Read Time: 01 hours
[Article 370] The Supreme Court has asked National Conference leader Mohammed Akbar Lone to file an affidavit by tomorrow stating that "he swears allegiance to the Constitution of India and that J&K is an integral part of India". A CJI DY Chandrachud led Constitution bench has directed Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal to ask Lone to file a one-page affidavit by tomorrow before the hearing in pleas challenging abrogation of Article 370 closes. Earlier, CJI led bench remarked that it had taken note of several newspaper reports on Akbar Lone's statements, on account of a Kashmiri Pandit organisation, Roots in Kashmir, filing an affidavit, objecting to his credentials for coming before Supreme Court against a constitutional challenge such as this. CJI said that he will hear the Centre on this point.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant Case Title: In Re Article 370 of the Constitution Click here to read more Also Read: [Article 370] Pro-Pak Sloganeer And Lead Petitioner, Md Akbar Lone Must File Affidavit Stating He Owes Allegiance To Constitution Of India: SG Tushar Mehta Tells SC
[Hate Speech – Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma] A division bench of the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing in a plea by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat to October 3, 2023, whereby she is seeking registration of FIRs against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and Bharatiya Janata Party Leader Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma for allegedly making hate speeches in the year 2020, at a rally in Rithala on January 27 and 28th. While adjourning the matter, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju that no further adjournment will be granted to the respondents in the case.Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: Brinda Karat vs. State of NCT Delhi Click here to read more
[Central Rules] The Supreme Court has ruled that without any specific challenge, no rule or law made by the central government can be declared invalid or unconstitutional by the High Court. The bench set aside September 26, 2008 judgment of the Orissa High Court which declared provisions of the Ministry of Information Technology (in-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules 1998, as invalid. "It is a trite law that for striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made," the court said.Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and K V Vishwanathan Case Title: Manjurani Routray & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Article 370] Pro-Pak Sloganeer and National Conference leader Mohammed Akbar Lone has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court as ordered by it, however the affidavit does not specifically state that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. Instead, he states in his affidavit that he will stick to the oath he took as a member of Parliament and to that effect, he will uphold the Constitution and territorial integrity of India. As the hearing before the Supreme Court in pleas challenging abrogation of Article 370, spanning over 16 days was coming to an end, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the affidavit filed by Lone had come on record. The top court had asked Lone to file a one-page affidavit by tomorrow before the hearing in pleas challenging abrogation of Article 370 closes.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant Case Title: In Re Article 370 of the Constitution Click here to read more Also Read: "Militants Are Our Brothers, Stone Pelting Justified...": Centre Backs Kashmiri Pandit Org's Additional Affidavit Questioning Akbar Lone
[Udhayanidhi Stalin Controversy] Former judges, government officials and war veterans have written to the Chief Justice of India, requesting him to take suo moto cognizance of the hate speech made by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin on 'Sanatan Dharma'. CJI Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud has been told that Stalin Jr.'s comments could incite communal disharmony and sectarian violence. A few days ago, Stalin, a serving Minister in the Tamil Nadu State Government, while addressing a press conference in Chennai stated: “Few things cannot be opposed, they should be abolished. We can’t oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or corona, we have to eradicate them. In the same way, we have to eradicate the Sanatana (Sanatan Dharma), rather than opposing it”.Click here to read more ALSO READ: [Hate Speech] Udhaynidhi Stalin's Remarks Intentionally Made To Promote Enmity: Plea In SC Seeks Registration Of FIR
[Hill-carrying capacity] The Union government has asked the Supreme Court to direct 13 Himalayan States to undertake a carrying capacity assessment of each hill station in a time bound manner. Responding to the top court's query in the wake of huge destructions witnessed during the recent rains in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change suggested multiple steps to assess the acurate carrying capacity of each hill station. In an affidavit, the Ministry said it has in the past circulated Guidelines for Assessing Carrying Capacity of Hill Stations including Cities and Eco-Sensitive Zones to all 13 Himalayan States by a letter dated January 30, 2020 and has also sent reminder letter on May 19, 2023 to request the states that if such study has not been undertaken then the States may submit the action plan so that carrying capacity can be carried out as early as possible.Case Title: Ashok Kumar Raghav vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Manipur Violence] Supreme Court sought for a report from the State of Manipur on the action taken by it against the looting of arms during the days when violence in Manipur was amok. "On recovery of looted arms, a status report shall be filed before this court, which shall be made available only to the court, as regards the sensitivity of the situation", ordered the bench. Supreme Court also took on record the affidavit filed by the State of Manipur on providing essentials to the people while adding that surviving grievances would be brought to the notice of the local administration and the court-appointed committee. A further direction has been issued to the Home Secretary to interact with the three-judge committee constituted by the Supreme Court, for finalising the names of experts, within three days.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei Vs. Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors. Click here to read more Also Read: Manipur Violence| Supreme Court Orders No Coercive Action In FIR Against Fact-Finding Committee Sent By Editors Guild
