Read Time: 01 hours
[Ex-gratia compensation] The Supreme Court has sought suggestions to deal with the issue of doctors issuing fake Covid-19 certificates in view of the attempts of family members of the persons who died of Covid-19 to receive ex gratia compensation. During the arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that some doctors are issuing fake certificates for the purpose of filing applications to receive the ex-gratia compensation and they are also suggesting similar treatment in other diseases as well for families to avail said benefit. The development has taken place on a plea seeking ex-gratia monetary compensation to the families of deceased who succumbed to Covid-19 infection. Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna Case Title: Gaurav Bansal v. Union of India Click here to read more
[Bihar DGP] The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging the appointment of Director General of Police of Bihar. Senior Advocate Jay Savla submitted that the plea challenges the appointment of the DGP on the ground that it does not follow the guidelines of the court in Prakash Singh Vs Union of India. Court questioned Savla as to why the High Court cannot entertain such pleas, to which, Savla replied that matters of this nature are pending before the Apex Court. Thereafter, on hearing Savla’s submissions, Court issued notice in the matter. Bench: CJI NV Ramana and Justices Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: Narender Kumar Diraj v. State of Bihar Click here to read more
[Raghav Bahl ED case] The Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the founder of The Quint, Raghav Bahl who is an accused in a money laundering case, can travel abroad subject to him and his wife producing an undertaking on the date of return and providing the itinerary. The Supreme Court had in December 2021 protected Bahl from being arrested by Enforcement Directorate. The ED initiated a case of money laundering against Bahl after a complaint by the Income Tax Department and an allegation that he had laundered funds to purchase a mansion in London. Bahl had approached the Supreme Court after Delhi High Court refused to grant him protection in the case. Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant Case Title: Raghav Bahl v. Union of India Click here to read more
[MediaOne ban] A Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Ramana agreed to hear on Thursday the plea by MediaOne TV challenging the order of Kerala High Court banning it. The matter was mentioned by Dushyant Dave, Sr.Adv. He submitted that the company has been functioning for 11 years and that the company has over 300 employees and millions of viewers. Dave further submitted that they have been shut down due to some ‘secret file’ from home ministry. On January 31, the Central government had banned MediaOne citing “security reasons”. The Editor of MediaOne, Pramod Raman, had responded to the ban by saying that the government had not been forthcoming with any details behind its decision. Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: Madhayamam Broadcasting v. UOI Click here to read more
[Plea in SC] A Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court has sought direction to accommodate the medical students returning from Ukraine and permit them to complete their education in Indian medical colleges with appropriate Indian or foreign degree as an emergency and one-time measure. The plea has been filed by Parthvi Ahuja and Prapti Singh through Adv. Anoop Prakash Awasthi. The petitioners have also sought directions to the Central Government to coordinate with the Ukraine government and appropriate authorities in Ukraine and declare some central and/or state government/private medical colleges/some seats in the said colleges as overseas campuses of Ukrainian institutes for the purpose of continuation of studies as a one-time emergency measure till normalcy prevails in Ukraine and students may be taken back there for studies. Case Title: Parthvi Ahuja & Prapti Singh v. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[VVPAT verification] The Supreme Court has refused to give urgent listing to the plea seeking verification of Voter Verified Paper Audit trail (VVPAT) of EVMs before counting votes. The petitioners had prayed for the case to be listed tomorrow for hearing. The bench observed that at the last moment nothing can be done and asked the authorities to continue as per the pre-established procedure. The vote counting of the Assembly Elections in five states is scheduled to take place on Thursday, March 10. Earlier today, the bench had agreed to hear the matter on Wednesday after Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora mentioned the plea before the bench stating that verification of VVPAT is done after counting is over and by that time the election agents leave owing to which there is no transparency. Bench: CJI NV Ramana and Justices Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Abu Salem] The Supreme Court asked the Home Secretary to file an affidavit clarifying its stand on whether it is committed to abide by the commitment given by the former Deputy Prime Minister, Portugal not to keep Abu Saleem in jail for more than 25 years. When the matter came up for hearing Justice Kaul on perusing the affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enquired, “Is the government saying we will not stand by international commitments? The CBI is a prosecuting agency in this case. You are trying to avoid taking a stand.” On September 18, 2002 Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari and Monika Bedi were arrested in Portugal. They were extradited and brought to India. The extradition was granted for Salem in respect of Pradeep Jain murder case, Bombay Bomb blast case and Ajit Diwani murder case. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh Case Title: Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari v. State of Maharashtra Click here to read more
