The Supreme Court fortnightly: 15 important judgments from May 16 to 31, 2023

In this series, Bar & Bench brings you the top 15 judgments and orders delivered by the Supreme Court of India every two weeks.Below are our picks for the last two weeks of May 2023..1. End of Sharbat war? Supreme Court upholds Delhi High Court order restraining sale of 'Dil Afza' after Rooh Afza alleges trademark violationCase Title: Sadar Laboratories Private Limited v. Hamdard National Foundation India and AnotherIn this case, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala dismissed an appeal filed against a Delhi High Court order which restrained the manufacturers of a sharbat named ‘Dil Afza’ from selling the product after Hamdard Foundation filed a trademark infringement suit alleging that it was deceptively similar to its ‘Rooh Afza’ product.The Court observed that the High Court's decision was right, and thus it would not interfere."Rooh Afza has a well-established reputation across India and suddenly you sell some medicines and in 2020 you start selling some Sharbat...Division Bench has held correctly...We will not interfere. Dismissed," the Court held.Hamdard Foundation had moved the Delhi High Court arguing that the sale of another sharbat by the name Dil Afza (manufactured by Sadar Laboratories) is deceptively similar to Rooh Afza and that the defendants have infringed on its trademark since the words ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’ have similar meanings.It was also stated that the bottles in which the two products are being sold are similar..2. Supreme Court permits Jallikattu; upholds Tamil Nadu amendments to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ActCase Title: Animal Welfare Board of India and Others v. Union of India and OthersIn this case, a Constitution bench of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar upheld the validity of amendments made by Tamil Nadu to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act), thereby permitting the bovine sport Jallikattu.The Court said that the amendments have been introduced to reduce pain and suffering of bovines and to allow the sport to continue."There is no flaw in State action.. It is a bovine sport and participation will be allowed as per the rules. Act is not relatable to Article 48 of the constitution. Incidental impact may fall upon certain types of bulls affecting agricultural activity but it is referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India," the judgment said.The Court also upheld laws allowing Kambala and bull cart racing in Karnataka and Maharashtra.The Court further said that the laws do not violate Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Constitution, and thus do not infringe Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India..3. Special leave jurisdiction should not be used to bypass High Court except in specific situationsCase Title: Jini Dhanrajgir and Another v. Shibu Mathew and AnotherIn this case, a division bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta observed that parties would not be allowed to invoke special leave jurisdiction to bypass remedies available at the High Court level, except in two specific situations.The Court explained that, as a matter of practice, the top court entertains Special Leave Petitions (SLP) without the High Court being approached only when there is a substantial question of general importance, or a similar issue is pending for consideration..4. Judges are not employees of State; independence of District Judiciary part of basic structureCase Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of IndiaIn this case, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices V Ramasubramanian and PS Narasimha held that for most litigants in this country, the only physically accessible institution for obtaining justice is the district judiciary. Therefore, its independence assumes even greater significance.The Court underscored that without impartial and independent judges in the district judiciary, justice would remain illusory.Drawing an important distinction between officers of the judiciary and staff of the legislative and executive wings, the Court said that judges are not employees of the State but holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power.The judgment added that the right to fair trial and access to justice is not limited to the physical access to a court but must also include all necessary prerequisites of a court, such as infrastructure, and an unbiased, impartial, and independent judge..5. Duty to supply power under Electricity Act not absolute; dues of previous owners can be recovered from new onesCase Title: KC Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board and OthersIn this case, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha held that the duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Electricity Act is not absolute, and that State-owned power utilities can stall new connections until the arrears from the same premises are cleared.The Court made it clear that the Electricity Supply Code provisions providing for such recoveries have a reasonable nexus with the object of the 2003 Act.The top court underscored that it is always the consumer who is supplied electricity and held liable if there is a default on the payment of dues.Even if the premises may be the same, to which electricity had already been supplied, it will be considered a fresh connection if the electricity supplied is utilised by a different applicant.Relying on a catena of precedents, it was stressed that a condition enabling the distribution-licensee to insist on clearance of arrears is valid and permissible under the scheme of the 2003 Act..6. Thief cannot be recognised as owner of property under Section 69A of Income Tax ActCase Title: M/S DN Singh v. Commission of Income TaxIn this case, a division bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy ruled that a thief cannot be recognised as the owner of property