Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - News Updates [October 31- November 5, 2022]

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - News Updates [October 31- November 5, 2022]
X
By -  Aishwarya Iyer |
7 Nov 2022 1:36 PM IST
  1. [Graft Case] The Supreme Court has extended the interim relief which it had granted earlier to former Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa in the alleged graft case. The allegations against Yediyurappa in the matter are that he and his family members accepted crores of rupees as bribes through “shell companies” from a contractor for getting him bids to construct a multi-crore housing project of the Bangalore Development Authority.
    Bench: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
    Case Title: B.S. YEDIYURAPPA vs. ABRAHAM T.J. AND ORS
    Click here to read more
  2. [Intra Dermal Rabies Vaccines] The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea seeking a direction for constituting an independent expert committee to study the efficacy of the Intra Dermal Rabies Vaccines currently being administered to humans, on account of the number of deaths that have occurred despite timely administration of the vaccines.
    Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar
    Case Title: Kerala Pravasi Association through its President and Anr vs. Union of India and Anr.
    Click here to read more
  3. [Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019] The Central government has informed the Supreme Court that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) is a specific amendment that seeks to tackle persecution of the minorities on the ground of religion in specified countries. The central government has further submitted that the constitutionality of such a legislative measure ought to be tested within the legislative domain and cannot be conflated to extend beyond that object.
    Bench: CJI U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi,
    Case Title: INDIAN UNION OF MUSLIM LEAGUE AND ORS vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
    Click here to read more
  4. [Abolition Of 'Sahayak' System] The Supreme Court has dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) where directions to abolish 'Sahayak' system in the Indian Army was sought. The bench was of the opinion that a 'Sahayak' means a helper, which is a definite post in the Army, and the functions that are carried on, are a part of the functions and duties of the post and the allegations on the misuse of the 'Sahayak' system in the Army, requires more research on the process of induction and employment of Jawans to the posts. Court thus opined that the counsel did not do enough research on the issue.
    Bench: CJI U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi,
    Click here to read more
  5. [Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021] A division bench of the Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 and amended Section 23 and Section 28 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1950 (RP Act), and the Rules made pursuant thereto, namely Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules, 2022, which together enable the Election Commission of India to use the Aadhaar database in the process of deletion and updation of entries in the electoral roll.
    Bench: Justices SK Kaul and Abhay S. Oka
    Case Title: S.G. VOMBATKERE vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
    Click here to read more
  6. [Shiv Sena Vs. Shiv Sena] A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has granted four weeks time to the two factions of Shiv Sena led by Uddhav Thackeray and Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde to file their compilations of arguments, index, case law references etc. "Idea is to facilitate us when we have to write a judgment. Written submissions help us a great deal", the bench remarked.
    Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha
    Click here to read more
  7. [Party Symbols On EVMs] Over party symbols on EVMs issue, the Supreme Court, has allowed the petitioner to make a representation before the appropriate authority. However, the Court refused to exercise its power under Article 32 of the Constitution. The matter before the Court was through a Special Leave Petition by Advocate Ashiwini Upadhyay, where directions to the Election Commission of India to use names, age, qualifications and photographs over EVMs were sought.
    Bench: CJI U.U. Lalit and Justice Bela. M. Trivedi
    Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India and Anr.
    Click here to read more
  8. [Shiromani Akali Dal Forgery Case] The Supreme Court has stayed ongoing proceedings in Punjab's Hoshiarpur Court against former Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal, his son and Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) President Sukhbir Singh Badal and party spokesperson Daljit Singh Cheema in a case of alleged forgery of the alleged dual constitution of the SAD.
    Bench: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice V. Ramasubramanian
    Click here to read more
  9. [Minority Status Of Hindus] The Ministry of Minority Affairs has informed the Supreme Court that it has held consultative meetings with State Governments and Union Territories (UTs) along with other stakeholders on the concerning minority status for Hindus in states where their numbers have gone below other communities, currently pending consideration before Supreme Court. The affidavit further states that some of the states and UTs have sought additional time to have wider consultations so as to form their opinions on the issue at hand and the Central Ministry has requested them to act expeditiously.
    Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  10. [MediaOne Ban] Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, while arguing in a batch of petitions filed by MediaOne TV, challenging the Kerala High Court's order upholding the ban imposed on the channel told the court that the ban is a blatant violation of the fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. Dave further said, "My only crime is that the channel is owned by a minority community. The channel holds a good reputation in the entire country otherwise".
    Bench: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
    Case Title: MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
    Click here to read more
  11. [Red Fort Attack case] The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence awarded to Mohd Asif, a Pakistani national and member of Lashkar-e-Taiba, in the 2000 Red Ford Attack case. Court rejected the review petition while observing, "The suggestion that there is a possibility of retribution and rehabilitation, is not made out from and supported by any material on record".