[Judicial Vista] The Supreme Court has issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction to prepare a layout for and construct a 'Judicial Vista' for enabling "access to better and dignified working conditions for the Judges, members of the Bar and registry officials." The bench was dealing with the plea filed by Adv. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad. He has further sought direction to the central government to constitute an independent Central Authority for the purpose of administering judicial infrastructure exclusively funded from the Consolidated Funds of India. It is submitted that the PIL is filed in view of the infrastructural deficit in this Court in terms of the space and other infrastructure for the smooth functioning of this Court. Bench: Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose Case Title: Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad v. The Supreme Court of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Arbitration fee-ONGC] The Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana while hearing a matter pertaining to dispute in arbitrator’s fees in an arbitration where ONGC is a party, remarked, “We may have to stop arbitration in India.” Attorney General of India KK Venugopal, argued that the arbitrators are charging Rs.80 lakhs per arbitration in addition to a separate reading fee. CJI opined that the country may have to stop arbitrations, the AG agreed to it. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, however, questioned, “Rs. 30 lakhs is the cap for arbitrators in arbitration under fourth schedule, do you want retired Supreme Court judges to hold arbitration at Rs.30,000 per sitting?” The Supreme Court had in January appointed Justices Justice Jai Narayan Patel, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivax Jal Vazifdar, former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court to the panel of arbitrators for the dispute and had directed them to appoint a 3rd arbitrator. Bench: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: ONGC v. Afcons Click here to read more
[PMLA challenge] Before the top court, in a batch of petitions challenging the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that in the last 17 years the total number of arrests in the money laundering cases is only 313 due to the existing screening layers that are needed to be passed before arrest. Upon this, the bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar sought an answer as to whether section 436(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code will have implications on the PMLA offences. Further, Mehta said that “it is a highly sophisticated offence. There are several platforms available, several softwares available (to delete the trail of the crime). It makes it really difficult for the investigation”. 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
[OLX] The Supreme Court quashed certain directions issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court to OLX India, an online marketplace company, in a matter pertaining to a fraud committed through the company's platform. In December last year, the High Court directed that all the advertisements on the OLX platform be deleted and be re-listed only after attaching an open PDF file along with each advertisement, containing certain details. Bench: Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha Case Title: OLX India v. State of Haryana Click here to read more
[Rajiv Gandhi assassination case] The Supreme Court has granted bail to A. Perarivalan, a convict in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. He was initially awarded death sentence which was commuted to life imprisonment by Supreme Court in 2014. The bench held that taking into account the fact that he has already spent more than 30 years , he is entitled to be released on bail despite vehement opposition by the Centre. However, Court added that the bail is subject to the outcome of the SLP filed against the orders of the High Court in 2015 wherein the order of the TADA Court refusing to monitor investigation was challenged. Earlier, the Court had on February 18 commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. Bench: Justices Nageshwar Rao and BR Gawai Case Title: AG Perarivalan v. State of Tamil Nadu Click here to read more
[Caste reservation in military] The Supreme Court dismissed a plea for caste reservations in admission to the NDA and noted that the armed forces are a homogenous unit that should not be divided on the basis of caste. The bench clarified that it was not inclined to hear the IA seeking caste-based reservation. “We are focused on gender issues and would not want you to divide it into other issues of caste, etc.,” the bench remarked. An interlocutory application was filed in the petition filed for intake of women in the National Defence Academy, Rashtriya Indian Military College and other military schools. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh Click here to read more
