10 March 2024 3:01 PM GMT
With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest, dedicated to keeping our readers abreast of the most recent legal developments in the country's apex court. This digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the past week, providing a succinct overview.
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 191
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court has taken up the issue as to whether an accused person can be arrested by authorities once cognizance is taken by the Special Court under Section 44 of the Act and summons are issued.
Case Title: Sita Soren v. Union of India., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment which held that members of parliament and legislative assemblies could claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in contemplation of a vote or speech in the legislature.
In a detailed ruling, the Supreme Court has now emphasised that the purpose of Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution is to sustain an environment where debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature. This purpose, the court noted, is undermined when a member is induced to vote or speak in a particular manner because of an act of bribery.
Case Title: Agnostos Theos v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 139/2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
A PIL seeking directions to the Centre/State governments to consider the reasonable demands of the protesting farmers and to allow the protesters to move to Delhi was withdrawn from the Supreme Court.
Case Title: MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN & ANR. V. U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH (s) ITS SECRETARY & ORS
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) directed the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to vacate its office at New Delhi, situated in the plot earmarked for the Delhi judiciary, by 15 June 2024, so that land allotted to expand the district judiciary footprint can be used for the purpose.
Case Title: The State of Punjab v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., ORGNL.SUIT No. 2/2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In an original suit filed by the State of Punjab for restraining of interference with its possession & control of the Shanan Power House Hydel Project, the Supreme Court today issued summons to the Himachal Pradesh government.
Students Of Open Schools Recognized By CBSE & State Boards Eligible For NEET Exam : Supreme Court
Case Title: MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA vs. ANSHUL AGGARWAL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 189
Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar.
The Supreme Court noted that all open schools recognized by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and State Education Board shall now be recognized by the National Medical Council (NMC) for the purpose of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).
Case Title: Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Versus Subhash C. Pandey and Ors., Diary No. 664-2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
While dismissing an appeal, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) expressed surprise at Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation challenging an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which was aimed at saving lakes in the State.
"By the impugned order, an effort is made by the National Green Tribunal to save various lakes in the State...We fail to understand how the Tourism Development Corporation of the State can be aggrieved with a direction issued by the NGT to protect the lakes. Appeal dismissed", said the Bench.
Case Title: Md Khurshid Alam vs State of Bihar
Coram: Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Recently, the Supreme Court imposed the cost of Rs.10,000/ on the Advocate-on-Record while noting a criminal appeal was filed in a casual manner, and two of the grounds included in the appeal were incorrect and misleading.
Interest Rate Matter Of NBFC Policy, Loan Receiver Can't Object To Interest Rate After Repaying Amount : Supreme Court
Case Details: RAJESH MONGA VERSUS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 186
Coram: Justices A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh
The Supreme Court held that once the person has availed the loan at the agreed rate of interest, then after paying out the loan amount along with the decided rate of interest, he can't claim back refund of the interest amount alleging that the higher rate of interest is charged by the Non-Banking Financial Company ("NBFCs") than fixed by the RBI.
Case Title: JOSHINE ANTONY vs. ASIFA SULTANA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 195
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court recently held that a case under the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964, is not sustainable when the sample of meat was seized by an officer who was not authorised to do so.
Case Title: THANGAM AND ANOTHER VERSUS NAVAMANI AMMAL, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 188
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court observed that the failure of the defendant to give para wise reply against the claim made by the plaintiff would make the allegations made in the plaint as admitted against the defendant.
Supreme Court Quashes Money Laundering Case Against Karnataka Dy CM DK Shivakumar & Aide
Case Title: Anjaneya Hanumanthaiah v. Principal Director of Income Tax & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9435-9439 of 2019 and other connected matters
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar and his aide challenging criminal proceedings in a 2018 money laundering case.
Case Details: SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 193
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court, while granting custody of a minor child to the her aunt despite opposition from the father, held that the personal law or statute couldn't override the welfare of the child while deciding the custody of the child.
Case Title: XYZ v. Col Sanjay Nijhawan and Ors., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1267/2023 in C.A. No. 7175/2021
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
In a contempt case filed by an ex-Air Force officer, the Supreme Court today directed inter-alia immediate release of Rs.18 lacs, out of a total court-ordered sum of Rs.1.6 crores, as compensation for medical negligence at a military hospital that resulted in his contracting HIV.
Case Title: VINIT VILAS VAIDYA vs. MANJIRI VINIT VAIDYA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 194
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court expressed its displeasure on its Registry for failing to comply with its specific direction to draw a decree of divorce. It is appropriate to mention that under this decree, more than ten proceedings were disposed of by mutual consent. However, this direction was not complied with for more than five months.
No Evidence Could Be Led Beyond Pleadings : Supreme Court
Case Title: SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS. VERSUS V. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 194
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court observed that the evidence which was not a part of the pleadings couldn't be led in the trial.