under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.The Court took the view that for Section 69A IT Act to apply, the assessing officer must find the assessee to be the owner of the article or goods under the provision."It would be straining the law beyond justification if the Court were to recognise a thief as the owner of the property within the meaning of Section 69A. Recognising a thief as the owner of the property would also mean that the owner of the property would cease to be recognised as the owner, which would indeed be the most startling result," the Court observed.The Court placed reliance on the commentary titled Sampath Iyengar’s Law of Income Tax, which stated that the assessee must be the owner before anything in his possession can be deemed to be his income. Therefore, in a case of a stolen property, a thief cannot be its owner.The Court further relied on the decision in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v S Pichaimanickan Chettiar wherein it was observed that an assessee convicted under the Customs Act for being in possession of gold could not be assessed under Section 69A IT Act..7. Public utterances of accused must be shown in FIR/chargesheet before he is subjected to trial for SC/ST Act offencesCase Title: Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and AnotherIn this case, a division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta ruled that before an accused is subjected to a trial for offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), the utterances made by him in public view must be outlined either in the First Information Report (FIR) or the charge-sheet.The Court highlighted that the same is necessary so as to enable courts to ascertain whether the chargesheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act or not, prior to taking cognizance of the offence."It is desirable that before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view are outlined, if not in the F.I.R. (which is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and events), but at least in the charge-sheet (which is prepared based either on statements of witnesses recorded in course of investigation or otherwise) so as to enable the court to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it, prior to taking cognisance of the offence," the judgment stated..8. [Railway Compensation claim] Mere Absence of Ticket does not mean that victim not a bona fide passengerCase Title: Kamukayi and Others v. Union of India and OthersIn this case, a division bench of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari held that whenever any untoward incident occurs in the course of the working of the Railways, the railway administration is liable to compensate the passenger, irrespective of whether there was any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of railway administration.The Court also reiterated that the mere absence of a ticket on an injured or deceased passenger will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger.In the present case, the Court noted that the FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and final report clearly revealed that the deceased had fallen from down from the train, which decapitated him and amputated his right hand leading to excessive blood loss, due to which he died on the spot. With respect to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the Court noted that the son of the deceased had clearly deposed that he had purchased a train ticket for travel and handed it over to the deceased. The same was reiterated during cross-examination and also found support in the inquest report and the investigation report..9. [Limitation Period For Arbitration] Mere negotiations between parties will not postpone cause of actionCase Title: M/S B T AG v. Ministry of DefenceIn this case, a division bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, while adjudicating an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator, has held that the limitation period of three years for filing such application would commence from the date when the cause of action arose.The Court was of the view that subsequent negotiations between the parties, which take place after the cause of action has arisen, will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation computation.The Court noted that the Arbitration Act does not prescribe any time period for filing an application under Section 11(6) for the appointment of Arbitrator. Thus, the limitation of three years provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to such proceedings. The time limit of three years would commence from the period when the right to apply accrues.The Court further noted that negotiations in disputes may continue for ten or twenty years after the cause of action had arisen for appointment of an arbitrator. However, the limitation period of three years for filing an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration Act would not be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating..10. [Civil Judges' Appointment] Supreme Court takes divergent view on granting relief to candidates who submitted category certificates after cut-off dateCase Title: Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court And OthersIn this case, a division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi delivered split judgment in a case where the Rajasthan High Court had earlier denied the appointment of applicants to the post of Civil Judge on the ground that they had submitted the category certificate beyond the cut-off date.Justice Rastogi quashed the order of the Rajasthan High Court and allowed the appeal. He was of the opinion that to do complete justice, Article 142 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked to direct the respondents to consider each of the appellants for appointment. However, Justice Trivedi concluded that the appellants who are the defaulters could not be given preferential treatment by accepting the certificates produced