Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - News Updates [May 2-7, 2022]

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - News Updates [May 2-7, 2022]
X
By -  Aishwarya Iyer |
8 May 2022 10:09 PM IST
  1. [Children in Street Situation] The Supreme Court directed National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the State Governments to submit their response azaon the issue revolving around children who had to discontinue their education due to dislocation of their parents or loss of livelihood of guardians due to COVID-19. "NCPCR is directed to ponder upon this issue and submit response. State governments also to submit their course of action on how these children who have dropped out will be taken care of",
    ordered a division bench.
    Bench: Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai
    Case Title: IN RE Children In Street Situations
    Click here to read more
  2. [Mid-day meals] Supreme Court has continued the interim order passed by Kerala High Court to continue serving meat in the mid-day meals provided at schools in Lakshadweep islands. The court was hearing a plea by a resident of Kavaratti challenging the order of Kerala High Court wherein his public interest litigation challenging the decision of Lakshadweep administration to close dairy farms and discontinue meat from the menu of mid-day meal in schools on the Lakshadweep islands.
    Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna
    Case Title: Ajmal Ahmed vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  3. [Sarojini Nagar jhuggies] Supreme Court accepted Centre’s offer to appoint a nodal officer to survey the residents of Jhuggis at Sarojini Nagar and collect relevant details from them. The Supreme Court was hearing a plea challenging the demolition of Jhuggis at Sarojini Nagar. On the last date of hearing, the Additional Solicitor General of India KM Natraj had informed the Supreme Court that no coercive steps will be taken with respect to the demolition of Jhuggis in Delhi's Sarojini Nagar till the next date of hearing of the matter.
    Bench: Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy
    Case Title: Vaishali & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
    Click here to read more
  4. [COVID vaccine mandate] Supreme Court held that India's vaccine policy is reasonable and not manifestly arbitrary. The court has further held that it is satisfied with the current vaccine policy and that the government can regulate bodily autonomy despite holding that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated. The court however suggested that till the number of COVID-19 cases are low, the restrictions imposed on unvaccinated individuals with regard to access of public areas and other aspects be withdrawn if not already done so. The Court has further held that restrictions imposed on the individuals cannot be said to be proportionate.
    Bench: Justices Nageshwar Rao and Gavai
    Case Title: Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  5. [Rajiv Gandhi Assassination] Supreme Court has remarked that the decision of the President of India on whether or not to release Perarivalan, a convict in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, will not have any bearing in the court deciding on the power of the Governor to refer the decisions of a State's cabinet to the President. The above remark was made in light of the Governor of Tamil Nadu referring files pertaining to early release of seven persons who were convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case to the President's office for approval.
    Bench: Justices Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai
    Case Title: AG Perarivalan vs. State of Tamil Nadu
    Click here to read more
  6. [Pendency] Supreme Court expressed shock to know that criminal appeals in Allahabad High Court are pending since 1980. Justice Rao remarked, “The person might have committed an offence in 1970s, considering that the trial concluded in 5 or 6 years, he might have approached the court in 1980. If he was 40 years old then, he must be over 80 years now!”
    Court was hearing a plea for bail moved by a person who had been given life imprisonment. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court against the conviction and sentence as his plea for suspension of sentence was rejected by the High Court.
    Bench: Justices Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai
    Case Title: Khursheed Ahmed vs. State of UP
    Click here to read more
  7. [NSEL scam]
    The Supreme Court today asked Yogesh Narayanrao Deshmukh, accused in a money laundering case pertaining to National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL), to give an undertaking to the court stating that he would not create any third party interest without prior permission of the concerned court with regard to his immovable property attached by the Enforcement Directorate.
    Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, and CT Ravikumar
    Case Title: Yogesh Narayanrao Deshmukh vs. ED
    Click here to read more
  8. [Tax exemption for Hajj Pilgrimage] In the plea seeking GST and Service Tax exemption on Hajj pilgrimage, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar on behalf of the petitioner today submitted before the Supreme Court that " the Government has taken a stand that hajj is a commercial activity. They say when you go to Badrinath-Kedarnath you don't get any exemption."
    While arguing that the GST council's stand that Hajj is not a religious ceremony is grossly wrong, Datar further stated that going to hajj is not like undertaking a Char-Dham yatra.
    Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S Oka and CT Ravikumar
    Case Title: All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  9. [Haryana Judiciary Mains]
    The Supreme Court stayed the Haryana Judiciary (Mains) examination scheduled for May 6 to 8, 2022 as it was clashing with the date already fixed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for the Preliminary Examination of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services. The matter has now been listed for May 9, 2022, directing the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to either assist the Court in deciding a suitable date or to reschedule the examination for a different date.
    Bench: Justice Vineet Saran and Justice JK Maheshwari
    Case Title: Nisha Kumari vs. Haryana Public Service Commission & Anr.
    Click here to read more
  10. [Abu Salem] The Supreme Court reserved its Judgement on the plea filed by Bombay blast convict Abu Salem challenging the life sentence awarded to him stating that his imprisonment cannot extend beyond 25 years as per the assurances given by the government of India to Portugal during his extradition. Advocate Rishi Malhotra appearing for Salem contended that under the Portuguese law, it is unconstitutional to punish someone with life imprisonment or beyond a period of 25 years. He asserted that in view of this fact, there was an assurance given by the Central Government that Salem will not be punished beyond 25 years, however, now he is punished with life imprisonment.
    Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh
    Case Title: Abu Saleem vs. State of Maharashtra
    Click here to read more
  11. [OTT release of Jhund] Supreme Court stayed the status quo order of Telangana High Court against the release of Amitabh Bachchan starrer “Jhund”. Court allowed the release of the movie on over the top (OTT) platform. Last month, the Telangana High Court passed an order to maintain the status quo on the film’s OTT release in a plea by filmmaker Nandi Chinni Kumar. Kumar had accused the makers of the film of copyright infringement two years ago. A settlement also arrived between the parties whereby Kumar received a sum of Rs. 1.3 crores. He, however, alleged that the agreement was fraudulent.
    Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna
    Case Title: Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd vs. Nandi Chinni Kumar
    Click here to read more
  12. [Tablighi Jamaat] The Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that persons who came to India to attend the Tablighi Jamaat came on tourist visas despite knowing that Tablighi activities are banned in the country since 2003. The Solicitor General was arguing on the question of law pertaining to the rights of foreigners upon violation of visa conditions in a batch of petitions relating to a communication by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) blacklisting foreign nationals who attended the Tablighi Jamaat in 2020 in violation of their visa regulations.
    Bench: Justices Khanwilkar, Abhay Oka, and Ravikumar
    Case Title: Maulana Ala Hardami vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  13. [Plea in SC] Challenging a judgment passed by the Supreme Court last month in which death sentence awarded to a rapist and murderer of a 4 year old girl Mohd. Firoz was commuted to life, the mother of the victim toddler has filed a review. The Supreme Court, in the impugned judgement authored by Justice Bela M Trivedi remarked that,
    "One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender."
    Click here to read more
  14. [Sedition Challenge] Supreme Court, on Tuesday (May 10, 2022), will consider whether the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises the offence of Sedition, requires consideration by a larger bench. The court was of the view that the issue pertaining to constitution of the bench must be considered as the present plea is in the teeth of a five-judge bench judgment of the Apex Court in Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar which upheld the validity of Section 124A.
    Bench: Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana with Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: S.G. VOMBATKERE vs. UNION OF INDIA | EDITORS GUILD OF INDIA AND ANR. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
    Click here to read more
  15. [Non-appointment of TDSAT member] The Supreme Court has sought response from the Central Government in an application moved over non-appointment as a member of the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal even after the recommendation of the Search Cum Selection Committee headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao. The instant Intervention Application has been moved by one AM Alankamony over his non-appointment alleging that his name has been recommended for the appointment as TDSAT Member by the SCSC Committee
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Bela M Trivedi
    Case Title: Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  16. [Centre vs. GNCTD] A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana passed an order referring to larger Constitution bench the aspect of control over administrative services in Delhi. The court passed the order of reference in a plea challenging amendments in sections of the ‘Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act. The matter has been for hearing on Wednesday (May 11, 2022).
