Read Time: 01 hours

1. [Firecracker ban] The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the pending case pertaining to the issue of ban on firecrackers after the same was mentioned by Senior Advocate Rajiv Dutta stating that this is the appropriate time for the matter to be heard as it will then get concluded and decided by Diwali. The matter has been posted on April 19 for further hearing. Earlier, the Apex Court had reiterated its directions including banning the use of Barium Salts in the firecrackers and manufacturing and selling joined firecrackers.
   Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
   Case Title: Arjun Gopal and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
   Click here to read more

2. [Ex Gratia Compensation] The Supreme Court reserved its order on the issue of tackling fake COVID-19 certificates being issued and limiting the time period for claiming the ex-gratia compensation for the kin of people who died due to COVID-19. The bench noted, “We’ll give 6 weeks’ time for the deaths that have already occurred and for the deaths occurring later, we'll give 90 days. Other than that, if there is some emergency, the delay may be condoned, if it can be condoned in the Supreme Court then it can be for others also”.
   Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
   Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Union of India
   Click here to read more

3. [Sikkim CM disqualification] The Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea challenging a notification of Election Commission of India, cutting short Sikkim Chief Minister Prem Singh Tamang’s disqualification from contesting in elections to one year from six years. When the matter came up for hearing Senior Advocate GV Rao appearing for the Chief Minister Prem Singh Tamang submitted that “according to the judgement in Jayalalithaa’s case, a person is to be disqualified for 6 years. Tamang moved Election Commission for a waiver in this regard and we have challenged commission’s order saying that once there’s a judicial order for disqualification of 6 years that can’t be overlooked to make a waiver.”
   Bench: Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari
   Case Title: J.B.Darnal vs. Election Commission of India
   Click here to read more

4. [Vaccine mandate] Before the top court, in Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s Public Interest Litigation against vaccine mandate, the Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta submitted that a person’s right not to be infected will outweigh another person's right to not get vaccinated. The SG while referring to a gamut of foreign judgments argued that “it is not enough that someone creates a doubt in the mind of the public with regard to vaccination, they should also try and dispel it.” He added that while the petitioners have referred to speeches of various foreign scientists on vaccination, they have not bothered to access what is in the public domain.
   Bench: Justices Nageshwar Rao and BR Gawai
   Case Title: Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India & Ors.
   Click here to read more

5. [Evacuation from Ukraine] Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal informed the Supreme Court that 22,000 people have been evacuated from the war-torn Ukraine by India. The AG further informed the court that India has evacuated 20 people belonging to other nationalities as well. The AG deemed it a "Mammoth effort by the government" which has been successfully executed. The submission was made during the hearing of two writ petitions seeking evacuation of Indian students from war-hit Ukraine.
   Bench: CJI NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari
   Case Title: Fatima Ahan vs. Union of India & Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India
   Click here to read more

6. [BS VI Vehicles] The Supreme Court has permitted the use of BS-VI light and heavy diesel vehicles for public utility and essential services. The bench further directed the registering authorities not to ask for production of this order of the court at the time of registration. The bench was hearing an application filed in the MC Mehta case seeking the above mentioned reliefs. The bench further noted that by an order of 18th September 2020, the court permitted registration of vehicles running on CNG as the emission levels of the vehicles were within the permissible limit.
   Bench: Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai
   Case Title: MC Mehta vs. Union of India
   Click here to read more

7. [AIPLB says will approach SC] All India Personal Law Board, General Secretary, Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani has made an appeal to all the Muslims to be patient and peaceful while stating that AIPLB will move Supreme Court in the matter pertaining the Hijab issue. In an online meeting held with the Legal Committee and Secretaries of AIMPLB, it was noted that the Karnataka High Court order has several errors, whereas, an individual's right to freedom has been violated.
   Click here to read more

8. [Inter-cadre of Central services] The Supreme Court has asked the West Bengal government to process the inter-cadre of Central Services officers Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneru and Reena Joshi who had sought for transfer on account of being married to someone who belonged to a different cadre.
   Bench: Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy
   Case Title: Chief Secretary, West Bengal vs. Lakshmi Bhavya Taneeru
   Click here to read more

