CLAT 2024 Important Judgements: Supreme Court and High Courts

January 2023

Supreme Court

1.   Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India

   Bench- S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, B.V. Nagarathna (dissenting opinion)

·                 4:1 Majority Decision on the validity of demonetization.

·          A larger bench decided the validity.

·         Dissenting opinion- Justice BV Nagarathna- Unconstitutional on legal grounds and not based on objects.

2.   Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

   Bench- Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian

·         Reiteration of “bail is a rule; jail is an exception” principle

·         Excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail/suspension of sentence

3.   Kaushal Kishore v. State of UP

   Bench- S Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna

·         Additional restrictions beyond those laid down under Art. 19(2) cannot be imposed under the right to free speech guaranteed to Ministers, MPs, and MLAs.

4.   KC Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir

   Bench- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha

·         Cinema halls and movie theatres are private property of the owner

·         The owner of a cinema hall has the discretion to decide terms and conditions that they deem fit (including denial to take food items inside the premises) provided that they are not contrary to public interest or safety.

5.   RWA, Chandigarh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh

   Bench- Justices B.R. Gavai and M.M. Sundresh

·         Urban development should not be at the cost of the environment.

·         Legislators and policymakers must give due attention to Environmental Impact Assessment before allowing furtherance of development in urban regions.

What is an Environmental Impact Assessment?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool used to assess the significant effects of a project or development proposal on the environment. EIAs make sure that project decision makers think about the likely effects on the environment at the earliest possible time and aim to avoid, reduce or offset those effects.

6.   Common Cause v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices K.M Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar

·         Petition to remove the difficulties in the guidelines laid down in the 2018 Common Cause judgement which legalised euthanasia for terminally ill patients.

·         Applicant requested the court to revisit the guidelines and lay down simplified principles.

·         The Court viewed that the directions require modifications, deletion. The Court simplified the process to withdraw life support for a terminally ill patient, by allowing a two-tiered process for authorising passive euthanasia.

·         The new guidelines will remove the difficult three-tiered procedure, where a doctor and the patient’s family had to get a JMIC’s approval to withdraw life support. A detailed order with specific directions is awaited.

7.   Ashish Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh

   Bench- Justices Surya Kant and J.K Maheshwari

·         For the sake of procedural fairness and right to personal liberty under Art 21, the SC granted bail to Ashish Mishra, the accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence.

·         On grounds that the charges have been framed and Mishra has been in custody for over a year, the bail was granted.

·         The trial is to take time due to a lot of evidence, thus bail was granted.

Provisions of Bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Under Section 436 of the CrPC, bail grants temporary release to individuals accused of a crime, allowing them to remain free until their trial. Bail can be granted based on various factors,  including the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, the likelihood of the accused  fleeing or tampering with evidence, and the person’s past criminal record. The granting of bail is at the discretion of the court, ensuring the balance between the accused’s rights and the interests of justice.

8.   Abdul Mateen Siddiqui v Union of India

   Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka

·         The Court emphasised the need for a gradual and planned approach to prevent the sudden displacement of 50,000 individuals within seven days.

·         It stressed the importance of separating those who have rights to the land from those who do not, while also implementing rehabilitation schemes.

·         The Court instructed the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to explore methods to achieve the aforementioned goals.

·         The Court ordered that the ongoing proceedings related to earlier Supreme Court orders under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 should continue, even without a formal stay.

·         Consequently, the Court temporarily halted the implementation of the disputed order from the Uttaranchal High Court, prohibiting any further occupation of the land or construction by the existing occupant or any other party.

9.   Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association

   Bench- Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna

·         The Supreme Court recognized the potential risks of non-qualified individuals performing medical functions similar to those carried out by licensed medical practitioners.

·         It concluded that Rural Health Practitioners listed under the Assam Act are not adequately qualified to perform such functions compared to medical practitioners registered under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

·         Nonetheless, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, which aimed to ensure the continued employment of the practitioners involved.

10. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)

   Bench- Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath

·         The Court recognized the value of platforms that offer global access to knowledge but advised against relying on them for legal dispute resolution. Such sources, although rich in information, can be unreliable and promote misleading content.

11. Munna Lal v. State of U.P.

   Bench- Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta

·         The Court emphasised that defects in the investigative process alone are not sufficient grounds for acquittal.

·         It stated that it is the Court’s duty to thoroughly evaluate the prosecution evidence, regardless of any mistakes made by the Investigating Officer.

·         The Court scrutinised the prosecution’s evidence closely and did not prioritise the negligence or shortcomings of the Investigating Officer’s perfunctory investigation.

·         The court determined that there was not enough evidence to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the convicts had committed murder. As a result, they were given the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the court overturned the judgments of the Trial Court and Allahabad High Court and acquitted the convicts.

12. Naim Ahamad v. State

   Bench- Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi

·         The prosecutrix consented to a sexual relationship based on a false promise of marriage by the accused. However, since the accused did not fulfil his promise, the consent given by the victim was considered invalid under the law. As a result, the case was categorised under Section 375(2) of IPC.

·         The Supreme Court noted that the prosecutrix had engaged in a relationship with the accused while still being married and having three children, betraying her husband and family. Furthermore, she chose to continue living with the accused even after discovering that he was already married with children.

·         Thus, the case did not qualify as rape based on a breach of promise to marry.

13. Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna

·         The court clarified the interpretation of the term “family” in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

·         It determined that the definition of “family” in the rules is narrow and specific, and cannot be expanded to include all heirs under Hindu or other personal laws.

·         Consequently, a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant  after the government servant’s death cannot be considered part of the “family” as defined

14. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa

   Bench- Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar

·         The Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the Bombay High Court stating that periods of parole taken by a prisoner cannot be included in the calculation of their sentence duration.

·         This decision is relevant when determining eligibility for premature release from prison, which requires a minimum imprisonment period of 14 years under the 2006 Goa Prison   Rules.

·         Therefore, parole periods will not be counted towards the minimum imprisonment requirement for early release.

15. The Union of India v. Rajib Khan

   Bench- Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar

·         A division bench overturned the orders issued by both a single judge and a division bench of the Gauhati High Court, ruling that Nursing Assistants cannot receive the same Nursing Allowance as Staff Nurses due to differing educational qualifications.

16. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand

   Bench- Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha

·         According to the Supreme Court, in cases involving circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each circumstance and the connections between them beyond reasonable doubt.

·         These circumstances, when combined, should form an unbroken chain of evidence that leads to the inevitable conclusion of the accused’s guilt.

·         The Court emphasised that the chain of circumstances should be so compelling that it leaves no doubt that, in all likelihood, the accused committed the crime and that the evidence unmistakably points to their guilt.

·         An accused cannot be convicted solely on the last seen grounds

High Court Judgements

1.   Suneeta Pandey v. State of UP

   Allahabad High Court

·         As per the provisions of IPC, a woman cannot commit rape but can be held guilty of gang  rape if she aids rape by a group of persons

2.   Dolly Gupta v. State of UP

   Allahabad High Court- Justices Suneet Kumar and Syed Waiz Mian

·         The Court held that based on the petitioners’ recorded dates of birth, they are considered adults, and they assert that their decision to be in a live-in relationship is voluntary. Therefore, since they are adults, no authority or individual should interfere with their right to engage in a live-in relationship. Additionally, considering the threat to the petitioners’ lives, the Court ordered the Police to provide them with security.

3.   Chandrapal v. State of UP

   Allahabad High Court-

·         The law applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their position, power, or social status, including police personnel.

·         No special privileges or treatment should be granted to anyone based on their position, power, or place in society when it comes to the application of legal provisions.

4.   Shaik Jareena v. Shaik Dariyavali

   Andhra Pradesh High Court- Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar

·         The Court declared that the decision on the unconstitutionality of a law has a retrospective effect.

·         In the current case, where the husband claimed to have pronounced Triple Talaq, the law applicable to the Court would be that Triple Talaq is no longer valid.

·         The Court disagreed with the trial Court’s opinion that the ruling in Shayara Banu’s case does not have retrospective applicability.

5.   ABC v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

   Bombay High Court- Justices G.S. Patel and S.G. Dige

·         Allowed the termination of a 33 week old pregnancy contrary to the recommendation of a  medical board

·         Stated that the woman has a right to decide her termination of pregnancy and not a  medical board

6.   GoDaddy.com LLC v. Bundl Technologies (P) Ltd

   Bombay High Court- Justice Manish Pitale

·         The Court ruled that in cases of trademark infringement, the plaintiff must provide specific instances of infringement and seek relief against the individuals responsible for  the infringement, allowing the Court to issue appropriate orders.

·         A blanket ban on the protection of a trademark cannot be granted by a court of law.

7.   Uttam Kumar Bose v. State of West Bengal

   Calcutta High Court- Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

·         In a revision petition seeking the dismissal of an FIR and criminal proceedings, the court determined that requesting a mutual divorce while the wife is facing mental and physical health challenges due to infertility constitutes cruelty.

·         The court further emphasised that infertility alone cannot be considered a valid ground for divorce.

·         Consequently, the court rejected the petition to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings, considering the circumstances and the impact on the wife’s well-being.

8.   Neeraj Bhatt v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

   Delhi High Court- Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma

·         In a case, a Writ Petition was filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the State’s order rejecting a parole application.

·         A Single Judge Bench accepted the petition and granted a four-week parole to the convict in a rape case.

·         The court emphasised that a citizen’s right to seek legal remedies in the Supreme Court cannot be denied.

9.   Dabur India Ltd. v. Advertising Standards Council of India

   Delhi High Court- Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

·         Dabur had requested an interim order to stop ASCI from hindering the broadcast of its  ‘Vita’ health drink advertisement.

·         The court dismissed Dabur’s plea, stating that it would be unfair for Dabur to question ASCI’s authority while benefiting from its self-regulatory privileges as an ASCI member.

·         ASCI is an advertising self-regulatory body in India.

What is ASCI?

ASCI, the Advertising Standards Council of India, is a self-regulatory body in India that aims to ensure responsible and ethical advertising practices. It monitors and regulates advertisements across various media platforms, addressing complaints and taking appropriate action to maintain standards and protect consumer interests.

10. Sushil Ansal v. Endemol India Private Limited

   Delhi High Court- Justice Yashwant Verma

·         In a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the exhibition and release of the series “Trial by Fire”on digital/OTT platforms, the Court declined to grant an interim injunction. The Court reasoned that since the authors’ narrative had been public since 2016, the plaintiff was not entitled to interim relief.

11. Naransinh Amarsinh Bihola v. State of Gujarat

   Gujarat High Court- Justice Samir J. Dave

·         The Court observed that the complainant filed an affidavit stating that the matter was settled and had no objection to the accused’s release on bail.

·         However, the Court deemed this practice unwarranted, as it could potentially interfere with evidence and witnesses in a serious murder case.

·         Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the Court rejected the bail application, stating that the complainant’s affidavit cannot be considered.

12. Agnes Michale v. Cheranalloor Grama Panchayath

   Kerala High Court- Justice V.G. Arun

·         The petition was filed due to a neighbour’s CCTV camera pointing towards the petitioner’s residence, invading their privacy. The petition seeks the removal of the camera. According to the court, it is unacceptable to utilize the child as a means of demonstrating the mother’s involvement in adultery.

