Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - News Updates [May 16-21, 2022]

Read Time: 01 hours

  1. [Gyanvapi Survey] Supreme Court has upheld the order of Varanasi court to protect the area where the indicated Shivling has been found while also modifying it to the extent that the local court's direction in any manner will not restrain access of Muslims to the mosque or use of it for performing prayers and religious activities. Also, Huzefa Ahmedi, Sr. Adv, representing the mosque committee, argued that the prayers in the suit speak of changing the religious character of the disputed site.
    Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha
    Case Title: Committee Of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid vs. Rakhi Singh
    Click here to read more

     
  2. [Gyanvapi  Dispute] The Hindu Sena through its President Vishnu Gupta has filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court claiming that remains of the erstwhile temple can be seen in the foundation of the mosque and that the Gyanvapi Mosque Complex is exempted from the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
    Case Title: Committee Of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid vs. Rakhi Singh
    Click here to read more

     
  3. [TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee] The Supreme Court warned the West Bengal Government to maintain public order in the State as it directed the Enforcement Directorate to interrogate TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee & wife in a case pertaining to the PMLA Act. ED had sought direction from the Court that the MP and his wife be interrogated in Delhi rather than Kolkata, as it pointed toward previous instances where CBI officers were harassed in the State.
    Bench: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia
    Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee and Anr vs. The Enforecement Directorate
    Click here to read more

     
  4. [Haridwar Dharam Sansad] Supreme Court granted bail to Jitendra Tyagi @Wasim Rizvi on medical grounds for three months. Tyagi had challenged the order of the Uttarakhand High Court denying him bail, wherein the High Court had observed that Tyagi had indulged in Hate Speech during the Dharam Sansad events that took place on December 17-19 last year.
    Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath
    Case Title: Jitendra Tyagi vs. State of Uttarakhand
    Click here to read more

     
  5. [Naxals] Supreme Court recently remarked that the plea seeking a probe against individuals and organizations facilitating to protect Naxals raises certain serious issues. Court also made it clear that it will hear the plea and pass final orders. The Central Government had moved an application before the Apex Court seeking direction to initiate a CBI/ NIA probe against Individuals/organizations conspiring, abetting, and facilitating the filing of petitions premised on false and fabricated evidence with a motive to either deter the security agencies to act against the Left Wing (Naxal) militia by imputing false charges on them.
    Bench: Justices Khanwilkar and Pardiwala
    Case Title: Himanshu Sharma vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more

     
  6. [Rajiv Gandhi Assassination] Supreme Court ordered release of AG Perarivalan, a convict in the case pertaining to the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The court has held that the inordinate delay by the Governor of Tamil Nadu to take a decision on the release is subject to judicial review. It has further held that the State cabinet's decision was based on relevant considerations and it is appropriate to release the convict by using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
    Bench: Justices L Nageswara Rao and Gavai
    Case Title: AG Perarivalan vs. State of Tamil Nadu
    Click here to read more

     
  7. [Augusta Westland] Supreme Court has issued notice in a bail application filed by Christian Michel James, an accused in the AgustaWestland scam, while directing the Central Bureau of Investigation and Directorate of Enforcement to submit their responses. Counsel appearing for James informed the bench that James has undergone 3 years, and the investigation is still not complete. Over the allegation made by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appearing for ED, that James was absconding, the counsel submitted that James has always been in Dubai and never absconded.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice PS Narasimha
    Case Title: CHRISTIAN MICHEL JAMES vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
    Click here to read more

     
  8. [Naxal Attacks] While hearing a plea seeking a CBI probe into the alleged killing of tribals by Special Security Forces and Chattisgarh Police, the top court said there should be a factual foundation laid to ascertain that the other agencies have not conducted a proper investigation and that there was no such proof. Centre, in turn, sought to initiate a CBI/ NIA probe against Individual organisations conspiring, abetting, and facilitating the filing of petitions premised on false and fabricated evidence before the Supreme Court with a motive to either deter the security agencies to act against the Left Wing (Naxal) militia.
    Bench: Justices Khanwilkar and Pardiwala
    Case Title: Himanshu Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh
    Click here to read more