9. [Mullaperiyar Dam] Arguing before the Supreme Court, in the matter raising Mullaperiyar dam safety issue, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta submitted that in the long run, process for the construction of a new dam has to start considering the issue surrounding Mullaperiyar dam’s safety. Stressing that the nature of the dispute in this matter is dam safety, Gupta said "Kerala is before Your Lordships arguing that the dam is not safe, safety depends on the height of the water. More volume of water is pressing against the dam, there is less space to hold the water."
   Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice CT Ravikumar
   Case Title: Dr Joe Joseph & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
   Click here to read more

10. [Child abuse in shelter homes] The Supreme Court has asked Bihar government to file a report on the action that it has taken against the government officers who were involved in/ignored the child abuse in shelter homes. When the matter came up for hearing Shoeb Alam, Advocate, submitted that CBI probe has been ordered just in one case and cited the example of Patna High Court taking cognisance of a girl being trapped in shelter home against her will. The counsel appearing for state of Bihar submitted that actions have been taken and an action taken report can be filed before the Supreme Court in two weeks’ time.
    Bench: Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana and consisting of Justice Krishna Murari
    Case Title: Nivedita Jha vs. State of Bihar
    Click here to read more

11. [Meerut fire tragedy case] The Supreme Court today reserved the judgment in a case filed by kin of the victims of 2006 Meerut fire tragedy. The case has been reserved for judgement after 16 years. It is to be noted that two one man commissions were appointed during the span of the hearing. State of Uttar Pradesh appointed Justice (retired) OP Garg as a one man commission to investigate into the tragedy. He was however replaced with Justice (retired) SB Sinha in 2014 by the Supreme Court.
    Bench: Justices Hement Gupta and Ramasubramanian
    Case Title: Sanjay Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
    Click here to read more

12. [Kashmiri Pandit Mass Murder] Roots in Kashmir (RIK), a prominent Kashmiri Pandit Organization, has filed a curative petition before the Supreme Court against the order passed by the top court in April 2017 dismissing its plea which sought an investigation into the mass murder of Kashmiri Pandits in the Kashmir Valley during 1989-1990. In 2017, a Supreme Court bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud declined to entertain the petition filed under Article 32, saying that, “We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. We however decline to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for the simple reason that the instances referred to in the present petition pertain to the year 1989-90, and more than 27 years have passed by since then. No fruitful purpose would emerge, as evidence is unlikely to be available at this late juncture.”
    Case Title: RIK v Union of India and Ors
    Click here to read more
     
13. [Param Bir Singh] The Supreme Court has handed over the investigation into the cases against Maharashtra's former top cop Param Bir Singh to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A division bench remarked, "The murky churning between the then Home Minister of Maharashtra and the then Police Commissioner has given rise to this 'battle royale' and these unfortunate proceedings." Court noted that the controversy began when Singh alleged that the then Home Minister Anil Deshmukh asked him and other police officers to collect a sum of Rs.100 crores as bribes from dance bars and hookah places. Court further noted that this resulted in Anil Deshmukh being taken into custody and being investigated by the CBI.
    Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh
    Case Title: Param Bir Singh vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
    Click here to read more
     
14. [ONGC vs. Afcons] While arguing in a matter pertaining to the dispute in arbitrator’s fees in arbitration where ONGC is a party, the Attorney General KK Venugopal told the top court that," Arbitrators believe they have a right to fix their own fees. Whatever fees they fix, should also be accepted by the parties." Venugopal further submitted before the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Sanjiv Khanna that public sector corporations are concerned about the fees of arbitrators." Arbitrators fixing their own fees will be highly anomalous. They ask for reading fees, conference fee, and a fee for the award. All these fees are becoming a problem for Public sector corporations....", the bench was further told.
    Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Sanjiv Khanna
    Case Title: ONGC vs. Afcons
    Click here to read more
     
15. [IPS Gurjinder Pal Singh] The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by IPS Gurjinder Pal Singh against an Order of Chattisgarh High Court which declined to quash FIR against the appellant in a Sedition Case for an offense under Sections 124A & 153A of India Penal Code. A division bench said, "These officers are good but when the Government changes, they are bound to face the heat." Additional Director General of Police, Gurjinder Pal Singh (appellant herein) was accused of Sedition Charges. Singh had contended that the registration of FIR is a continuation of the ill-motivated vendetta to rope Singh at the whims of State agency under the aegis of the highest authority of the State on account of pre-election propagations made by the party in power.
    Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari
    Case Title: Gurjinder Pal Singh vs. State of Chattisgarh
    Click here to read more
     