·         The Court recognized the need to prevent individuals from prying into their neighbours’ affairs under the guise of installing surveillance cameras for security purposes.

·         The Court ordered the State Police Chief to develop guidelines for CCTV camera installation in consultation with the Kerala Government. The State Police Chief was added as a respondent in the case.

13. Aaron S. John v. TKM College of Engineering

   Kerala High Court- Justice Devan Ramachandran

·         In a writ petition challenging the ICC’s sexual harassment inquiry report, Justice Devan Ramachandran instructed college authorities to establish a “Collegiate Students Redressal Committee.”

·         The Court recommended incorporating lessons on good behavior and etiquette into the curriculum and assigned responsibilities to various authorities, including the Government of Kerala, General Education Department, and Higher Education Department, as well as educational boards like CBSE and ICSE.

·         The Court entrusted these entities to examine and address the matter.

February 2023

Supreme Court

1.   Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College

   Bench- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and JK  Maheshwari

·         The 5-judge Constitution Bench has upheld the power of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to conduct the pre-enrolment examination called the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

·         The Court stated that the Advocates Act, 1961, and the role of universities in legal education do not prohibit the BCI from conducting the pre-enrolment examination. The BCI is responsible for ensuring the standard of individuals seeking a license to practice law.

·         The Court has given the authority to the BCI to determine whether the All India Bar Examination should be conducted before or after enrollment. The Court acknowledged that both scenarios have consequences, and it is not the Court’s role to analyze them.

·         The Court believes it is appropriate to leave the decision regarding the timing of the All India Bar Examination to the BCI, as they are better equipped to consider the details and complexities of both situations.

2.   Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Firodia

   Bench- Justices V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna

·         According to the court, it is unacceptable to utilize the child as a means of demonstrating the mother’s involvement in adultery.

·         The court emphasized that the husband has the option to provide evidence of the wife’s adulterous behavior through other means. However, the child’s right to maintain their identity should not be compromised.

·         The court stated that it is not permissible for the court to sacrifice the rights and well-being of a third party, namely the child, in order to facilitate a fair trial for one of the parties involved in the marriage.

3.   Devu G. v. State of Kerala

   Bench- CJI D. Y. Chandrachud and Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala

·         The petitioner-appellant approached the High Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus, claiming to be in a same-sex relationship with the detenu, who is being illegally detained by her parents.

·         The High Court instructed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to visit the detenu’s residence, record her statements, and determine if she is unlawfully detained. If proven true, she was to be presented before the Court.

·         The Supreme Court’s 3-judge Bench has suspended the Kerala High Court’s order, which mandated the DLSA to record the detenu’s statements and arrange for her counseling.  The woman is allegedly being unlawfully held by her parents.

4.   ITC Ltd v. Aashna Roy

   Bench- Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath

·         A professional model claimed Rs. 3 Crores in compensation for a “bad haircut,” the court determined that while there might have been a service deficiency, the National Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) decision to award Rs. 2 Crores as  compensation was excessive and disproportionate.

·         This was mainly because there was no evidence presented to support the model’s alleged loss of modeling assignments or the income she had received from previous assignments.

What is the remoteness of damage?

Remoteness of damage is a legal principle that limits liability for damages to those that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the wrongful act or breach of duty. It requires a direct and close connection between the act and the resulting harm, excluding damages that are too remote or unforeseeable.

5.   P v. Union of India

   Bench- CJI DY Chandrachud, CJ and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala

·         In a case involving a pregnant woman in her late twenties who approached the Supreme  Court, the 3-judge bench, along with the law officers and the woman’s lawyer,  collaborated to ensure justice in its truest form

·         The court granted her request to give birth to the child earlier and safeguarded the child’s future by arranging adoption through a couple registered with the Child Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). This decision was reached after considering the woman and her family’s inability to provide the necessary care for the child.

6.   Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

   Bench- Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia

·         In a criminal appeal against the High Court’s affirmation of the Trial Court’s conviction and sentencing, the court rejected the appeal. It determined that the prosecution had convincingly established the appellant’s guilt through a strong and persuasive chain of circumstances.

·         The court emphasized that even in the absence of a clear motive, when the evidence unequivocally proves guilt, it does not undermine the conclusions.

·         The Supreme Court denied the appellant the benefit of the General Exception of unsoundness of mind under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as he failed to meet the burden  of proof required to establish his claim.

7.   Dr. Roya Rozati v. Mohammed Humayun Ahmed Khan

   Bench- Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol

·         A Division Bench will assess whether the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has the authority to investigate a case of criminal medical negligence, despite the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) taking a different stance favoring the petitioner.

·         The NHRC declined to intervene in the medical negligence case, citing the absence of a public servant’s involvement. Conversely, the SHRC issued specific directives in the matter.

·         The High Court found no fault with the SHRC’s directives, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court for resolution in the present case.

8.   Odisha Lokayukta v. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi

   Bench- Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi

·         The appeals were filed to challenge the judgment of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court, which overturned the order of the Odisha Lokayukta. The Lokayukta had directed the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, regarding corruption allegations against Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, an MLA.

·         The division bench concluded that the High Court had made a clear and significant mistake by violating the principles of natural justice. As a result, the bench set aside the challenged judgment and order.

·         The division bench determined that the High Court’s decision was erroneous and failed to uphold the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the judgment and order were invalidated.

9.   Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka

·         A writ petition was filed to challenge the legality and validity of establishing a Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the delimitation process conducted by the Commission.

·         The Court determined that there was no illegality in forming the Delimitation Commission as per the contested order. Additionally, the Court found nothing illegal regarding the delimitation or readjustment of constituencies carried out by the Commission.

·         The Court concluded that both the establishment of the Delimitation Commission and the delimitation exercise were lawful and valid, dismissing the claims made in the writ petition.

10. Mohammad Arif v. Enforcement Directorate

   Bench- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar

·         By exercising their criminal writ jurisdiction, the court granted interim baile to the petitioner on bail. The court acknowledged that the petitioner had completed nearly half of the imposed sentence and considered the unfortunate passing of the petitioner’s wife due to cancer, leaving behind a child from their marriage.

11. M/S Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others

   Bench- Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta

·         Having the option of an appeal or revision does not automatically prevent the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissing a writ petition.

·         The court believed that the existence of an alternative remedy does not always prevent a writ petition from being valid, and the requirement to pursue such a remedy is more of a guideline based on policy, convenience, and discretion rather than a legal rule.

·         The court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy does not establish an absolute barrier to the maintainability of a writ petition.

What is Article 226 of the Indian Constitution?

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants the power of the High Courts to issue writs. It states  that every High Court has the power to issue writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for  any other purpose. The writs are intended to ensure that justice is served and that the rights of individuals are protected. The High Courts have the authority to exercise this power within their respective jurisdictions.

12. Baini Prasad through LRs v. Durga Devi

   Bench- Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar

·         An encroacher is not considered a ‘transferee’ and therefore cannot claim the right to compensation under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.

·         Section 51 of the Act protects transferees who make improvements to property in good faith, believing they have absolute ownership. They are entitled to compensation if evicted by someone with a better title or can purchase the part of the property they improved at market value.

·         The court determined that to qualify under Section 51, the occupant must have held possession under the belief that they had obtained good title to the property, demonstrating a genuine belief of ownership.

13. Debashis Sinha and Others v. M/S RNR Enterprise represented by its Proprietor/Chairman, Kolkata and Others

   Bench- Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta

·         Consumer forums should not dismiss consumer complaints based on the argument that consumers were aware of what they were buying.

·         The court noted that consumer forums are typically approached by consumers after they have made a purchase. Therefore, rejecting complaints on the basis of consumers’ knowledge would undermine the purpose and intent of the Consumer Protection Act.

·         The court emphasized that the enactment’s objective would be defeated if consumer complaints were summarily dismissed on the grounds that consumers were already aware of their purchase decisions.

14. Ajai @ Ajju and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh

   Bench- Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath

·         The conviction and life sentence of four individuals accused of murder were upheld based on the testimony of a single eyewitness in the case.

·         The court emphasized that the quality of witnesses, not their quantity, is crucial in criminal trials.

·         Consequently, the court dismissed the argument of the accused regarding the prosecution’s failure to call two additional witnesses, stating that their non-examination did not significantly impact the case.

15. In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail

   Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka

·         The court ordered that local courts have the authority to independently review and potentially ease bail conditions if the accused has not provided bail bonds for more than a month.

·         The court further stated that local courts should not always require local sureties, as this requirement could hinder the process of obtaining bail.

16. Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Anr.

   Bench- Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Ajay Rastogi

·         The Court ruled that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied universally in all cases. Its applicability depends on the unique qualities and characteristics of individuals, and it can be considered a reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

·         The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, stating that the power of judicial review in matters involving financial implications is extremely limited. The court criticized the High Court and Tribunal for intervening in cases where pay scales had been recommended by the Pay Commission, deeming their actions a serious mistake.

·         The court emphasized the importance of respecting the recommendations of the Pay Commission and recognized the limited scope for judicial interference in financial matters.

17. Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura

   Bench- Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol

·         An extra-judicial confession, especially when retracted during trial, is considered a weak form of evidence, according to the court.

·         The court highlighted the prosecution’s failure to establish the motive behind the crime, noting that while motive is significant in cases of both direct and circumstantial evidence, it holds even greater importance in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

18. Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and Ors. v State of Gujarat and Ors.

   Bench- Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh

·         The court determined that lowering the cut-off marks to favor a specific category, especially after the results were announced, is a violation of Article 14.

·         The court noted that the cut-off marks are established based on the qualifications needed for a particular position, and they cannot be reduced or altered.

High Court

1.   Sr. Sephy v. CBI

   Delhi High Court- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

·         The petitioner was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as a murder suspect and was subjected to a virginity test without her consent while in CBI custody.

·         On February 7, 2023, the Delhi High Court noted that since the filing of the petition in 2009, several judgments had been passed declaring the ‘virginity’ or ‘two-finger’ test unconstitutional. The court deemed the test a violation of Article 21 and stated that it is outdated, irrational, and not supported by modern scientific or medical standards.

·         The court emphasized that modern science and medical laws disapprove of such tests on women and declared the practice to be archaic and against constitutional principles.

2.   Harsh Ajay Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

   Delhi High Court- CJ Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

·         The court held that the Agneepath scheme is not arbitrary and has a reasonable basis. It also acknowledged that the scheme was formulated with the objective of serving national interest.

·         The court rejected the petitions and stated that the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot be used to compel the government to complete the recruitment process, considering the broader public interest.

·         The court emphasized that while these principles may apply in certain cases, they cannot be invoked in this particular instance to enforce the government’s obligation to fulfill recruitment requirements.

What is the Agnipath Scheme?

The Agnipath Scheme is an approved initiative by the Government of India, introduced on June 14, 2022. It is a tour of duty style program aimed at recruiting non-commissioned officers for a period of four years in the three branches of the armed forces. The recruits under this scheme will be referred to as Agniveers, a new military rank. However, the scheme has faced criticism for being implemented without sufficient consultation and public debate. It was officially launched in September 2022.

What is a promissory estoppel?

Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from going back on their promise or  representation when another party has relied on that promise to their detriment. In simpler terms,  if one party makes a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance to another party, and the other  party reasonably relies on that promise and acts upon it, the promisor is generally prevented from  retracting or reneging on the promise. This principle is aimed at ensuring fairness and preventing  injustice when one party has suffered harm or incurred losses due to their reliance on the promise  made by the other party.

