In this series, Bar & Bench will bring you the top 15 judgments and orders delivered by the Supreme Court of India every two weeks..Below are our picks for the first two weeks of April 2023..1. Supreme Court urges High Courts, Tribunals to consider uniform format for judgments/orders, number all paragraphsCase Title: BS Hari Commandant v. Union of India and OthersA Division Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah urged all High Courts and tribunals across the country to follow a uniform format for all its orders and judgments and to number the paragraphs in their verdicts.The Court issued directions in this regard to the Registrars of all High Courts..2. Supreme Court sets aside order transferring Nisith Pramanik convoy attack probe to CBI; remands case to Calcutta High CourtCase Title: State of West Bengal v. Suvendu AdhikariA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chadrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court which transferred the probe into the attack on the convoy of Union Minister of State Nisith Pramanik to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).The Court asked the Calcutta High Court to take a fresh look at the case."High Court would take a fresh view if West Bengal Police has probed the incident or is it fit for transfer to CBI. We allow the appeal and set aside the March 28 order of Calcutta High Court and restore the matter back at the High Court," the order stated.The Court opined that the High Court did not apply its mind to the entirety of the record placed by the State, particularly an additional affidavit which set out steps taken by the police authorities.The High Court had transferred the investigation while noting that since allegations had been made against the State's ruling party, there was a possibility of the State Police not carrying out a fair investigation..3. Do not approve of reasoning of Delhi HC judgment that RTI Act applies to ED for human rights, corruption issues: Supreme CourtCase Title: Union of India v. Central Information Commission and AnotherA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar said that it did not approve of the reasoning behind a Delhi High Court judgment that had held that provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act apply to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) if the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.The Court, while refusing to entertain the Central government's appeal against the High Court verdict, chose to keep the question of law open.The High Court verdict had stated that the expression ‘human rights’ cannot be given a narrow or pedantic view, and that non-supply of documents related to a person’s promotions would amount to a human rights violation..4. Government servants can't be denied annual increment merely because they retired the very next day of earning it: Supreme CourtCase Title: The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. CP Mundinamani and OthersA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar held that government servants cannot be denied their annual increment merely because they retired the very next day after earning the same.The Court disapproved of the decision of a single-judge of the Karnataka High Court which stated that the increment is in the form of incentive and, therefore, when employees are not in service, there is no question of granting them any annual increment."Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year," the order stated.The Court was of the view that a government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Such increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. According to the Bench, denying a government servant the same would amount to punishing a person for no fault of his own..5. Supreme Court upholds dismissal of Civil judge who used to pronounce outcome of case without preparing reasoned judgment and blame stenoCase Title: The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Anr v. M Narasimha PrasadA Division Bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal upheld the administrative decision of the full court of Karnataka High Court to dismiss a civil judge who used to pronounce the operative part/outcome of judgments without preparing the entire text of the judgment.The top court noted that the judge in question had passed the blame on to his stenographer, claiming that the steno was inefficient. Such a defence, the Court said, was unacceptable.It said that the charges of gross negligence and callousness in not preparing judgments but providing a fait accompli was completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a judicial officer..6. Grounds for preventive detention in Chinese: Supreme Court sets aside COFEPOSA orderCase Title: Pramod Singla v. Union of India and OthersA Division Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian set aside a preventive detention order in which the grounds for detaining a person were ineligible and in Chinese.The Court emphasised that every procedural irregularity must work in favour of the detenue in such cases."In cases where illegible documents have been supplied to the detenue, a grave prejudice is caused to the detenue in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant authorities, because the detenue, while submitting his representation, does not have clarity on the grounds of his or her detention. In such a circumstance, the relief under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the relevant statutory provisions allowing for submitting a representation are vitiated, since no man can defend himself against an unknown threat," the Court stated.The Court also extolled the necessity of ensuring procedural rigidity in the issuance of preventive detention orders."