“There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings. It is not a case in which there was any error in the pleadings and the parties knowing their case fully well had led evidence to enable the Court to deal with that evidence. In the case in hand, specific amendment in the pleadings was sought by the plaintiffs with reference to 1965 partition but the same was rejected. In such a situation, the evidence with reference to 1965 partition cannot be considered.,” the Bench said.
CASE TITLE: SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4726/2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
In a plea alleging dismal state of government schools in Bihar and seeking implementation of the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 in the state's government schools, the Supreme Court on Monday issued notice and called for the authorities' response.
Test Applied Under Section 319 CrPC Is More Than A Prima Facie Case : Supreme Court
Case Title: N. MANOGAR vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 197
Coram: Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Vikram Nath
The Supreme Court reiterated that while allowing an application under Section 319 of the CrPC, the test to be applied is more than just a prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of evidence that if left unrebutted would lead to conviction. This Section confers power on the Court to proceed against persons, other than named as accused in the chargesheet, appearing to be guilty of offence.
Case Details: Union of India & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 198
Amidst the controversy over the Uttarakhand government's proposal to construct animal enclosures inside the Jim Corbett National Park, the Supreme Court directed the constituting a committee to recommed whether tiger safaris should be permitted in the buffer or fringe areas and what guidelines should be promulgated for establishing such safaris, if permitted.
Besides appointing the committee for determining the larger question, the apex court also took a stern view of the illegal constructions and rampant felling of trees in Uttarakhand's Corbett National Park.
Case Title: THE TELANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RECRUITMENT BOARD v. SALUVADI SUMALATHA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 200
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and AS Bopanna
The Supreme Court held that merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, relief cannot be extended to a deprived candidate. It was also observed that courts have to be cautious and slow in dealing with the recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. A lot of thought process has gone into applying the rules and regulations, the Court said.
Case Title: PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRA VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 201
The Supreme Court recently quashed a 22-year-old criminal case against a person for allegedly abetting the suicide of a Scheduled Caste person who was working as his junior.
At the outset, after perusing the contents of the suicide note, the Supreme Court found that the deceased was frustrated on account of work pressure and was apprehensive of various random factors unconnected to his official duties assigned by the accused/appellant, thus held that no offence of abetment to suicide is made out to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the accused/appellant because they had no role in abetting the suicide of the deceased.
Case Title: DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER vs. JASHMINA DILIP DEVDA, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 202
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court held that the suspension/cancellation of the registration of the Hospital/Clinic under Section 20(3) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 ("PC&PNDT Act") is permissible only when the Appropriate Authority believes that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest.
Case Title: Bablu Yadav v. State of Bihar., 2024 LiveLaw (SC)
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Patna High Court's order of a 'De-novo' trial in a matter where the accused's trial, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, was concluded in 'one day.' The High Court, in its judgment, noted that the Trial Court had shown 'ugly haste.'
Case Title: Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v. Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 204
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held “ghee” to be a “product of livestock” for the purposes of regulation of its purchase and sale in all notified market areas of Andhra Pradesh (AP).
Case Title: A. MOHANDOSS v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).3950/2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of strengthening and enhancing the overall functioning of Bar Associations across the country.
Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND vs. SANDEEP KUMAR, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 205
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court denied pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to a police officer who failed to discharge its fundamental duty as a police officer of carrying forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion to punish the guilty.
Case Title: IN RE RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES SMW(C) No. 2/2024
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a rule in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which completely excludes visually impaired and no-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial services.
Case Title: XXXX VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 207
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal case against a man accused of raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage, after noting that when the relationship started, the woman was already married and that there was no promise to marry.
Case Title: MADAPATHI NAGENDRAPPA vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, Diary No.- 8688 - 2024
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1987. The petition was preferred on behalf of the Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple priests, known as the Machileshwarnath Temple, against the State of Telangana.
Case Details : GANESHKUMAR RAJESHWARRAO SELUKAR & ORS. v. MAHENDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS., Diary No(s). 45299/2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwal and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court on March 7 relaxed a condition laid down in an earlier judgment that the Presidents of the State Consumer Dispute Commissions should be selected on the basis of a written test and viva voce. Acknowledging the impracticality of a written test for this specific post, which is to be occupied by a retired High Court judge, the Court has directed the relaxation of the requirement.
Case Details: Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 208
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case against a professor for his WhatsApp status criticising the abrogation of Article 370, describing it as a 'Black Day' for Jammu and Kashmir.
Case Details : Sharik Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 216
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
In the latest development, the Supreme Court has firmly directed the Narcotics Control Bureau's officers to comply with its three-judge Bench judgment in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu., (2021) 4 SCC 1.