3.   Anees v. State of Uttar Pradesh

   Allahabad High Court- Justice Krishan Pahal

·         The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that a dying declaration given to a police officer can be considered if it is truthful, coherent, consistent, and not influenced by coercion.

·         After examining both dying declarations, the court found their contents to be nearly identical despite being recorded in different languages. There was no evidence of bias against the applicant from the police or treating doctors. The investigating officer cleared the accused mentioned in the FIR, but not in the deceased’s statements, strengthening the presumption of fair action.

·         The court emphasized that a dying declaration is hearsay evidence and carries significant weight, yet the accused cannot cross-examine the deceased. It stressed the need for the dying declaration to be trustworthy and free from tutoring, prompting, or imagination for the court to fully rely on its accuracy.

4.   Sayed Usama v. State of Maharashtra

   Bombay High Court- Justices Mangesh S Patil and S G Chapalgaonkar

·         The petitioner, a social activist, filed a PIL addressing the concern of police department mock drills that portrayed individuals of a specific community as terrorists. In response, the court ordered the State Police to refrain from conducting such mock drills.

·         The court’s directive prohibits the police from depicting members of a particular community as terrorists during mock drills, as raised by the petitioner in their public interest litigation.

5.   Hardik Kapoor v. Bar Council of India

   Delhi High Court- Justice Pratibha M. Singh

·         The court clarified that advocates appearing in courts, from lower to higher levels, should wear white bands as part of their uniform, along with other prescribed attire. Interns are allowed to wear white shirts, black ties, black pants, and black coats when entering court complexes.

·         This ruling aligns with Rule 27 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, and the Bar Council of India (BCI) has established rules regarding the dress code for advocates, stating that all advocates must wear bands from lower to higher courts. Rule IV only provides a relaxation for wearing a black coat, not allowing black ties in courts.

·         Therefore, advocates, in general, are required to wear white bands when appearing in courts at any level, as stated by the court and in accordance with the BCI rules.

6.   Dipak Banki v. State of West Bengal

   Calcutta High Court- Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

·         According to the court, for an offense to be established, a woman’s consent to sexual activities in a relationship must be obtained through misrepresentation and a false promise of marriage. This element of deception should be evident from the very beginning of their relationship.

·         The court emphasized that a “promise to marry” can be considered a misleading  representation only if it forms an integral part of the false understanding that induces the  woman to consent to the accused person’s sexual proposal. If the accused person made a promise at the start but failed to fulfill it due to unforeseen circumstances, it would not be considered a false promise leading to a misconception of facts and thus not an offense under the law.

·         The court highlighted the importance of establishing the presence of a deliberate falsehood, existing from the inception of the relationship, in order for a false promise of marriage to be considered as a factor inducing the woman’s consent to engage in sexual activities.

7.   Jai A Dehadrai v GNCTD

   Delhi High Court- Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

·         In a PIL challenging Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and seeking changes to allow interviews with legal advisers throughout the week without a limit on the number of interviews, the court declined to issue a writ of mandamus.

·         The court acknowledged that the state has made a decision to restrict the total number of visits by family members, relatives, friends, and legal advisers to two times a week, based on the number of undertrials and prisoners. The court found this decision to be reasonable, taking into account prison facilities, staff availability, and the number of undertrials.

·         The court concluded that the decision to cap visitations was not arbitrary but made after careful consideration of various factors, and therefore, there was no need for the court to intervene through a writ of mandamus.

8.   Master Medhansh Jawar v. Rajesh Bhushan

   Delhi High Court- Justice Pratibha M Singh

·         In response to a petition filed by primarily children with Rare Diseases, asserting that the costs of medicines and therapies for these conditions are excessively high, the Court ordered the Union government to release Rs. 5 crores to AIIMS, Delhi.

·         The directive ensures immediate financial support of Rs. 5 crores from the Union of India to AIIMS, Delhi, enabling uninterrupted treatment for children suffering from Rare Diseases who have already initiated their medical care. This measure aims to address the financial challenges faced by these children and prevent any disruption in their ongoing treatment.

9.   Ved Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)

   Delhi High Court- Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma

·         In a case where the petitioner sought the respondent’s obligation to provide a functional prosthesis for the amputated hand and compensation for the incurred loss, the court established specific guidelines for convicts experiencing work-related amputation or life-threatening injuries. These guidelines will remain in effect until new guidelines are formulated or existing rules are amended.

·         The Court laid down the following guidelines:

ü  In case of a convict suffering work related amputation or life-threatening injury, the Jail Superintendent would be duty bound to immediately inform the concerned Jail Inspecting Judge within 24 hours of the incident.

ü  A Three-Member Committee consisting of (i) Director General (Prisons), Delhi, (ii) Medical Superintendent of a government hospital and (iii) Secretary, DSLSA of the concerned district where from the convict had been sentenced, would be constituted, who would assess and quantify the compensation to be paid to the victim of such work-related injury, after perusing the opinion of a board of doctors which would be constituted at their request by the treating hospital.

ü  The government hospital from where the victim would be medically  examined/treated for the injury or the disability, if any, the same would be put up  before the above-mentioned committee for assessment of compensation.

ü  For assessing the injury/disability, the contributory negligence, if any, of the victim would be kept in mind. These guidelines would be applicable only in the case of amputation, or any other life-threatening injury, arising out of work-related injury, sustained by the convict.

ü  The essential interim compensation would be provided to such victim in case of  amputation or life-threatening injury

10. Philip Marandi v. Satya Hansda

   Jharkhand High Court- Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

·         The Court noted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court based their decisions on witnesses’ testimonies regarding the existence of customs for adopting sons, and even if these provisions were not explicitly stated, the adoption of sons and daughters by Santhals has been recognized. The Court referred to a previous judgment acknowledging the custom of adoption among Santhals and refused to consider the findings of the lower courts as legally flawed.

·         The Court dismissed the second appeal, stating that the previous judgments affirming the prevalence of the custom of adoption among Santhals, along with the lack of merit in the  case, rendered the findings of the lower courts valid in law.

11. Nida Amina Ahmad v. Union of India

   Patna High Court- Justice Purnendu Singh

·         In a case where a girl was denied a fresh passport by the Regional Passport Officer due to an incorrect date of birth, the court ruled that the date of birth stated in the Matriculation Certification issued by CBSE should be given the utmost priority. The court directed the Regional Passport Officer to issue a new passport to the girl with the corrected date of birth.

·         The court decided that the Regional Passport Officer’s refusal to issue a new passport to the girl based on an incorrect date of birth was unfounded. The court emphasized that the Matriculation Certification granted by CBSE should carry significant weight in determining the girl’s date of birth, and as a result, ordered the Regional Passport Officer to rectify the date of birth and provide her with a fresh passport.

12. Philips Thomas v. State of Kerala

   Kerala High Court- Justice Kauser Edappagath

·         In a criminal appeal involving doctors and nurses accused of medical negligence resulting in a patient’s death, the Court overturned the conviction and acquitted the medical staff.  The Court emphasized that not every patient death can be attributed to medical negligence. The case involved the death of a healthy woman following a routine laparoscopic sterilization procedure.

·         The Court clarified that the acquittal of the medical staff under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code does not impact the ongoing appeal for compensation before the National Commission.

13. Shailesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka Karnataka High Court- Justice M. Nagaprasanna

·         In a criminal petition seeking the cancellation of an FIR and charge sheet for offenses under the Penal Code and the SC/ST Act, the court partially granted the petition by quashing the charge sheet related to the SC/ST Act.

·         The court referred to previous legal decisions and emphasized that simply mentioning the victim’s caste does not automatically constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act. The intention to insult the person belonging to the caste must be present for it to be considered an offense.

·         The court’s decision recognized that specific intent to insult based on caste is a crucial element in determining whether an offense under the SC/ST Act has been committed.

March 2023

Supreme Court

1.   Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar

·         The 5-judge Constitution Bench settled the dispute over the appointment of members of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

·         The Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners will be appointed by the President on the advice of a 3-member committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the  leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha (or the leader of the largest party in the opposition),  and the Chief Justice of India.

·         The Court emphasized the need for a law to be made by Parliament to ensure the independence of the Election Commission.

·         The Court appealed to the Union of India/Parliament to consider establishing a permanent Secretariat for the Election Commission and charging its expenditure to the Consolidated Fund of India.

·         Justice Rastogi suggested that the grounds for removal of Election Commissioners should be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner, and their conditions of service should not be varied to their disadvantage after appointment.

·         The Court highlighted the vacuum in Article 324 of the Constitution regarding the appointment of Election Commissioners and the need to fill this void to safeguard the independence of the Election Commission.

2.   Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation

   Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and J.K. Maheshwari

·         The Union of India filed a petition seeking enhanced compensation for the victims of the Union Carbide gas tragedy.

·         The court noted that the Union’s own position was that the claims were adjudicated upon by the Commissioner according to the established legal procedure.

·         The court held that the responsibility for addressing the compensation shortage fell on the Union of India, and they should have taken out relevant insurance policies.

·         The court stated that the Union could not neglect its responsibility and then seek to shift the blame onto Union Carbide Corporation by seeking enhanced compensation without any fundamental legal basis.

3.   Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra

   Bench- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud C.J. and Justices M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha

·         The Supreme Court heard petitions from different factions on various issues, including the Maharashtra Governor’s trust vote, the alleged illegal swearing-in of Eknath Shinde as Chief Minister, and the proposal for a new Speaker.

·         Chief Justice Ramana referred questions regarding the interpretation of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, disqualification, powers of the Speaker and Governor, and the power of judicial review to a 5-judge Constitution bench.

·         The issue of whether a disqualification petition can be decided by High Courts or the Supreme Court under Article 226 or Article 32 was raised.

·         Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the matter should be referred to a 7-judge bench to reconsider the accuracy of the 2016 judgment in Nabam Rebia, which stated that the Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when a resolution for their removal is pending. The need for a larger bench would be determined along with the merits of the case.

4.   Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Saurakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra

   Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Manoj Misra

·         The Supreme Court addressed a batch of appeals against a Bombay High Court order regarding the affinity test’s role in determining the correctness of a caste claim.

·         The full bench held that the affinity test is not a litmus test for deciding a caste claim in every case and is not an essential part of the process.

·         The Court emphasized the need for detailed scrutiny of caste claims by the Scrutiny Committee and stated that the same level of scrutiny by both the Competent Authority and the Committee is necessary.

·         The Court clarified that the Scrutiny Committee should not mechanically refer cases to the Vigilance Cell for an inquiry, especially in cases involving the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe, and outlined the considerations for issuing caste validity certificates based on blood relatives and lawful inquiry.

What is an affinity test?

The affinity test refers to a method used to determine the authenticity and validity of a caste or tribe claim. It involves examining the level of social, cultural, and traditional affinity or connection the individual has with the claimed caste or tribe. The test aims to assess whether the person seeking recognition as a member of a particular caste or tribe has sufficient evidence of belonging to that community based on their social practices, customs, rituals, and other relevant factors.

5.   Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India

   Bench- CJI Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala

·         The Supreme Court has formed an Expert Committee led by retired Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre to evaluate the regulatory framework for protecting investor interests in India.

·         The court has instructed SEBI to conclude its investigation into investor losses related to the decline in Adani Group’s share price within two months.

