Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Vacation Bench [May 30- June 4, 2022]

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Vacation Bench [May 30- June 4, 2022]
X
By -  Aishwarya Iyer |
6 Jun 2022 10:35 AM IST
  1. [Talaq-e-Hasan] The Registry of the Supreme Court assured that the plea seeking direction to declare the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan and other forms of unilateral extrajudicial Talaqs void and unconstitutional will be listed within a week. Senior Advocate Pinki Anand appearing for the petitioner Benazeer Heena submitted that Benazeer who is a mother of an 8-month-old received the first letter for divorce on April 19, 2nd letter on May 19 and if the court will not hear the matter then she will receive 3rd and final letter on June 19.
    Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice BV Nagarathna
    Case Title: Benazeer Heena vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  2. [Jagannath Puri] A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Orissa High Court not restraining the State government from carrying out excavation work around Shree Jagannath temple at Puri in Odisha alleging that the said excavation poses a serious threat to the temple.
    Bench: Justices BR Gavai and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: Sumanta Kumar Gadhei vs. State of Orissa
    Click here to read more
  3. [IPS officer Gurjinder Pal Singh] Supreme Court upheld the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court granting bail to suspended Indian Police Service (IPS) officer GP Singh who was arrested in 2021 in connection with a disproportionate assets case. Court noted that the application for cancellation of bail filed by the State of Chhattisgarh is nothing but a totally unwarranted exercise.
    Bench: Justices BR Gavai and Hima Kohli
    Click here to read more
  4. [Anil Deshmukh] Supreme Court asked the Bombay High Court to consider the bail application filed by former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh on medical grounds. ED had initiated money-laundering investigation against Deshmukh and others for allegedly attempting to obtain undue advantage for the improper and dishonest performance of their public duty for collection of funds to achieve the target of Rs. 100 crore per month from various bars, restaurants, and other establishments in Mumbai.
    Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice BV Nagarathna
    Case title: Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
    Click here to read more
  5. [PIL in SC] A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking direction to formulate new guidelines to remove smoking zones from commercial places and airports. The plea also seeks direction to increase the age of smoking, banning the sale of loose cigarettes near educational institutions, healthcare institutions, and places of worship.
    Case Title: Shubham Awasthi & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  6. [Rushikonda Hills] Supreme Court quashed and set aside the proceedings at the National Green Tribunal (NGT) pertaining to the construction of a resort by the Andhra Pradesh government at Rushikonda Hills at Vishakapatnam. Court held that the NGT was not right in initiating proceedings despite knowing the fact that proceedings pertaining to the same subject matter which is pending before the High Court.
    Bench: Justices BR Gavai and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Raghurama Krishnam Raju
    Click here to read more
  7. [PIL in SC] A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking direction to establish the Bar Council in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The PIL states that the entire legal fraternity in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has no government established body where they can get themselves enrolled and take benefits of the Bar Council membership as compared to the other States in India. The plea argues that on August 5, 2019, the Government of India revoked Article 370 and the special status of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and the special laws applicable were also removed, despite that no Bar Council has been set up till now.
    Case Title: Supriya Pandita vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  8. [Jagannath Temple] State of Orissa today argued before the Top Court that plea seeking stay of excavation work in the vicinity of Jagannath temple has a political colour. Pinaki Mishra, Senior Advocate and Member of Parliament from Biju Janata Dal, further told the court on the state’s behalf that the intention of the government is to make Puri a World Heritage City and the Sevayak Associations are in support of the venture.
    Bench: Justice BR Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli
    Case Title: Sumanta Kumar Gadhei vs. State of Orissa
    Click here to read more
  9. [Plea in SC] Motivational Speaker Updesh Rana has moved Supreme Court alleging that he is consistently receiving life-threatening calls from various means and different international calls from various organizations including the Islamic State terrorist organization ISIS and Daud Gangs. The plea states that Rana is a "famous Promoter for Hinduism so there is always a threat on life. And as an individual petitioner is not capable to protect his life from Mafia and anti-Social Group and Terrorist organizations."
    Case Title: Updesh Rana vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  10. [Jagannath Temple] Supreme Court dismissed the plea challenging the order of the Orissa High Court not restraining the State government from carrying out excavation work around Shree Jagannath temple at Puri in Odisha alleging that the said excavation poses a serious threat to the temple. Court held that State cannot be stopped from the construction of toilets and other facilities in the larger public interest to devotees which was in fact undertaken by the State in tune with the directions issued by it in its 2019 judgment in Mrinalini Padhi Vs Union of India.
