Read Time: 01 hours
[Lakhimpur Kheri] Before the Supreme Court, the State of Uttar Pradesh in its counter affidavit to the plea seeking cancellation of Ashish Mishra’s bail, the prime accused in the Lakhimpur violence, has submitted that it vehemently opposed Ashish Mishra’s bail before the High Court, contrary to what has been averred in the SLP. The counter affidavit further states that given that the bail was granted on 10th February 2022, the limitation period to file an appeal is still running and that the decision to file an appeal against the bail plea is pending before the authorities. Bench: Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana with Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli Case Title: Jagjeet Singh and Ors. vs Ashish Mishra Alias Monu and Anr. Click here to read more
[Delimitation in UT] A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the increase of number of seats from 83 to 90 i.e., (107 to 114 including 24 seats in Pakistan occupied Kashmir) in Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir by the central government is ultra vires the Articles 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 and Section 63 of the Jammu & Kashmir Re-organisation Act, 2019. Case Title: Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[License For Arms] Supreme Court issued notice in plea challenging the exemption granted to persons who are from Coorg by race and Jumma tenure holders in Coorg from obtaining license for carrying arms under Arms Act till 2029. The notification of the government of India, which was issued in 2019 was held to be valid by Karnataka High Court in September 2021, this plea is a challenge to the order of the Karnataka High Court. The plea before Supreme Court was filed by an ex-army personnel. Bench: Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana with Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli Click here to read more
[Lakhimpur Kheri] The Top Court posted the hearing on the plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to Ashish Mishra, the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, on Monday (April 4, 2022). The bench said that they have received a letter from Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Retd.), who has been appointed to monitor the investigation, recommending the cancellation of bail granted to Ashish Mishra. Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana with Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: Jagjeet Singh and Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu and Anr. Click here to read more
[Tirumala Tirupati] The Supreme Court dismissed a plea by Andhra Pradesh BJP leader G Bhanu Prakash Reddy challenging the establishment of new collectorate at Padmavathi Nilayam, a guest house owned by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD). Reddy had approached the single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by filing a writ petition on the ground that TTD resolved to hand over the property to the government without any determination to the effect as to whether the same is in the interest of the deity and the devotees showing clear non-application of mind. Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela Trivedi Case Title: G.Bhanu Prakash Reddy vs. District Collector, Chittoor Click here to read more
[Spicejet-Maran Dispute] The Supreme Court granted one more opportunity to Kalanithi Maran and Spice Jet to settle their dispute. The bench was hearing an application filed by decree holders seeking vacation of the stay, wherein the apex court had stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court's order in the plea by Spicejet challenging the High Court order directing Spicejet to deposit money to secure the decree holders to the extent of interest granted to them under an arbitral award in share transfer issue among Spicejet's former promoter Kaliithi Maran and Kal Airways Pvt Ltd. Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murray and Hima Kohli. Case Title: Spice Jet Ltd vs. Kalanithi Maran Click here to read more
[Vanniyar Reservation] The Supreme Court pronounced its judgment stating that the 2021 Act, the Vanniyar Reservation Act 2021 is ultra vires under the Article 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution in the batch of petitions challenging the Madras High Court judgment which had declared the 10.5% internal reservation to the Vanniyar community under the existing 20% reservation to Most Backward Classes by the Tamil Nadu Government, unconstitutional. Court has thereby upheld the Madras High Court’s decision. Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi & Ors. vs. Mayileruperumal Click here to read more
[NEET-PG] A Supreme Court bench has set aside the All India Quota Mop Up round NEET-PG counselling. The court further directed that the 146 new government college seats that were made available for Mop Up round of counselling be redistributed by a new round of counselling. The court has further directed that students who have not joined the counselling in the second round in both State quota and All India quota will be eligible to participate in the fresh round of counselling and that the fee they have paid will not be forfeited. Bench: Justices Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela Trivedi Case title: Dr. Keerthana vs. MCC & a batch of matters Click here to read more