Case Details : MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. GOOGLE LLC SLP(C) No. 001575 - 001576 / 2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court refused to entertain MakeMyTrip's challenge against the Delhi High Court order which had lifted the interim restraining orders against Google and Booking.com from using the 'MakeMyTrip' (MMT)mark, with or without spaces, as a keyword on the Google Ads Program. The Court noted the lack of any premised confusion under S.29 of the Trade Mark Act 1999.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court ordered that the Supreme Court Bar Association's Special General Meeting shall be convened on or before April 16 at Supreme Court Bar Library No.1. Further, it has also been stated that the Supreme Court Bar Association members, who, as per the SCBA rules, are eligible to vote in its election, can participate in this meeting.
Case Title : Bijender v State of Haryana., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 209
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court observed that where the interim protection from arrest is subject to the accused's cooperation in the investigation, he/ she is not expected to make self-incriminating statements under threat of the State seeking the withdrawing of such protection.
By Judicial Order, High Court Cannot Render Advice : Supreme Court
Case Title: Yogesh Narayan Raut v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl) Diary No. 8181/2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
While deprecating a High Court order for overlooking the long period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that Courts cannot render "advice" through judicial orders and stayed a direction calling for a periodical report from Trial Court on the progress of trial.
Case Title: Vinod Katara vs State Of UP 2024., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 210
Coram: Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court, while denying the plea of juvenility preferred by a convict in a murder case, observed that to determine age, ossification test stands last in the order of priorities. Pertinently, Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 provides for the mode of determination of age.
Article 20 Doesn't Prohibit Court From Imposing Lesser Punishment As Per New Law: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S A.K. SARKAR & CO. & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 212
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale
The Supreme Court observed that Article 20(1) of the Constitution doesn't restrain the Courts from imposing a lesser punishment on the basis of a new law which came into force after the date of commission of the offence.
Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR BUNG & ORS., STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 213
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court, in its recent order, has stated that the directions passed by it in the decision of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 287, are mandatory.
Case Title: Rajkumar v. State of Karnataka., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 214
A relationship may be consensual at the beginning, but the same state may not remain so for all time to come., held the Supreme Court while declining to quash an FIR registered against a rape accused.
Case Title: Ramveer v. The State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 217
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Shocked at allegations levelled by a prosecution witness against state officials, regarding assault for the purpose of eliciting a confession, the Supreme Court recently directed undertaking of an inquiry as well as administrative and criminal action.
Case Details : M/s Trois Corporation HK Ltd v. M/s National Ventures Pvt Limited., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 217
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,
The Supreme Court in a recent order on deprecated the condition imposed by the High Court for the deposit of 75% of suit claim to condone delay and set aside an ex parte order.
Case Title: State of Punjab versus Gurpreet Singh & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 218
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that while exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution it can interfere with the order of the acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.
News Update
Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 104 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for his remarks about 'Sanatana Dharma'.
As soon as the petition was taken, Justice Datta told Stalin's counsel Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, "You abuse your Article 19(1)(a) right. You abuse your Article 25 right. Now you are exercising your Article 32 right? Do you not know the consequences of what you said?"
The Supreme Court agreed to consider urgent listing of the curative petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the Delhi liquor policy scam case.
Case Title: Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 140 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea by the Delhi government challenging the lieutenant governor's order restricting the former's ability to appoint its choice of counsel before constitutional courts and determine their fees in legal matters.
Case Title: K Ponmudi@Deivasigamani v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 530-531/2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Former Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister K Ponmudi has moved the Supreme Court against the Madras High Court order setting aside his acquittal in a disproportionate assets case.
SBI Requests Supreme Court To Extend Time Till June 30 To Furnish Electoral Bonds Information
The State Bank of India has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking an extension of time till June 30, 2024, to furnish information regarding electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India.
As per the judgment delivered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on February 15, the SBI is required to furnish the information to ECI by March 6.
Case Details: NITISHA vs. UNION OF INDIA MA 002661 - / 2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court directed the Union to file an affidavit clarifying the procedure and steps taken in the empanelling of the batch of male army officers as compared to their female counterparts. This direction has come in light of a contempt petition filed by women army officers for alleged violation of the Court's earlier directions for empanelling women officers for grant of permanent commission.
Case Details: JASWINDER SINGH vs.THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 190
In a significant development, the Supreme Court referred the issue of deemed transfer of the insurance policy upon transfer of vehicle ownership under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to the larger bench after finding an inconsistency amongst two of its previous judgments.
The State of West Bengal approached the Supreme Court, appealing against the Calcutta High Court's decision to transfer the probe into the attack against ED officials at Sandeshkhali to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This development comes within hours of the high court's order directing the transfer of the case and the custody of prime accused TMC leader Shajahan Sheikh to the CBI.