    Bench: Justices Gavai and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: ARDHENDU KUMAR DAS vs. THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.
    Click here to read more
  11. [Frivolous PILs] Deprecating the practice of filing frivolous petitions, the Supreme Court on Friday observed that there is mushroom growth of public interest litigations (PILs), and in many of such petitions, no public interest is involved at all. The division bench also remarked that it is high time that such so­ called public interest litigations are nipped in the bud so that the developmental activities in the larger public interest are not stalled.
    Bench: Justices Gavai and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: ARDHENDU KUMAR DAS vs. THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.
    Click here to read more
  12. [Luxury Litigation] Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. Two lakhs on a petitioner for wasting court’s time despite being forewarned that the court was not inclined to grant any relief in the matter. The petitioner was told that Court found no merit in the plea as the judgment of the high court and sessions court were well reasoned. The bench further told the counsel that if they do not manage to convince them on the position of law, a cost will be imposed on the petitioners at the end of the hearing.
    Bench: Justices Gavai and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: Nilesh vs. Mahesh
    Click here to read more
  13. [Virtual Courts] The video conference (VC) links in Supreme Court resumed working prior to the commencement of court hearing on Tuesday. Earlier the court had released a notification stating that the VC hearings in the Court were cancelled for the day due to the disruption of internet services in Delhi's heavy rains.
    Click here to read more
  14. [Rushikonda Hills] Supreme Court pulled up the National Green Tribunal for constituting a committee based on a letter by YSR Congress MP K Raghurama Krisham Raju to examine environmental impact of construction made at Rushikonda Hills by AP Tourism Board after the tribunal had granted a stay against the construction works of the proposed tourism project on Rushikonda Hill next to the Visakhapatnam beach.
    Bench: Justices Gavai and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Raghurama Krishnam Raju
    Click here to read more
  15. [Eco-Sensitive Zones] Supreme Court ordered that a minimum width of 1 kilometer ESZ ought to be maintained in respect of the protected forests. Court added that mining within the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries is not permitted. Top Court has further clarified that if ESZ is already prescribed as per law that goes beyond one-kilometer buffer zone, the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail.
    Bench: Justice L Nageshwar Rao, BR Gavai and Aniruddha Bose.
    Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors.
    Click here to read more
  16. [Plea in SC] Another plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the National Commission for Minorities Act. It alleges that when the Act came into force the Central Government arbitrarily notified Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Parsee as minorities. The plea has sought direction to define ‘minority’ and lay down ‘guidelines for identification of minorities at district level’, to ensure that only those religious and linguistic groups, which are socially economically politically non-dominant & numerically very inferior get the benefits.
    Case Title: Devkinandan Thakur Ji vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  17. [Marriage Certificate] Supreme Court has remarked that Arya Samaj cannot issue marriage certificates. The bench also said that it is for the authorities to issue the same. This observation was made by the top court while hearing a matter where a person accused of committing rape and other offences under the POCSO Act sought his release on bail submitting that the prosecutrix is a major girl and marriage between the accused and prosecutrix has already taken place at Arya Samaj and the marriage certificate is also available on record.
    Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Nagarathna
    Case Title: Sunil Lora vs. State of Rajasthan
    Click here to read more
  18. [Non-reasoned order] The Supreme Court has deprecated the manner in which a single judge bench of the Uttarakhand High Court had disposed of a criminal writ petition in a cyclostyled manner without looking into the merits of the matter. Thus, while relegating the matter to the file of the High Court, the top court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to list the Criminal Writ Petition before another Judge.
    Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna
    Case Title: HARSH R. KILACHAND & ANR. vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS
    Click here to read more
  19. [Plea in SC] Bhartiya Janta Party leader Jagjit Singh has sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Sidhu Moose Wala murder case alleging that the removal of the security cover encouraged the assailants to immediately attack and kill Sidhu Moose Wala. The plea states,
    "The way the cold-blooded killing was done in broad daylight is indicative of the fact that the state machinery in the state of Punjab has miserably failed in its duty not only to prevent the crime but also to effectively curb the menace of gangwars."
    Case Title: Jagjit Singh vs. The State of Punjab & Ors.
    Click here to read more
  20. [Compounding of offence] In a case under Sections 307 read with Section 149, IPC where the sister of the injured had gotten married to the accused namely Guhan, the top court permitted the parties concerned to compound the offence. Court further noted that the accused persons, as well as the injured, were all residents of the same locality and they had approached the top court with a view to bring peace and to live cordially.
    Bench: Justices BR Gavai and Hima Kohli
    Case Title: GUHAN vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
    Click here to read more
Next Story

Articles

read all