... preventive detention laws in India are a colonial legacy, and have a great potential to be abused and misused...This act of protecting civil liberties, is not just the saving of rights of individuals in person and the society at large, but is also an act of preserving our Constitutional ethos, which is a product of a series of struggles against the arbitrary power of the British state.".7. Lack of jurisdiction of court no ground to transfer PMLA complaint: Supreme Court rejects PFI member plea to transfer case from UP to KochiCase Title: KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and OthersA Division Bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal observed that the lack of jurisdiction of a court to entertain a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA), cannot be a ground to order transfer of the case to another state.In holding so, the Court dismissed a transfer petition moved by the General Secretary of Campus Front of India (CFI), which is now banned as an unlawful association, seeking transfer of a case of a money laundering from the special PMLA court in Lucknow to the special PMLA court at Ernakulam in Kerala.The Court considered the decision in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director (2023), and stated that irrespective of where the First Information Report (FIR) relating to the scheduled offence was filed and irrespective of which court took cognizance of the scheduled offence, the question of territorial jurisdiction of a special court to take cognizance of a compliant under PMLA should be decided with reference to the place/places where anyone of the activities/processes which constitute the offence under Section 3 PMLA took place.Hence, the Court held that it would be incorrect to say that the Special PMLA Court at Lucknow lacks jurisdiction in the instant case..8. Section 149 IPC applicable even when some members part of unlawful assembly are not convicted or facing trial separately: Supreme CourtCase Title: Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and AnotherA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar ruled that merely because some persons forming part of an unlawful assembly were not convicted, the other accused cannot be permitted to say that they did not form part of the unlawful assembly and that they cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC).The Court was of the view that Section 149 IPC would still be applicable in a case where five or more persons were specifically named in the First Information Report (FIR), but were facing the trial separately..9. Judgment barring police custody beyond 15 days after arrest needs review: Supreme CourtCase Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas MishraA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar alled for reconsideration of its 1992 decision in CBI v. Anupam J Kulkarni that said that a person cannot be detained in police custody after the expiry of fifteen days from their initial arrest in a case.The Court opined that at present, the remand period can get over by the time a higher court sets aside an incorrect decision denying custody."That in a given case it may happen that the learned trial/Special Court refuses to grant the police custody erroneously which as such was prayed within 15 days and/or immediately on the date of arrest and thereafter the order passed by the trial/Special Court is challenged by the investigating agency before the higher Court, namely, Sessions Court or the High Court and the higher Court reverses the decision of the learned Magistrate refusing to grant the police custody and by that time the period of 15 days is over, what would be position?" the Court queried..10. Supreme Court quashes Central government ban on MediaOne news channel; rejects MHA's national security argument given in sealed coverCase Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India and OthersA Division Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli observed that it is the duty of the press to speak truth to power, and critical views aired by the media cannot be termed 'anti-establishment'.In holding so, the Court set aside Central government's refusal to renew the broadcasting license of Malayalam news channel MediaOne citing national security concerns.The Court turned down the argument of the Central government that certain broadcasts by the channel affected national security."We hold national security claims cannot be made on the basis of thin air. It is seen that none of the material is against national security or threatens public order," the judgment said.The Court stressed on the role of a free and independent press in promoting the responsible functioning of society. It further noted that critical views expressed by the media cannot be classified as anti-establishment, as doing so would imply that the media should support the establishment instead..11. Unregistered agreement to sell immovable property admissible as evidence in suit for specific performance: Supreme CourtCase Title: R Hemalatha v. KashthuriA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari ruled that by virtue of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act 1908, even an unregistered agreement to sell immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.The Court was of the view that Section 17(1A) of the 1908 Act is the only exception to the proviso of Section 49, and therefore, this proviso shall apply to the documents other than the ones referred to in Section 17(1A).Section 17(1A) provides that the documents containing contracts to transfer any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 of the Transfer of Properties Act 1882 (1882 Act) is compulsorily to be registered if they have been executed on or after 2001. If such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then there shall have no effect for the purposes of said Section 53A of the 1882 Act.At the outset, the top court noted that despite the 'explanation' to subsection (2) of Section 17 has been omitted, there is no corresponding amendment made to Section 49 of the 1908 act, which provides that even an unregistered agreement to sell the immovable property, which otherwise requires registration under the 1908 act, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be affected by registered document..12. Tenant has to deposit rent to landlord once he expresses his willingness to accept it: Supreme CourtCase Title: Man Singh v. Shamim Ahmad (Dead) through LRsA Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala observed that once a landlord expresses his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant has no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord.The Court was of the view that Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 provides that the deposit of rent may be made in the court on refusal by the landlord, but this position only lasts till the landlord signifies his willingness to receive the rent."If the landlord has been refusing to accept the rent at the correct rate and has been claiming rent at higher rate, the