Read Time: 18 minutes

1. Keywords: Gratuity, judicial proceedings, appeal, conviction, withholding gratuity, pension
   [Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity] Stating that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings in trial and would be, thus, a continuation of judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court has held that during the pendency of the appeal filed by an employee against an order of conviction, the State cannot be disentitled from withholding the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (‘DCRG’). Court added that the time period of pendency of appeal would be considered a hiatus period within which certain arrangements have to be made which would be dependent on the outcome of the appeal.
   Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh
   Case Title: The Secretary, Local Self Government Department & Ors. etc. v. K. Chandran etc.
   Click here to read more
    
2. Keywords: reservation, in service doctors, Tamil Nadu, government medical colleges, Health and Family Welfare Department, government order
   [Reservation in govt medical colleges] The Supreme Court clarified that its interim order restraining the state of Tamil Nadu from applying reservation of 50% Super Specialty seats in various DM (Doctorate of Medicine)/MCh (Master of Chirurgiae) courses for in-service candidates in Government Medical Colleges was applicable only for the academic year 2020-2021. A Government Order (GO) dated November 7, 2020, was issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu whereby a reservation of 50% was granted to in-service  doctors in Government Medical Colleges across the State. This GO was challenged by way of writ petition and the said interim order was passed for the year 2020-21.
   Bench: Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai
   Case Title: Dr. N. Karthikeyan and Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
3. Keywords: Bar Council of India, BCI, Bar Exam, skill based, junior advocates, teaching faculty, law colleges
   [Suggestions to BCI] A division bench of the Supreme Court has issued certain suggestion to the Bar Council of India while taking into consideration the suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae, KV Vishwanathan, Senior Advocate. The top Court has asked BCI to ensure better accountability from law colleges on growth and absence of requisite faculty, make Bar Exam skill based. The Court also emphasized on evolving a fair system for juniors to find placement in chambers.
   Bench: Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh
   Case Title: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. TWINKLE RAHUL MANGAONKAR & ORS.
   Click here to read more
    
4. Keywords: One Rank One Pension, Armed forces, Koshyari Committee, future enhancements, pension, uniform pension, government policy
   [One Rank One Pension]  While upholding the central government’s implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy for the Armed Forces, the Supreme Court has held that the Koshyari Committee Report which had proposed the adoption of OROP in principle, cannot be enforced as a statement of government policy. The Koshyari Committee had submitted its report on December 10, 2011, in which it had said that OROP implies that a “uniform pension be paid to the armed forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners”.  Justice DY Chandrachud in his judgment noted that the Koshyari Committee Report is a report submitted to the Rajya Sabha by the Committee on Petitions and it cannot be enforced as a statement of government policy.
   Bench: Justices Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath
   Case Title: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union Of India 
   Click here to read more
    
5. Keywords: Land acquisition, compensation, reference courts, State of Haryana, Executing courts
   [Land Acquisition] Allowing an application to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP), the Supreme Court on Monday stayed an order by the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing all reference courts to accept the amount of land acquisition compensation as awarded by the state of Haryana. The order was passed by the High Court in a writ petition by a land owner seeking release of compensation for land acquisition. in the impugned order, the high court had generally restrained all the Executing Courts in Haryana from taking coercive steps; and had further directed that the Reference Court will accept the amount of compensation as per the proposed plan of the respondent state.
   Bench: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath
   Case Title: M/s Shivanand Real Estate Pvt Ltd v. The State of Haryana & Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
6. Keywords: Criminal Procedure Code, Section 122, habitual offenders, Security, good behaviour, suspects
   [Section 122 CrPC] Noting that an Executive Magistrate wanting to take security for good behaviour from suspected persons and habitual offenders, has powers under Sections 109 and 110 CrPC to issue orders under Sections 111 and 117 CrPC for security, the top court clarified that on violation of such orders, recourse specified under Section 122 CrPC is permissible. As per Section 122 if any person ordered to give security under Section 106 or Section 117 does not give such security on or before the date on which the period for which such security is to be given commences, can be committed to prison or be detained in prison, if already there.
   Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari
   Case Title: Devadassan v. The Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram & Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
7. Keywords: Civil Procedure Code, rejection of plaint, limitation, averments
   [ Order VII Rule 11 CPC]  The Supreme Court observed that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with grounds for rejection of a plaint, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint. "Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation. At this stage what is required to be considered is the averments in the plaint. For the aforesaid purpose, the Court has to consider and read the averments in the plaint as a whole....", observed the bench.
   Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
   Case Title: Sri Biswanath Banik & Anr. v. Smt. Sulanga Bose & Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
8. Keywords: Compensation, accidental claims, interest on compensation, date of accident, liability to pay interest
   [Interest on compensation]  While allowing an appeal filed by the heirs of a deceased sugarcane field labourer, the Supreme Court has held, "...the liability to pay the compensation would arise from the date on which the deceased died for which he is entitled to the compensation and therefore, the liability to pay the interest on the amount of arrears/compensation shall be from the date of accident and not from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner." The Court set aside a Bombay High Court order wherein it was held that interest on the compensation awarded shall be calculated from the date after expiry of period of one month from January 25, 2017 i.e., the date of the order passed by the Commissioner.
   Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
   Case Title: Shobha & Ors. v. The Chairman, Vithalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Ors
   Click here to read more
    
9. Keywords: Issue of summons, summons, Section 190 (1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, persons not arraigned, accused, police report, FIR, Magistrate, Statement of witnesses, complainant
   [Summons to person not arraigned] The Supreme Court has clarified that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report and whose name also does not feature in column (2) of such report.  For summoning persons upon taking cognizance of an offence, the court clarified that the Magistrate has to examine the materials available before him for coming to the conclusion that apart from those sent up by the police some other persons are involved in the offence. These materials need not remain confined to the police report, charge sheet or the F.I.R. A statement made under Section 164 of the Code could also be considered for such purpose, held the court.
   Bench: Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose
   Case Title: NAHAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
   Click here to read more