·         The petitions seek a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or a court-monitored investigation into the Hindenburg report and key individuals involved, through a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

·         The court acknowledged SEBI’s commitment to investigating the allegations against the Adani Group and assigned them to provide a status report on the ongoing investigation, including any regulatory failures and actions taken.

6.   Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra Bench- Justice Sanjay K Kaul and Abhay S Oka

·         The Supreme Court dismissed a Civil Appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision to uphold the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s order regarding the appointment of Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF).

·         The dispute involved inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees for the ACF post, which was filled through nomination and promotion.

·         The court held that government resolutions cannot override statutory rules and that the rules for recruitment to the Maharashtra Forest Service would be fully enforced.

·         The court clarified that government resolutions do not have the status of statutory rules and that the proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules would still apply in determining the service period and seniority.

7.   Yashpal Singh v. State of UP

   Bench- Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar

·         Nature of allegations, Seriousness and Gravity of the offense must be considered along with cogent reasons for granting bail in serious offenses.

·         The Court criticized the High Court for not providing independent reasons and not considering the seriousness of the offenses while granting bail to the accused.

·         The Court highlighted that overcrowding of jails cannot be a valid reason to grant bail in cases of serious offenses.

·         The Court concluded that the orders of the High Court granting bail to the accused are inappropriate and should be quashed.

8.   Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy Bench- Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar

·         The Court set aside the order and criticized the Telangana High Court for not taking into account the gravity of the money laundering offenses and the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

·         The case involved the Directorate of Enforcement challenging the High Court’s grant of anticipatory bail to respondent 1 for the offense of money laundering under the PMLA.

·         The High Court, in granting the anticipatory bail, failed to consider the nature and seriousness of the money laundering charges and instead focused on the ordinary offense under the IPC in the prayer for anticipatory bail.

9.   City Bank Union Ltd. v. V.R. Chandramohan

   Bench- Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi

·         The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to dismiss a complaint against a bank for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

·         The complainant alleged that two demand drafts were not credited to their company’s account, but instead were credited to another account with a similar name.

·         The Court emphasized that consumer disputes commissions should not handle complaints involving highly disputed factual questions or allegations of tortious acts due to the summary nature of the proceedings. It considered the discrepancies in the names and accounts involved and ultimately dismissed the complaint, overturning the decisions of the State and National Consumer Disputes Commissions.

10. In Re: Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Prisons

   Bench- Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar

·         The Supreme Court has ordered all undertrial prisoners and convicts who were released on emergency parole or interim bail during the COVID-19 pandemic to surrender to the prison authorities within 15 days.

·         The court had previously directed each state to form a High-Powered Committee to determine which prisoners could be released on parole or interim bail to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in overcrowded prisons.

·         The release of prisoners was based on the committee’s assessment of overcrowding and the need to prevent the spread of the virus. Now that the COVID-19 situation has improved, the court has mandated the surrender of those who were released on emergency parole or interim bail.

11. Sundar v. State by Inspector of Police

   Bench- CJI Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justices Hima Kohli and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

·         The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, reviewed a criminal appeal and decided not to affirm the death sentence imposed on the petitioner, emphasizing the need to consider the possibility of reformation in a criminal.

·         The review petition challenged the conviction, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court, Madras High Court, and Supreme Court. The court considered the petitioner’s argument regarding the requirement for open-court hearings in review petitions related to death sentences.

·         While acknowledging the petitioner’s guilt for kidnapping and murder, the court found no reason to interfere with the previous findings. However, it noted that mitigating circumstances were not considered during the trial or appellate process and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for 20 years without remission.

12. Shankar v. State of Maharashtra

   Bench- Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar

·         Acquitted the appellants as the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively point to their guilt in the homicidal death, despite the acknowledgment that the deceased met with a homicidal death.

·         The Trial Court had found the appellants guilty based on circumstantial evidence, which was challenged in the High Court.

·         The Court emphasized the need to scrutinize the evidence when doubts exist regarding its conclusiveness or the probability of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.

·         The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a motive and that the “last seen” theory was not conclusively proven, leading to the conclusion that the guilt of the appellants could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellants were acquitted based on the benefit of doubt.

13. Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)

   Bench- Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta

·         The division bench granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing that the provision of undue delay in trial can be a valid ground for granting bail, even in cases governed by the NDPS Act.

·         The court clarified that although special acts like the NDPS Act may impose restrictions on the right to bail, the interpretation of Section 37 should include a prima facie determination of the accused’s innocence. If strictly interpreted, Section 37 would effectively eliminate the possibility of granting bail.

·         Section 37 of the NDPS Act allows bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail.

14. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal and ors.

   Bench- CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli

·         The Supreme Court emphasized that borrowers have the right to be heard and a reasoned order must be issued before their accounts are classified as fraudulent. The court recognized that the RBI’s Master Directions do not provide for a borrower’s opportunity to be heard, and thus the principle of audi alteram partem should be applied to prevent arbitrary actions.

·         In line with principles of natural justice, the court stated that borrowers should be served notice, given a chance to respond to the audit report’s findings, and allowed to present their case to the banks before their accounts are labeled as fraudulent.

15. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam

   Bench- Justices MR Shah and Sanjay Karol

·         The Union Government filed an application in the Supreme Court, requesting a reference against the judgments in the cases of Arup Bhuyan vs. Union of India and State of Kerala vs. Raneef, arguing that the Court interpreted central legislation without hearing the Union’s side.

·         The 2011 judgments held that mere membership in an illegal association does not constitute an offense under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act unless accompanied by overt violent acts.

However, the Supreme Court overruled these judgments, upholding the validity of Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967.

·         The Court held that if an organization is declared unlawful and a person remains a member of such an organization, they must face the consequences and be subjected to the penal provisions under Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967. The Court found that the earlier judgments erred in reading down the section without the constitutional validity being challenged or the Union’s side being heard.

16. Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala

   Bench- Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dinesh Maheshwari

·         The Court invalidated and nullified the subsequent orders of the High Court, criticizing its unwarranted judicial activism that overshadowed other authorities carrying out their statutory duties.

·         The complainant had lodged similar complaints against the Archbishop and others, resulting in separate summonses being issued by the Trial Court.

·         The appeals challenge the High Court’s decision. The Court stated that the Trial Court did not commit any error by entertaining the complaints while a previous complaint was pending, as dismissal under Section 203 of CrPC does not prevent the consideration of a second complaint on the same facts.

·         The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts regarding the Archbishop’s alleged involvement in the offenses, emphasizing the need for fair trials to punish the guilty and restrain frivolous complaints. The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the complaints in accordance with the law and cautioned against the High Court’s excessive self-righteousness in judicial review, emphasizing the importance of judicial restraint and consistent application of legal principles.

17. S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan

   Bench- Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar

·         The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation regarding a pathway in Indian Bank Colony, Simco Meter Road.

·         The respondents relied on a Survey Report, but the High Court disregarded it and relied on two other reports instead.

·         The High Court allowed the review petition, dismissed other related writ petitions, and the contempt petition. However, the Bench stated that the High Court made an error by considering the Survey Report again in the review petition after it had already been adjudicated upon. The Bench set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the contempt petition and writ petitions back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law and on their own merits.

18. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited

   Bench- Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

·         The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the scope of review when a judgment and subsequent judgments were overruled by a superior court.

·         Justice Nagarathna dismissed the review petitions, stating that the decision of a superior court reversing or modifying a previous decision should not be a ground for reviewing the judgment.

·         The respondents argued that the previous decision was still binding, citing the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

·         Justice Shah, considering the factual aspects, allowed the review applications filed by the acquiring authorities or the state, as the judgment under review relied on a decision that was subsequently overruled by a constitution bench.

19. State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur

   Bench- Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar

·         The court emphasized that the severity of the crime should determine the appropriate punishment, and it is the responsibility of each court to impose a suitable sentence based on the nature and manner of the offense.

·         The court warned against imposing lenient sentences out of excessive sympathy, as it would undermine the justice system and erode public confidence in the effectiveness of the law.

20. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra

   Bench- Justices Aniruddha Bose, KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy

·         The court ordered the immediate release of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary, who had been sentenced to death, upon finding evidence that he was only 12 years old when he committed the crime.

·         The court accepted Chaudhary’s claim of being a juvenile at the time and subsequently ordered his release.

·         Chaudhary had spent 28 years in prison, including 25 years on death row, for his involvement in the 1994 Rathi family murders in Pune. Despite previous court records stating his age as 20 to 22 years, Chaudhary filed a review petition asserting his status as a minor during the crime.

21. Union Territory of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal and Others and Mohammed Faizal and Others v. Secretary General

   Bench- Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna

·         The court expressed that the automatic disqualification of lawmakers upon conviction is a severe action, emphasizing the need for caution in sentencing parliamentarians.

·         This observation came in response to the information that Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act results in the immediate disqualification of parliamentarians when they receive a conviction of two years or more imprisonment.

High Courts

1.   Mohd. Abdul Khaliq v. State of U.P.

   Allahabad High Court- Justice Shamim Ahmed

·         The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings of a case under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, stating that an offense has been made out against the accused.

·         The court expressed hope and trust that the Central Government would take appropriate steps to ban cow slaughter in the country and declare cows as a “protected national animal.”

·         The case involved an allegation of cow slaughtering, with the accused being accused of transporting and intending to sell cow meat.

·         The court emphasized that quashing proceedings at an initial stage requires establishing that uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offense, and the chance of conviction is unlikely, which was not the case here.

2.   Om Prakash v. State of U.P.

   Allahabad High Court- Justice JJ Munir

·         The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application seeking to quash the proceedings of a Sessions Case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

·         The court emphasized that under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, victims of such offenses do not have the freedom to compromise the case as if it were a compoundable offense or a civil matter.

·         The complainant had expressed a desire to withdraw the prosecution based on the parties’ marriage, but the court stated that continuing the prosecution was necessary and not an abuse of the court’s process.

·         The court highlighted that offenses like rape and molestation of minors, which fall under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, are crimes against society and require the establishment of truth through evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction.

3.   Aditya Birla Finance Limited v SITI Networks Limited

   Delhi High Court- Justice V. Kameswar Rao

·         In an arbitration petition seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, the court ruled that a non-signatory or third party can be bound by arbitration without prior consent if there is a clear intention of the parties to include them, as stated in the Credit Arrangement Letter (CAL) and Facility Agreement.

·         The petition was filed to resolve disputes related to a term loan, and the court examined the direct relationship between the signatory parties, the subject matter, and the composite transaction forming part of the CAL and Facility Agreement.

·         The court dismissed the argument that the letters issued by the respondents were mere letters of comfort, stating that they could be treated as letters of guarantee based on the interpretation of the contract as a whole.

·         The court noted that there was no assurance in the letters that the respondents would pay the credit facility in case of non-payment by respondent 1. As a result, the arbitration clauses between the petitioner and respondents 1, 2, and 3 were deemed applicable, and they would be liable to be referred to arbitration.

What is the group of companies’ doctrine?

The group of companies doctrine, also known as the “single economic entity” or “enterprise” doctrine, is a legal principle that allows courts to disregard the separate legal personality of individual companies within a corporate group and treat them as a single entity for certain purposes. Under this doctrine, the actions or obligations of one company within the group may be attributed to another company within the same group, and legal liability or responsibility may be extended to the entire group.