tenant as a consequence of landlord’s earlier refusal in the past, deposited the rent in the Court under Section 30 and if thereafter landlord serves formal notice to of demand against the higher rate and expresses his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant after receipt of notice is under an obligation to tender the rent at least at the rate admitted to him to the landlord and has got no right to straight away deposit the same under Section 30(1) of the Act," the Court stated..13. High Court not required to conduct mini trial while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme CourtCase Trial: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh etcA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.The Court was of the view that in an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."It appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial," the Court observed.The Court further stated that it was not right for the High Court to have observed that the charges against the accused-respondents are not proven."This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency.".14. Accused not entitled to default bail when first extension passed in absence of accused not challenged & second extension was passed in his presence: Supreme CourtCase Title: Qamar Ghani Usmani v. The State of GujaratA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar held that an accused cannot claim the benefit of default bail, when he did not challenge the first extension of time granted for investigation and the second extension was granted in his presence and when the chargesheet was subsequently filed within the period of extension.The Court relied upon its Constitution Bench judgement in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) in which it was laid down that a notice to the accused is not required to be given by the designated court before it grants any extension for completing the investigation, meaning thereby the accused is to be kept present before the court when it grants any extension for completing the investigation..15. Supreme Court confirms quashing of 6,000 acre land acquisition for Vedanta University in OdishaCase Title: Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc v. State of Orissa and OthersA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari affirmed a 2010 Orissa High Court ruling that had quashed land acquisition of 6,000 acres towards a proposed university by mining company, Vedanta.The Court also imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on the appellant, Vedanta's Anil Agarwal Foundation.In its judgment, the Bench noted that two rivers passed through the land in question. Therefore, it made some scathing observations against the State for non-application of mind in allowing the land acquisition."The most important aspect, which is required to be considered is the non-application of mind by the State Government on environmental aspects and passing of two rivers from the acquired lands in question. It is not in dispute that from the lands in question two rivers namely ‘Nuanai’ and ‘Nala’ are flowing, which as such were acquired by the State Government. How the maintenance of the rivers etc. can be handed over to the beneficiary company," the judgment stated..1. Shocking and unsustainable: Supreme Court on NSA detention of Samajwadi Party's Yusuf Malik in revenue caseCase Title: Yusuf Malik v. Union of India and OthersA Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah took exception to the Uttar Pradesh government detaining Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Yusuf Malik under the National Security Act (NSA) in connection with a land revenue recovery case.The Court said that the authorities concerned had not applied their minds by invoking the NSA in the case."...the exercise of the said Act in respect of the incident is shocking and unsustainable. That such a proposal was made, received the imprimatur of the senior officer(s) and even of the Advisory Board does not reflect well on the manner in which the authorities exercise their mind by invoking the provisions of the said Act...".2. Cannot shut our eyes to such constitutional questions: Supreme Court in plea for reservation to Christian, Muslim Dalit convertsCase Title: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of IndiaA three-judge Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar said that it could not shut its eyes to constitutional questions surrounding the applicability of reservation to Christian and Muslim Dalit converts.The Court asked whether it could proceed hearing in a matter based on the contents of a report that has been rejected by the Central government.It noted that it will consider whether such reports can be looked into for determining the constitutional issue of reservation for Dalit converts to Islam and Christianity..3. High Court seeking explanation from sessions judge who granted bail will have 'chilling effect' on district judiciary: Supreme CourtCase Title: Totaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh and AnotherA Division Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala took exception to the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking an explanation from a sessions judge for an order he had passed granting bail to an accused person.The Court said that it was unwarranted for the High Court to have issued a show-cause notice to the judge while also ordering the immediate arrest of the accused.Such orders, the top court said, can have a chilling effect on district judiciary."The order of the High Court directing that the appellant be arrested immediately and seeking an explanation from the Second Additional Sessions Judge was wholly disproportionate and was not warranted. Such orders of the High Court produce a chilling effect on the District judiciary. The members of the district judiciary cannot be placed in a sense of fear if they were to exercise the jurisdiction lawfully entrusted to them for granting bail in appropriate cases," the Court said. .4. Menstrual hygiene, free sanitary pads for students: Supreme Court calls for implementation of uniform policy in all statesCase Title: Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of IndiaA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala directed the Central government to implement a uniform national policy on menstrual hygiene, including distribution of free menstrual pads to