by them as valid despite the same being obtained by them after the last date for the submission of applications fixed in the advertisement..11. No Immunity From Statute Merely Because Contract Is Entered In President's NameCase Title: M/s Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of IndiaIn this case, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, while adjudicating on an application for the appointment of and arbitrator, has held that when the government chooses to enter into a contract, such contract entered into in the name of the President of India does not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement.In this case, the Court observed that the Union of India is a party to the contract in respect of which arbitration is being invoked. Therefore, the Arbitrator appointed by Union, who is an employee of the Union, is ineligible to be appointed as the Arbitrator as per Para 1 of Schedule VII read with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.While placing reliance on the judgment in Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram and Others (1954), the Court opined that a contract to which the government is a party must be formed by its agents in conformity with form given by Article 299(1) of the Constitution. Otherwise, such a contract cannot be enforced at the instance of any contracting party..12. Judicial Review cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence in departmental enquiry proceedingsCase Title: Indian Oil Corporation and Others v. Ajit Singh and OthersIn this case, a division bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal held that a Constitutional Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, cannot decide the case as if it is the first stage of the case, or as if an inquiry is still being conducted and an inquiry report being prepared.The Court observed that evidence cannot be reappreciated at the stage of judicial review in a disciplinary proceeding.In holding so, the Court set aside an order passed by the High Court whereby the punishment inflicted upon an employee in departmental proceedings was set aside. The Court noted that the High Court had re-appreciated evidence at the stage of intra court appeal.The bench placed reliance on Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021), wherein it was held that in judicial review, a Constitutional Court can only evaluate the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion..13. Duty to fill up vacancies from waiting list does not arise in absence of rule mandating itCase Title: State of Karnataka and Others v. Smt. Bharathi and OthersIn this case, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala held that mere publication of a candidate’s name in the Additional List (waiting list) for the purpose of recruitment as a Primary School Teacher, will not create any right to be appointed in favour of such candidate. The Court said that, in the instant case, Entry 66 of the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules 1967, which talks about additional list, does not mandatorily obligate the State to make appointments.It was of the view that the duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule. In the absence of such a mandate, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List is left to the wisdom of the State. However, the State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review.The Court placed reliance on Subha B. Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (2008) and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) to observe that the duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule..14. Security furnished by Judgment Debtor in form of rented shop belonging to third party cannot be acceptedCase Title: Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh and OthersIn this case, a division bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court that the security furnished by the judgment debtor in the form of a rented shop belonging to a third party, and for which the surety was a tenant, cannot be accepted as a security in law.The Court observed that the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 contemplates that an applicant seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree must either make a deposit of the amount in question or give security. However, in view of its decision in Kedarnath v. Mohan Lal Kesarwari and Others (2002), the provision with respect to deposit can be dispensed with by the court. Thus, the applicant in the instant case, can, in other words, seek a dispensation of the requirement of deposit and seek leave for furnishing such security as the court may direct.It further observed that without holding that the statutory provisions are not Constitutionally valid, the High Court could not have directed that statutory provisions were not to be implemented..15. [Section 53A CrPC] Samples collected from accused must be sent to laboratory as soon as possibleCase Title: Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of MaharashtraIn this case, a three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, while setting aside a death sentence imposed on a convict for allegedly sexually assaulting and killing a minor girl, observed that forensic samples, when collected, shall be sent to the laboratory without any delay so that the possibility of contamination or diminishment in value can be ruled out.The Court further noted that there shall be compliance of Section 53A of the CrPC and that the ‘chain of custody’ of samples collected shall be maintained.In this case, the Court noted that, as per the documents on record, the samples of the blood and semen of the appellant were sent for forensic analysis. However, the Court observed that there was nothing on record to establish as to who took such samples, on what date, on how many occasions and why they were not sent all at once. It was further observed by the Court that none of the police officials had testified about whether the