4.   TVF Media Labs Private Limited v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

   Delhi High Court- Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma

·         The Delhi High Court upheld an order to register a First Information Report (FIR) against TVF Media Labs Private Limited, the owner of the web series ‘College Romance,’ under the Information Technology Act. The court stressed the gravity of using vulgar language on public platforms and social media accessible to young children. The petitioner sought to have the order quashed but was unsuccessful.

·         The complainant alleged that the web series contained explicit and obscene material, violating several laws. The court reviewed episodes of the series and determined that the language used was profane and went beyond acceptable standards of decency. It recognized the delicate balance between free speech and preventing legal violations,  emphasizing the need to distinguish between acceptable content and language that incites  prurient feelings.

·         The court’s decision highlights the challenge of transmitting content without classification, even if it contains explicit or sexually suggestive language. The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining standards of decency and protecting vulnerable audiences, particularly children, from exposure to inappropriate material.

5.   Kolisetty Shiva Kumar v. Animal Welfare Board of India

   Delhi High Court- Justice Pratibha M Singh

·         The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the withdrawal of the celebration of ‘Cow Hug Day’ by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).

·         The AWBI had issued a notification on February 6, 2023, announcing the celebration of ‘Cow Hug Day’ on February 14, 2023.

·         The court concluded that the decision to celebrate specific events is within the policy domain of the AWBI and the government, and therefore, it did not intervene in the matter.

6.   Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. Accord Distillers & Brewers (P) Ltd.

   Himachal Pradesh High Court- Justice Vivek Singh Thakur

·         The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement case.

·         The defendant, a private company, is involved in the manufacturing and marketing of alcoholic beverages using the trademark ‘MISSIONARY MONKS AUTHENTIC PURE XO BRANDY.’

·         The applicant filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, claiming that the defendant’s use of the mark ‘MONK’ created confusion and misrepresented a connection with the applicant’s well-established ‘Old Monk’ brand of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL).

·         The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and granted the ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant from using the contested mark ‘MISSIONARY MONKS AUTHENTIC PURE XO BRANDY’ and its variations. The defendant prominently used the term ‘MONK’ in its branding.

7.   X v. State of Orissa

   Orissa High Court- Justice SK Panigrahi

·         A petition was filed to remove the intimate video of the victim from social media platforms and expedite the investigation against the criminals.

·         The court ordered the state to take action within two weeks to remove the video from all social media platforms.

·         The accused had uploaded the video, which was viewed by millions of users, and the victim was unable to permanently delete it.

·         The court noted that existing regulations and frameworks like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and India’s Information Technology Rules recognized the need to protect personal data and privacy but failed to address the “Right to be forgotten.”

·         The court emphasized that obtaining consent for capturing images and videos does not justify the misuse of such content when the relationship between the victim and accused becomes strained.

·         The court highlighted the obligation for data fiduciaries to periodically review the necessity of retaining personal data and delete it if not required.

·         In light of these considerations, the court directed the state to ensure the removal of the video from all social media platforms.

8.   Narayan Shankar Upadhyaya v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited  Rajasthan High Court- Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

·         The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement, but it was rejected due to a manpower shortage. The court considered whether the petitioner could withdraw their resignation after it was accepted and whether they could request that the resignation be treated as voluntary retirement.

·         The court referred to a previous case and stated that the denial of voluntary retirement does not change the legal consequences of resignation.

·         The court noted that an employee can withdraw their resignation before it becomes effective, but once the resignation is accepted, the petitioner is estopped from claiming pensionary benefits or treating it as voluntary retirement.

·         The court concluded that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted after the acceptance of the resignation because the act of resignation constitutes relinquishment. The court emphasized that once a resignation is accepted, it cannot be withdrawn.

April 2023

Supreme Court

1.   Karmanya Singh Sareen v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T.  Ravikumar

·         A constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising five judges, considered the submission of the Attorney General that a new Data Protection Bill addressing concerns raised by petitioners would be introduced in the July 2023 session of Parliament.

·         The court deferred the hearing on the violation of privacy rights by WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy until August 2023.

·         The court ordered the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute a fresh bench in August, as two judges from the existing bench were retiring in June 2023.

·         The petitioner’s lawyer opposed the delay, arguing that court proceedings should not be linked to the legislative process, which could cause unnecessary delays. However, the Attorney General emphasized the need for qualified consultation. The court decided to shelve the hearing in light of the circumstances.

2.   Supriyo v. Union of India

   Bench- CJI Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

·         The petitioners in this case sought recognition of same-sex marriages under various acts, including the Special Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act, and Hindu Marriage Act, and requested that the laws be made gender neutral.

·         They challenged the constitutionality of Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, which does not recognize marriages between LGBTQIA+ couples, and requested that the terms “wife” and “husband” be replaced with “party” for LGBTQIA+ marriages.

·         The petitioners argued that the fundamental right to marry, including the choice of a marital partner, is protected by the Constitution.

·         They also challenged the regulations under the Adoption Regulations, which excluded same-sex couples from joint adoption, and requested that same-sex couples who are validly married in a foreign jurisdiction be included as well as unmarried same-sex couples in the definition of “spouse” under the Juvenile Justice Act. They argued that such exclusions based on sexual orientation are unconstitutional.

·         After hearing both sides, the court has reserved its verdict for now.

3.   N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd

   Bench- Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi (dissenting), Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy (dissenting) and C.T. Ravikumar

·         The question was whether an arbitration agreement contained in an instrument that is not subject to stamp duty renders the agreement non-existent, unenforceable, or invalid until stamp duty is paid on the substantive contract.

·         In a 3:2 majority, the court stated that an unstamped instrument, which should be stamped, cannot be considered a legally enforceable contract under the Contract Act.

·         An arbitration agreement that attracts stamp duty but remains unstamped or insufficiently stamped cannot be acted upon unless the necessary stamp duty is paid and a certificate is provided under the Stamp Act.

·         Therefore, the court concluded that the arbitration agreement in an instrument subject to stamp duty would be considered non-existent unless the instrument is validated under the  Stamp Act.

4.   Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India

   Bench- CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli

·         The issue arose when the Intelligence Bureau denied security clearance to MBL’s Media One News Channel, citing adverse remarks about MBL’s alleged funding from Jamaat-e-Islam sympathizers and its anti-establishment stance.

·         The Supreme Court had to determine whether these reasons justified the denial of security clearance and the subsequent restriction on MBL’s freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

·         The court explained that freedom of the press can only be restricted based on the grounds in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

·         In this case, the denial of security clearance was deemed a restriction on the freedom of the press, and such restrictions are constitutionally permissible only on the grounds outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The court found that the denial lacked a legitimate purpose and did not meet the requirements for a reasonable restriction.

5.   Ravindra Shah v. State of Maharashtra

   Bench- Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol

·         Following an unintentional mistake made by an Advocate-on-Record’s clerk, which resulted in online jokes, the Court accepted an unconditional apology and decided not to take any further action against the Advocate on Record, the Clerk, or the Court Officers.

·         The Court took note of the mistake that caused embarrassment and initiated suo moto proceedings. It was revealed that the clerk inadvertently forwarded a WhatsApp message requesting his name to be recorded in the Record of Proceeding, but the message was misunderstood as “Put Mine.”

·         The Court Officer then recorded the message accordingly in the record of proceedings.

·         Recognizing the absence of any malicious intent on the part of the Advocate, the clerk, or the Court Officer, the Court accepted the apology and directed the issuance of a revised Record of Proceeding, removing the mistaken name.

6.   The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka v. M. Narasimha Prasad

   Bench- Justices V. Ramasubramaniam and Pankaj Mithal

·         Following a resolution by the High Court, the respondent, a Civil Judge, was dismissed from service on grounds of misconduct, as ordered by the Governor of Karnataka.

·         The respondent filed four intra-court appeals, which were successful in the Division Bench of the High Court. The court set aside the penalty order, findings of the enquiry officer, and prohibited any further inquiry against the respondent.

·         The Supreme Court examined whether the dismissal from service was justified based on the proven charges and whether the Division Bench of the High Court made the correct decision in overturning the penalty.

·         The Court noted that certain charges related to the respondent’s pronouncement of the operative portion of a judgment in open court without having the complete text ready.  These charges were deemed serious, and the response given by the respondent was considered unsatisfactory.

·         The Court also stated that the High Court failed to assess the order of penalty based on established parameters for evaluating such cases. The Court viewed the High Court’s comment on the dismissal as a veiled attack on the Full Court of the High Court.

7.   Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India

   Bench- CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala

·         The Supreme Court instructed all states and union territories to provide their menstrual hygiene management strategies and plans, ensuring the availability of disposal mechanisms in school complexes for sanitary pad disposal.

·         The Court suggested that the Union Government collaborate with state governments and union territories to develop a uniform national policy, allowing flexibility for adjustments based on local conditions.

·         All states and union territories were directed to submit their menstrual hygiene management strategies and plans within four weeks to the Mission Steering Group of the National Health Mission, whether funded by the Central Government or through their own funds.

·         The states and union territories were also asked to specify the appropriate ratio of female toilets for residential and non-residential schools in their respective territories to the Mission Steering Group of the National Health Mission.

8.   Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu

   Bench-Justices JB Pardiwala and AS Bopanna

·         Two related Civil Appeals were filed challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, which affirmed the Trial Court’s decision invalidating a settlement deed that entitled the daughters to a share in scheduled properties.

·         The Trial Court ruled in favor of the daughters, granting them a share in ancestral and self-acquired properties, including mesne profits.

·         The son appealed against the Trial Court’s judgment, arguing that all the properties should be considered ancestral, derived from the same ancestral properties.

·         The son pursued a Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the Single Judge’s decision before the Division Bench of the High Court.

·         The Court observed that the plaintiff had not signed the settlement deed presented before the High Court, deeming it unlawful. The Court upheld the High Court’s rejection of the settlement deed as unlawful and denied the appellants’ entitlement to any share in the daughters’ properties.

9.   District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya

   Bench- Justices MR Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

·         The Court proposed that a Grievance Redressal Committee should be established by the High Courts, with the Chief Justice as its head. This committee should consist of two  senior Judges, one from the service and one from the Bar, nominated by the Chief Justice,  along with the Advocate General, Chairman of the Bar Council, and President of the  High Court Bar Association.

·         This suggestion was made in recognition of the fact that members of the Bar often have legitimate grievances, and when these grievances remain unresolved, they sometimes resort to strikes.

·         The purpose of the Grievance Redressal Committee would be to address genuine concerns raised by members of the Bar, such as dissatisfaction with procedural changes in filing or listing of cases, misconduct by lower judiciary members, or any other serious grievances against judicial officers.

·         By providing a forum for members of the Bar to voice their grievances, the Court believes that they will feel heard and that their genuine concerns will be addressed within the justice delivery system.

10. Suneja Towers (P) Ltd. v. Anita Merchant

   Bench- Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar

·         Appeals were filed against the National Commission’s decision not to interfere with the State Commission’s judgment in a consumer dispute case.

·         The State Commission had ordered the appellants to refund the amount with compound interest based on a previous case (Manjeet Kaur Monga v. KL Suneja). The National Commission upheld the State Commission’s order, relying on the same case.

