Read Time: 01 hours
[Tripura Violence] The Supreme Court has strongly instructed the Tripura Government to implement the earlier order passed by the apex court, for not taking action against Journalist Samiullah Shabbir Khan who had tweeted the Tripura violence matter on Twitter, tagging the police in the same. The bench noted that in case the orders are not complied with, the home secretary and officers will be asked to remain present before the court next time. The bench was hearing the petition filed seeking quashing of FIRs filed against journalists and others for allegedly putting out a tweet on their twitter account on Twitter over violence in Tripura. Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant Case Title: Samiullar Shabbir Kahan v. SI Cyber Police Click here to read more
[NEET] The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging the order of Tamil Nadu government directing government medical colleges to reserve 50% of seats for doctors serving in the Super Speciality Courses (NEET-SS). Upon bench’s query as to why the petitioners had not challenged the order of Madras High Court upholding the Government Order, Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners here were not parties before the Madras High Court and that the G.O. is already under challenge before the Supreme Court. Bench: Justices Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai Case Title: N.Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu Click here to read more
[COVID-19 vaccination] The Supreme Court reiterated the stand of the Government that the production of 'Adhaar' is not mandatory for registration at the Co-WIN portal for Covid-19 vaccination. The bench said, “Adhaar is not the only one document, but you can present any of the 9 documents.” This observation has come in a plea seeking directions to remove the mandate of submitting Aadhar card details in the CO-WIN portal for the purpose of COVID19 vaccination. Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant Case Title: Siddharth Shankar Sharma v. Union of India Click here to read more
[BCI Elections] The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the notification by Bar Council of India (BCI) pertaining to the elections of office bearers. The plea filed by two practicing lawyers namely Pooja Gupta and Julie George had also sought 30% reservation for women in BCI and State Bar Councils. The BCI elections were scheduled to be held on February 6, 2022. The bench however granted liberty to Gupta and George to approach the Bar Council of India and make a representation for redressal of their grievances. Bench: Justices Nageshwar Rao and Abhay Oka Case Title: Pooja Gupta & Anr v. Bar Council of India Click here to read more
[Amazon-Future] The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by Amazon, challenging the Delhi High Court order dated January 5 whereby the high court had stayed the arbitration proceedings at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre in the 2019 Amazon- Future Group deal case. The Delhi High Court had said that the balance of convenience is in favour of Future Group as not granting it ex-parte ad interim relief and staying the arbitration would result in irreparable loss to the Group. It had also said that there is a "prima facie case in favour of Future Group" in the backdrop of the CCI order. Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli Case Title: Amazon.com NV Investments Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd Ors. Click here to read more
[TMC’s SK Supian] The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to Mamata Banerjee's election agent and Trinamool Congress leader SK Supian @ Sheikh Sufiyan, who is accused of killing a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supporter Debabrata Maiti at Chillogram in Nandigram after the state election results were declared. However, court has imposed several conditions. Supian had come to the top court challenging the Calcutta High Court order whereby his anticipatory bail application in the post-poll violence case had been dismissed. Bench: Justices Nageshwar Rao and Abhay S Oka Case Title: SK Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan v. The Central Bureau Of Investigation Click here to read more
[PMLA] Before a Supreme Court bench, in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) challenge matter, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the "uniqueness of the PMLA is the entire heart and soul of money laundering" and that one "cannot presume the heart and soul." The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed challenging the provisions of PMLA. Issue of confiscation of property after conviction was also discussed. Singhvi further made arguments regarding the issue of attachment of property, possession of property etc. and submitted that the Enforcement Directorate has enough safeguards to protect the property Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar Case Title: Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Ors. v. Union of India & Other Click here to read more
[PMLA Challenge] Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi last week appearing for the petitioners in a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act submitted that in case of proceeds of crime the importance is of projection of money as tainted or untainted, if the money is not projected as untainted there is no offence of PMLA. In addition to this, Rohatgi argued over the validity of explanation in Section 44 of the PMLA . "The explanation wrongly sits in Section 44, I don't think it clarifies Section 44 at all," Rohatgi added. Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar Case Title: Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Ors. v. Union of India & Other Click here to know more
[PMLA] Senior Advocate Amit Desai on February10th submitted before the Supreme Court that the underlying principle of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is to deal with proceeds of crime that were integrated into the legitimate economy and started affecting the financial integrity. A 3-judge bench was hearing a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in which Desai submitted, "The fundamental nature of the offence is regarding the process of converting illegitimate money into legitimate money." Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar Case Title: Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Ors. v. Union of India & Other Click here to read more