16. [Hijab Row] The Chief Justice of India NV Ramana refused to entertain mentioning of a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court order whereby the plea challenging the alleged ban on wearing the Hijab at Pre-University colleges in Udupi district of Karnataka was dismissed. "Don't sensitize the matter, it has nothing to do with exams," the CJI said after Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat mentioned the plea stating that the girls are not being allowed to enter the school premises, whereas, their exams are scheduled after a week.
    Bench: CJI Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari
    Click here to read more
     
17. [PM-Cares Fund] The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a plea against Allahabad High Court order dismissing plea challenging the constitutional validity of PM CARES Funds. The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea and move to the High Court while stating that, "tell the high court that certain grounds were not considered." The bench was hearing a plea wherein it has alleged that the High Court dismissed the plea while overlooking the fact that the petitioner in the instant case had questioned the constitutional validity, both of the PM CARES Fund and the PMNRF, in the light of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the constitution of the National Disaster Response Fund by the Central Government thereunder, which is statutory fund created by due process of law.
    Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai
    Case Title: Divya Pal Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
     
18. [Exclusion of PwD from combat roles] While hearing a plea challenging a Central government notification excluding persons with disability from the IPS, the Indian Railways Protection Force Service (IRPFS) and the Delhi, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep Police Service (DANIPS), the Supreme Court has granted week to candidates who have passed civil services exam to fill out form giving their preference. The Court was informed that the deadline to fill out the form had ended yesterday. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appearing for the petitioner, National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled, thus requested the Court to extend the deadline for two weeks.
    Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar and Abhay S Oka
    Case Title: National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
     
19. [Surveillance of Christian Missionaries] The Supreme Court dismissed the plea by Hindu Dharma Parishad seeking the establishment of a Board for Surveillance of the activities of Christian Missionaries. The plea by Hindu Dharma Parishad in Supreme Court is an appeal against an order of Madras High Court. Justice MM Sundaresh (when he was the judge of Madras High Court) had heard the matter and held that, “The prayer as sought for cannot be granted, as it is not for the Court to issue appropriate orders in this regard, since it lies within the jurisdiction of the State.” The order of Madras High Court further notes that there is a State legislation of Tamil Nadu which prohibits conversion from one religion to other by use of force or allurement by using fraudulent means.
    Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna
    Case Title: Hindu Dharma Parishad vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
     
20. [Kashmiri Pandits Plea in SC] Kashmiri Pandits organization, Roots in Kashmir has filed a curative petition before the Supreme Court against an order passed by the top court in April 2017, dismissing its plea which sought an investigation into the mass murder of Kashmiri Pandits in the valley during 1989-1990, seeking reopening, investigation, and speedy disposal of pending charge-sheets in the Kashmir 1989-1990 incident. The plea before the apex Court has sought the reopening of the case while stating that, "communal harmony is the hallmark of a democracy. No religion teaches hatred. If in the name of religion, people are killed, that is essentially a slur and blot on the society governed by rule of law." The Spokesperson, Amit Raina of Roots in Kashmir while speaking with LawBeat said that, "We had gone to Supreme Court in 2017 and had demanded reopening of cases against Yasin Malik and Bitta Karate, who are responsible for the genocide of the Kashmiri pandits as well as the killing of 4 Air Force Officers and this Curative petition is in furtherance to that writ petition which was eventually dismissed."
    Case Title: Roots in Kashmir vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more
     
21. [Kashmiri Youth] The Supreme Court dismissed a plea by Jammu and Kashmir Women's Development Corporation challenging the order of the High Court directing them to release loan instalments to a Kashmiri medical student. The court while dismissing the order remarked, “We need to uplift the youth of Kashmir by educating them, our interference will act contrary to it.” The court further noted that such an interference by the court will negatively impact the students in Kashmir. Mubashir Ahmed Bhat, the student, had obtained a loan of Rs. 30 lakhs under the by Kashmir Women’s Development corporation under a Scheme floated by the National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation ('the NMDFC') for pursing MBBS course in the Community Based Medical College, Bangladesh.
    Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant
    Case Title: Union Territory of J&K vs. Mubashir Ashraf Bhat
    Click here to read more