     
  9. [MP local body elections] Supreme Court has allowed determination of the proportion of reservation to be provided for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in local body-wise elections across the State of Madhya Pradesh in view of the report submitted by the dedicated Commission. Earlier, the Court had directed the State Election Commission to notify the elections as the triple test requirements for the local body election were not completed.
    Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice CT Ravikumar
    Case Title: Suresh Mahajan vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
    Click here to read more

     
  10. [Sheena Bora Murder Case] Supreme Court has granted bail to former media executive Indirani Mukherjea in the case pertaining to the murder of her daughter Sheena Bora. Mukherjee has been charged for committing murder of her daughter after entering into criminal conspiracy to kidnap and kill her. Her husband Peter Mukherjee is a co-accused in the case. The allegation against Mukherjea is that she murdered her daughter Sheena Bora in view of Bora’s live-in relationship with Rahul Mukherjee, the son of her husband Peter Mukherjee from his earlier marriage.
    Bench: Justices Nageswara Rao, Gavai and Bopanna
    Case Title: Indirani Mukherjea vs. CBI
    Click here to read more

     
  11. [Marital Rape] An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court against the split verdict pronounced by the Delhi High Court on the cases 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. While Justice Shakdher had held the provision unconstitutional and ordered the exception to be struck down, Justice Harishankar held that the provision is constitutional and is based on “intelligible differentia”.
    Case Title: Khushboo Saifi vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more

     
  12. [AIFF] The Supreme Court has appointed a committee consisting of Justice Anil R Dave (Retired Supreme Court Judge), Dr. SY Qureshi (former Chief Election Commissioner of India), Mr. Bhaskar Ganguly (former Captain of the Indian Football team) to take up the administration of the All India Football Federation as an interim measure. Court passed such order while hearing a plea filed by the AIFF challenging the Delhi High Court order staying the fresh elections of the committee. In addition to this, the bench was also considering an intervention application alleging that a committee is continuing illegally for over a decade.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice PS Narasimha
    Case Title: All India Football Federation vs. Rahul Mehra & Ors.
    Click here to read more

     
  13. [ITAT members] The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to place the tangible material before the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) in case it comes to the knowledge of the authorities that a certain candidate is not eligible to be appointed as a member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Top Court also made it clear that the Prime Minister's Office cannot take a final call on rejecting names recommended for appointment to tribunals without the Intelligence Bureau (IB) report being placed before the SCSC.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha
    Case Title: Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India & Anr
    Click here to read more

     
  14. [GST Council] The Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the Good and Services Tax Council (GST Council) are not binding on the Central and State Governments and are only advisory in nature. Court has also clarified that Article 246A of the Constitution gives equal powers to the Parliament and the State Legislature to legislate over the issue of taxation.
    Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath
    Case title: Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s Mohit Minerals
    Click here to read more

     
  15. [Sidhu Road Rage case] Supreme Court enhanced the sentence of Congress Leader Navjot Singh Sidhu adding one year of imprisonment in a review petition against a judgment letting off Sidhu in a 34-year-old road rage death case with a fine of Rs. 1000.
    Bench: Justices Khanwilkar and SK Kaul
    Case title: Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Navjot Singh Sidhu & Ors.
    Click here to read more

     
  16. [Gyanvapi Dispute] The Supreme Court deferred the hearing in the plea challenging the survey of the Gyanvapi disputed site till the next day. Court has further passed an order directing the Trial Court to not proceed with the hearing or pass any orders in the matter pending before it.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice PS Narasimha
    Case title: Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs.. Rakhi Singh & Anr.
    Click here to read more

     
  17. [Dharam Sansad] Supreme Court refused to issue guidelines for curbing hate speeches, adding that they have already been established. Court, however, has granted liberty to Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioners to move before the vacation bench, in case some urgent directions are required.
    Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Abhay S Oka, and Justice JB Pardiwala
    Case Title: Qurban Ali vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more