·         The Court disagreed, stating that the previous case did not apply to awarding compound interest as compensation under the Consumer Protection Act for Real Estate Disputes.  The Court criticized the State and National Commissions for their assumptive orders and allowed the respondent to retain the received amount.

11. CBI v. Santosh Karnani

   Bench- Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari

·         The Supreme Court heard criminal appeals against the Gujarat High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to the respondent for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

·         The respondent had allegedly threatened the complainant and demanded illegal gratification during their interactions related to the case.

·         The respondent’s application for anticipatory bail was initially rejected by the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, and a non-bailable warrant was issued against the respondent by the Special CBI judge.

·         The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, overturning the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to the respondent.

12. Brinda Karat v. State (NCT of Delhi)

   Bench- Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna

·         A division bench heard a petition seeking registration of a criminal case against BJP  leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches during protests  against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA).

·         The bench expressed doubt about the lower courts’ reasoning that sanction from the Union Government under Section 196 of the CrPC was required and issued notices to the Delhi Government and Delhi Police in the case.

·         In 2022, the Delhi High Court rejected a plea filed by Communist Party leaders Brinda Karat and KM Tiwari challenging the Trial Court’s decision to not order the registration of first information reports against the two BJP leaders.

·         The High Court stated that the petitioners had bypassed the remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure and questioned the lower courts’ interpretation of requiring sanction from the Union Government. The bench issued notices to the Delhi Government and Delhi Police in the matter.

13. State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki

   Bench- Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar

·         The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals against the order of the Bombay High Court, which had acquitted the convicts of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

·         The Court directed the High Court to remit the appeals back for fresh disposal by another bench, considering the question of valid sanction and other merits of the case.

·         The High Court had discharged the convicts based on the grounds of invalid sanction, leading to the State of Maharashtra appealing against the acquittal order.

·         The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, instructing the High Court to decide the appeals afresh, considering all contentions and defenses, and to dispose of the appeals within a period of 4 months.

14. Charan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

   Bench- Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal

·         The Supreme Court held that the mere unnatural death of a woman in her matrimonial  home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict the accused under  Section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, unless cruelty or harassment is proven to be soon  before the death.

·         The father of the deceased testified that his daughter had been sent back to her matrimonial home after a disagreement about not being able to provide a motorcycle.

·         The parents alleged that the husband, brother-in-law, and mother-in-law beat and strangled the deceased to death in the morning of June 22, 1995.

·         The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to imprisonment, but the High Court acquitted the brother-in-law and mother-in-law. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the prerequisites for presumption of dowry death were not fulfilled, leading to the appellant’s conviction being unjustified.

15. Vikas Chaudhary v. State (NCT of Delhi)

   Bench- Justice KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhatt

·         The court criticized the lack of a symmetrical approach in capital sentencing decisions and viewed the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as a mere formality.

·         It emphasized the need for the trial court to demonstrate the absence of mitigating circumstances and the potential for the accused’s reformation.

·         The court stated that the evaluation of mitigating circumstances should be conducted at the trial stage to avoid a solely retributive response to the crime.

·         It mandated the prosecution to provide psychiatric and psychological evaluations of the accused when seeking the death penalty, and the High Court can evaluate and impose appropriate sentences in appeals for sentence enhancement.

16. CBI v. Hemendhra Reddy

   Bench- Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala

·         The bench has held that further investigation is permissible under Section 173(8) of the CrPC even after the final report has been accepted.

·         The court clarified that the acceptance of the final report does not bar the investigating agency from conducting further investigation, and there is no need to review or quash the order accepting the final report.

·         The principle of double jeopardy does not apply to further investigation as it is considered a continuation of the earlier investigation, and it does not amount to subjecting the accused to investigation twice over.

·         The court emphasized that delay in trial and the passage of time alone cannot be grounds for dismissing a case, as the general rule of criminal justice is that a crime never dies, and  prosecution can proceed even after a considerable lapse of time.

What is the principle of double jeopardy?

The principle of double jeopardy, also known as non bis in idem, is a legal principle that protects individuals from being prosecuted or punished multiple times for the same offense. It ensures that once a person has been acquitted or convicted of a particular crime, they cannot be tried again for the same offense. The principle is based on the idea that subjecting someone to multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same act violates fundamental principles of fairness, justice, and protection against arbitrary state action. It is a fundamental right recognized in many legal systems around the world including under Article 20 of the Indian Constitution.

17. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices B.R Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol

·         The applicant requested the modification of certain directions issued by the Court, citing potential hardships faced by communities living near national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

·         The Court acknowledged the impracticality of requiring permission from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for existing activities in Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) due to the presence of numerous villages and millions of residents.

·         The Court recognized the need to consider regulated activities of national importance, such as infrastructure projects, within these areas.

·         The Court modified the direction regarding the uniform one-kilometer ESZ area, taking into account the variations in the boundaries of protected forests.

·         The Court exempted ESZs with draft and final notifications from the prescribed one-kilometer ESZ area and addressed the prohibition of mining activities near national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

18. B.S Hari Commandant v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

·         The Division Bench allowed an appeal against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

·         The appellant’s petition to quash his trial and retain pensionary and other benefits was dismissed by the High Court.

·         The Supreme Court quashed the impugned order of the High Court, allowing the appellant to retain pension benefits.

·         The Court issued additional directions for all Courts and Tribunals, stating that paragraphs must be numbered in all Orders and Judgments in a sequential manner.

·         The Secretary-General was instructed to circulate these additional directions to the Registrars General of all High Courts, urging them to consider adopting a uniform format for Judgments and Orders, including paragraphing, and to ensure that subordinate Courts and Tribunals follow suit.

19. Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash

   Bench- Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala

·         The Division Bench heard an appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment in an eviction case under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

·         The High Court rejected the plaint under the principles of res judicata, based on the previous suit’s dismissal on the ground that the landlord failed to establish the landlord-tenant relationship.

·         The Supreme Court examined whether the finding on the landlord-tenant relationship in the previous suit could render the second eviction petition not maintainable on the principles of res judicata.

·         The Court concluded that the dismissal of the first eviction petition for failure to prove the landlord-tenant relationship did not amount to a decision on the merits, and therefore, the principles of res judicata did not bar the second eviction petition.

20. Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh

   Bench- Justices V. Ramasubramaniam and Pankaj Mithal

·         The High Court’s decision to release the accused on bail was held to be unjustified.

·         The Court pointed out that the High Court overlooked the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail for offenses involving commercial quantity.

·         The accused’s guilt was not established prima facie when bail was granted, and the High  Court made a clear error in releasing the accused on bail despite the recovery of a  commercial quantity of “ganja.”

·         Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and revoked the bail order, thereby nullifying the release of the accused.

21. Shri Rakesh Raman v. Kavita

   Bench- Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala

·         The case involved a couple who had been living separately for 25 years. The husband sought a divorce based on cruelty, and the family court granted it in 2009.

·         The Delhi High Court overturned the decision in 2011.

·         The husband appealed to the Supreme Court, which recognized that the relationship had become extremely bitter and acknowledged the absence of children.

·         The Court held that the “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” can be considered a form of “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act as grounds for divorce.

High Court

1.   Shabnam Jahan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

   Bombay High Court- Justice Gauri Goadse

·         The biological parents of a young girl wanted her aunt, a divorced working woman, to adopt her. They approached the District Court under Section 56(2) of the JJ Act, but the application was rejected.

·         The district judge cited the aunt’s job as a reason for rejecting the adoption, claiming she wouldn’t be able to provide adequate attention to the child.

·         The parents appealed the decision to the Bombay High Court. The High Court overruled the lower court’s decision, stating that the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 allows single parents and divorcees to adopt.

·         The Court emphasized that the district court’s role is to ensure that all necessary adoption conditions are met. As a result, the High Court granted the aunt’s request and declared her the legal adoptive parent of the four-year-old girl.

2.   Aaradhya Bachcha and Anr. v. Bollywood time & Ors

   Delhi High Court- Justice C.Hari Shankar

·         Abhishek Bachchan filed a case in the Delhi Court on behalf of his daughter Aaradhya Bachchan. The case was against various YouTube channels that shared fake news and videos of Aaradhya being seriously ill, violating her right to privacy under the Information Technology Rules of 2021.

·         The court ordered nine YouTube channels to cease sharing any videos related to her health. The court also directed the government to block access to the content.

·         The Court expressed “zero tolerance” for spreading false information about a child’s health and emphasized that every child deserves respect and dignity, irrespective of their celebrity status.

3.   Laxmi Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

   Allahabad High Court- Justice Aravind Kumar Mishra-I

·         In the Gyanvapi Mosque case, the court criticized the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for a lethargic attitude.

·         The court had previously directed the ASI to submit its opinion on investigating the structure found at the site using methods like Carbon Dating and GPR.

·         The ASI was given a last opportunity to submit the report by 17-04-2023, but it has not been submitted yet.

·         The court expressed disappointment with the Director General’s attitude and emphasized the seriousness of the matter.

·         The ASI was given a final chance to submit the report within the specified deadline.

4.   Patel Dharmeshbhai Naranbhai v. Dharmendrabhai Pravinbhai Fofani

   Gujarat High Court- Justices N.V Anjaria and Niral R. Mehta

·         The Supreme Court addressed writ petitions related to illegal slaughterhouses and their impact on animals, public health, and the environment.

·         In light of rules laid down by the SC in those petitions, the Gujarat high court issued directions to the Central Pollution Control Board to take action against slaughterhouses that do not meet the norms and abattoir rules.

·         The court considered whether the closure of meat shops violated the right to free trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

·         Referring to the Food Safety & Standards Act, the court stated that the provisions of the Act apply to meat businesses and shops.

·         The court emphasized that non-compliant meat shops and slaughterhouses cannot be reopened unless they fully comply with licensing, regulatory norms, food safety standards, and pollution control requirements.

5.   X v. Y

   Kerala High Court- Justices Anil K. Narendran and P.G. Ajithkumar

·         The court examined whether a provision exists to entitle a Christian daughter to claim marriage expenses, similar to an unmarried Hindu daughter.

·         The court stated that the right of an unmarried daughter to receive reasonable expenses for her marriage should not be based on religion.

·         The court held that the father in the case has an obligation to bear reasonable expenses for the marriage of his daughters.

·         The court did not find it necessary to issue orders prohibiting the alienation or wasteful use of scheduled property.

6.   In The Matter of News Report Dated 10-4-2018 Published in Hindi News Dainik Hindustan Patna Live

   Patna High Court- Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad

·         A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed highlighting the need for proper facilities for girls in schools in Bihar, particularly toilets and disposal facilities for sanitary napkins.

·         The Amicus Curiae informed the court that the existing facilities were insufficient, with a grossly inadequate number of toilets for the girl students.

·         The court acknowledged the filed affidavits and presented data, concluding that there was still a lack of adequate facilities for girl students in Bihar schools.

·         The court recommended that the government establish guidelines specifying the ratio of toilets per girl student and the provision of sanitary napkin dispenser facilities in each school.

7.   Shakti Singh v. State of UP

   Allahabad High Court- Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

·         The bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offenses under Sections 304 and 201 of the IPC.

·         The bail application had previously been rejected by the Sessions Judge.

·         The Court allowed the bail application with certain conditions, one of which was that the  applicant must remain at AIIMS hospital for two hours with a placard bearing the  description “Wear Helmet and Drive Safely” for a period of 15 days.

·         Additionally, during this period, the applicant was required to distribute 15 helmets along with the Government notification on road safety and Good Samaritans.

8.   Paromita Puthran v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Bombay High Court- Justices G S Kulkarni and R N Laddha

·         The petitioner filed a petition regarding a dispute over designated feeding areas and provision of drinking water for dogs.

·         The Division Bench directed the respondent, RNA Royale Park Co-operative Housing Society, to entertain complaints from the petitioner and other members of the society regarding these issues.

·         The Court observed that the feeding areas needed reconsideration, especially for an old and unwell dog unable to move.

·         It emphasized the obligation of society residents to provide adequate water to animals, particularly during the summer season.

·         The Court deemed the use of sticks by security guards or anyone else as a coercive method that amounts to cruelty towards animals.

·         The Society was directed to take appropriate action against security guards engaging in such actions based on complaints from the petitioner and other society members.

9.   Hindustan Unilever Limited v Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited Delhi High Court- Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan

·         Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) appealed against a judgment that restrained them from publishing an advertisement and airing videos disparaging Reckitt Benckiser’s product, ‘Harpic’.

·         The Court upheld the judgment, finding that the impugned advertisement and videos denigrated Reckitt’s product and were likely to be identified as such.

·         HUL’s claim that their product had a longer-lasting effect was disputed by Reckitt.

·         The Court ruled that HUL could broadcast the videos after removing references to Reckitt’s product, upholding the order to restrain the disparaging content.

What is disparaging advertisement?

A disparaging advertisement is one that belittles or criticizes a competitor’s product or brand, typically by highlighting its flaws or shortcomings, with the intent to undermine its reputation and market standing.

May 2023

Supreme Court Judgements

1.   Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan

   Bench- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath and JK  Maheshwari

   Held- The Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court has the plenary power to grant the decree of divorce to mutually consenting parties under Article 142 of the Constitution on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This judgement also waived off the 6 month cooling period that is provided under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

   This decree can be sought even if there is opposition from one the parties. However, one cannot seek divorce under a writ petition.

   What is irretrievable breakdown of marriage?

   There are several criteria given under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) for a couple to seek divorce. These include adultery, cruelty, impotency etc. However, the term irretrievable breakdown is nowhere defined as such. Courts interpret on a case to case basis as to whether the husband and wife are completely incapable of living in that marriage due to circumstances apart from those mentioned under Section 13 of the HMA. In such situations, divorce may be granted on grounds of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

   Article 142 of indian constitution 

    It gives the Supreme Court the unique power to do “complete justice” between the parties, even if the law or statute does not provide a solution. In such cases, the Court can go above and beyond to settle the dispute in a way that is appropriate for the facts of the case.

2.   Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India

   Bench- Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha

   Held- In a long-drawn conflict between the State government and the Central government, the Supreme Court settled the dispute by giving all powers, including the Indian Administrative Services, except those concerning land, police, and law and order. This was done to prevent the Central government from overtaking the governance of Union Territories. The Lieutenant Governor is bound by the decision of the Delhi Government in the matters it has authority in.

   Who is a lieutenant governor?

   A lieutenant governor serves as the constitutional head of five of India’s eight union territories.  The President of India appoints the lieutenant governor for a five-year term, and he or she serves at the President’s pleasure.

3.   Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra And Ors.

   Bench- Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha

   Held- In the conflict between the two Shiv Sena factions in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court decided that the power of Uddhav Thackeray cannot be restored as the Chief Minister because he had served his resignation after the floor test sought by the Eknath Shinde faction. However, the Bench reprimanded the Governor that he did not have sufficient reason to question. Thackeray’s majority that is usually required for a floor test. The floor test was conducted merely due to the dissatisfaction of certain MLAs.

   What is a floor test?

   Article 175(2) provides to the Governor the power to summon the house for a floor test if the CM and Council of Ministers feel that it is necessary to check the strength of the existing government. Under Article 174, this is a discretionary power which can only be exercised if there is surety that the CM has lost all majority and his/her government would not be able to last in the Legislative Assembly. The CM must vote and prove his majority in a floor test.

4.   Aureliano Fernandes v. State Of Goa

   Bench- Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli

   Held- The Supreme Court observed the implementation of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act around the country and stated that there is a dismal condition with a lack of Internal Complaint Committees. The Bench ordered all government and statutory bodies to establish functional committees and follow the Act in letter and spirit.

   What is the POSH Act?

   The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 or the POSH Act has completed ten years of its enactment. It was brought into force as an effect of the guidelines laid down in the case of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan and calls for establishment of Internal Complaint Committees in all the institutions for confidential and efficient disposal of matters of sexual harassment at workplaces.

5.   Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society

   Bench- Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh

   Held- The Supreme Court stated that a precedent is formed only by the underlying principle of a case and each and every thing stated in a court judgement is binding. This is the distinction of the ratio decidendi which is the main principle or decision that is given by a court of law. This decision forms the substantial part of law and is binding on future benches. On the contrary, the obiter dicta is the rest of the judgement that may hold persuasive value but is not binding.

6.   L Ghulam Rasool v. State of Karnataka

   Bench- Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

   Held- Statements with respect to the scraping off of the Muslim reservation by the Karnataka  Government should not be given by public functionaries. The Court reprimanded the Home  Minister Amit Shah and stated that such statements must not be given since the matter is sub  judice before the Supreme Court.

   What is a sub judice matter?

   A sub judice matter is any matter that is pending before a court of law and has not reached finality of the decision. Provided under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a sub judice matter should not be presented before another court of law of competent authority.

7.   The Animal Welfare Board of India And Ors. v. UoI

   Bench- Justices Aniruddha Bose, K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T.  Ravikumar

   Held- In a matter questioning the validity of the bull taming sport of Jallikattu, the Supreme  Court has laid to rest the controversy by stating that the ambit of fundamental rights laid down in  the Constitution do not extend to animals. The Bench upheld the validity of the Prevention of Cruelty (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, which validated the bovine sport. The Court considered the sport to be a part of Tamil culture.

8.   Sunshine Pictures Pvt Ltd and Another v. Union of India

   Bench- Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha

   Held- Amid the controversy surrounding the film ‘The Kerala Story,’ several states including West Bengal and Tamil Nadu had banned its screening citing reasons of public security and law and order. The Supreme Court stated that since other states are screening the film, a de facto ban by some states is not valid and is violative of the Fundamental Right of Free Speech and Expression. The Supreme Court allowed the screening of the film in the states that banned it although allowing a disclaimer to display it as a work of fiction.

9.   Balwant Singh v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol

   Held- Balwant Singh Rajaona, the assassin of the former Punjab CM Beant Singh was sentenced to death in 2007 by a Special CBI Court in Chandigarh. A petition to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment was presented before the Supreme Court. However, the Court held that they cannot make a decision on such commutation and left it on the Central Government’s  competent authority to treat this mercy petition as per their discretion.

10. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another v. Varla Ramaiah

   Bench- Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh

   Held- The Supreme Court gave the power to state governments to allow probes by forming Special Investigation Teams (SIT) if they believe that the former government has engaged in corruption. This would not be considered as an overturning of the decision of the previous government. In this judgement, the State government was allowed to probe allegations of corruption against members of the former government including Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader, Varla Ramaiah.

11. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei

   Bench- Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices P.S. Narasimha and J JB Pardiwala

   Held- The Supreme Court expressed deep concern over the loss of life and the destruction of homes and places of worship. Consequently, the court emphasised the need to ensure that relief camps provide essential amenities such as food and medical care, take necessary precautions for the rehabilitation of displaced individuals, and protect places of worship. Recognizing the urgent requirement for medical care in the relief camps, the court directed the authorities to make arrangements for medical care, either at Army hospitals or other suitable healthcare facilities.

   What is the Manipur crisis?

   The Meitei community held tribal status prior to 21-09-1949, which was before they signed the Merger Agreement with the Union of India. However, when Manipur merged with the UOI, the Meitei community lost their tribal status and the recognition of their tribal identity.  Consequently, members of the Meitei Tribe Union approached the High Court for resolution.  The High Court instructed the State of Manipur to promptly consider including the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list within a period of four weeks. This decision resulted in violent clashes between the Meitei community and the Kuki community in the State. The intensity of the violence prompted the Central Government to intervene and take control of the situation. Consequently, various petitions were filed before the Court to investigate the violence and challenge the decision made by the High Court.

12. C.R. Jaya Sukin v. Lok Sabha Secretariat and Ors.

   Bench– Justices J.K. Maheshwari and P.S. Narasimhan

   Held- Advocate CR Jaya Sukin, acting as a party-in-person, submitted a petition requesting the Lok Sabha Secretariat to receive any form of guidance, observation, or recommendation regarding the inauguration, specifying that it should be carried out by the President. The petitioner refers to Article 79 of the Constitution, which states that Parliament comprises the President and the two houses. It is emphasised that the failure to invite the President to the ceremony is an act of disrespect and a violation of the Constitution.

   The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn.

13. XYZ v. NCT of Delhi

   Bench- Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha

   Held- A group of wrestlers, including Bajrang Punia, Vinesh Phogat, and Sakshi Malik, held a demonstration at Jantar Mantar to protest against Brij Bhushan, who is the three-time WFI President and a BJP MP from Kaiserganj, for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl.  Subsequently, the women wrestlers submitted a petition to the court, requesting strict action  against Brij Bhushan and expressing concerns about their own safety and the security of the  harassed minor girl. In a previous ruling, the court instructed the Delhi Police Commissioner to evaluate the level of threat and ensure adequate security measures for the minor girl. During the hearing on May 4, 2023, the court acknowledged that FIRs had been filed against Brij Bhushan by the Delhi Police on April 28, 2023, and confirmed that sufficient security had been provided to the seven complainants. The court also expressed its concern regarding the proper investigation of the case. The court ultimately disposed of the case, stating that the purpose of the petition had been fulfilled with the registration of the FIR and the provision of security to the complainants. Additionally, the court granted the petitioners the freedom to approach the Magistrate or the Delhi High Court if they had any further grievances.

14. Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Mehta v. High Court of Gujarat

   Bench- Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar

   Held- In the present case, the High Court conducted a written test as part of the assessment process for suitability. Initially, the High Court considered the merits solely to achieve a benchmark score and then switched to the principle of seniority-cum-merit. However, the Supreme Court found no provisions in the Recruitment Rules, 2005, or the Recruitment Notice that allowed merit to be considered only for the purpose of achieving a 50 percent benchmark. The Supreme Court held that the High Court, in promoting District Judges, deviated from the principle of merit-cum-seniority and adopted an incorrect method. The correct approach, as explained by the Supreme Court, involves preparing a merit list based on the four components mentioned in the Recruitment Notice, considering Senior Civil Judges with at least two years of qualifying service, and then promoting solely based on merit by assessing aggregate marks in different components. This ensures adherence to the principle of merit-cum-seniority.

15. Dhananjay Kumar v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission

   Bench- Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha

   Held- The petitioner, a lawyer, intended to take the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge Preliminary Examination. However, he suffers from writer’s cramp, a neurological disorder impairing writing ability. Seeking accommodation, the petitioner requested permission for a scribe during the exam, supported by a certificate from the Department of Neurology at All India Institute of Medical Science. However, the respondents denied the petitioner’s request.  Consequently, dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner approached the court seeking a writ  or directive to challenge the respondents’ denial.