[New Constitution benches] Supreme Court of India has set up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the matter involving the issues of Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC), reservations in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies and immunity for MPs and MLAs from being prosecuted for bribery charges. A bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra will start hearing these cases from September 20, 2023. The Assam NRC case is on a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act which was inserted through an amendment in 1985 in furtherance of the Assam Accord. In Ashok Kumar Jain vs. Union of India a challenge lies to the validity of the 79th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1999. Lastly, a plea was filed by Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, who was accused of accepting bribe for voting in favour of a particular candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha Elections.Click here to read more
[Telangana Police Detention Orders] The Supreme Court on laid down detailed guidelines for the constitutional courts to examine legality of preventive detention orders, while noting a "pernicious trend" by Telangana police to curb liberty and freedom. "To unchain the shackles of preventive detention, it is important that the safeguards enshrined in our Constitution, particularly under the ‘golden triangle’ formed by Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom) and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution, are diligently enforced," the bench added.Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta Case Title: Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana & Ors. Click here to read more
[Cauvery Water Dispute] The Karnataka Government has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court claiming that it is facing a severe drought situation both in Cauvery and Krishna basins, it may not be feasible to further release any water from the reservoirs in Karnataka after September 12, 2023. Referring to heavy burden on the state government, it said, "The Cauvery basin, at present on 04.09.2023, the live storage is 56.043 tmc. The expected inflows are about 40 tmc." As against this kitty or available water, the requirement of Karnataka in the remaining part of the season taking August 11, 2023 as the base is 140 tmc, as submitted before Cauvery Water Management Authority. "Therefore, I submit that it may not be feasible to further release any water from the reservoirs in Karnataka after 12.09.2023 i.e., after complying with the directions of CWMA meeting held on 29.08.2023 without risking the needs of Karnataka," the affidavit filed by Rakesh Singh, Additional Chief Secretary stated.Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka Click here to read more
[VVPAT] The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that there is no 'fundamental right' of the voter to verify through VVPATs, that their vote has been 'recorded as cast' and 'counted as recorded'. In an affidavit, it stated that the provisions of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 do not violate any fundamental right and in fact the concerned provisions have undergone judicial scrutiny at many occasions and their constitutionality has been upheld time and again.Case Title: Association of Democratic Reforms vs. Election Commission of India and Anr. Click here to read more
[JKNC Plough symbol dispute] The Supreme Court said constitutional courts are duty bound to step in when level playing fields are sought to be disturbed even when the election notification is issued. With this view, top court has set aside the entire election process for the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil and ordered Administration of Union Territory of Ladakh, Election Department, to issue fresh notification for it within seven days. A division bench has also dismissed the appeal filed by the UT administration against the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's division bench order of August 14 upholding the single bench decision to allot 'plough' symbol to Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC) party.Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah Case Title: UNION TERRITORY OF LADAKH & ORS. vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR NATIONAL CONFERENCE & ANR. Click here to read more
[Appointment of Judges] Supreme Court has dismissed a plea filed by Bombay Lawyers Association seeking a two-year cooling-off period for retired judges of before they accept political appointments. Court observed thus, while dismissing the plea, "The issue whether a retired Judge should accept any office or not has to be left to the conscience of the Judge concerned, or any law in this regard brought into force but cannot form a subject matter of directions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India."Bench: Justices SK Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: BOMBAY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA Click here to read more
[Gameskraft] Supreme Court stayed the Karnataka High Court’s ruling whereby it had set aside show cause notice issued by the GST department directing online gaming company GamesKraft to deposit dues totaling to INR 21,000 crore. Earlier, tax alleged to have been evaded by Gameskraft was totaled to be ₹419 crore, which was increased to ₹5,000 crore, and ultimately to over ₹21,000 crore in July 2022, when the authorities alleged that Gameskraft was indulging in betting and online gambling.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra Case Title: DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE (HQS) & ORS. vs. GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Click here to read more
