Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Vacation Bench [May 23-28, 2022]

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Vacation Bench [May 23-28, 2022]
X
By -  Aishwarya Iyer |
30 May 2022 11:41 AM IST
  1. [Gyanvapi Dispute] Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has approached the Supreme Court seeking impleadment in the case pertaining to the Gyanvapi dispute. Stating that barbaric invaders have destroyed hundreds of places of worship and pilgrimage, Upadhyay questions whether even after independence; Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists cannot seek judicial remedy to undo the barbarian acts through the process of court. Upadhyay has also challenged the Places of Worships Act, 1991.
    Case Title: Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Rakhi Singh & Anr.
    Click here to read more
  2. [Raghu Purti Murder Case] Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Jharkhand High Court allowing bail to Bablu Modi, accused in the murder case of Jharkhand Police most wanted Raghu Purti, accused of killing an Advocate. The accused has been asked to surrender within a period of 10 days from the date of the order failing which, the police have been directed to take steps to detain him in accordance with the law.
    Bench: Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi
    Case Title: State of Jharkhand vs. Bablu Modi @ Biru @ Upender Modi
    Click here to read more
  3. [Plea in SC] Anant Karmuse has approached the Top Court against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing his plea seeking transfer of investigation in the kidnapping and assault case filed by him against Jitendra Awhad, a sitting Cabinet Minister, to the CBI. Karmuse had filed an FIR alleging that on April 5, 2020, some cops took him to Awhad’s bungalow, where he was beaten black and blue with bamboos, fiber sticks, belts and iron rods by NCP workers in the presence of two police constables and Awhad for uploading on his Facebook account, a viral picture of Awhad, criticizing his act of ridiculing the Prime Minister.
    Case title: Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors
    Click here to read more
  4. [Plea in SC] Another plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. A PIL filed by Advocate Chandra Shekhar states that the provisions of Sections 3 & 4 of the Act are ultra vires of the Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 as well as the principles of Secularism.
    Case Title: Chandra Shekhar vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  5. [Hemant Soren] The Supreme Court has directed the High Court of Jharkhand to consider the issue of maintainability first in a Public Interest Litigation filed against the Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren raising the issue of shell companies owned by Soren. Court also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation & Enforcement Director that when the authorities have their own remedies available under the law, why they are piggybacking upon the petitioner.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M Trivedi
    Case Title: The State of Jharkhand vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  6. [Hajj] The Supreme Court refused to consider a plea filed by the All India Tours Corporation seeking direction to the central government to consider listing private tour operators in the Hajj Group Organisers list for Hajj 2022. The bench refused to consider the plea stating that for the year 2022, nothing can be done and said that the same will be considered next year.
    Bench: Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice PS Narasimha
    Case Title: Al Islam Tour Corporations vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
  7. [Talaq-e-hasan] Supreme Court refused to consider urgent listing of the plea challenging the practice of "Talaq-E-Hasan" after the same was mentioned by Senior Advocate Pinki Anand. Anand contended that the issue is about a woman being abused, however, the bench asked her to mention the matter again next week observing that there is no urgency in the matter.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M Trivedi
    Click here to read more
  8. [SAHARA] Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court order staying the investigation proceedings including the coercive proceedings and lookout notices in a probe against Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited and other Sahara companies. The probe against the companies was being conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M Trivedi
    Case Title: Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  9. [Azam Khan] The Supreme Court has stayed the condition imposed by the Allahabad High Court while granting bail to Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan stating that the conditions imposed are "disproportionate". The High Court had directed the District Magistrate to demolish a part of the Mohammed Ali Jauhar University. Allahabad High Court had imposed the said condition while allowing bail to Khan in an alleged case of enemy property and using it for the construction of Mohammed Ali Jauhar University.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M Trivedi
    Case Title: Mohammad Azam Khan vs. State Of U.P.
    Click here to read more
  10. [Contempt of Court] The Supreme Court has upheld the finding of contempt as recorded against an advocate practicing before the Madras High Court. Division Bench of the Madras High Court had convicted one PR Adikesavan under Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, after Adikesavan and fifty other advocates gheraoed the police and prevented them from executing the non-bailable warrant issued against Adikesavan in insolvency proceedings initiated against him.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M Trivedi
    Case Title: P R Adikesavan vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Another
    Click here to read more
  11. [Murder-kidnapping case] Supreme Court cancelled the bail of an accused in a case involving the murder of a young child for ransom, after noting that most of the crucial witnesses in the case had not been examined yet. The deceased, a 13-year old Class VIII student, was kidnapped for a ransom of one crore and his dead body was recovered from a 'nallah', the day after the kidnapping.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M Trivedi
    Case Title: Mamta & Anr vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
    Click here to read more
  12. [Section 302 IPC] The Supreme Court has remarked that in order to convict an accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the first and foremost aspect to be proved by prosecution is the factum of homicidal death. "If the evidence of prosecution falls short of proof of homicidal death of the deceased, and if the possibility of suicidal death could not be ruled out, in the opinion of this court, the appellant-accused could not have been convicted merely on the basis of the theory of “Last seen together” ",
    observed the top court.
    Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M Trivedi
    Case Title: Chandrapal vs. State of Chhattisgarh
    Click here to read more
  13. [Judicial Vacancies] The Supreme Court recently directed the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to accommodate eight judicial aspirants against the vacancies available in the state. Taking note of the fact that there are judicial vacancies available, court observed that
    if these vacancies get filled up by meritorious candidates, it would only be an asset for the institution helping in the disposal of cases pending in huge numbers.
    Bench: Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice Vikram Nath.
    Case Title: AARAV JAIN vs. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS
    Click here to read more
  14. [PIL in SC] A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Government to conduct a survey on all ancient prominent mosques which are over a hundred years old in India. The plea states that the petitioners feel for the plight of the fellow citizens of Hindus/Jains/Buddhist/Sikhs and the way they have lost a major part of their ancient relics during the invasions in the Medieval Period in India and how nothing has been done till now to assess the lost heritage and intangible cultural heritage.
    Case Title: Shubham Awasthi & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
Next Story

Articles

read all