Constitution Bench hearings
The issue before the Supreme Court pertains to the question whether WhatsApp’s privacy policy which was introduced in January 2021 is in violation of right to privacy under Article of the .
Equality Hearing
Petitioner contended that they were entitled to the Fundamental Right to marry which was entrenched in the Constitution which includes the choice of a marital partner. Neither the State nor Society could intrude into the domain of individual right to pursue a way of life which were central to their identity and autonomy.
Also Read
5-Judge Bench Verdict on Unstamped Arbitration Agreement
The Supreme Court in 3:2 majority approved paragraph 22 and 29 of Garware Wall Ropes case, and to this extent also approved Vidya Drolia case.
The practice of dissent in judicial decision-making process plays a critical role in revealing constitutional commitment to deliberative democracy. Allowing judges to express differing views and engage in a dialogue about the law and its interpretation can potentially lead to a more nuanced and refined understanding of the law, as the Court grapples with competing interpretations and seeks to reconcile them in a principled manner.
Sealed Covers violate natural and open justice
Observing that the sealed cover procedure violates both principles of natural justice and open justice, the Supreme Court has held that the public interest immunity proceeding is a less restrictive means to deal with non-disclosure on the grounds of public interest and confidentiality.
Press Freedom
The Supreme Court held that the critical views of the Media One News Channel on Government policies cannot be termed ‘anti-establishment’ as the use of such a terminology in itself, represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment.
Bilkis Bano – Premature release of Convicts case
The Supreme Court asked the Gujarat Government reasons behind its decision to grant remission to the 11 life convicts, who were convicted for raping Bilkis Bano and murdering her family members
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay versus Supreme Court
In an interview with ABP Ananda, Justice Gangopadhyay had made remarks against TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee in relation to the West Bengal Teachers Recruitment Scam case, which was pending before him.
The Mysterious ‘Mr Put Mine, Advocate’
Recently, in a matter one of the advocates of the petitioner was recorded as “Mr. Put Mine, Advocate”. Taking note of the mistake that caused lot of embarrassment to the Court as the same was widely circulated on WhatsApp and other social media, the Court initiated proceedings suo moto.
The Supreme Court upheld the penalty of dismissal of Civil Judge and said that providing an unprepared judgment, fait accompli, is completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.
Menstrual Hygiene
The Supreme Court viewed that it would be appropriate if the Union Government engages with all the State governments and Union Territories to ensure that a uniform national policy is formulated with sufficient leeway for the States and UTs to make adjustments, based on the prevailing conditions in their territories.
Daughters’ Inheritance rights
Since the daughter had not signed the alleged settlement deed, the Supreme Court clarified that “In a suit for partition of joint property, a decree by consent amongst some of the parties cannot be maintained”.
Advocates and Advocacy
Supreme Court will be examining the validity of exorbitant enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils
Criticising the practice of the advocates going on strike and abstaining them from work, the Court observed that it is appropriate that their genuine grievances are considered by some forum so that such strikes can be avoided.
Arbitration and Conciliation
The limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the pre-referral stage is navigated through the test of a ‘prima facie review’
Contract and Specific Relief
Supreme Court said that as per proviso to Section of the an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act.
Consumer Protection
in Real Estate Disputes[/URL]
The Court observed that for determination of compensation, the Consumer Forum must examine the time value for money, an in-depth analysis of all the facts and materials surrounding factors, including uncertainties of market are to be considered.
Corruption
When there is prima facie satisfaction that there is something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, the Court cannot jeopardise the investigation, more so when the allegations are grave in nature.
High Profile Cases
The Supreme Court observed that this was not a case where Akhil Gogoi should be allowed to be detained in custody, especially after having secured an order of discharge, rightly or wrongly.
The Bench said that the reasoning of the Lower Courts that sanction under Section of was required from the Union Government might not be correct.
The Supreme Court said that the power to take additional evidence in an appeal is to be exercised to prevent injustice and failure of justice, and thus, it must be exercised for good and valid reasons necessitating the acceptance of the prayer.
The Supreme Court’s decision shall not affect the pending proceedings before the High Court of Delhi against the order of the ECI as the Court did not express anything on the Constitution of the Shiromani Akali Dal
The Court directed to remit the matter back for fresh disposal before another bench of the High Court.
