Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors.

Date of Judgement/Order – 12.01.2024

Bench Strength – 3 Judges

Composition of Bench – Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar

Case In Brief:

• The suit was related to a property gifted to the appellants by their great-grandmother.
• In response to their suit, two of the three defendants did not file a written statement resulting to which the trial court pronounced judgment against them.
• SC was dealing with the scenario where defendant fails to submit written statement.

Verdict:

The SC gave the following directions regarding not granting interim relief without deciding the question upon maintainability of the suit:

• Recording of Prima Facie Satisfaction:
  • Where interim relief is claimed in a suit before a civil court and the party to be affected by grant of such relief, or any other party to the suit, raises a point of maintainability thereof or that it is barred by law and also contends on that basis that interim relief should not to be granted, grant of relief in whatever form, if at all, ought to be preceded by formation and recording of at least a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or that it is not barred by law.
• Grant of Interim Relief on Assumption:
  • It would be inappropriate for a court to abstain from recording its prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability, yet, proceed to grant protection pro tem on the assumption that the question of maintainability has to be decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
    • That could amount to an improper exercise of power.
• Appropriate Order in Extraordinary Situations:
  • The SC said that if an extraordinary situation arises where it could take time to decide the point of maintainability of the suit and non-grant of protection pro tem pending such decision could lead to irreversible consequences, the court may proceed to make an appropriate order in the manner indicated above justifying the course of action it adopts.
  • In other words, such an order may be passed, if at all required, to avoid irreparable harm or injury or undue hardship to the party claiming the relief and/or to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by reason of non-interference by the court.
• Failure to File Written Statement:
  • The SC 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”.
  • The SC dismissed the appeal.

Legal Provision:

• Order 8 Rule 10: Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.—
  • Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up:
  • Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement.

[Original Judgement]

Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey

Date of Judgement/Order – 29.01.2024

Bench Strength – 2 Judges

Composition of Bench – Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta

Case In Brief:

• The accused (appellant), facing prosecution under Section 500 of IPC lodged by the complainant, filed an instant appeal.
• Allegedly, the appellant, owner of 'Sunday Blast' newspaper, published a defamatory article without verifying facts.
• Despite a complaint dismissed by the Magistrate in 2017, a revision procedure reversed the decision in 2018.
• The appellant's plea to the High Court was dismissed in 2020.

Verdict:

• The SC held that “As a consequence, all proceedings sought to be taken against the accused appellant in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant under Section 500 of the IPC are also quashed”.
• SC based its decision on the ground that the initial dismissal was well-grounded, considering freedom of speech.
• The publication was in good faith, exercising constitutional rights.
• Thus, the lower court's decision remained justified, warranting no further interference.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 499 of IPC:
  • Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
  • Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the fellings of his family or other near relatives.
  • Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
  • Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
  • Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a lothsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
• Section 500 of IPC:
  • Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

[Original Judgement]

Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association

Date of Judgement/Order – 24.01.2024

Bench Strength – 2 Judges

Composition of Bench – Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna

Case In Brief:

• The present appeals and transferred cases stem from the enactment of the Assam Act by the Assam Legislature on 18th September 2004.
• This Act aimed to establish a regulatory authority in Assam to register Diploma holders in Medicine and Rural Health Care (DMRHC), regulate their practice in rural areas, and oversee the opening of medical institutions offering the Diploma course.
• Subsequently, the Director of Medical Education, Assam, advertised admissions for the Diploma in Medicine and Rural Health Care at the Jorhat Medical Institute in 2005.
• The Indian Medical Association, Assam State Branch, challenged the Assam Act and the advertisement in a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court.
  • Despite the challenge, admissions proceeded.
• The HC eventually declared the Assam Act unconstitutional, citing conflicts with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (IMC Act).
  • As a result, diploma holders appealed against the judgment.
• Additionally, the Assam Legislature passed the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, attempting to address the issues raised in the judgment.
  • This Act also faced challenges in court.

