List of Current Affairs
Home / List of Current Affairs
2024 Judgment
100 Supreme Court Judgments of 2024 (Part 2)
27-Dec-2024
The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark verdicts in 2024, addressing a range of crucial issues that have significant social, legal, and constitutional implications. These Judgment span various domains, including family law, constitutional rights, criminal justice, contract law, etc. Some of the notable cases include (ranging from May to August 2024):
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
- The Supreme Court observed that ignoring the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court and taking a view totally contrary to the same itself would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order.
Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors v. Meher k. Patel & Ors. Case
- The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Bombay High Court and said that the High Court has failed to make an elementary enquiry and the order only on the base of Minutes of Order is entirely illegal.
Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik Case
- The Supreme Court directed reforms in the Supreme Court Bar Association, mandating reservation for women in its Executive Committee. It reserved specific seats for women, including one office-bearer post, to ensure adequate representation.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. Case
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's acquisition of private property without due process was illegal. The Court upheld the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution, identifying key sub-rights, including the right to notice, fair compensation, and public purpose.
Shivraj Reddy (Died) v. Raghuraj Reddy & Ors. Case
- The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the limitation period under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court dismissed a time-barred suit filed long after the dissolution of a partnership firm due to the death of a partner.
Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen & Ors.
- The Supreme Court held that when it is not the mandate of the law that the act should be done within a fixed time, it would mean that the act must be done within a reasonable time It was held in the context of Section 102 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Anees v. The State Govt of NCT
- The Supreme Court has expounded the principles relating to the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) which are as follows:
- The Court should apply Section 106 of the IEA in criminal cases with care and caution. It cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases.
- This Section cannot be invoked to make up for the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.
- This Section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence.
- It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed.
- This Section has no application to cases where the fact in question, having regard to its nature, is such as to be capable of being known not only to the accused but also to others, if they happened to be present when it took place.
- This Section would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused.
Sharif Ahmed & Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
- The Supreme Court has held that non-bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper or destroy the evidence.
M/S Sas Infratech Pvt Ltd v The State of Telangana & Anr
- The Supreme Court has held that a magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence when he in the exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
Vijay Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- The Supreme Court (SC) emphasized the importance of aligning accused statements with prosecution evidence and noted the failure to challenge the victim’s testimony regarding consent during cross-examination, highlighting the significance of thorough evaluation in sexual assault cases.
Dasari Srikanth v. State of Telangana
- The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the conviction of the man for stalking and criminal intimidation, based on his marriage to the complainant during the appeal process, raises questions about the intersection of personal relationships and legal proceedings. Additionally, the case highlights the importance of considering evolving circumstances, such as marriage, in judicial decisions.
Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors
- The Supreme Court upheld the promotion process implemented by the High Court of Gujarat for District Judge vacancies, emphasizing the absence of an inherent right to demand promotion among government employees.
- It emphasized that promotion policies are primarily the prerogative of the legislature or executive, with judicial review limited to instances of violation of equality principles under Article 16 of the Constitution of India , 1950 (COI)
XYZ. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
- The Supreme Court in the matter of XYZ. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., has held that refusal on part of the accused in sexual offence case to undergo a medical examination would amount to non-cooperation with the investigation.
Madhusudan & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- A bench comprising of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Satish Chandra Sharma held that in the event of alteration of charges, opportunity must be given under Section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), both to the prosecution and the defence, to recall or reexamine witnesses in reference to such altered charges.
Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- The Supreme Court granted bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) 1985 despite not meeting the stringent criteria of Section 37 has garnered attention.
- It emphasizes that prolonged incarceration due to undue trial delays contradicts the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, thus allowing conditional liberty to supersede statutory restrictions in such cases.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Delhi government, stating that the principle of res judicata may not strictly apply in cases where public interest is at stake.
- The court emphasized the need for a flexible approach in such matters, recognizing their broader implications beyond individual disputes.
- This observation by the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan highlights the importance of considering public interest in legal proceedings.
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors
- A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan held that “if subsequent change of law is allowed as a valid ground for condonation of delay, it would open a Pandora’s Box where all the cases that were subsequently overruled, would approach this Court and would seek a relief based on the new interpretation of law”.
Kasthuripandian v. RBL Bank Limited
- The Supreme Court ruled on the transfer petition related to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(NI Act). Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal dismissed the accused’s plea to transfer the complaint, affirming that such decisions typically rest with the complainant, not the accused.