West Bengal's plea requesting the apex court's urgent intervention was orally mentioned before Justice Sanjiv Khanna's bench today by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Jaideep Gupta and Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
Maharashtra Govt Moves Supreme Court Against Acquittal Of GN Saibaba & 5 Others In UAPA Case
Hours within GN Saibaba's acquittal, the State of Maharashtra approached the Supreme Court challenging the recent decision by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court. In a major relief to the former Delhi University professor and human rights activist, the high court set aside his and five others' convictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in an alleged Maoist-links case. This verdict was handed down by a bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki SA Menezes.
Case Title: Zameer Ahmed Jumlana v. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) & Ors., Diary No. 6711 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court deferred its decision on the fate of certain religious structures in Delhi's Mehrauli, directing the petitioners and authorities to make their representations to a court-constituted religious committee first.
Case Title: KACHARA VAHATUK SHARAMIK SANGH Versus AJOY MEHTA AND ORS, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1264/2018 in C.A. No. 4929/2017 (and connected matter)
In a contempt petition filed against the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for non-compliance with directions to give permanent status to some of its workers, the Supreme Court on Tuesday called for the personal appearance of the Municipal Commissioner on the next date.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Union of India., Original Suit No. 1 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of a condition imposed by the Union Government on the State of Kerala that the former will give consent for additional borrowing only if the latter withdrew the suit filed in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Confers Senior Designation On Five More Advocates
In a significant development, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Supreme Court judges have conferred Senior Designation on five more Advocates on Record/ Advocates. The notification came following a full court meeting.
The names of these advocates are:
Mr Rajesh Mahale, Advocate-on-Record., 2. Mr PV Dinesh, Advocate-on-Record., 3. Mr Harinder Mohan Singh (HM Singh), Advocate-on-Record., 4. Ms Kaveeta Wadia, Advocate-on-Record., 5. Mr S Nandakumar, Advocate
Case Title: In Re: Contempt Against Upendra Nath Dalai., SMC (C) No(s).3/2023 (and connected matter)
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court sent back into custody a man against whom non-bailable warrants were issued earlier for non-deposit of cost of Rs.1 lakh as well as deliberate, repetitive failure to appear before the Court.
Contempt Petition Filed In Supreme Court Over SBI's Non-Disclosure Of Electoral Bonds Details
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017
Advocate Prashant Bhushan sought an urgent hearing for a contempt petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause against the State Bank of India (SBI) for alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court's order to disclose details of electoral bonds.
Case Title: Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9216 of 2022
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
In a courtroom exchange that unfolded at the Supreme Court, Bhima Koregaon-accused Gautam Navlakha's counsel, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, accused the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of engaging in what she described as 'extortion' by demanding an excessive amount from the human rights activist towards meeting his house arrest expenses.
Case Details: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1644-1662 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
While hearing Uddhav Sena's challenge against the Maharashtra assembly speaker's refusal to disqualify the members belonging to the Eknath Shinde-led group, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about Speaker Rahul Narwekar using the test of legislative majority to ascertain which faction was the real party.
Case Title : The Travancore Devaswom Board versus Ayyappa Spices and others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 207
Coram: A.S. Bopanna and PS Narasimha
The Supreme Court held that there was no fault on the part of the Travancore Devaswom Board in sourcing 7000 kilograms of cardamom in 2022 for the preparation of Aravana Prasadam which is offered in the Sabarimala Temple.
Case Title: Aditya Dubey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 104 of 2024
NEET-MDS aspirants have again approached the Supreme Court alleging that the Union Government has not yet taken a decision on postponing the NEET-MDS exam scheduled on March 18.
The Union, as per the previous order on 21 February, had to take a call on the issue of postponement of the exam and extension of the internship completion cut-off date.
Expressing concern over the lack of action, the petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking the restoration of the writ petition which was disposed of by the Court on February 21 based on the Union's assurance.
Fill Remaining Vacancies Of Central Haj Committee In 3 Months : Supreme Court To Centre
Case Details : HAFIZ NAUSHAD AHMAD AZMI VERSUS KATIKITHALA SRINIVAS & ORS CONMT.PET.(C) No.1246/2023 in W.P.(C) No.1229/2021
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Union Government informed the Supreme Court of the updated status report on steps taken to complete the composition of the Central Haj Committee.
The counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjay Hegde and Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, brought attention to vacancies in the Central Haj Committee, and the Additional Solicitor General(ASG) Mr. K M Nataraj, assured prompt remedial action, with a commitment to filling the vacancies within three months.
Case details: Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (CA N0. 4056/1999)
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma and AG Masih
On its 5th day of hearing, the Court deliberated upon the significant questions regarding the taxation of land and mineral rights, challenging the distinction between Entry 49 and Entry 50 in List II of the Indian Constitution.