The Supreme Court gave huge relief to Comedian Munawar Faruqui, by clubbing all FIRs and complaints registered against him at various places.
Criminal Investigation, Trial and Justice
The Supreme court observed that for woman’s death to be considered dowry death under Section 304B and 498A IPC, the cruelty or harassment has to be soon before the death.
Supreme Court said that the degree or dimension of the offence should not be the direct approach of the Court in its inquiry into juvenility of an accused or convict.
The Supreme Court doubted the prosecution’s story due to various lacunas existing in it, the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the material inconsistency in the statements of the eyewitnesses.
In the case at hand, a man had shot himself dead following a monetary dispute with the 74-year-old Advocate’s sone and two others.
Supreme Court said that the High Court did not properly consider the instant case of rash and negligent driving, and that the principle aim and object of IPC is to punish offenders.
The Patna High Court had rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail in this matter, while the Supreme Court granted protection to the petitioner against arrest on 16-12-2022.
Supreme Court considered the case wherein the Trial Court proposed award of death sentence for rarest of the rare case, while the Jharkhand High Court modified it to life imprisonment for whole biological life without any scope for remission.
Supreme Court was quick to clarify that if prosecution was unable to prove its case on its own legs, then it won’t be able to derive advantage from the weakness of the defence and the Court would not be able to convict the accused on the strength of the evidence in the form of reply to the suggestions made by the defence counsel to a witness.
The Supreme Court stated that it was imperative to conduct evaluation of mitigating circumstances at the trial stage, in order ‘to avoid slipping into a retributive response to the brutality of the crime’.
The Supreme Court made clear that further investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment and hence, the principle of double jeopardy would not apply.
Supreme Court commented on the patent illegalities and the pro-active exercise of multiple jurisdictions in the instant case.
To identify whether the case of an accused under S. 302, IPC falls in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, for the purpose of modification of sentence, it is no consideration by itself that the accused is a first-time offender and has no antecedents.
The right of default bail under Section of the is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right flowing from Article of the , observed the Supreme Court.
Food Adulteration
Section of the provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he purchased the article of food from any manufacturer with a written warranty.
Narcotics and Drugs
A regular offender, mastermind, kingpin of “ganja” trade cannot be granted bail if prima facie guilt is established and is likely to commit the same offence when enlarged on bail.
The petitioner relied upon S.K. Raju v. State of West Bengal, which had observed that wherever the search of a person takes place, the requirement of mandatory compliance of Section 50 of NDPS was attracted, irrespective of whether the contraband was recovered from the body of the person or not.
Electricity/Power Generation
Supreme court was of the opinion that the “casual approach of APTEL, in not reasoning how such findings could be rendered, cannot be countenanced. As a judicial tribunal, dealing with contracts and bargains, which are entered into by parties with equal bargaining power, APTEL is not expected to casually render findings of coercion, or fraud, without proper pleadings or proof, or without probing into evidence.”
The Supreme Court opined that it is unjust on the part of Haryana Utilities to say that 70% of the installed capacity should be further bifurcated and the Change in Law benefit should be restricted only to 70% of the installed capacity.
Supreme Court has requested the Union of India along with Ministry of Power to evolve a mechanism so as to ensure timely payment by the DISCOMS to the Generating Companies, which would avoid huge carrying cost to be passed over to the end consumers.
Supreme Court observed that the High Court had the opportunity to correct the obvious errors in its order, since one part of the matter was not even considered, and the other part also lacked requisite attention to contentions.
Environment Protection
The Supreme Court said that if the directions are continued, rather than avoiding man-animal conflict, it will intensify the same.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Supreme Court clarified that the substituted Regulation 30A of IBBI Regulations clearly provided for withdrawal applications being entertained before constitution of Committee of Creditors.
Land Acquisition
The Supreme Court observed that the entire acquisition proceedings and the benefits, which were proposed by the State Government to Anil Agarwal Foundation for setting up Vedanta University were vitiated by favourism and violative of Article of the .
Rent Control
“Stamp Act in its application to Uttar Pradesh has been amended by the UP (Stamp Amendment Act 1952) and Article 23 of Schedule IB as applicable to UP.”