students.The Court also asked states and union territories to submit details on availability of girls toilets in schools and the supply of menstrual products/sanitary pads in schools..5. "Important issue": Supreme Court issues notice on plea against non-uniform and exorbitant enrolment fees collected by State Bar CouncilsCase Title: Gaurav Kumar v. Union of IndiaA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala sought responses from State Bar Councils on a plea challenging the non-uniform and exorbitant enrolment fees collected by different State Bar Councils.The Court said that the issue was important and, therefore, granted petitioner the liberty to serve a copy of the petition on Bar Council of India (BCI) as well..6. Supreme Court rebukes lawyer for bringing wheelchair-bound client to court for "sympathy"Case Title: Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Rahul Kumar and AnotherA Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and PV Sanjay Kumar took exception to a lawyer bringing his paralysed and wheelchair-bound client to court even though such personal presence of the litigant was not ordered.The Court noted that the matter could have been heard by relying on counsel's submissions alone."Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the said respondent, said to be paralyzed, is before the Court to attend the hearing. We are at loss to find any reason that the said claimant-respondent has been advised to attend the hearing in this Court, particularly when he is said to be otherwise not in a proper physical condition. This Court has never asked or expected him to appear for the purpose of hearing", the order stated..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.
In this series, Bar & Bench will bring you the top 15 judgments and orders delivered by the Supreme Court of India every two weeks..Below are our picks for the first two weeks of April 2023..1. Supreme Court urges High Courts, Tribunals to consider uniform format for judgments/orders, number all paragraphsCase Title: BS Hari Commandant v. Union of India and OthersA Division Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah urged all High Courts and tribunals across the country to follow a uniform format for all its orders and judgments and to number the paragraphs in their verdicts.The Court issued directions in this regard to the Registrars of all High Courts..2. Supreme Court sets aside order transferring Nisith Pramanik convoy attack probe to CBI; remands case to Calcutta High CourtCase Title: State of West Bengal v. Suvendu AdhikariA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chadrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court which transferred the probe into the attack on the convoy of Union Minister of State Nisith Pramanik to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).The Court asked the Calcutta High Court to take a fresh look at the case."High Court would take a fresh view if West Bengal Police has probed the incident or is it fit for transfer to CBI. We allow the appeal and set aside the March 28 order of Calcutta High Court and restore the matter back at the High Court," the order stated.The Court opined that the High Court did not apply its mind to the entirety of the record placed by the State, particularly an additional affidavit which set out steps taken by the police authorities.The High Court had transferred the investigation while noting that since allegations had been made against the State's ruling party, there was a possibility of the State Police not carrying out a fair investigation..3. Do not approve of reasoning of Delhi HC judgment that RTI Act applies to ED for human rights, corruption issues: Supreme CourtCase Title: Union of India v. Central Information Commission and AnotherA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar said that it did not approve of the reasoning behind a Delhi High Court judgment that had held that provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act apply to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) if the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.The Court, while refusing to entertain the Central government's appeal against the High Court verdict, chose to keep the question of law open.The High Court verdict had stated that the expression ‘human rights’ cannot be given a narrow or pedantic view, and that non-supply of documents related to a person’s promotions would amount to a human rights violation..4. Government servants can't be denied annual increment merely because they retired the very next day of earning it: Supreme CourtCase Title: The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. CP Mundinamani and OthersA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar held that government servants cannot be denied their annual increment merely because they retired the very next day after earning the same.The Court disapproved of the decision of a single-judge of the Karnataka High Court which stated that the increment is in the form of incentive and, therefore, when employees are not in service, there is no question of granting them any annual increment."Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year," the order stated.The Court was of the view that a government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Such increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. According to the Bench, denying a government servant the same would amount to punishing a person for no fault of his own..5. Supreme Court upholds dismissal of Civil judge who used to pronounce outcome of case without preparing reasoned judgment and blame stenoCase Title: The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Anr v. M Narasimha PrasadA Division Bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal upheld the administrative decision of the full court of Karnataka High Court to dismiss a civil judge who used to pronounce the operative part/outcome of judgments without preparing the entire text of the judgment.The top court noted that the judge in question had passed the blame on to his stenographer, claiming that the steno was inefficient. Such a defence, the Court said, was unacceptable.It said that the charges of gross negligence and callousness in not preparing judgments but providing a fait accompli was completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a judicial officer..6. Grounds for preventive detention