formalities for keeping the samples safe and secure had been complied with.The Court relied upon its own decisions in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) and Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019), wherein it was held that if reasonable grounds exist, then a medical examination as postulated by Section 53A(2), CrPC must be conducted and that includes an examination of the accused and the description of material taken from the accused for DNA profiling..1. LG can destabilise democratically elected MCD by nominating aldermenCase Title: Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi In this case, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala was hearing the Delhi government's petition to quash notifications through which the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi had appointed ten nominated members to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on his own initiative, and not on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Court orally remarked that LG, with the power to nominate members to the MCD, can effectively destabilize the democratically elected MCD."By giving this power to the LG, he can effectively destabilise the democratically elected Municipal committee. They have voting power also," the Chief Justice remarked..2. Bail pleas arising from same FIR should not be listed before different benchesCase Title: Pradhan Jani v. State of OdishaIn this case, a division bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol took exception to the Orissa High Court listing bail applications of various persons accused in cases involving the same criminal complaint before different single-judge benches.The Court observed that such a practice creates an 'anomalous situation' where certain accused in the same case are granted bail while others are not..3. The Kerala Story movie: Supreme Court stays West Bengal ban but directs to carry disclaimer that it is fictionalised versionCase Title: Qurban Ali v. Central Board of Film Certification and AnotherA three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala stayed the decision of the West Bengal government to ban the screening of the film The Kerala Story in the State.The Court also directed the State of Tamil Nadu to provide security to theatres.With respect to Tamil Nadu, the Court further noted the State's submission that the screening of the film has not been directly or indirectly prohibited in the State..4. Gyanvapi - Kashi Vishwanath case: Supreme Court puts on hold Allahabad High Court directions for scientific analysis of Shiva LingaCase Title: Committee of Management of Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh and OthersIn this case, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and KV Vishwanathan deferred, for the time being, the directions of the Allahabad High Court allowing a scientific investigation to ascertain whether the object found during the survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque premises is a Shiva linga or a fountain..5. Supreme Court deprecates practice of detailed elaboration of evidence in bail orders Case Title: Kadar Nazir Inamdar v. State of MaharashtraIn this case, a division bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol stated that bail orders should not be lengthy and should be disposed of expeditiously without a detailed examination or elaboration of evidence.The Court, therefore, granted bail to one one Kadar Inamdar, who was accused of murdering Shiv Sena leader, Rahul Shetty.The Court also referred to an earlier order wherein it had deprecated the practice of making a detailed elaboration of evidence in bail orders and wherein it had urged all courts in the country to ensure that bail orders are not lengthy and are pronounced on time..6. Supreme Court grants interim bail to AAP's Satyendar Jain on medical groundsCase Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of EnforcementIn this case, a division bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha granted interim medical bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi health minister, Satyendar Jain who is in jail in a money laundering case.The Court said that Jain shall be on interim medical bail till July 11 and permitted him to undergo treatment at a private hospital..7. Supreme Court dismisses plea to have President Droupadi Murmu inaugurate new parliament buildingCase Title: CR Jaya Sukin v. Lok Sabha Secretariat and OthersIn this case, a division bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha rejected a petition seeking directions to the Lok Sabha Secretariat to have the new parliament building inaugurated by the President of India, Droupadi Murmu.The Court said that the petitioner, advocate CR Jaya Sukin, has no locus to file such petitions and that he should be grateful that the Court was not imposing costs..8. Independent judiciary not only independent from executive, but also from external forcesCase Title: Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur through Registrar GeneralIn this case, a division bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasised that the independence of the judiciary lay not just in being free from executive pressures, but also in being free from external forces.The Court remarked that contemnors who had cast aspersions against judicial officers to influence cases deserved imprisonment..Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - May 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - April 16 to 30, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - April 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - March 15 to 31, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - March 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - February 15 to 28, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - February 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - January 15 to 31, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - January 1 to 15, 2023 here.