[Hijab Row - Supreme Court] The Hijab row finally reached the Supreme Court on February 10 when Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the issue before the bench led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana. However, the top court said that it is too soon to interfere with the Karnataka High Court's proceeding in the issue wherein the girl students have challenged the alleged ban of wearing Hijab in government pre-university colleges in the Udupi district. The bench said, "It's too soon to interfere with the High Court, let them decide, as soon we list the matter the High Court stops hearing it." Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli Case Title: Fathima Bushra v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Click here to read more
[Judicial Officer Sexual Harassment] Supreme Court has directed reinstatement of a Judicial Officer in a plea moved by her seeking reinstatement after resigning from service alleging sexual harassment and deliberate pressure by a High Court judge. The bench noted, "The resignation cannot be construed to be voluntary, the same is quashed and set aside." The petitioner, a former judge at the Madhya Pradesh subordinate judiciary, had claimed that she was forced to resign from duty owing to the hostile work conditions she had faced at the workplace. She had further alleged that she was handed a sudden transfer to a conflicted area after she had refused to give in to the “illegal demands” of a High Court judge. Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai Case Title: X Vs. Registrar General v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Click here to read more
[Uniform Education Code] The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking Uniform Education Code in line with constitutional provisions. The petitioner had also sought recognition of Gurukuls, Vedic Schools at par with Madrassas & Missionary Schools. The top court bench dismissed it stating, “You withdraw this and we'll give you the liberty to approach High Court.” The PIL was filed by Adv. Ashwini Upadhyay seeking directions to declare that Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews and Bahais have similar rights to conserve their language, script, and culture, and to establish/ administer educational institutions of their choice like Muslims, Christians, and Parsis. Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India Click here to read more
[Hijab Row- SC] The Supreme Court on February 11, again refused to interfere in the matter pertaining to Hijab Ban. CJI Ramana remarked “Don't spread these things to a larger level.” He added, “You have to think if you want to bring this to Delhi on a national level.” This development took place when Sr. Adv. Devadatt Kamat mentioned before the bench that an SLP had been filed challenging February 10 order passed by Karnataka High Court banning students from wearing anything in relation to their religious identity inside classrooms until further orders. Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli Click here to read more
[Court allowance] The Supreme Court has issued notice in a matter pertaining to court allowance to employees of the Supreme Court. Court has also asked the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist the court in the matter. The Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association have moved the top court against Centre's communication rejecting the Chief Justice of India's recommendation granting the allowance. The employees of have sought ‘court allowance’ at par with parliamentary allowance. Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant Case Title: Supreme Court Employees Association v. Union of India Click here to read more
[SpiceJet- Kal Airways] The Supreme Court has directed the counsels of SpiceJet and Kal Airways to seek instructions from the companies about a one-time settlement of the dispute over the share transfer issue among SpiceJet’s former promoter Kalinath Maran and Kal Airways Pvt Ltd. The bench was hearing an application filed by decree holders seeking vacation of the stay imposed by the top court on Delhi High Court's order in a plea by SpiceJet. The SpiceJet had challenged the high court’s order wherein the airline was directed to deposit money to secure the decree holders to the extent of interest granted to them under an arbitral award in the Share transfer issue. Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli Case Title: M/s Spicejet Limited v. Kalanathi Maran Click here to read more
[Heera Gold Scam] The Supreme Court recently raised concern over the WhatsApp messages of the investors/ victims of Heera Gold Scam to Judges, seeking redressal. The bench said, “We appreciate their concern but that is not the method for seeking redressal. We therefore call upon them to desist from doing so.” The bench was hearing a plea filed by the Investigating Agency, state of Telangana against Heera Gold Exim Pvt. Ltd. over alleged defrauding of its investors. Allegedly, Heera Golf Exim Pvt Ltd had collected investors’ money on the promise to pay 36% dividend return, however, the same was not paid. The investors' money was allegedly duped. Earlier, the Court had granted bail to its Managing Director on the ground of settling investors' money. Bench: Justice SK Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh Case Title: The State of Telangana Represented by Special Officer Vandhana & Ors. v. M/s Heera Gold Exim Pvt Ltd & Ors. Click here to read more
[Manipur Public Service Commission] The Supreme Court has directed the Manipur Public Service Commission to conduct the 2016 MPSC (Mains) Examination afresh within 4 months from February12th for filling up 82 posts of different categories of services. However, the court made it clear that only those candidates would be eligible to sit in examinations, who had appeared in the 2016 examination. Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar Case Title: The State of Manipur & Ors. v. Shalini Chingtham and Ors. (and other connected matters) Click here to read more