     
  18. [Tata-Mistry dispute] Supreme Court dismissed review petitions filed by Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Sterling Investments Pvt. Ltd. against the judgment of the court upholding Cyrus Mistry's removal as executive chairman of Tata Sons. Mistry had also filed a separate application for expunction of remarks before the Top Court. The Court agreed to expunge certain remarks made against Mistry but also directed that certain offensive paragraphs directed against the Court made in the application for expunction be deleted/withdrawn by Mistry.
    Case title: Cyrus Investments Ltd vs. Tata Consultancy Services
    Click here to read more

     
  19. [Azam Khan] Supreme Court has granted interim bail to Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan in a case over forging building certificates in order to get recognition for Rampur Public School. Khan was booked for forging building certificates so as to get recognition for Rampur Public School, of which he is the chairman. A warrant was issued against Khan on May 6, 2022 in the case. It is to be noted that over 80 complaints have been registered against Khan.
    Bench: Justices Nageswara Rao, Gavai and Bopanna
    Case title: Mohammad Azam Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
    Click here to read more

     
  20. [Gyanvapi Dispute] The Hindu parties in their reply to the plea challenging the Gyanvapi survey have submitted before the Top Court that the Hindu religious character of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex is continuing till date despite the construction illegally raised by Muslims. It is further stated that the building in question contains Swayambu deity of goddess Shringar Gauri and images of gods and goddesses among other objects of worship and Hindu religious facets.
    Click here to read more
     
  21. [Iron Ore mining] Supreme Court has allowed the mining and export of iron ore, subject to the terms and conditions laid down by the government. The bench has further permitted selling readily excavated iron ore stock at three districts in Karnataka. The court has granted permission to allocate iron ore by entering into direct contracts without resorting to e-auction. The court, while noting that the e-auction has not elicited a good response, held that it is now time to relax its 2011 order imposing conditions on the sale of iron ore mined in the State.
    Bench: Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana
    Case Title: Samaj Parivartana Samudaya vs. Karnat
    Click here to read more

     
  22. [Delimitation] Supreme Court has accepted an undertaking given by Karnataka State Government that it will complete the delimitation process of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP) and issue a notification in this regard in eight weeks. Court added that the State will simultaneously put in all efforts to ensure that the work assigned to the dedicated commission concerning determination and proportion of reservation will be notified.
    Bench: Justices Khanwilkar and Pardiwala
    Case Title: State of Karnataka vs. M.Shivaraju
    Click here to read more

     
  23. [Talaq-e-hasan] A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking direction to declare the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan and other forms of unilateral extrajudicial Talaqs void and unconstitutional. The PIL plea filed by Benazeer Heena through Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay notes that "Muslim women can’t give Talaq-E-Hasan & other forms of unilateral extra-judicial talaq but Muslim men can."
    Case title: Benazeer Heena vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more

     
  24. [Talaq-e-hasan] An Intervention application has opposed the plea challenging provisions that allow the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan and other forms of unilateral extrajudicial Talaq's under Muslim law, contending that the same be declared void and unconstitutional. The application filed by one Qurrat Ul Ain Latif has contended that the petitioner has already "benefitted" from this practice of extra-judicial divorce which is already permissible under Shariat.
    Case title: QURRAT UL AIN LATIF (Applicant) in Benazeer Heena vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more

     
  25. [Places of Worship Act] The Places of Worship Act 1991 has been challenged in the Supreme Court and the plea states that "the Act has taken away the power of the Court and Religious Sects to restore their places of Worship". Filed through advocate Ashwini Upadhayay, notice was issued on the petition in March of 2021.
    Case title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhya vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more

     
  26. [JJ Amendment Act 2021] The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights has moved the Apex Court challenging the amendments made in the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 in the year 2021, categorizing serious offences including sale and procurement of children, exploitation of child employee, employment of children for child begging, giving intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug to a child, etc., as non-cognizable alleging that it violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also various other international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which India is a signatory. 
    Case title: Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more