[Plea in SC] The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) has moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the state-owned oil marketing companies (OMCs) to sell diesel in bulk to KSRTC at a price significantly higher than even the market price of diesel. KSRTC has alleged that despite saving a huge amount of money in terms of agency commissions and logistical expenses, the state-owned OMCs are not selling the diesel in bulk as per the present retail market rate to the petitioner corporation. Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman & Managing Director v. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Plea in SC] Goa Congress president Girish Chodankar has moved Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court order upholding the decision of the Goa Legislative Assembly to dismiss the plea seeking disqualification of 11 MLAs of INC who joined BJP in the Goa Legislative Assembly. The plea has alleged that “Conveniently, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly allowed protection to the erstwhile members of the INC by invoking the protection guaranteed to a legislature party member granted only when the original political party of a member of the House (in this case, the INC) merges with another party.” The SLP has been filed by Lawmen & White (L&W), through its Partner, Mr. Ujjawal Anand Sharma, Mr. Prashant Sivarajan and Mr. D. Kumanan (AOR). Case Title: Girish Chodankar v. The Speaker, Goa Legislative Assembly & Ors. Click here to read more
[Vijay Mallya] The Supreme Court reserved orders on sentencing and further course of action in a matter where fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya was held guilty of contempt. When the hearing for the matter commenced, amicus curiae Sr. Adv. Jaideep Gupta submitted that Mallaya was held guilty on two counts - one for not disclosing the assets and secondly for violating express restraint order passed by the court. Justice Lalit at this point said, “The proceedings in UK are like a dead wall, we know there is something pending but we don’t know what it is.” Mallya had been held for contempt of court in 2017 for not disclosing the particulars of assets as directed by the court in a plea filed by State Bank of India. Bench: Justices Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha Case Title: State Bank of India v. Dr.Vijay Malayya Click here to read more
[MediaOne ban] The Supreme Court has issued notice in the plea filed by a Kerala based TV channel Media One challenging the ban imposed on it as it went off air on January 31 this year, after its license was not renewed by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (I&B). The TV channel’s plea was dismissed by both the single judge and a Division Bench. The court on hearing the parties issued notice returnable by Tuesday (15th March 2022) and directed the central agency to be present in the court with the files based on which the judgment of Kerala High Court was passed. According to Wikipedia, Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd, operates MediaOne under the Kerala chapter of Jamiat-e-islami-Hind. Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath Case Title: Madhayamam Broadcasting v. Union of India Click here to read more
[Azim Premji] A Supreme Court bench passed an order that has put an end to almost 70 litigations filed against Azim Premji and his affiliates by one Subramaniam and India Awake for Transparency Ltd. Going by some media reports, Premji was an initial investor in Subhiksha, he however withdrew eventually. Subramaniam was also subsequently arrested by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Tamil Nadu on the charges of financial misappropriation. The bench suggested Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv, appearing for Premji to discuss with the clients and find out if the series of this litigation can be brought to an end and if they are ready to let go of the litigation. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh Case Title: Azim Premji v. India Awake for Transparency Click here to read more
[Char Dham Project] A Supreme Court bench requested Justice (Retd.) AK Sikri to be the Chairperson of the High-Powered Committee that has been tasked to look after the environmental concerns and other issues related to the project which pertains to the construction of roads in the Himalayan valley leading up to the Chinese border. This development took place as the earlier Chairperson of the High-Powered Committee Prof. Ravi Chopra has tendered his resignation. The High Powered Committee was set up in August 2019 to consider the ecological impact of the project had put forth a report which affirmed deforestation and pollution on account of traffic. Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant Case Title: Citizens for Green Doon v. Union of India Click here to read more
[Prison reforms] The Supreme Court has extended six months’ time to the Supreme Court Committee on Prison Reforms headed by Justice Amitava Roy, former Judge of the Supreme Court to submit its report making suggestions on the inhumane condition and protection of rights of prisoners of 1382 prisons. The bench was hearing a suo-moto matter concerning the issue of inhumane conditions in 1382 prisons and the protection of the rights of prisoners. Amicus Curie Gaurav Agrawal stated that 3 months may be given to the committee to submit its report on the issue. Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai Case Title: Re- Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons Click here to read more
[Delhi Higher Judiciary exams] Supreme Court set aside the order of Delhi High Court postponing the last date of application for Delhi Higher Judiciary examination. On March 8, 2022, the Delhi High Court had rescheduled the date of receipt of applications for the examination and the exam itself in a writ petition filed by the aspirants seeking relaxation in the upper age limit of 32 years for the Delhi Judicial Service and 35 years for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. stated, “In all fairness, we think that considering the fact that already 1200 applications have been received, it is not proper to extend the time limits, hence we direct the petitioners before us to inform the respondents (applicants) to make applications before 12th March.” Bench: Chief Justice of India Justice Ramana Justices Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma Click here to read more