[SIT Probe - Anil Deshmukh] The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea by the Maharashtra government, seeking formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for investigation of corruption cases against Anil Deshmukh on the ground that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is currently conducting the investigating into the issue(s), is not impartial. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs. CBI Click here to read more
[CJI’s Intervention] Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court has sought the Chief Justice of India’s intervention in response to the decisions of the High Court's division bench staying some of his recent orders. According to a news report in India Today, the single bench of Justice Gangopadhyay had previously directed the CBI to investigate alleged irregularities in the recruitment of teachers and non-teaching staff in West Bengal government schools, however, the order was stayed by the High Court’s division bench. Click here to read more
[Sabarmati Ashram] The Supreme Court has remitted a plea by Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, challenging the redevelopment of Sabarmati Ashram to the Gujarat High Court. The bench has clarified that it has refrained from commenting on the merits of the case while pointing out that the court should not have dismissed the case summarily. Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant Case Title: Tushar Arun Gandhi vs. State of Gujarat Click here to read more
[AIMPLB challenges Hijab judgment] The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has challenged the judgment of the Karnataka High Court holding that Hijab is not an essential religious practice of Islam. In its plea, it has stated that certain sporadic groups started ‘heckling’ Muslim girl students practicing Hijab in December 2021 and when the heckling escalated, the Government issued the Government Order dated 5th February 2022. The plea states that the GO was is “blatantly partisan and has a communal colour and was passed only to appease these hecklers.” The plea adds that the Court lacked institutional capacity to decide essentials of religion, correct articulation of the issue and that the appropriate questions in the given case would be to determine the answers to the following. Case title: Munisa Bushra Abedi vs. State of Karnataka Click here to read more
[Plea reaches media houses first] Before a division bench of the Top Court, the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that "the nature of some PILs are such that the pleadings reach the media before they reach the law officers." The court was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenging the validity of Section 2(f) of the National Commission for Minority Education Institution Act 2004 alleging that it confers unbridled powers on the Centre to declare a community as 'minority'. When the matter was called for hearing, the SG sought time as he was yet to go through the affidavit. To this, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul remarked "Mr. Mehta, it seems that the affidavit has already appeared in the media." At this point, the SG remarked as stated above. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[Karwar Port] The Supreme Court has asked the State of Karnataka not to proceed with the expansion work of Commercial Karwar Port. The above transpired in a plea filed by Fishermen Association in Baithkol Village, Karwar challenging the order of a division bench of Karnataka High Court dismissing the plea by them seeking an injunction against the State and the related authorities against continuing the expansion of the Second Stage Development of Commercial Karwar Port, at Baithkol Village and Rabindranath Tagore Beach at Karwar Bay, Karwar Taluka, Uttara Kannada District. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Vice President of the Fishermen Association who signed the affidavit owned land that was acquired for setting up the original Karwar Port. Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana with Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli Case Title: Baithkol Bandharu Nirashrithara Yantrikrut Dhoni Meenugarara Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha vs. CEO, Karnataka Maritime Board. Click here to read more
[Rotomac Fraud] The Supreme Court granted interim protection to former directors of Mohan Steel India Ltd. in a case linked to a company fraud of approximately Rs. 7,500 crore caused to a consortium of 14 banks, in which the promoters and directors of the Rotomac Group of Companies are also facing trial. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) led an investigation into the Rotomac group of companies and filed a complaint in May, 2020 against Mohan Krishna Kejriwal, Gopal Kejriwal and Sri Krishna Kejriwal former directors of Mohan steels who sought anticipatory bail before the top court. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh Case Title: Mohan Krishna Kejriwal vs. State of UP Click here to read more
