of default bail under section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, shall decide the same independent of and without relying on the judgment of Ritu Chhabria vs. Union Of India & Ors. This observation was made by a CJI DY Chandrachud led bench, while hearing an application of the Central Government seeking a recall of the judgment in Chhabaria which held that an investigating agency cannot file a charge sheet in court without completing a probe to deprive default bail to an accused.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & JB Pardiwala
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement vs. Manpreet Singh Talwar
Click here to read more

[POSH Act implementation] The Apex Court has expressed displeasure over the poor implementation of the provisions of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (POSH) Act, 2013 and thus, issued some important guidelines for proper implementation of the Act. Accordingly, Justices Kohli and Bopanna issue a slew of directions to UOI, States and UT’s to ensure strict implementation of the provisions of the POSH Act, 2013.
Bench: Justices Hima Kohli and A.S.Bopanna
Case Title: Aureliano Fernandes vs. State of Goa & Ors.
Click here to read more

[Adani – Hindenburg] The Expert Committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice AM Sapre, constituted by the Supreme Court, to review the regulatory mechanism, as a direction in the pleas filed over the Adani-Hindenburg issue, has submitted its report. CJI Chandrachud last week orally remarked, "The report of the committee appointed by this court headed by Justice Sapre has been submitted with the Registry, though we have not gotten a chance to read it." This remark came to be made by the special bench which was hearing Securities and Exchange Board of India's (SEBI) application seeking an extension of 6 months to complete its investigation into the issue. On March 2nd, Supreme Court had directed SEBI to complete its investigation within a period of two months and file a status report before it.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & JB Pardiwala
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari Vs. UOI | Batch Petitions
Click here to read more

[Enrolment fee – Bar Council] The Supreme Court has questioned as to how much Bar Councils across the country were collecting every year under the enrollment fees paid by lawyers seeking to enroll with them. "How much are you realizing by charging this fee every year? How much money are your getting every year?", CJI DY Chandrachud questioned Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra. Mishra, who serves as the Chairman of Bar Council of India, then told court that it was a one-time fee being charged. "You cannot charge more than what the statue says", the CJI remarked, while referring to the Advocates Act, 1961.
Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha
Case Title: Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India
Click here to read more

[Senior Designation] While modifying the guidelines for conferment of Senior Advocate designation, the Supreme Court on Friday, May 12, held that due consideration should be given in the interest of diversity, particularly with respect to gender and first-generation lawyers. On younger advocates, the Supreme Court has said that they are naturally not precluded from applying for designation, particularly as the 2018 Guidelines do not require anything more than ten years of practice. "However, we believe that such advocates would have to display that extra bit of ability to be designated", Top Court has said.
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar
Case Title: MS. INDIRA JAISING vs. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL
Click here to read more

[The Kerala Story] A fresh plea has been filed in the Supreme Court against the states which have banned or restricted screening of movie 'The Kerala Story'. Filed by Delhi resident, Puneet Kaur Bajwa, the plea contends that it is the duty of the State government to ensure the safety of the citizens and also to maintain peace and harmony. "The States which are screening the movie are rather peaceful and the States which have banned this movie are rather facing communal unrest as there are citizens of the country who want to watch this movie but are being deprived of it and also people who are going to watch the movie are being attacked and are also being thrown out of the theatres by the police force forcibly," the writ petition submits.
Case Title: Puneet Kaur Bajwa vs. State of Kerala and Ors
Click here to read more

[Same Sex Marriage] On day 9 of the hearing in the plea’s seeking legal recognition of same sex marriage, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta placed before Supreme Court, the response received from seven states on the issue. The Constitution Bench has been informed that while Manipur, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Sikkim has sought some time to respond, the states of Rajasthan, Assam and Andhra Pradesh has expressed their opposition to the said petition. SG Mehta requested the CJI Chandrachud led bench to submit the response from a few states. "Rajasthan says it has read it and is opposed to the same. Others are of the view that the issue needs proper in depth analysis...", the SG told the court.
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

[Frivolous cases] The Supreme Court has imposed cost of INR 1.5 lakhs on the officials of the Haryana Urban Development Authority for filing frivolous appeals in a dispute pertaining to demand of additional price for the allotment of plot in Hisar. Top Court has further ordered that the said amount shall be recovered from the guilty officers/officials who opined the case to be fit for filing appeal at different levels despite being covered by its judgment. "The amount spent on litigation would be much more. It is because of impersonal and irresponsible attitude of the officers, who want to put everything to Court and shirk to take decisions. However, still the Appellants had not only filed appeals, resulting in addition to the pendency of cases and also must have spent huge amount on litigation in the form of fee of the counsels and allied expenses...", the division bench has said, coming down heavily on the officials.
Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal
Case Title: Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. vs. Jagdeep Singh
Click here to read more

[Pension] The Supreme Court has said that an employee can't be denied a pension just because there were some wrong deductions on the part of the employer. A division bench said that an employee can't be deprived of his due without a conscious abandonment of the right to receive a pension by him. The court rejected the argument that there are a number of similarly situated employees who will also stake their claims, saying this will not deter it from granting the relief to the employee, which is legitimately due to him.
Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal
Case Title: Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. Ashit Chakraborty & Ors.
Click here to read more

[ED Director's tenure] The Centre defended the third extension of service granted to Enforcement Directorate chief Sanjay Kumar Mishra in Supreme Court. The Central Government said that it was done after a peer review was conducted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) this year. "This officer is not some DGP of any state but an officer representing the country in a United Nation like body and is in the midst of something. This court must not interfere with his tenure and from November onwards, he will not be there," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued.
Bench: Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol
Case Title: Mahua Moitra vs. Union of India and Ors. and 7 other petitions
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Hybrid hearings] A lawyer has moved a plea before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Centre and others to continue the virtual hearing through the hybrid system in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter suddenly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court started allowing virtual hearings only for people who are above 60 years. So, the petitioner handed over the remaining cases to a local counsel, who appeared before the court on a day-to-day basis, but there was “no progress” in the pending cases.
Case Title: Varun Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.
​​​​​​​Click here to read more

[Morality and ethics] The Supreme Court recently in an appeal filed by a woman sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of her children, observed, "This Court is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics and we say no further on this score, bound as we are, by the brooding presence of the rule of law". While allowing premature release of the appellant, Court said, “This Court feels that there is no valid reason/justifiable ground for the State not accepting the recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of the Appellant. We are not oblivious to the crime but we are equally not oblivious to the fact that the Appellant (mother) has already suffered at the cruel hands of fate.”
Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case Title: Nagarathinam v. State through the Inspector of Police
​​​​​​​Click here to read more