- This decision clarifies the boundaries of court jurisdiction in such matters while allowing the accused to seek exemptions from personal appearance as necessary.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors
- The Supreme Court has resolved a 22-year-old dispute over pay scales for education department officials in Uttar Pradesh, potentially impacting thousands of employees.
- The Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to settle the matter, balancing the interests of retired officials and the state government. This judgment clarifies the application of the doctrine of merger and res judicata in cases involving multiple rounds of litigation between the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Ashok Daga v. Directorate of Enforcement
- The Supreme Court has held that calling an accused for admitting or denying the genuineness of the document would not amount to violation of his right against self-incrimination.
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India
- The Supreme Court has ruled that the high enrollment fees imposed by State Bar Councils are unconstitutional as they infringe on aspiring lawyers’ right to practice and undermine principles of equality.
- The Court mandated a cap on these fees, setting Rs.750 for general category advocates and Rs.125 for SC/ST advocates, emphasizing that such fees should not discriminate against marginalized groups.
State of West Bengal v. Union of India
- The Supreme Court has held that the Supreme Court shall have the original jurisdiction to deal with the present case and suit filed by the state is maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution.
Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau
- The Supreme Court addressed the legality of bail conditions that required accused individuals to share their location via Google Maps, arguing that such conditions infringed upon the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21of the Indian Constitution.
- The case challenging these stringent conditions imposed by the Delhi High Court.
- The decision underscored the importance of balancing bail restrictions with constitutional rights, particularly concerning foreign nationals facing legal proceedings in India.
Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar
- The Supreme Court has invalidated the Bihar Government’s 2015 resolution merging the “Tanti-Tantwa” community from the Extremely Backward Castes list into the Scheduled Caste list, citing lack of authority under Article 341.
- The court criticized the state’s action as mala fide and directed those appointments made under the resolution be reverted to the Scheduled Castes quota.
- It emphasized that any changes to Scheduled Castes lists require parliamentary legislation and not executive orders.
Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority of India & Ors
- The Supreme Court ruled that States have the authority to levy taxes on mineral rights under Entry 50 of List II of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), despite the regulatory powers of the Union under Entry 54 of List I. The Court emphasized that taxing powers must be explicitly granted and cannot be inferred from general regulatory entries.
- It also confirmed that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) does not restrict States’ taxation powers on mineral rights or lands, maintaining the constitutional distribution of legislative competencies.
- The Judgment is pronounced by 9 Judges Constitution Bench which consists of Hon’ble Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India pronounced the judgment on behalf of himself, Hon’ble Mr Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka, Hon’ble Mr Justice J B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Mr Justice Manoj Misra, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Hon’ble Mr Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih.
Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors
- The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on petitions challenging the Union Government’s approval for genetically modified mustard.
- Justice BV Nagarathna invalidated the approval, citing public interest concerns and procedural flaws, while Justice Sanjay Karol upheld it, emphasizing scientific development.
- With differing opinions, the bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench, delaying implementation pending further review, despite the government’s agreement not to proceed with the decision.
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors.
- Seven judges bench upheld the sub-classifications among the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes so that benefits of reservation can reach to the weaker of the weakest sections of the society.
- The Supreme Court allowed the States to sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) to provide separate quotas for more backward groups within the SC category. But Justice Trivedi dissented, arguing that this sub-classification interferes with the Presidential list of SCs established under Article 341, which can only be modified by parliamentary law.
- She expressed concern that such sub-classification could introduce political factors into the SC-ST list, undermining its original intent to prevent political influence.
Harsh Bhuwalka & Ors v. Sanjay Kumar Bajoria.
- Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra have issued a new practice direction regarding Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), effective from 20th August 2024.
- This direction requires that any SLP seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of an impugned order must include a receipt from the High Court confirming the request for the certified copy, state that the application for the copy is still valid and provide an undertaking to submit the certified copy promptly. This aims to streamline the process and ensure timely submission of necessary documents.
Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others.
- A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the appellants cannot be denied admission when they were meritorious and could have been admitted against the unreserved category.
Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.
- A bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the reservation provided to persons with disability was in the form of overall horizontal reservation and hence there was no need for a separate cutoff.
Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
- The Supreme Court set aside Canara Bank’s showcause notices to employees who were appointed under the Scheduled Castes (SC) quota based on valid caste certificates. The notices had been issued after a 1977 government circular, which equated the ‘Kotegara’ community with an SC category, was later deemed invalid following the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2000).
- The Court clarified that only the President can modify SC and ST lists under Articles 341 and 342 of Constitution of India, 1950, rendering the state government’s modification void.
Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (MADA Judgment)
- The Supreme Court rejected the plea for prospective overruling of MADA judgment (July 2024).
- However, it laid down some conditions to balance the interests of states and assessees:
- States cannot levy taxes under the relevant entries for transactions before 1st April 2005.
- Payment of tax demands to be staggered over 12 years starting 1st April 2026.
- Interest and penalties on demands for the period before 25th July 2024 to be waived for all assessees.
Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India and Ors.
- The Supreme Court has upheld its power to review Delimitation Commission orders if they are deemed clearly arbitrary or in violation of constitutional principles. Although judicial review in delimitation cases is typically restricted, the Court can intervene when an order severely conflicts with constitutional values.
Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat.
- A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the circumstance regarding the identification of place of incident is inadmissible because the crime scene was already known to the police.
2024 Judgment
100 Supreme Court Judgments of 2024 (Part 3)
27-Dec-2024
The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark verdicts in 2024, addressing a range of crucial issues that have significant social, legal, and constitutional implications. These Judgment span various domains, including family law, constitutional rights, criminal justice, contract law, etc. Some of the notable cases include (ranging from September to December 2024):
Manilal v. State of Rajasthan
- The Supreme Court observed that candidates within the same academic cohort cannot be discriminated against based on their admission date when determining eligibility for job appointments
- This ruling raised the issue that the Rajasthan authorities’ 2017 Teacher Grade III Level II recruitment notification set different graduation marks criteria based on the timing of candidates B.Ed course admission.
Jasleela Shaji v. Union of India & Ors.
- The Supreme Court held that under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, a detained person must be afforded the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention order.
- The case involved procedural lapses where the detainee’s representation was not transmitted promptly, violating constitutional rights.
Somprabha Rana v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- The Supreme Court held that while deciding the writ of habeas corpus in relation to the custody of the child the principle of welfare of child should be considered.
Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi
- The Supreme Court ruled that the physical or virtual presence of an Indian spouse is mandatory for processing an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card application for foreign nationals, as per Section 7-A(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Nitya Nand v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- The Supreme Court held that for the purpose of conviction under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which is now Section 188 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), no overt act is required, the presence of accused as a part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction.
Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani & Anr
- The Supreme Court held that when a person is in custody for one offence nothing in CrPC precludes him from applying for anticipatory bail with respect to any other offence
Jitendra Paswan v. The State of Bihar
- The Supreme Court deleted the bail condition providing that the bail condition shall be executed after six months.
Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. State of Maharashtra
- The Supreme Court emphasized that a detainee's representation must be promptly considered and failure to transmit it expeditiously infringes upon the detainee's constitutional rights under Article 22(5).
- This case addressed procedural negligence in processing the detainee's communication to authorities.
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration
- The Supreme Court held that reproductive rights are part of a woman’s personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing her autonomy over decisions like pregnancy termination.
Ramesh and another v. State of Karnataka
- The Supreme Court observed that Appellate Courts must provide strong reasons when reversing a trial court’s acquittal, as established in the Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar (1977) case.
- This case emphasizes the need for a careful assessment of witness credibility before changing a trial court’s decision.
Just Right for Children Alliance v. S Harish
- The Supreme Court explained when ignorance of law can be taken as defence.
- The Supreme Court of India has recommended that the Parliament should amend the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 (POCSO) to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (CSEAM).
- The Court stated that the term “child pornography” trivializes the gravity of the crime, as it suggests consent and voluntary acts, whereas CSEAM accurately reflects the exploitation and abuse of children
S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C
- The Supreme Court held that the order for modification/ alteration / or setting aside can only be passed when there is change in the circumstances subsequent to the order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV) and not otherwise.
Ishwar (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs & Ors. v. Bhim Singh & Anr
- The Supreme Court recently ruled that an execution court can extend the time limit to pay the balance amount under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,(SRA) even though such applications are typically decided in the original suit.
- The Court upheld the execution court’s decision, noting that the decree lacked specific terms for payment and the decree-holder’s willingness to pay warranted the extension
V.S. Palanivel v. P. Sriram CS Liquidator etc
- The Supreme Court has held the Rule 12 under Schedule 1 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (IBBIR) is mandatory in nature and the liquidator cannot extent the time limit mentioned under the Rule under his discretion.
In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955
- The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which recognizes the Assam Accord, by a 4:1 majority
- The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, emphasized the need to balance humanitarian concerns with local population protections, while dissenting Justice Pardiwala argued that the provision had become unconstitutional over time due to its arbitrary nature and ineffective enforcement mechanisms.
Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Others.
- A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice BR Gavai issued guidelines regarding free legal aid to prison inmates.
State Of U.P. V. M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish
- A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled 8:1 that States have the authority to regulate denatured spirit or industrial alcohol, classifying it under “intoxicating liquor” as per Entry 8 of the State List
- The majority opinion observed that the term should not be narrowly defined, including substances that could be misused for human consumption.
- In dissent, Justice Nagarathna argued that industrial alcohol is specifically not meant for human consumption, stated differing interpretations of the term “intoxicating liquor.”
Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors
- The Supreme Court has ruled against using the date of birth from an Aadhaar Card to determine the age of a victim in a motor accident compensation case.
- Instead, the Court observed that the age should be verified using the date of birth from a school leave certificate, which has statutory recognition under the Juvenile Justice Act
Sukanya Shantha v Union of India & Ors.
- A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra gave slew of directions prohibiting caste-based discrimination in prisons.
In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash
- The Supreme Court in the matter of In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash has denounced the “Bulldozer Justice” trend and the same is against the rule of law.
- The Court strongly condemned “bulldozer justice”.
Aligarh Muslim University through its registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal
- The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) case declare AMU as an “Institution of National Importance” does not strip it of its minority character.
- The Court states that the Union’s argument that such a designation should necessitate a more inclusive approach to reservations, emphasizing the need to balance national priorities and protect minority rights.
- The decision emphasizes the constitutional recognition of AMU’s distinct identity while ensuring it remains aligned with broader social justice principles.
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Rambha Devi & Ors.
- A bench of Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narsimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Misra laid down the principles when a judgment can be declared as per incuriam.
Anjum Kadari and Another v. Union of India and others
- A bench of Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa Education Act, 2004.
Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra
- The Supreme Court, in a 7:2 majority ruling clarified that not all private properties qualify as "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
- The Court overruled the 1983 Sanjeev Coke case, which had allowed the State to redistribute all private properties for the common good, also states that only properties meeting specific criteria as "material resources" and "of the community" can be subject to redistribution.
Balram Singh v. Union of India
- The Supreme Court clarified that the term ‘socialist’ in the Constitution’s Preamble reflects a commitment to being a welfare state and ensuring equality of opportunity, without mandating specific economic policies.
- The Court observed India’s mixed economy model, where public and private sectors coexist, benefiting marginalized communities.
Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda
- The Supreme Court of India recently expressed concerns about the misuse of domestic violence and dowry laws, cautioning against their abuse in matrimonial disputes for monetary gains.
- Addressing alimony, the Court stated that a divorced wife cannot demand permanent alimony to equalize wealth with her ex-husband.
- While the wife is entitled to maintenance reflecting her standard of life during marriage, the husband’s improved financial status post-divorce cannot justify higher alimony demands.
Ms X v. Union of India & Others
- The Supreme Court in the matter of Ms. X v. Union of India & Othrs. has held that Copy of Inquiry report must be given to the complainant to comply with the proper procedure under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH).
Giriyappa & Anr v. Kamalamma & Ors.
- A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan laid down the conditions requisite for invoking Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Delhi Pollution)
- The Supreme Court of India has directed strict adherence to preventive health measures, including wearing masks, as air quality in Delhi-NCR deteriorates.
- The Court ordered the implementation of Stage-IV measures under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) due to the AQI crossing 450.
Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja & Anr
- The Supreme Court held that arbitration cannot be considered 'optional' if an agreement contains an arbitration clause.
- The bench, led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, observed that the arbitration clause cannot be narrowly interpreted, and courts can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Celir LLP v. Ms Sumati Prasad Bafna and other
- The Supreme Court has held that a sale that is confirmed cannot be set aside merely based on irregularities except when the concerned matter is based on Fraud, Collusion, Inadequate Pricing, Under-bidding etc.
Smt. Naresh Kumari & Others v. Smt. Chameli & Others
- A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice PB Varale held that although Section 127 of TPA permits onerous transfer, a gift which is occasioned on perpetual rendering of services is violative of the Constitution.
Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr
- The Supreme Court has held that a second complaint is maintainable when the final report is found negative but only when the second complaint has some core difference.
2024 Judgment
100 Supreme Court Judgments of 2024 (Part 1)
27-Dec-2024
The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark verdicts in 2024, addressing a range of crucial issues that have significant social, legal, and constitutional implications. These Judgment span various domains, including family law, constitutional rights, criminal justice, contract law, etc. Some of the notable cases include (ranging from January to April 2024):
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited & Ors.