Verdict:

• The SC held that Entry 25 of List III in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950 pertains to education, falling under the Concurrent List.
  • Both the Parliament and State Legislatures hold legislative competence over this subject.
  • However, Entry 25 is subject to Entry 66 of List I, the Union List, which deals with coordinating standards in higher education and research institutions.
  • Laws under Entry 25 are subordinate to those under Entry 66.
• The Indian Medical Council (IMC) Act, 1956, is a Parliament-enacted legislation for standardizing medical education nationwide.
• State laws concerning allopathic medicine must comply with the IMC Act and its regulations.
  • Any conflicting state law is invalid.
  • The Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004, was declared void due to legislative overreach.
• However, SC said that the Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, is valid as it complements the IMC Act without conflicting.
  • It allows community health professionals to practice in rural areas, falling within the State Legislature's jurisdiction.
• Moreover, while dismissing the appeals, the SC held that “The Legislature cannot directly overrule a judicial decision. But when a competent Legislature retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of a judgment to make the decision ineffective, the said exercise is a valid legislative exercise provided it does not transgress on any other constitutional limitation”.

Legal Provisions:

• Entry 66, List I (Union List):
  • Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.
• Entry 25, List III (Concurrent List):
  • Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.

[Original Judgement]

Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Date of Judgement/Order – 03.01.2024

Bench Strength – 2 Judges

Composition of Bench – Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma

Case In Brief:

• In this case, the appellants had abducted a Class 12^th student.
• The abduction, as per the prosecution, was for ransom, and a dastardly attempt was also made by the accused to kill the victim, although the victim miraculously escaped, but not before sustaining grievous injuries, which eventually led to the amputation of his right leg.
• During the night, when the complainant was trying to ease himself, the two appellants attempted to kill him by throttling his neck by the clutch wire of the motorcycle. As a result, the complainant fell on the ground unconscious, and the appellants thinking that the complainant had died, poured petrol on his body and set him on fire.
• The complainant managed to escape and was taken to hospital.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellants for an offence under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which has also been upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court observed that the necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there.
• Therefore, the Court converted the findings of conviction under Section 364A to that of Section 364 IPC.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 364 of IPC - Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
  • Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 364A of IPC - Kidnapping for ransom, etc.
  • Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or 4 [any foreign State or international intergovernmental organisation or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

[Original Judgement]

Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Date of Judgement/Order – 29.01.2024

Bench Strength – 2 Judges

Composition of Bench – Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta

Case In Brief:

• In this case, the appellant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) before the Trial Court.
• The Trial Court proceeded to convict the appellant.
• The appellant preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar and during pendency thereof, he filed an application under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) for taking additional evidence at appellate stage.
• Such application preferred by the appellant was rejected by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar.
• Thereafter, the appellant filed the Criminal Application before the High Court of Gujarat which was also dismissed.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court observed that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 of CrPC should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that nonrecording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 391 of CrPC - Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken.

(1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate or, when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.

(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal.

(3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken.

(4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry.

[Original Judgement]

Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Date of Judgement/Order – 29.01.2024

Bench Strength – 5 Judges

Composition of Bench – Justices V. Ramasubramanian, S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna and B.V. Nagarathna

Case In Brief:

• On 29^th July 2016, a young girl and her mother were allegedly gang-raped on National Highway 91.
• Though an FIR was registered for various offences and newspapers and the television channels reported this ghastly incident, the then Minister for Urban Development of the Government of U.P. called for a press conference and termed the incident as a political conspiracy
• In August 2016, the victims approached the Supreme Court and filed a writ petition, seeking action against the minister for making such remarks about the incident.
• On 17th November 2016, the Court ordered an unconditional apology to be submitted by the then Minister for Urban Development of the Government of U.P.
• On 20th April 2017, the Court referred the matter to a five-judge constitution bench and requested the Amicus Curiae to formulate questions of law for the Bench to consider.
• On 23 October 2019, the Constitution Bench began hearing the matter.

Verdict:

• The majority judgment observed that a mere statement made by a Minister, inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part III of the Constitution of India,1950, may not constitute a violation of the constitutional rights and become actionable as Constitutional tort. But if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person/citizen, then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort.
• Justice BV Nagarathna, dissented with this view of the majority and held that a well-established legal framework is essential for delineating the actions or failures to act that could be considered constitutional torts, as well as for establishing how such issues would be addressed or resolved through prior judicial rulings.

Legal Provisions:

• Constitutional Tort
  • A constitutional tort is a legal tool that provides for the state to be held vicariously accountable for the actions of its agents.

[Original Judgement]