    Bench: CJI NV Ramana with Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: GNCTD vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  17. [Navneet Kaur Rana] Supreme Court has indicated that they will hear the plea moved by Navneet Kaur Rana, an Independent MP from Amravati in July as it requires detailed consideration. Rana has challenged the Bombay High Court order cancelling her caste certificate. The High Court had held that Rana had contested in a reserved category seat in the 2019 elections by obtaining a false certificate of her being a person belonging to Mochi (Schedule Caste). The plea before Bombay High Court was moved by former Shiv Sena MP Anandra Vithoba Adsul.
    Bench: Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari
    Case Title: Navneet Kaur Rava vs. State of Maharashtra
    Click here to read more
  18. [Missing Covid patient] The Supreme Court stayed the order of Allahabad High Court summoning 8 Uttar Pradesh State officers including the Principal Secretary of the State in a Habeas Corpus plea moved by the son of an 82-year-old Covid-19 patient who went missing from a hospital in 2021. The Court also directed the State Government of UP to pay Rs.50,000 to the family of the missing person as litigation expenses to appear before the Supreme Court.
    Bench: CJI NV Ramana with Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli
    Click here to read more
  19. [Swami OM] Supreme Court passed an order directing the authorities to take steps for attaching immovable properties of Mukesh Jain, who along with Swami Om, a self-proclaimed godman, had filed a plea challenging the process of appointment of Chief Justice of India. Court had dismissed the plea in the year 2017 calling it a publicity stunt and had imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs each on the petitioner. The matter was listed today as neither of the parties had deposited the amounts.
    Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant
    Case Title: Swamy Om Ji vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  20. [Bhaiya is Back poster] Cancelling bail of a rape accused upon whose release "Bhaiya is back" hoardings were put up, the Top Court on Thursday noted that the emojis of crowns and hearts tagged with the captions on the hoardings were not only devoid of any religious sentiments as was claimed by the accused but also they amplified the celebratory mood of him and his supporters. Court stated,
    "...they amplify the celebratory mood of the respondent No.2 and his supporters on his having been released from detention in less than two months of being taken into custody for a grave offence that entails sentence of not less than ten years that may even extend to life."
    Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli
    Case Title: Ms. P vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
    Click here to read more
  21. [Plea in SC] A CJI led bench issued notice in a plea seeking steps for artificial insemination of cows using the semen from pure indigenous breeds as opposed to ‘exotic’ foreign breeds. The plea by one Divya Reddy, founder of a Gaushala called Klimom Wellness and Farms, filed through Advocate Krishna Dev Jagalramudi, also seeks directions from the court to declare the action of the Centre and States promoting and encouraging artificial insemination of cows using semen from ‘exotic’ foreign breeds as being arbitrary.
    Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli
    Case Title: Divya Reddy vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  22. [Azam Khan Bail] The Supreme Court expressed its anger over the delay being caused by the Allahabad High Court in pronouncing the order on the bail plea filed by Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan. The bench, while giving 2 days' time to the High Court to pronounce its order, observed that Khan has been released on bail in 87 cases, however, this one case is still pending, which is a travesty of Justice.
    Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai
    Case Title: Mohammad Azam Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
    Click here to read more
  23. [Sedition Challenge] The Centre has told Supreme Court that the binding constitution bench judgment [Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar] does not need reference merely because "some Petitioners have laid down an academic challenge to a statutory provision without any cause of action". Contending that individual instances of misuse of provision cannot be a ground for reconsideration, Centre has submitted that the remedy, in such cases, would lie in preventing such abuse on a case-to-case basis rather than doubting a long standing settled law declared by a constitution bench since about six decades.
    Case Title: S.G. VOMBATKERE vs. UNION OF INDIAE | EDITORS GUILD OF INDIA AND ANR. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
    Click here to read more
  24. [Dharam Sansad] The Delhi Police in its affidavit has stated that an FIR has been registered in connection with the event organized by Hindu Yuva Vahini, Banarshidas Chandiwala Auditorium, near Delhi's Govindpuri metro station on December 19, 2021. The affidavit has been filed in a plea alleging that the “incident of hate speeches at Delhi and Haridwar consisted of open calls for genocide of Muslims in order to achieve ethnic cleansing”.
    Case Title: Qurban Ali vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  25. [Illegal demolitions in South Delhi] The Delhi State Committee Communist Party of India (Marxist), represented by its Secretary KM Tiwari, has filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court against the alleged 'highly illegal and inhumane action' of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation to demolish buildings in South Delhi. It is alleged that the political executive of the Municipal Corporation is maliciously indulging in a political game plan.