Service Law
Supreme Court said that the denial of promotion was on the ground that candidates do not possess the prescribed requisite qualification namely “Diploma in Civil Engineering”, and not because they possess a two-year diploma not three-year diploma.
Supreme Court held that, “the entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day.”
The Court said that the search of the Commandant’s house did not result in recovery of any incriminating documents/article and without other materials incriminating the appellant or pointing to his guilt, the statement of a single person alone cannot result in conviction of the Commandant and deprive him of his pension benefits.
The Supreme Court observed that having participated in the selection process without any demur or protest, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the same as being tainted with mala fides, merely because they were unsuccessful.
It was alleged that the Calcutta High Court had arbitrarily cancelled the appointment of petitioners who were appointed as Assistant Teachers of Government aided primary school in the year 2017-2018.
The Court stated that the “claim of the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds.”
Social Welfare
In the case at hand, as the right to be heard was denied to the community certificate holder, the burden of proof to disprove the nature of the certificate, had not been discharged. Hence, the Supreme Court presumed the community certificate to be genuine.
“Without the ration card a migrant/unorganized labourer or his family members may be deprived of the benefit of the schemes and may be the benefit under the National Food Security Act”, the Supreme Court observed.
The Court noted that the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences had issued a certificate to the petitioner indicating that he is suffering with writers’ cramp.
Taxation
The amendment in Section 153-C of the Income Tax, 1961 was brought and the words “belongs or belong to” were substituted by the words “pertains or pertain to” after a ruling by Delhi High Court in Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited v. ACIT,
“It is necessary to refer to ‘general rules of interpretation’ of first schedule of for the purpose of relevant classification of the goods under CTA.
The Supreme Court observed that the consequences on nonpayment or belated remittance of the TDS would be under Section 201(1A) and Section of .
The Supreme Court stated that the erroneous assessment order had resulted in loss of the Revenue in the form of tax. Thus, the High Court had committed a very serious error in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner passed in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
The Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the High Court stating that the respondent assessee was neither entitled to the deductions nor profit earned under Section 80-IB on the amount of DEPB as well as Duty Drawback Scheme.
The Revenue had submitted that the Assessing Officer is competent to consider all the material that is available on record, including that found during the search, and make an assessment of ‘total income’. While some of the High Courts agreed with the said proposition, some disagreed. The Supreme Court was, hence, called upon to resolve the conundrum.
“The intention of the legislature is very clear and unambiguous that the moment any eventuality as mentioned in Section 45(5) occurs, the penalty shall be leviable as mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 45 of the Gujarat Sales tax Act, 1969”, the Supreme Court observed.
The Supreme Court rejected petitioner company’s claim based on a policy of 2013 amended in 2016 for subject land whose completion certificate was already issued in 2015 since it turns out to be hollow due to its non-applicability on the subject land or the petitioner’s project.
The Supreme Court asserted that it was always open for the High Court to consider and examine whether the Arm’s Length Price had been determined while taking into consideration the relevant guidelines under the Act and the Rules.
The Supreme Court said that onerous condition requiring deposit of Rs. 2 crores cannot be imposed for bail.
Guiding Principles for the Courts
The Supreme Court said that before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into, like whether such an issue was substantively at issue in the previous suit and similar such other questions may crop up.
The Court gave directions for Judgment writing to all the Courts and Tribunals, in a case where the impugned Judgment was a certified copy obtained from the Ounjab and Haryana High Court; however, it was not numbered paragraph-wise.
Placing its reliance on Bhurey Khan v Yaseen Khan , the Bench stated that the suit will not abate for the reason of non-substitution of all legal representatives of the deceased if the suit was substantially represented.
CJI led bench observed that “Technology is an enabler and a facilitator. Hence, no segment of the citizens should be left behind in the adoption of technology, least of all, in terms of access to justice.”
The Supreme Court held that Punjab & Haryana High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited powers under Section . and/or in exercise of the powers under Article of the
Supreme Court observed that the High Court had the opportunity to correct the obvious errors in its order, since one part of the matter was not even considered, and the other part also lacked requisite attention to contentions.
SCC Weekly
Know Thy Judge
The post appeared first on .