Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - News Updates [May 9-14, 2022]
![Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - News Updates [May 9-14, 2022]](https://lawbeat.in/sites/default/files/news_images/supreme court weekly round up news updates lawbeat_15.jpeg "Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - News Updates [May 9-14, 2022]")
- [Shaheen Bagh] The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by the Delhi State Committee Communist Party of India against the alleged 'highly illegal and inhumane action' of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation to demolish buildings in South Delhi.The Top Court stated that the matters cannot be heard at the behest of Political parties. "This is too much, we cannot give a pass to the people to approach Supreme Court every time something happens”, said the bench. The CPI(M) had approached Supreme Court on the “apprehension” that demolitions will be carried out at Shaheen Bagh.
Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai
Case Title: CPI (M) DELHI STATE COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY vs. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Click here to read more - [Sedition] The central government in its affidavit filed, in the plea challenging constitutional validity of the provision pertaining to sedition has said that it is re-examining and re-considering Section 124A of IPC. The affidavit states that as per Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision for Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav, the government has undertaken the task of shedding the baggage of colonial legacy, which includes scrapping of colonial laws that have passed its utility. The centre has said that over 1500 colonial laws have been scrapped since 2014-15. The affidavit notes that various offences that were causing mindless hindrances to people have also been de-criminalised by the centre.
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 - [Vote Rigging] Supreme Court stayed the order of Calcutta High Court directing Central Forensic Laboratory to audit CCTV cameras used during Contai (West Bengal) Municipality election to ascertain whether there were instances of violence and vote rigging. The bench has also stayed the proceeding in the PIL filed by BJP leader Somendu Adhikari in which he sought the court's directions to set aside the election results. The bench remarked that a court entertaining a PIL of this nature will set a dangerous precedent as any party, that is not in power, would file a PIL for cancellation of election.
Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant
Case Title: West Bengal State Election Commission vs. Somendhu Adhikari.
Click here to read more - [IT Rules, 2021] The Supreme Court has stayed all ongoing proceedings before various High Courts over the Challenge to Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and Cable Television Network (Amendment) Act 2021. The bench was hearing a batch of petitions seeking several directions, including formulation of appropriate gender-neutral law against revenge porn, impersonation and morphing on the internet and posing challenge to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Abhay S Oka
Case Title: Skand Bajpai & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read more - [Sedition Law] The Supreme Court asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to take instructions as to what will be status of the pending and future sedition cases during the time the Centre re-examines the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code i.e. sedition law. The query was posed in the light of the affidavit filed by the Centre before the Apex Court stating that the Central Government is re-examining and re-considering Section 124A of IPC. The affidavit had also requested the court not to invest its time examining the validity of the Section and await the outcome of the exercise undertaken by the Union of India.
Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli
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 - [Minority status for Hindus] The Ministry of Minority Affairs has informed the Supreme Court that the question involved in the writ petition seeking minority status for Hindus in states where their numbers have gone below other communities has far-reaching ramifications throughout the country. The government has said that any stand taken without detailed deliberations with the stakeholders may result in an unintended complication for the country.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India
Click here to read more - [NOIDA CEO Ritu Maheshwari] Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad High Court order passed on May 5th directing the police to arrest the Chief Executive Officer of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) Ritu Maheshwari and present her in the court on May 13. The High Court had issued a non-bailable warrant against Maheshwari after she failed to appear before the court in a contempt plea.
Bench: Chief Justice of India and Justices Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari and Hima Kohli.
Click here to read more - [Gujarat slum dwellers] Supreme Court has asked Gujarat slum dwellers to complete all the necessary formalities within three weeks to enable the competent authority to proceed with the allotment of accommodation to them under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna. It was submitted before the bench that there are around 200 applicants whose applications have been rejected on the basis of incomplete formalities for claiming the benefit under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna.
Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice CT Ravikumar
Case Title: Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal vs Government of India & Ors
Click here to read more - [Marital Rape] Supreme Court issued notice in husband's plea challenging the judgment of the Karnataka High Court refusing to quash an FIR registered by his wife against him alleging rape. The bench remarked that the matter needs to be heard. In March this year, Justice Nagaprasanna of Karnataka High Court had refused to quash proceedings in the case wherein a Special Court framed charges against the husband, for offences punishable under Sections 376, 498A and 506 of IPC and Section 5(m) and (l) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Bench: Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana with Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli
Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo vs. State of Karnataka
Click here to read more - [Bikram Majithia] Supreme Court refused to quash the FIR filed against Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia. The FIR was lodged against Majithia for offences under Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act in December 2022. The bench held that it was not inclined to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution but Majithia may challenge the FIR before a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which may hear it.
Bench: Justices Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Narasimha
Case Title: Bikram Majithia vs. State of Punjab
Click here to read more - [Sedition Law] Supreme Court directed the 'Sedition Law' to be put on abeyance till further orders. The Centre and State governments have also been urged not to register any cases under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, a CJI led bench has ordered that if any fresh case is registered under Section 124A, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned courts for appropriate relief. Centre has also been granted liberty to issue a directive to prevent any misuse of the provision.
Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli
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 - [MHA Advisory on Sedition FIRs] The Ministry of Home Affairs, in a letter to the Chief Secretaries of all the States, has directed that the First Information Report (FIR) involving Section 124A of IPC (Sedition Law) is to be registered only if an officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police records his satisfaction in writing that the offence alleged involves the said Section. The letter adds that the interpretation of the Supreme Court in the judgment in Vinod Dua v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 414, ought to be scrupulously followed and adhered to.
Click here to read more - [Azam Khan] The Supreme Court has raised concerns over the repeated arrests of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan. Court said to the Uttar Pradesh Government that as and when Khan secures bail, a new case is registered against him. The court further asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the State, to clarify as to why this pattern is continuing. "As soon as he is granted bail in one matter, he is sent to jail in another," Court noted.
Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao, Justice Justice BR Gavai and Justice AS Bopanna
Case Title: Mohammad Azam Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Click here to read more - [Rajiv Gandhi assassination case] Making his submissions on behalf of the Governor of Tamil Nadu in a plea filed by AG Perarivalan, a convict in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, seeking early release, ASG KM Nataraj today submitted before the Supreme Court, "If the council of ministers acts irrationally, the Governor is not bound to agree with them". The Governor of Tamil Nadu RN Ravi had referred files pertaining to early release of seven persons who were convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination plot to the President for approval.
Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao, Justice Justice BR Gavai and Justice AS Bopanna
Case Title: AG Perarivalan vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Click here to read more - [Tablighi Jamaat] Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, while arguing on the maintainability of the plea filed by the attendees of Tablighi Jamaat, challenging their names being blacklisted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, submitted that there is no fundamental right available to a foreign citizen to ask to enter into a sovereign country. The SG said that on discussion with the authorities he was informed that there is a provision for revocation of the blacklisting and the petitioners may approach the authorities and seek remedies, however, the decision of the authorities cannot be challenged.
Bench: Justices Khanwilkar, Abhay Oka and JB Pardiwala
Case Title: Maulana Ala Hardami vs. Union of India
Click here to read more - [TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee] ASG SV Raju, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate expressed the authority's apprehension before the Supreme Court about interrogating All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee at Kolkata. Raju submitted that there were past instances of CBI officers being gheraoed in Kolkata and Banerjee is an influential politician. Responding to Raju's submission, the Court said that it could pass an order to the Kolkata Police to provide all assistance to the ED and it will hold the State of West Bengal accountable.
Bench: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee and Anr vs Enforcement Directorate
Click here to read more - [Haridwar Dharam Sansad] The Supreme Court issued notice in an SLP filed by Jitender Narayan Tyagi @Waseem Rizvi challenging the Uttarakhand High Court's order denying his bail application in FIR registered under Sections 153A (Promoting enmity between groups), 298 (deliberately hurting religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by Uttarakhand Police. On December 23, an FIR was lodged by one Gulbahar Khan against Tyagi alleging that he made derogatory comments on Prophet Mohammed and Quran during the Dharam Sansad event.
Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath
Case Title: Jitender Narayan Tyagi vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
Click here to read more - [Endosulfan victims] Supreme Court pulled up the State of Kerala for not paying compensation to the victims of Endosulfan tragedy despite the court passing an order in 2017 directing for the same. The bench was informed that only 8 victims who have approached the court for the compensation have been paid Rs.5,00,000 each and others are yet to receive the compensation.
Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant
Case title: Baiju K.G. vs. Dr.V.P.Joy
Click here to read more - [NEET PG 2022] Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking postponement of NEET PG 2022. The bench noted that postponement of any examination is replete with serious consequences and the needs of patients, their care and treatment are paramount. Court, on hearing the submissions of the parties, noted, "All preparations for NEET PG 2023 have already been made. While considering the rival submission, it must be noted that the academic session has already been delayed by 4 months. The original schedule for 2022 exam had to be revised because of the pandemic."
Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant
Case title: Dr. Dinesh Reddy vs. UOI
Click here to read more - [JEE Advance extra attempt] The Supreme Court dismissed a plea moved by 2020 and 2021Joint Entrance Examination Advance aspirants seeking additional attempt in the 2022 Advance examination, challenging notification disqualifying them to appear in 2022 examination. “Claim of the petitioner may appear to be at prima facie level but it is ultimately a policy decision. There is nothing manifestly arbitrary. Petitioner would not be benefitted by the striking of exemption. We are not inclined to entertain this plea", ordered the bench.
Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant
Case title: Nilesh Jha & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors
Click here to read more - [Hate Speech] Top Court has allowed Ashwini Upadhyay, the petitioner in the plea seeking disqualification of persons from contesting elections if they are found to be engaging in hate speech, to add Election Commission of India as a respondent party. Upadhyay sought direction to the Centre to come out with "effective and stringent" measures to control hate speech and rumour mongering in the country.
Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar and JB Pardiwala
Case title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India
Click here to read more - [J&K Delimitation] While refusing to stay the ongoing delimitation process at the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the Supreme Court today asked the petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala to be mindful of his language used in Court. The exchange pertained to the bench asking the counsel whether he had raised some issues concerning Article 370 issue in the current petition which has essentially challenged the Delimitation exercise undertaken in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, pursuant to the notifications of 2020, 2021 and 2022.
Bench: Justice SK Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh
Case title: Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read more - [Gyanvapi Mosque] The Supreme Court has refused to issue directions for maintaining status quo on the survey of the Gyanvapi-Shringar Gauri complex at Varanasi. The Court refused to pass an interim order in order put on hold, the process of inspection, conduct of videography and collection of evidence regarding the alleged existence of Hindu deities inside the Gyanvapi Mosque complex located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
Bench: CJI NV Ramana led bench
Click here to read more - [CAT Members] The Supreme Court invoked inherent powers of court under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the existing members of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to continue beyond their tenure. The instant order was passed in the light of vacancies in the CAT. Court further remarked that out of the 69 positions, only 29 have been filled up and 41 are still vacant.
Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant
Case title: Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) Bar Association vs. Union of India
Click here to read more - [‘Proportional Representation’ in Supreme Court] Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin has written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Justice of India NV Ramana insisting upon the inclusion of social diversity and social justice in the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court judges in "true letter and spirit" and to establish permanent regional benches of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai to ensure people in other parts of this "vast country have equal access" to the Apex Court.
Click here to read more - [Sukesh Chandrashekar] Supreme Court refused to grant any interim relief to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar. Chandrashekar is accused of running an extortion racket allegedly worth Rs 200 crore from inside the Tihar jail. It has further been alleged that he has duped people by promising them jobs and to have duped more than 100 people and cheated them to the tune of Rs 75 crore.
Bench: Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia
Case Title: Sukesh Chandra Shekar vs. Union of India
Click here to read more
Next Story