    Case Title: CPI (M) DELHI STATE COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY vs. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
    Click here to read more
  26. [Jahangirpuri demolitions] Referring to a letter written on April 16, by the President of Bharatiya Janata Party State Committee, the political party which governs the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, CPI (M) member Brinda Karat has submitted an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that, "... the demotion drive using bulldozers was only a malafide exercise of power targeting particular minority community, under the guise of removal of encroachment is clear from the letter. It was a malafide action at the dictates of the political party which governs the Municipal Corporation." Last month, Karat had moved the Supreme Court against the anti-encroachment demolition drive at Jahangirpuri.
    Case Title: Brinda Karat vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.
    Click here to read more
  27. [Roaster system in INI-CET] The Supreme Court noted that next week it will pass orders in the plea seeking introduction of a roaster system in All India Institutes of Medical Science for the admission of INI-CET candidates amongst colleges, which is currently being practiced by the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER). The Court was hearing a plea filed through Advocate Charu Mathur by Students Association, AIIMS, Bhopal seeking direction to the AIIMS to have defined criteria for arriving at seat matrix for the institutional preference candidates in INI-CET i.e. Institute of National Importance Combined Entrance Test.
    Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai
    Case Title: Students Association AIIMS Bhopal & Ors. vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  28. [Expeditious disposal] Supreme Court has requested the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to direct expeditious trial of a case where the accused has been in custody for 14 years, awaiting conclusion of the trial. A CJI led bench further asked the High Court Chief Justice to direct the trial court to conclude the case in six months. The Top Court was hearing a plea for bail by an accused who has been in custody since last 14 years as his trial remains pending.
    Bench: Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana with Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: Dharmendra Pratap Singh vs. State of UP
    Click here to read more
  29. [Kunal Kamra] An application for intervention has been filed through advocate Ashutosh J. Dubey before the Supreme Court, in the ongoing Criminal Contempt case against Kunal Kamra for his comments against the Supreme Court. The lawyer has stated that the application is necessary for intervention in the ongoing Criminal Contempt Petition as per the consent granted by the Learned Attorney General (AG) of India, against the derogatory statements made by the Kamra against the Supreme Court of India in a video he uploaded on his YouTube channel wherein, inter alia, he stated that the Supreme Court is unworthy of respect and posed comments on the so-called upper caste only appointments at the top called, calling it a "Brahmi-Baniya" affair, unrepresentative of the Indian culture.
    Case Title: Shrirang Katneshwarkar & Ors. vs. Kunal Kamra
    Click here to read more
  30. [Senior Designations] Supreme Court clarified that one mark should be awarded for each year of practice from 11th to 20th year of practice while considering the names of advocates for senior designations. The bench held the above in an application moved by Senior Counsel Indira Jaising in the matter pertaining to senior designations. Jaising argued that many High Courts follow the practice of granting 10 marks for 10-20 years. She informed the court that many lawyers have told her that everyone with an experience between 10 to 19 years gets the same mark.
    Bench: Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Narasimha
    Case Title: Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India
    Click here to read more
  31. [Court decorum] The Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana on Wednesday asked senior lawyers not to shout in the court while arguing their cases. He said “I can understand if youngsters are shouting. I can understand their anxiety. Seniors should not shout in the court hall.” The CJI first asked senior advocates Vikas Singh, Shyam Divan and Meenakshi Arora not to raise their voices as they were opposing each other in a matter. The CJI remarked, “It is unfortunate that seniors were raising their voices in the court.”
    Click here to read more
  32. [Local Body elections] In a setback to the Maharashtra Government, the Supreme Court has directed the Maharashtra State Election Commission to notify the elections for local bodies in two weeks. Court has noted that the issue pertaining to reservation for the Other Backward Classes will be decided by it after the elections take place. The court has further directed the State Election Commission to consider delimitation as it existed prior to its cancelation on March 11 in respect of certain local bodies as notional delimitation for the conduct of overdue elections.
    Bench: Justices Khanwilkar, Abhay Oka and Ravikumar
    Case Title: Rahul Ramesh Wagh vs. State of Maharashtra
    Click here to read more
Next Story

Articles

read all