   The Court observed that the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences had provided a certificate confirming the petitioner’s disability, which warranted consideration for the provision of a scribe or extra time during the examination. Additionally, the Court acknowledged that the respondent had denied the petitioner’s request for a scribe. Citing the precedent set in the case of Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, the Court issued an interim directive, instructing the respondent to arrange for a scribe to assist the petitioner during the preliminary examination.

16. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service.

   Bench- Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar

   Held- The Telangana High Court rejected the arbitration petition, declining to appoint an arbitrator or arbitral tribunal. The court based its decision on the fact that the Amendment Act of 2015 would not apply in this case, as the notice invoking the arbitration clause was issued in December 2013, prior to the Amendment Act. The application under Section 11(6) of the Act was filed in 2016, well after the amendment came into effect. The court relied on the Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company case, which established that if the notice invoking arbitration is issued before the Amendment Act, the arbitration proceedings are deemed to  commence from that date. Consequently, the court concluded that the pre-amendment Act of 2015 would govern the case. The Supreme Court upheld the Telangana High Court’s decision, confirming that the law in effect prior to the Amendment Act of 2015 would apply when the  notice invoking arbitration is issued before the amendment.

17. B & T AG v. Ministry of Defence

   Bench- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala

   Held- The Court acknowledged that Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not specify a time limit for filing an application seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. It also noted that Section 43 of the Act states that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to arbitration proceedings. Based on these provisions, the Court determined that Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to petitions filed under Section 11(6) of the Act, as they are presented before the High Court or the Supreme Court. According to Article 137, the limitation period for such cases is three years from the accrual of the right to apply. The Court emphasized that the cause of action arises when an infringement of rights occurs, and it is not permissible for a party to delay filing an application until a later cause of action emerges. In such instances, the application would be seeking to revive a right that has already been extinguished due to the lapse of time. Therefore, such proceedings would be barred by the limitation period prescribed in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

   What is arbitration?

   Arbitration is a method of alternative dispute resolution in which parties involved in a legal dispute agree to submit their case to an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. The arbitrator(s) acts as a neutral third party and makes a binding decision, called an award, after considering the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. The arbitration process is private, less formal than traditional litigation, and offers a quicker resolution to disputes.

18. Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

   Bench- Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Sanjay Kumar

   Held- The Court observed that the prosecution’s case relied on two pieces of circumstantial evidence: the disclosure made during police custody and the subsequent discovery based on it, as well as the last sighting of the accused with the deceased according to the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Court emphasised that in cases involving circumstantial evidence, the motive behind the crime holds significance. Referring to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court explained that for a disclosure to be admissible as evidence, it must lead to the  discovery of a distinct fact. However, any disclosures or discoveries made thereafter cannot be used against the accused. The Court highlighted the importance of the last seen evidence in cases of circumstantial evidence, particularly when there is a short time interval between the last sighting and the discovery of the body or the time of death. However, if there is a significant gap between the last sighting and the discovery of the body, the prosecution bears a heavy burden of proving that no one other than the accused had access to the deceased during that period. The Court concluded that in the present case, the circumstances of last seen together alone were insufficient to establish guilt.

19. Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices Krishna Murari and C.T. Ravikumar

   Held- The Court examined Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and concluded that its purpose is to ensure that investigations are completed within the specified time limit. The Court emphasised that if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period of 60 or 90 days, an accused person cannot be detained if they are willing to apply for bail. It expressed concern over the practice of filing chargesheets without completing the investigation, which could be used to prolong remand and deny the right of default bail. The Court stated that such a practice would undermine the purpose of Section 167(2) of the CrPC and  violate the fundamental rights of the accused.

   What is Section 167(2) of the CrPC?

   Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) states that if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period of 60 or 90 days, the accused person has the right to be released on bail, except in certain circumstances specified by law.

20. Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur through Registrar General

   Bench- Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prashant Kumar Mishra

   Held- The Court stated that contemnors who had cast aspersions against judicial officers to influence cases deserved imprisonment. It was emphasised that an independent judiciary should be free from both executive influence and external pressures. The Court highlighted that justice should not be susceptible to bribery. It was noted that judges of lower courts should be able to make unbiased decisions. The Bench firmly stated that imprisonment was indeed justified, questioning how one could tarnish the reputation of a judicial officer on social media.

   What is contempt of court?

   Contempt of court refers to actions that disrespect or defy the authority, dignity, or integrity of a court or judicial proceedings. It encompasses behaviours such as obstructing the administration of justice, interfering with court proceedings, disobeying court orders, or making false or scandalous statements against judges or the judiciary. Contempt of court can be categorised as civil or criminal and may result in penalties such as fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions, aiming to uphold the integrity and authority of the judicial system.

   Held- The Court had to determine whether allopathic doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine can be considered to be doing the same kind of work and therefore entitled to the same pay. The Court acknowledged that every alternative system of medicine has its value, but practitioners of indigenous

21. State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt

   Bench- Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal

   Held- The Court had to determine whether allopathic doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine can be considered to be doing the same kind of work and therefore entitled to the same pay. The Court acknowledged that every alternative system of medicine has its value, but practitioners of indigenous medicine are not trained to perform complex surgical procedures, as ayurvedic studies do not authorise them to do so. While recognising the importance of Ayurvedic doctors and the need to promote alternative medicine, the Court concluded that both categories of doctors do not perform identical work and therefore cannot claim equal pay. Additionally, the Court ruled that if the final decision of the case goes against a person, they cannot retain the benefits obtained from an interim court order.

High Court Judgements

1.   Daeyoung Jung v. Bar Council of India

   Delhi High Court–  Justice Yashwant Varma

   Held- The Delhi High Court allowed a South Korean citizen Daeyoung Jung to practise in the territory of India and get enrolled in the Bar Council of Delhi under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. While the petitioner is a foreign national, he has a valid degree from an Indian institution of law (NALSAR) and therefore to not allow him to practise is an incorrect decision  on part of the Bar Council of India.

2.   Central PWD Engineers Association v. Union of India

   Delhi High Court- Justices Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

   Held- Government employees cannot be denied the protection of the rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution, even if their duties as public servants impose certain limitations on their freedom according to Article 19. Under Article 19(1) of the indian constitution The right to form associations, unions, or cooperative societies is considered a fundamental right, regardless of whether the government recognizes such associations as fundamental  rights themselves.

3.   Ritu Chernalia v. Amar Chernalia and Ors.

   Delhi High Court- Justice Pratibha M. Singh

   Held- According to the Delhi High Court, it is important to recognize that the right of a wife or daughter-in-law in a shared household is not absolute and should not result in the exclusion of the rights of the in-laws. Therefore, the daughter-in-law cannot claim that the in-laws should not be allowed to reside in their own home, as this would contradict the aforementioned understanding. However, if circumstances arise where the daughter-in-law and the in-laws cannot live together in the shared household, arrangements should be made for alternative accommodation.

4.   Chhatar Pal & Ors v. State & Anr.

   Delhi High Court– Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

   Held- The Delhi High Court has provided instructions for the creation of mediation settlement agreements in matrimonial disputes, including those in Hindi. The court recognized the need for mediators to have guidance in drafting agreements that are clear, consistent, and unambiguous. It has directed that, in the majority of cases where parties do not understand English and Hindi is their spoken language and mother tongue, the agreements should be in Hindi. However, if the parties are fluent in English and prefer the agreement to be in English, there will be no requirement or insistence to use Hindi.

5.   X v. Government of Rajasthan

   Rajasthan High Court- Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

   Held- The petitioner contended that without changing their name and gender in their service records, it would be challenging for them and their family to avail the benefits of their service.  They requested that the authorities make the necessary modifications in the records.

   Furthermore, the petitioner had legally changed their name and gender to align with their male identity. The state government opposed the plea, asserting that the petitioner was initially appointed as a female candidate, and their name and gender were recorded accordingly. It was argued that obtaining a declaration from a civil court was necessary to change one’s sex based on gender identity. The right to choose one’s gender identity is a fundamental aspect of self-determination, dignity, and freedom. The court, after considering the arguments, recognized the right to equality as enshrined in the Constitution, a fundamental right inherited by all Indians.

6.   Tamil Nadu Ayush Sonologist Association v Union of India

   Madras High Court- Justice S.M.Subramaniam

   Held- The qualification to be recognized as a doctor under the Tamil Nadu Rules extends beyond possessing a medical degree. The criteria for eligibility as a qualified doctor, as per the Rules 2018, should be considered in conjunction with the provisions of the Pre Conception & Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules (PC & PNDT Rules), 1996. The general definition of qualified doctors in the Tamil Nadu Act is broad, but specific qualifications are required for specialised diagnostic procedures and ultrasound techniques on pregnant women. Therefore, the competent authorities must strictly follow the specialised qualifications prescribed by the Central Act and Rules. Not all qualified doctors meet the requirements of the PC & PNDT Act 1994 and its Rules. The general definition of qualified doctors cannot be applied when specific qualifications are prescribed by the Central Act. The Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulations) Rules 2018 cannot grant permission for diagnostic procedures and ultrasound techniques on pregnant women unless the specialised qualifications under the Central Act are met. Only qualified doctors with the necessary specialised qualifications under the Central Act and Rules are eligible to perform such diagnostic procedures. Doctors without the specialised qualifications are ineligible to practise and should not be allowed to conduct these diagnostic procedures.

7.   Ravindra Pratap Yadav v. Asha Devi

   Allahabad High Court- Justices Suneet Kumar and Rajendra Kumar-IV

   Held- The husband filed for a divorce based on allegations of mental cruelty and long desertion. Despite attempts to serve the wife, she did not appear in court, leading to the case proceeding ex-parte. The husband claimed that divorce had already occurred within the community Panchayat due to the wife’s mental cruelty and refusal to fulfil marital obligations. The Court stated that denying a spouse sexual intercourse for an extended period without valid reasons amounts to mental cruelty towards that spouse.

8.   Raveendran PT v. State of Kerala

   Kerala High Court– Justice VG Arun

   Held- The Kerala High Court has initiated an investigation into the purported unlawful slaughter of birds and animals under the guise of ritualistic sacrifice in Pukkattupady, a suburb of Kochi, Kerala. The court acknowledged that the allegations involved actions that contravened several regulations and laws. Despite arguments claiming that animal sacrifice is an indispensable and inherent aspect of religious belief and practice, the court dismissed this contention and asserted that such activities cannot be protected if they cause disturbance or inconvenience to others.

9.   Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC

   Calcutta High Court

   Held- The Court noted that interpreting the provision in a narrow manner would make the amendment to Section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act meaningless. It stressed the importance of interpreting Section 9 in a way that aligns with the purpose of including the proviso to Section 2(2) of the Act. The Court recognized the commendable objective and purpose of the amendment, stating that a restrictive interpretation would undermine its intent. The judgement emphasises the significance of a harmonious interpretation of the provision and the significance of the amendment to Section 2(2) of the Act. By rejecting the appeal and affirming the single-judge’s order, the Court reiterated its position on the applicability of Section 9 to foreign awards, ensuring that interim relief can be sought from Indian courts even before enforcement proceedings begin.

Sources:

• www.scconline.com
• www.indiankanoon.com
• www.livelaw.com
• www.bar&bench.com
• https://www.manupatra.com/corporate
• https://www.scobserver.in/