    Bench: CJI UU Lalit with Justices Kohli and Trivedi
    Case Title: MOHD. ARIF @ ASHFAQ vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
    Click here to read more
  12. [Yes Bank Fraud Case] The Supreme Court has ordered a fresh medical assessment of former Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited CMD Kapil Wadhawan, who sought medical bail in the multi-crore Yes Bank fraud case. It is alleged that DHFL, Kapil Wadhawan, the then CMD; Dheeraj Wadhwan, the then Director of DHFL, Sudhakar Shetty, and other accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Consortium of 17 banks led by Union Bank of India and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy the said accused Kapil Wadhwan and others induced the consortium banks to sanction huge loans aggregating to Rs. 42,871.42 crores.
    Bench: Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy
    Case Title: Kapil Wadhawan vs. CBI and Anr.
    Click here to read more
  13. [Reservation] The Supreme Court has overturned the Uttarakhand High Court's injunction against the decision of the state government in 2006 that granted women with state-resident domiciles a 30% reservation in state civil services. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the High Court in the garb of providing interim relief provided final relief to the respondents at the interim stage itself.
    Bench: Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice V Ramasubramanian
    Case Title: State of Uttarakhand vs Pavitra Chauhan and Ors.
    Click here to read more
  14. [POCSO Act vs Personal Laws] The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has moved the Supreme Court against a Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order allowing a Muslim girl to enter into a valid marriage upon attaining puberty. The age of attaining puberty is 15 years according to applicable personal laws in Islam. The challenge to the High Court’s order, through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) is on the grounds of violation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Furthermore, the SLP filed through Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi states that such laws are secular in nature, therefore the applicability can not be hindered on the basis of religion.
    Click here to read more
  15. [MediaOne Ban] Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, while arguing before the Supreme Court raised questions on the integrity of the division bench of the Kerala High Court that had upheld the ban imposed on MediaOne TV. "What troubles me the most is that besides violation of natural justice, there is a serious issue of bias in the minds of judges who considered the evidence without giving an opportunity to my client to defend. Judges do not have extraordinary powers to violate principles of natural justice and pronounce judgment. They should be faithful to the oath of the office of justice",
    said the senior counsel while concluding his submissions.
    Bench: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
    Case Title: MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
    Click here to read more
  16. [Listing of Matters] The Supreme Court sought a reply from the Registry as to why matters which are marked as “Ready” were not listed before the Court. This direction came to be issued by a CJI led bench after it noted that a matter which it was hearing, was not listed before the Court in a year and a half despite it had been “Ready” to be listed.
    Bench: CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela Trivedi
    Case Title: R SUBRAMANIAN vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
    Click here to read more
  17. [Non-Appearance before court] After none appeared on behalf of the Union Territory of Chandigarh before the Supreme Court, despite the case being called out twice, the Top Court directed the Estate Officer, Union Territory of Chandigarh to remain present in Court. The bench was informed by ASG KM Nataraj, when he came to the Court, that he had not been instructed to appear in these matters. Hearing this, the bench found the approach of the administration of the UT to be totally callous and irresponsible in dealing with important litigation pertaining to construction in the city of Chandigarh.
    Bench: Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna
    Case Title: RWA & Anr vs. UT of Chandigarh and Ors
    Click here to read more
  18. [CAA] In its response to the pleas challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), the Central Government has informed the Supreme Court that the legislation has an impact on the foreign policy of a State and by extension, affects the security apparatus of the State and would fall squarely within the domain of the Parliament. Furthermore, the Top Court has been told that even if it considers exercising its power of judicial review, such review would be very restrictive and limited considering wider width of legislative policy and legislative wisdom available to the competent legislature.
    Click here to read more
  19. [CAA] While deciding on a batch of over 200 petitions challenging the validity and constitutionality of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, Supreme Court has granted more time to the counsels to file submissions and tag a matter as the lead matter. Court listed the matter for further hearing before appropriate court on December 6. The bench also sought responses from the States of Assam and Tripura within 2 weeks.
    Bench: CJI U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
    Case Title: INDIAN UNION OF MUSLIM LEAGUE AND ORS vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
  20. [SC judges' strength] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court, seeking “doubling” of the number of judges in High Courts and Subordinate Courts. Inter alia, the plea seeks implementation of a “Judicial Charter” to decide the cases including cases before lower courts within 3 years. The petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, says that a Judicial Charter sought to be implemented, is not only necessary to secure the right to speedy justice but is also essential to control corruption, crime, casteism, communialism, regionalism, linguism, separtaism, terrorism and fundamentalism. Further, the petition states that the Indian Judiciary is suffering due to low manpower, as the number of judges per million population is less than 20.
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more
Next Story

Articles

read all