- The Supreme Court has held that under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), the High Court must exercise its discretionary power with great caution.
- The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not.
- Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene.
Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Ajay Khera and Ors.
- The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to formulate a policy to phase out heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replace them with BS-VI compliant vehicles within six months.
- The court observed that the right to a pollution-free environment under Article 21 of the COI applies to all citizens across the country and not just those in Delhi NCR.
Jay Shri v. The State of Rajasthan
- The Supreme Court clarified that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense under Sections 420 or 406 of IPC unless fraudulent or dishonest intent is evident at the outset.
- The judgment provides the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal matters to prevent the misuse of criminal proceedings.
Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.
- The Supreme Court held that under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the High Court has inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.
- The judgment observed that courts should exercise this power with caution and only in cases where the allegations in the FIR or charge sheet do not prima facie disclose any offense.
- The Court also observed that criminal proceedings should not be pursued as a tool for harassment or to settle personal scores.
Ajeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- The Supreme Court held that an allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage.
- The court observed there is no sufficient evidence to prove the case of physical relation of false promise to marry against the appellant.
Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- The Supreme Court has upheld an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed against the police officials accused of corruption.
- The court observed that there appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case against the appellant.
- The Court upheld an application under Section 319 of CrPC filed against the police officials accused of corruption. Thus, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
- The Court further made it clear that any observations made in this order will not come in the way of the Trial Court in deciding the trial on its own merits on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, completely uninfluenced by this judgment.
Rajaram Sharma v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- The Supreme Court has held that as per the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the High Court should examine carefully whether the allegations would constitute the offences alleged against the person accused.
- The Court while setting aside an order of a HC which denied to quash the criminal proceedings pending against a person-accused, expressed dissatisfaction with the HC’s order by noting that the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence were not made out
Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr
- The Supreme Court gave directions to the High Courts to set up the Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centre (VWDC) in each district by 30th April 2024 and submit an updated status report by the first week of May 2024.
- Two High Courts, Odisha and Tamil Nadu, are yet to fully implement the VWDC guidelines.
- The court has ordered Justice Mittal to ensure that both High Courts comply by the 30th April, 2024 deadline.
Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors
- Supreme Court observed that interim relief in a civil suit should only be granted after a prima facie determination of the suit's maintainability.
- It ruled that courts should not grant relief based on assumptions about maintainability, as this could constitute an improper exercise of power.
- The Court stressed that, in extraordinary situations where non-granting interim relief could cause irreparable harm, a provisional order may be passed to prevent undue hardship or ensure the suit is not rendered ineffective.
- The case highlights the importance of addressing maintainability issues before deciding on interim relief in civil proceedings.
- The SC also held that “mere failure or neglect of a defendant to file a written statement controverting the pleaded facts in the plaint, in all cases, may not entitle him to a judgment in his Favour unless by adducing evidence he proves his case/claim”
Raja Gounder & Ors. V. M. Sengodan & Ors
- The Supreme Court held that the children born out of void and voidable marriage shall be considered as legitimate and would be treated as successors in the property of common ancestors.
- Court observed that once the common ancestor has admittedly considered the children born of void and voidable marriage as his legitimate children, then such children would be entitled to the same share as the successors in the property of the common ancestor as that of children born out of a valid marriage.
- The Court noted that the children born out of void marriages would be treated as successors in the interest of Muthusamy Gounder, and accordingly the shared needs to be worked out.
Rupashree H. R. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors
- Supreme Court has held that the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
- Court observed that the right to defend oneself is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the COI and further right to appear for a client is also a Fundamental Right being a part of carrying on one’s profession as a lawyer.
Lucknow Nagar Nigam & Ors. v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
- The Supreme Court has held that the right to property, as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), extends to persons who are not citizens of India.
- Court observed we cannot construe the taking possession of the enemy property for the purpose of administration of the same by the Custodian, as an instance of transfer of ownership from the true owner to the Custodian and thereby to the Union
- The expression property is also of a wide scope and includes not only tangible or intangible property but also all rights, title and interest in a property.
Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Supreme Court declared Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional.
- The Electoral Bond Scheme, certain sections of the Representation of the People Act 1951, the Companies Act, and amendments therein, violate Article 19(1)(a) and are unconstitutional.
- The removal of the proviso to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act, allowing unlimited corporate contributions to political parties, is arbitrary and breaches Article 14.
M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. v. The Assam State Electricity Board.