     
  27. [Delay In Pronouncing Judgment] A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Bombay High Court in which the High Court had reserved a judgment on August 17, 2021, however, the judgment has not been pronounced to date even after the expiry of 8 months. It has been alleged that despite the expiry of more than eight months since the impugned order and two months since filing of the IA for pronouncement of early judgment and consistent efforts made by the petitioner to mention the matter, the said Writ Petition is not listed for the pronouncement of the judgment till date. There is no listing date for the IA as well.
    Click here to read more
     
  28. [Child sexual abuse] Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea seeking directions in the nature of Mandamus to the Centre as well as state governments to lay down appropriate guidelines for educational institutions in order to protect children from sexual abuse and for the enforcement of fundamental rights of children at the educational institutions. Court was informed that incidents, where children are sexually abused in school, is on the rise despite POCSO Act, 2012 and therefore the court needs to direct the Center and State governments to issue appropriate guidelines. 
    Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and CT Ravikumar 
    Case title: Nakkheeran Gopal vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more

     
  29. [Feeding stray dogs] Supreme Court vacated the stay on the Delhi High Court order setting out guidelines for feeding stray dogs. The court also disposed of the petition filed by the Humane Foundation for People and Animal challenging the Delhi High Court Order of June 2021 wherein the guidelines were framed.  The guidelines have been passed by the High Court in respect of feeding stray dogs in public places, on the streets and inside residential colonies and made it applicable to the entire country.
    Bench: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia 
    Case title: Humane Foundation for People and Animals vs. Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more

     
  30. [Contempt of Court] The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan seeking the framing of rules and guidelines for filing of intra-court appeal challenging the Apex Court's conviction order in suo motu criminal contempt cases before a larger bench. Bhushan has alleged that the right of appeal being an absolute right for a convict, was not available in those cases in which the contempt proceedings are initiated and decided in the Supreme Court.
    Bench: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia 
    Case title: Prashant Bhushan vs. Union Of India And Anr.
    Click here to read more

     
  31. [Chhattisgarh Naxal attacks] Supreme Court told Himanshu Kumar, who had filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a CBI probe into the alleged killing of tribals by Special Security Forces and Chhattisgarh Police, that there should be a factual foundation laid to ascertain that the other agencies have not conducted a proper investigation and that there was no such proof. Court further questioned Kumar as to why he had not participated in the proceedings in the lower courts at Chattisgarh and why he is seeking a CBI investigation after 12 years of filing the petition. 
    Bench: Justices Khanwilkar and Pardiwala
    Case title: Himanshu Kumar vs State of Chattisgarh
    Click here to read more

     
  32. [Hyderabad Encounter Killings] Supreme Court has referred the matter pertaining to the encounter killings in Hyderabad rape-murder case to the Telangana High Court. Rejecting the contention of the State Government to keep the report under a sealed cover, the court also ordered the court-appointed Judicial Inquiry Commission report to be made public. In the encounter killings, during the investigation of the Disha Rape & Murder case, the Commission has opined that all the 10 police officers are to be tried for the offenses under Section 302 (Murder), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offense) of the Indian Penal Code.
    Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Hima Kohli
    Case title: GS Mani vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more

     
  33. [SP Velumani] Top Court has set aside the order of the Madras High Court rejecting former Tamil Nadu Minister SP Velumani's plea seeking a copy of a preliminary report filed against him in a corruption case. Court further held that the High Court committed a patent error by not considering the material placed before it. Since it was the High Court that had ordered the inquiry, however, once the inquiry was completed, it failed to consider the report and left it to State Government to do the same, Court noted.
    Bench: CJI NV Ramana with Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli
    Case title: SP Velumani vs. Arappor Iyakkam
    Click here to read more

     
  34. [Gyanvapi dispute] Supreme Court has 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: Justices Chandrachud, Surya Kant and PS Narasimha
    Case title: Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Rakhi Singh & Anr.
    Click here to read more