[PIL in SC] A Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court has sought the implementation of a Common Dress Code in registered and state recognized educational institutions in order to secure social equality, assure dignity and promote fraternity, unity and national integration. The petition filed by one Nikhil Upadhyay states that the common dress code not only reduces violence but also promotes a more positive educational environment. It reduces other forms of violence that occur due to socio-economic differences. It is to be noted that the matter is being heard before a Karnataka High Court bench, whereby girl students have challenged the alleged ban of wearing Hijab in government pre-university colleges in Udupi district. Case Title: Nikhil Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Plea in SC] A petition in Supreme Court has sought an alternate mode of assessment of students from Class X, XI, and XII of CBSE ICSE NIOS and State Boards instead of offline exam amid the effect COVID-19 situation on the students of the country. It has further sought direction to evaluate students as per their internal assessment for this academic year as well while stating, "Crores of students class X and XII under CBSE ICSE NIOS and State Board are left in a perplexed situation due to the postponement of their examination and in absence of any concrete stand taken by the Board." Case Title: Anubha Shrivastava Sahai and Anr v. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[PG seat of PWD student] The Supreme Court protected allotment of a Post Graduate medical seat of a person with disability till further orders. The bench was hearing a plea filed by a doctor with 41% disability. The doctor had obtained a PG medical seat in Radiology, however, was held to be ineligible for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses for the Academic Year 2021-22. Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant Case Title: Shubha Hiremath v. Union of India Click here to read more
[Adarsh Group scam] The top court has questioned the Centre as to why Priyanka Modi, the petitioner, one of the Directors of Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Limited (ACCSL), who is alleged to be involved in siphoning-off of funds and is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (SFIO), has been in custody since July 2019. Modi approached the top court by way of an SLP after her bail application was rejected by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in December last year. ACCSL was revealed to be the fund mobilization arm of Adarsh Group of Companies and LLPs (AGC&L) and the said Group comprises of 126 Companies, managed and controlled by the petitioner's father, Mukesh Modi, and his family members including her. Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar Cause Title: Priyanka Modi v. SFIO Click here to read more
[Cases against MPs/MLAs] The Supreme Court has agreed to list plea seeking directions to the Centre for taking necessary steps to debar candidates charged with criminal offenses from contesting elections, forming a political party, or becoming office-bearers of any party over urgent mentioning. The bench agreed to list the matter after urgent mentioning by Amicus Curie Sr. Adv. Vinay Hansaria who informed the bench that the 16th Report over the issue has been filed, and that an urgent listing is required. The report has stated that as many as 4984 cases are pending out of which 1899 cases are more than 5 years old. In addition to this, the total number of cases pending as of December 2018 was 4110, and as of October 2020 was 4859. Even after the disposal of 2775 cases after December 4, 2018, the cases against MPs/MLAs have increased from 4122 to 4984. Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India Click here to read more
[No bail to Azam Khan] The Supreme Court has denied interim bail to Samajwadi Party leader Mohammad Azam Khan for participating in Uttar Pradesh elections. The bench gave liberty to Khan to approach Allahabad High Court in this regard. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Khan had submitted that that FIRs are registered just before elections and most of them relate to events that had occurred long back. Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai Case Title: Mohammad Azam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh Click here to read more
[Yogesh Gowda murder case] The top court has dismissed the plea by former Congress Minister from Karnataka, Vinay Kulkarni challenging the Karnataka Government ordering CBI investigation in a 2016 case where he is an accused. A BJP worker and Zilla Panchayat member called Yogesh Gowda was murdered in 2016 while he was in a gym. Kulkarni was among those who are accused of the murder. In 2019, the Karnataka government had sanctioned further investigation by CBI through a GO, Kulkarni and other challenged the GO before the Karnataka High Court. However a division bench of the court had in October 2021 dismissed his plea. He subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the division bench. Bench: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha Case title: Somashekar v. State of Karnataka & Ors Click here to read more
[COVID-19 and Prisoners] The Supreme Court has asked the Kerala Government to hold on to the situation for a week and to not insist the prisoners to surrender in jail amid the grim Covid-19 situation in the state. While posting the matter for another date the court said, "We'll give them one more week, and then let's see if the situation improves you can call them back." The bench was hearing a batch of petitions seeking direction to the Kerala Government to refrain from issuing orders or notification to all classes of prisoners who were released on Parole/ Interim Bail during the Covid-19 period. Bench: Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai Cause Title: Dolphy v. State of Kerala and Anr., WeAreSaath v. State of Kerala and Anr. and other connected matters Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