22. [Meerut Fire Tragedy] Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv and former law minister appeared before the Top Court in a case filed by kin of the 2006 Meerut fire tragedy seeking compensation. Representing Mrinal Event Managing Company, Bhushan argued against fixation of any liability on the company. He submitted that the organisers of the event were taken to Mumbai and Delhi to see the work and were then awarded the contract to air condition and put up structures for the exhibition. The Meerut fire tragedy happened on 10th of April, 2006, the last day of the India Brand Consumer Show organised by Mrinal Events and Expositions at Victoria Park.
    Bench: Justices Hement Gupta and Ramasubramanian
    Case Title: Sanjay Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
    Click here to read more

23. [Eviction of squatters from Kalkaji temple]  Supreme Court refused to interfere in the order of Delhi High Court, directing eviction of unauthorised occupants from Jhuggis and Dharamshalas at Kalkaji temple. The court however granted liberty to the petitioners to move the High Court appointed Administrator  for redressing their grievances. The Delhi High Court had on 22nd March 2022 passed an order asking the Delhi Police to assist the authorities in the eviction of squatters in Jhuggis and Dharamshalas. The High Court had held that, “The Kalkaji Mandir premises sees a steady and high influx of devotees during the Navratra period (beginning on April 2nd) and the continued occupation of the jhuggis and dharamshalas by the occupants would pose enormous threat to the safety and security of all the devotees, for whom elaborate arrangements would have to be made by the ld. Administrator.”
    Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant
    Case Title: Nathi Ram Bharadwaj vs. Neeta Bharadwaj
    Click here to read more

24. [RSS defamation case] The Supreme Court has upheld the Kerala High Court judgement stating that any member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has the 'locus standi' to maintain a complaint against organization's defamation in a case pertaining to a 2011 article in Malayalam weekly 'Mathrubhoomi' which allegedly intended to defame RSS. A division bench dismissed the plea challenging the Kerala High Court judgement stating that "we do not find any reason to entertain this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."
    Bench: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose
    Case Title: Mathrubhoomi Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and Ors vs. P Gopalankutty and Anr 
    Click here to read more

25. [Navjot Singh Sidhu road rage death case] The Supreme Court has reserved its order on an application, filed in a review petition against a judgment letting off Leader Navjot Singh Sidhu in a 34-year-old road rage death case with a fine of Rs. 1000. A special bench said that this cannot go on like this and that this has to stop someday, while allowing parties to submit a note on remaining submissions. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for the complainant submitted that, "In the present case, the fact that it was done intentionally is mentioned in the Judgment. The parameters applied needs reconsideration, the head injury was sufficient to cause death."
    Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice SK Kaul
    Case Title: Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Navjot Singh Sidhu & Ors.
    Click here to read more

26. [Forensic Labs] A Supreme Court division bench orally observed that the government is acting ‘penny wise pound foolish’ by not upgrading the existing State Forensic Labs and not having more such labs.  The top court noted that though the government is putting efforts to recover money from fraudulent businessmen it is not upgrading the infrastructure to back its efforts up. The observation came when Additional Solicitor General of India(ASG) SV Raju submitted that extracting data of defrauded investors from a hard disk is time-consuming and expensive. He further submitted that the Telangana State Forensic Lab is not cooperating with the Serious Fraud Investigating Agency.
    Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh
    Case Title: The State of Telangana Represented by Special Officer Vandhana & Ors. vs. M/s Heera Gold Exim Pvt Ltd & Ors.
    Click here to read more

27. [Mullaperiyar Dam] The Kerala State Government in its reply in the Mullaperiyar dam safety issue has sought a fresh review of Mullaperiyar dam by an Independent panel of experts comprising qualified Engineers and experts in the respective fields including design, geology, hydrology, hydro- Mechanical dam safety, construction and supervision, instrumentation, seismicity, adding that it should be conducted. The submissions have been made in a writ petition highlighting the inaction of the Supervisory Committee appointed by the Supreme Court for taking care of material and safety aspects of Mullaperiyar Dam and urging the proper monitoring of the dam. 
    Case Title: Dr Joe Joseph & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
    Click here to read more

28. [Vaccine Mandate] In a PIL against vaccine mandate, several States last week supported the vaccination mandate imposed by the Government. States Including Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh argued that orders mandating vaccination for accessing the public services are justified and are in the public interest. Whereas, over the issue of releasing data related to vaccine trials, Vaccine Manufacturers, Bharat Biotech and Serum Institute of India opposed the prayer of releasing data & said that the efficacy of the vaccine has been established, in addition to this, the data is with the regulator “where it is supposed to be” & that there is no locus for the petitioners.
    Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai
    Case Title: Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India & Ors.
    Click here to read more