[Frivolous petitions] The Supreme Court remarked that it should start imposing costs for filing of frivolous Special Leave Petitions (SLP). This remark was made by a division bench while hearing an SLP which was filed challenging an arbitral award. "Costs should be imposed for filing frivolous SLPs now...", said a visibly miffed Justice Oka. Notably, the matter was being argued by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi. When the court expressed its willingness to impose costs, the senior counsel requested to withdraw the plea.Bench: Justices AS Oka and Pankaj Mithal Click here to read more
[Muzaffarnagar Slap Case] A division bench of the Supreme Court issued notice on a plea raising concerns over the recent incident of a Muslim child being slapped by his classmates on instructions of their teacher in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Controversy erupted after a video of the incident went viral on social media. Notably, the accused teacher, Tripta Tyagi, had referred to the boy’s faith and asked his classmates to beat him hard. Court has also asked Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar to file a report on the status of investigation in the case.Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: Tushar Gandhi vs. State of UP Click here to read more
[Juvenile Offender] After 12 years of incarceration, the Supreme Court has ordered forthwith release of a life term convict, upon finding that he was a juvenile at the time of offence of murder in 2005 and has undergone much beyond three years maximum period for which a minor can be put into custody. Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the man while holding that he can no longer be incarcerated in view of the report by Additional Sessions judge Khammam.Bench: Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar Case Title: Makkellah Nagaiah vs. State of AP Click here to read more
[Dishonour of Cheques] The Supreme Court has explained that the question of threshold jurisdiction in a cheque dishonour case would arise only if the cheque is dishonoured towards a loan, which is out and out irrecoverable due to limitation. "It is only in cases wherein an amount which is out and out non-recoverable, towards which a cheque is issued, dishonoured and for recovery of which a criminal action is initiated, the question of threshold jurisdiction will arise. In such cases, the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC will be justified in interfering but not otherwise," Court has said.Bench: Justices A S Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: K. Hymavathi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Click here to read more
[Divorce] While granting divorce to a couple, the Supreme Court recently said that there was no need to continue the agony of a mere status without them living together. Top Court noted that both the High Court and the trial court adopted hyper technical approach, emphasising upon "holistic approach" and consideration of social context thinking in view of stigma attached to it. "For a decade and half, the parties have been living separately. As fairly stated at the Bar, the marriage does not survive any longer, and the relationship was terminated otherwise except by a formal decree of divorce. The status quo continues, awaiting approval from this court," the bench said.Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh Case Title: SMT. ROOPA SONI vs. KAMALNARAYAN SONI Click here to read more
[Sentencing Policy] The Supreme Court has said India, till date, does not have a statutory sentencing policy in place, making the courts to examine the objective behind it and consider several factors including mitigating and aggravating circumstances before handing out the punishment. Referring to a Constitution Bench (5-judge) judgement in 'Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P.' (1973) on the issue of constitutionality of imposition of death penalty, the bench said the court had then emphasised that aggravating and mitigating circumstances need to be considered in awarding sentence to a convict and the result is dependent upon facts of each case. Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol Case Title: PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA vs.THE STATE OF U.P. Click here to read more
[Land allotment] The Supreme Court has said that an executing court cannot dismiss an execution proceedings merely on the ground that the suit property has been encroached upon by a third party, as it would defeat the right of decree holder to reap the benefit of litigation. "It was the duty of the executing court to issue warrant of possession for effecting physical delivery of the suit land to the decree-holder in terms of suit schedule property and if any resistance is offered by any stranger to the decree, the same be adjudicated upon in accordance with Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI of the CPC," bench has said.Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: SMT. VED KUMARI vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Click here to read more
[Motor Accident Claims] The Supreme Court has asked courts to remain sensitive in dealing with claims of compensation in motor accident cases where the deceased is not in secure job and is employed in the unorganised sector. Accordingly, court went on to set aside a judgement of March 5, 2019, reducing the amount of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Rs 11.87 lakh to Rs 4.75 lakh to the family of a motor mechanic. "It is unfortunate that in a case of the present nature, the High Court while assessing the evidence available on record, has sought to seek strict evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. When the wife and children of the deceased were before the court, they would not be in a position to secure all evidence when the deceased earning member was not in secure job," the bench said.Bench: Justices A S Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: KUBRABIBI & ORS. vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS. Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