[Lakhimpur violence] The Supreme Court has clarified that the plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to Ashish Mishra, the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, will be heard on Tuesday i.e. March 15. Court had earlier indicated that the matter will be heard today, however, the matter did not come up for hearing. However, mentioning the matter again, Bhushan submitted that yesterday a witness was threatened and hence there is an urgency in listing and hearing the matter. Court, on hearing his submissions, assured that the matter will be listed for hearing on Tuesday. Bench: Chief Justice of India Justice Ramana Justices Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: Jagjeet Singh and Ors. v. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu and Anr. And Others Click here to read more
[NEET PG] The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the Calcutta High Court order directing the approach authorities against the notification issued by West Bengal Government mandating 3 years of service in remote/rural areas for availing in-service quota. The doctors have essentially challenged the Calcutta High Court order directing the petitioners to approach Special Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare over the West Bengal Government notification extending the tenure of the condition of 3 years mandatory service in the remote/rural areas as an eligibility to be considered for in-service quota. Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant Case Title: Moitreyee Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors. Click here to read more
[Non-compliance of CBSE's policy in awarding marks] Supreme Court has directed the Regional Officer of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) at Chandigarh to submit a report adjudging the claims of the students and the school that marks awarded to certain students in Class XII were not in compliance with the evaluation policy of CBSE. When the matter came up for hearing, Advocate Mamata Sharma on behalf of the petitioners alleged that there is no transparency in the process of awarding marks. She argued that the marks of 11th and 12th were moderated for the evaluation but not of class 10th, despite the policy stating so. She further submitted that as per the policy, marks of all three years should be considered and the best performing year should be taken as the reference year. Bench: Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar Case Title: Askhpreet Kaur v. CBSE Click here to read more
[Plea in SC] The Supreme Court has refused to hear a Public Interest Litigation plea raising the issue of non-payment of salaries to the daily wage workers serving as Class VI employees in Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Amangarh Tiger Reserve, and Pilibhit Tiger Reserve. A division bench dismissed the petition asking the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority. Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal had filed this petition to draw the attention of the Apex Court on the issue of non-payment of salaries to the daily wage workers in these three tiger reserves. Bench: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Husband initiates criminal proceedings against wife] The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by a husband seeking criminal prosecution of his wife under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code claiming that his wife is in fact a male and has a male genital. A two-judge bench issued notice to the wife, her father and Madhya Pradesh Police directing them to file their responses. The petition has been filed by a husband challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court order quashing criminal proceedings under Section 420 of IPC against his wife stating that nothing was found by which it could be said that the wife does not possess female characteristics. Bench: Justice SK Kaul ad Justice MM Sundaresh Click here to read more
[EPF Scam] The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the Allahabad High Court order whereby the high court had granted bail to the former Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) Managing Director Ayodhya Prasad Mishra. Mishra is accused of investing the General Provident Fund (GPF) amount of UPPCL employees in private companies. In context of the instant matter, it is alleged that money from state power employees’ provident fund (EPF) was diverted through wrong investments in Dewan Housing Finance Limited (DHFL) which had resulted in the scam of over rupees 2,600 crores. Mishra is one of the key accused persons who gained illegal commissions through this scam. Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice CT Ravikumar Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation through Director v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra Click here to read more
[Senior designation] Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging senior designations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in May 2021. According to the plea, the guidelines laid down by the court in Indira Jaisingh v. Supreme Court of India were not followed in the designation process. It has been stated that the High Court designated granted the designation to 19 seniors in violation of the judgment and the Rules for designation of Senior Advocate framed by the High Court. It has also been pointed out that 112 lawyers had applied for the designation in 2019, however, suddenly in 2021 the lawyers were sent an email to be physically present for an interaction with the Committee. Bench: Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Narasimha Case Title: Amar Vivek Agarwal v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