- Court held that Registry cannot be vested with power to decide whether a review petition, after being dismissed in open Court hearing, merited relook through the curative jurisdiction.
- Refusal to entertain curative petitions does not align with Order XV Rule 5, of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 nor does it fall under Registry’s purview.
- The court cited Order LV Rule 2, emphasizing communication with the chamber judge for instructions.
- The court overturned the impugned order but declined to remand, finding no grounds to invoke curative jurisdiction, thus disposing of the appeal accordingly.
Velthepu Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) & Anr
- Supreme Court has held that common intention under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) cannot be inferred mechanically merely based on the presence of accused near the scene of offence.
- The Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed that there is neither oral nor documentary evidence to attribute accused 3 with the intent to murder. The inference was drawn mechanically under Section 34 merely based on his presence near the scene of offence and his familial relations with the other accused
- Read More:
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
- Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) would not automatically apply.
- Therefore, before a presumption under Section 113A of IEA is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.
- Court has held that the mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) would not automatically apply. Therefore, before a presumption under Section 113A of IEA is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.
Sheikh Arif v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- A case involving the offence rape because of false promise to marry under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
- Court held that “If it is established that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry, there will be no consent, and in such a case, the offence of rape will be made out”.
Sunder Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
- The Supreme Court, has held that a witness can be summoned as a defence witness who was shown in the Prosecution list but not examined by prosecution
Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR V. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs.
- The Supreme Court has held that under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (SRA) a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession.
- The court observed that it is a well-established position of law that under Section 34 of SRA, a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession.
State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
- The Supreme Court has held that whil exercising the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) the Court can interfere with the order of the acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.
- Court held that if the acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds, if the High Court allows itself to be misled by distractions, if the High Court dismisses the evidence accepted by the Trial Court without proper consideration, or if the High Court’s flawed approach leads to the neglect of vital evidence, this Court is obligated to intervene to uphold the interests of justice and address any concerns within the judicial conscience.
Sita Soren v. Union of India
- A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, and Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra has held Rajya Sabha as a part of basic structure doctrine of constitution.
- SC observed that bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast.
- The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee.
- The offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed action and crystallizes on the exchange of illegal gratification.
- It does not matter whether the vote is cast in the agreed direction or if the vote is cast at all.
- SC finally said that the offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe.
High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
- The Supreme Court has overturned the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment and set aside the automatic stay vacation rule.
- The Supreme Court also issued crucial guidelines on the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI)
Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra
- The Court converted a punishment for murder into punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- The Supreme Court found that while the appellant had knowledge of the consequences of his act, there was no intention to cause death.
- The Court considered the incident as a sudden fight in the heat of passion, converting the findings of Section 302 IPC to that of Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Versus State of Karnataka,
- Court has held that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation for committing an offence under the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- It was further states that merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC would not be sustainable
Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu v. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau
- The Supreme Court in the matter of Smt Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu v. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau has held that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) remains unchanged by the provisions of search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors.
- The Supreme Court observed that “The right to equality under Article 14 and the right to life under Article 21 must be appreciated in the context of the decisions of this Court, the actions and commitments of the state on the national and international level, and scientific consensus on climate change and its adverse effects. From these, it emerges that there is a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change”
- Read More:
Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. The State of Gujarat
- The Supreme Court held that approaching the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950(COI) for the release of the seized vehicle would not be a proper remedy without approaching the magistrate under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)
X v. Y
- The Supreme Court has held that denying child-care leaves to mothers of children with disabilities would violate the Constitutional duty to ensure equal women participation in the workforce.
State of Kerala v. Union of India
- The legal dispute between the State of Kerala and the Union of India revolves around constitutional provisions governing state borrowing, with significant implications for fiscal federalism and economic governance. At the heart of the matter lies the interpretation of Article 293 and its intersection with the Union’s authority to regulate state finances.
Sandeep Kumar v. Gb Pant Institute of Engineering & Technology Ghurdaure
- Court has held that the termination of the services of the employee without holding disciplinary enquiry violates the principles of natural justice.
Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana
- The court held that “Unless there is a specific legislative provision which puts a negative burden on the accused, there is no burden on the accused to lead evidence for proving his innocence. The accused may have some burden to discharge in case of a statutory prescription, such as Section 114A of the Evidence Act. In this case, the burden was on the prosecution to lead evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt”
Utpal Mandal @ Utpal Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Anr
- The Supreme Court observed that the entire purpose of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is to ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed unless the Special Court for reasons to be recorded in writing permits such disclosure.
Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Throug His LR
- The question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants