Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - News Updates [September 19-24, 2022]

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - News Updates [September 19-24, 2022]
X
By -  Aishwarya Iyer |
26 Sept 2022 10:18 AM IST
  1. [Hijab Ban] Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave in his arguments on behalf of the petitioners in the case pertaining to ban on wearing Hijab in pre-university colleges in the state of Karnataka, strongly highlighted that India saw many outsiders in the country, who came, conquered and even settled in the country and that we were resilient enough to accept the varied cultures and traditions that different communities brought along, then we should ordinarily as a practice not object to the subject (hijab) now. Hinduism was set as an example, which accepted Jains, and Buddhists, even after being the oldest of the religions, he stated.
    Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
    Case Title: X vs. State of Karnataka
    Click here to read more
  2. [Guruvayur Donation] The Supreme Court ordered status quo in the matter pertaining to the legality of certain administrative decisions of the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee (GDMC) to donate Rs.5 crores to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund soon after the Kerala Floods in 2018. In June this year, the Kerala High Court had held the GDMC's decision to be illegal, while holding that Section 27(c) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act,1978 cannot be stretched to interpret that money devoted to the deity can be given for benefit of worshippers beyond a particular geographical limit.
    Bench: CJI UU Lalit with Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Ajay Rastogi,
    Case Title: GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR vs. BIJESH KUMAR M AND ORS.
    Click here to read more
  3. [Kashmiri Pandit Exodus] The Supreme Court refused to hear a plea filed by one Ashutosh Taploo, a Kashmiri Pandit, seeking probe into his father, Tikka Lal Taploo's murder allegedly by the JKLF terrorists during the exodus of 1990. In the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, among other reliefs, Taploo sought protection, rehabilitation of his family, and investigation/ prosecution of persons who were involved in the killing of his father, who was living in Kashmir valley in their ancestral home till 1989 when due to militancy in the region, a mass genocide took place, resulting into killings of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits.
    Bench: Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar
    Case Title: ASHUTOSH TAPLOO vs. UNION OF INDIA And ANR.
    Click here to read more
  4. [Dawoodi Bohra Community] A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has decided to adjudicate upon a question pertinent to the Dawoodi Bohra Community, 'whether the practice of ex-communication in the Dawoodi Bohra community could continue as a protected practice despite the Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2016 coming into force'.
    Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari
    Click here to read more
  5. [Bhopal Gas Tragedy] A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court sought the Central Government's stand in a curative petition filed in 2010 against Union Carbide Corporation for a direction of additional compensation of 1.2 billion dollars (Rs 7413 crore) for the victims of Bhopal gas disaster. After Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the court to grant some time for seeking instructions, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul led bench deferred the case to October 11.
    Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari
    Click here to read more
  6. [Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act 2014] The Supreme Court while upholding its validity, dismissed petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act 2014. A petition was filed by Harbhajan Singh, a member of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee(SGPC) in 2014.
    Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
    Click here to read more
  7. [Hate Speech] The Supreme Court while hearing a plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking direction to Centre to come out with "effective and stringent" measures to control hate speech and rumor-mongering in the country, remarked that hate speech is complete poison. Court further questioned the role of TV Channels that are facilitating such speeches. "Role of TV anchor is very critical. The moment the anchor sees someone trying to say something on the lines of hate speech, he/she should stop them", a division bench said. Court has also ordered the Centre to incorporate the response of 14 states and file its response in two weeks.
    Bench: Justice KM Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
    Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  8. [Satyendra Jain Money Laundering Case] The Supreme Court while hearing an SLP filed by Aam Aadmi Party Minister Satyendra Jain challenging the transfer plea made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking transfer for trial proceedings, said that it could not hear the challenge to the said application. Court, accordingly, directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge to take up the transfer application on September 22nd, and dispose it of the same day.
    Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud, PS Narasimha and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: Satyendra Jain vs. ED
    Click here to read more
  9. [Hijab Ban] AG Prabhuling Navadgi submitted before the Top Court that the reason why ‘Essential Religious Practice’ (ERP) was heavily debated upon before the Court was because ERP was raised by the petitioners before the High Court, and thus the Court decided on it. When the Top Court asked, as to if not ERP, then what will the hijab be? To that, AG Prabhuling Navadgi stated that the test should be whether taking it (hijab as a practice) away will defeat the purpose. On the question of ‘no uniform at all’ raised by the Court, AG submitted that uniform puts everyone at a level playing field, regardless of economic background.
    Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
    Case Title: Aishat Shifa vs. State of Karnataka
    Click here to read more
  10. [Hijab Ban] The Supreme Court concluded hearing in the challenge to the Karnataka High Court order upholding GO disallowing wearing hijabs in pre-university institutions and has reserved its judgment. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave referred to words ‘students carrying out religious observances’ in the impugned GO and stated that PFI (Popular Front of India) has no connection with the practice, as was contended. On whether the hijab is an essential practice or not, he further stated that 'for those who are believers, it is essential; for those who are not, it is not essential'.
    Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
    Case Title: Aishat Shifa vs. State of Karnataka
    Click here to read more
  11. [Hijab Challenge] The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Sikh woman challenging the impugned GO of the Karnataka Government. Court was of the opinion that the case of the petitioner was not in parity with the present case at hand. However, the bench granted her liberty to seek any remedy appropriate in law.
    Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
    Click here to read more
  12. [BS Yediyurappa Bribery Case] The Supreme Court ordered stay on the proceedings initiated against Former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa and others in a case filed on charges of bribery and corruption in relation to the construction of a multi crore housing project of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). It was alleged that Yediyurappa 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 BDA.
    Bench: Justices CY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: BS Yediyurappa vs. Abraham
    Click here to read more
  13. [Fraudulent Religious Conversion] The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay which sought declaration that fraudulent religious conversion and religious conversion by intimidation, threatening, deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits offend Articles 14, 21, 25 of the Constitution. Upadhyay further sought directions to the Centre and states for taking stringent steps to control fraudulent religious conversion and conversion by intimidation, threatening, deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits and also by using black magic, superstition, and miracles.
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari
    Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
    Click here to read more
  14. [Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons] Supreme Court has granted more time to the Supreme Court Committee on prison reforms, headed by Justice Amitava Roy, former Judge of the Supreme Court to submit its report making suggestions on the inhumane condition and protection of rights of prisoners of 1382 prisons. The Court granted a period of 4 months to complete the inquiry. A suo-moto matter concerning the issue of inhumane conditions in 1382 prisons and the protection of the rights of prisoners was taken up by the court.
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari
    Case Title: IN RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS
    Click here to read more
  15. [Maoist Leader Roopesh] The Supreme Court disposed of an SLP while allowing the State Government of Kerala to withdraw it, wherein the State had challenged a Kerala High Court decision to quash charges, invoked against Maoist Leader Roopesh under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
    Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
    Case Title: State of Kerala vs. Roopesh
    Click here to read more
  16. [Firecracker Ban] BJP MP Manoj Tiwari has moved a Public Interest Litigation plea before Supreme Court seeking directions for usage of permissible firecrackers and against the blanket ban on sale, purchase and usage of firecrackers during festive seasons of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and others in Delhi and other states. It has been thus sought that fresh guidelines be issued to all states in respect of selling, purchasing or bursting permissible firecrackers.
    Bench: CJI UU Lalit led bench
    Case Title: Manoj Tiwari vs. Union of India and Ors.
    Click here to read more
  17. [Nupur Sharma Controversy] The Supreme Court has ordered all FIRs and complaints against Times Now Anchor, Navika Kumar, to be transferred to the Delhi Police, Intelligence Fusion & Strategic Operations unit (IFSO). Court has further ordered that no coercive action be taken against her in the next 8 weeks period, arising from the same case. Kumar had approached the top court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against her in different States in connection with the remarks made by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma against Prophet Muhammad.
    Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
    Case Title: Navika Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  18. [Article 370] The Supreme Court has agreed to hear pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which had accorded special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Chief Justice of India has said that the pleas will "definitely be taken up after the Dussehra vacations".
    Bench: CJI UU Lalit with Justices Bhat and Banerjee
    Case Title: Batch of petitions
    Click here to read more
  19. [Mining] The Supreme Court while hearing a plea challenging the impugned order of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) pertaining to mining near a water body, exclaimed, "we will not allow any mining near a water body". The impugned order was passed by the District Collector cum the Chairman of the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority Trichy wherein it had permitted for quarrying of land near a water body, that was wrongly shown in the revenue records as a rocky terrain, which was subsequently set aside by the High Court.
    Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
    Case Title: A Malliga vs. The District Collector cum The Chairman of the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority Trichy
    Click here to read more
  20. [Fraudulent Religious Conversions] Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who has filed a plea before the Top Court which sought stringent steps to control fraudulent religious conversions, has submitted that IPC Chapter-XV does not cover religious conversion, because of which many States have become a safe harbour for promotion of such practices. His petition substantiates how fraudulent religious conversions through "hook and crook'' and ''carrot and stick'' idiomatic practices are a national problem.
    Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union Of India And Ors
    Click here to read more
Next Story

Articles

read all