[MP Higher judiciary exams] Justice DY Chandrachud, Supreme Court Judge, while dismissing a plea by a higher judiciary aspirant from Madhya Pradesh for relaxation of upper age limit, as he had crossed the prescribed age of 45, said “All the best for your career as a lawyer, you will succeed in the bar.” The petitioner had, in the year 2020, challenged the decision of the High Court to change the upper age limit for appearing in the Higher Judicial Services examination from 48 years to 45 for candidates belonging to the SC/ST category and sought a relaxation for himself on account of his age (being born in 1976). The court had by an order dated 10th February 2020 permitted him to sit for the examination, he could however not succeed and the petition was disposed of. Bench: Justices Chnadrachud, Surya Kant and Bela Trivedi Case Title: Duwarakya Sawale vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Click here to read more
[JEE mains session] Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging a notification issued by the National Testing Agency (NTA) dated March 1, 2022, reducing the sessions of JEE mains from 4 to 2. The court, however, gave the petitioners liberty to approach the authorities and make a representation in this regard. The court, on hearing the submissions, noted that they cannot interfere in the matter as it is a policy decision as NTA has not changed the eligibility, course content or the syllabus. The court noted that the petitioners are aggrieved by a notification of March 1, 2022, as amended on March 14, 2022 by which 2 sessions have been granted for appearing in JEE Mains 2022 as opposed to 4 that were followed in the previous years. Bench: Justices Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela Trivedi Case Title: Krishna Rana vs. National Testing Agency Click here to read more
[Execution of arbitral awards] The Supreme Court has expressed its concern over the pendency of execution proceedings on Arbitral awards leading to non-execution of awards pronounced 30 years ago. The bench said that "It is very unfortunate that even after a period of 30 years, the party in whose favour the Award is passed is not in a position to enjoy the fruit of the litigation/Award." While hearing a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court order denying direction to the execution court to expedite the execution petition in which the Award has been passed in the year 1992 and the execution petition is of the year 2003, which is still reported to be pending, Court said, "This is a glaring example of frustrating the arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act". Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna Case Title: M/S Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. & Anr. Click here to read more
[UPSC extra attempt] The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking direction to grant an extra attempt to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)- Mains aspirant who could not appear in the UPSC examination- 2021 in view of the Covid-19 situation. A three-judge bench noted, "The petitioners have shown the Parliamentary Committee Report. In light of the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee, we dispose of the petitions directing the authority to consider the representation within 2 weeks in view of the report." Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice CT Ravikumar Case Title: Arjit Shukla & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. Click here to read more
[MP Sharad Yadav to vacate government bungalow] The Supreme Court has granted further time to former Rajya Sabha MP and RJD politician Sharad Yadav till May 31, 2022, to vacate his government accommodation. The bench made it clear that they are passing this order keeping in mind the submissions made regarding Yadav’s health. The bench further directed Yadav to file an unconditional undertaking in this regard and held that he cannot use the benefit of this order if the undertaking is not filed. The bench also held that it is not deciding any issue on merits as it had not gotten the opportunity to do so. Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Sanjeev Khanna Case Title: Sharad Yadav vs. Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Click here to read more
[Ration card for sex workers] The Supreme Court directed the States to maintain confidentiality on the details submitted by the sex workers for claiming the benefits of Ration and Voter ID cards as earlier directed by the Top Court. Court asked the counsels appearing for the State to instruct the authorities to maintain confidentiality stressing that otherwise, the sex workers will not be able to claim the benefits. "Nobody expects to be in the public and take the risk of being grinded," the bench said. Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai Case Title: Budhadev Karamskar vs. State of West Bengal Click here to read more
[Physical hearings] The Chief Justice of India NV Ramana has announced that the Supreme Court will now adopt a full physical hearing of matters from Monday (April 4, 2022). However, CJI Ramana told that requests by advocates for virtual hearings will be considered on Mondays and Fridays. The Supreme Court has announced a full physical hearing after two years of moving to virtual hearings due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Earlier, An intervention application (IA) was filed by 114 lawyers seeking resumption of normal court hearing /complete physical hearing as was prevailing prior to March 16, 2020 i.e. before the pandemic. Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