in Chinese: Supreme Court sets aside COFEPOSA orderCase Title: Pramod Singla v. Union of India and OthersA Division Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian set aside a preventive detention order in which the grounds for detaining a person were ineligible and in Chinese.The Court emphasised that every procedural irregularity must work in favour of the detenue in such cases."In cases where illegible documents have been supplied to the detenue, a grave prejudice is caused to the detenue in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant authorities, because the detenue, while submitting his representation, does not have clarity on the grounds of his or her detention. In such a circumstance, the relief under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the relevant statutory provisions allowing for submitting a representation are vitiated, since no man can defend himself against an unknown threat," the Court stated.The Court also extolled the necessity of ensuring procedural rigidity in the issuance of preventive detention orders."... preventive detention laws in India are a colonial legacy, and have a great potential to be abused and misused...This act of protecting civil liberties, is not just the saving of rights of individuals in person and the society at large, but is also an act of preserving our Constitutional ethos, which is a product of a series of struggles against the arbitrary power of the British state.".7. Lack of jurisdiction of court no ground to transfer PMLA complaint: Supreme Court rejects PFI member plea to transfer case from UP to KochiCase Title: KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and OthersA Division Bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal observed that the lack of jurisdiction of a court to entertain a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA), cannot be a ground to order transfer of the case to another state.In holding so, the Court dismissed a transfer petition moved by the General Secretary of Campus Front of India (CFI), which is now banned as an unlawful association, seeking transfer of a case of a money laundering from the special PMLA court in Lucknow to the special PMLA court at Ernakulam in Kerala.The Court considered the decision in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director (2023), and stated that irrespective of where the First Information Report (FIR) relating to the scheduled offence was filed and irrespective of which court took cognizance of the scheduled offence, the question of territorial jurisdiction of a special court to take cognizance of a compliant under PMLA should be decided with reference to the place/places where anyone of the activities/processes which constitute the offence under Section 3 PMLA took place.Hence, the Court held that it would be incorrect to say that the Special PMLA Court at Lucknow lacks jurisdiction in the instant case..8. Section 149 IPC applicable even when some members part of unlawful assembly are not convicted or facing trial separately: Supreme CourtCase Title: Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and AnotherA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar ruled that merely because some persons forming part of an unlawful assembly were not convicted, the other accused cannot be permitted to say that they did not form part of the unlawful assembly and that they cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC).The Court was of the view that Section 149 IPC would still be applicable in a case where five or more persons were specifically named in the First Information Report (FIR), but were facing the trial separately..9. Judgment barring police custody beyond 15 days after arrest needs review: Supreme CourtCase Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas MishraA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar alled for reconsideration of its 1992 decision in CBI v. Anupam J Kulkarni that said that a person cannot be detained in police custody after the expiry of fifteen days from their initial arrest in a case.The Court opined that at present, the remand period can get over by the time a higher court sets aside an incorrect decision denying custody."That in a given case it may happen that the learned trial/Special Court refuses to grant the police custody erroneously which as such was prayed within 15 days and/or immediately on the date of arrest and thereafter the order passed by the trial/Special Court is challenged by the investigating agency before the higher Court, namely, Sessions Court or the High Court and the higher Court reverses the decision of the learned Magistrate refusing to grant the police custody and by that time the period of 15 days is over, what would be position?" the Court queried..10. Supreme Court quashes Central government ban on MediaOne news channel; rejects MHA's national security argument given in sealed coverCase Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India and OthersA Division Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli observed that it is the duty of the press to speak truth to power, and critical views aired by the media cannot be termed 'anti-establishment'.In holding so, the Court set aside Central government's refusal to renew the broadcasting license of Malayalam news channel MediaOne citing national security concerns.The Court turned down the argument of the Central government that certain broadcasts by the channel affected national security."We hold national security claims cannot be made on the basis of thin air. It is seen that none of the material is against national security or threatens public order," the judgment said.The Court stressed on the role of a free and independent press in promoting the responsible functioning of society. It further noted that critical views expressed by the media cannot be classified as anti-establishment, as doing so would imply that the media should support the establishment instead..11. Unregistered agreement to sell immovable property admissible as evidence in suit for specific performance: Supreme CourtCase Title: R Hemalatha v. KashthuriA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari ruled that by virtue of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act 1908, even an unregistered agreement to sell immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.The Court was of the view that Section 17(1A) of the 1908 Act is the only exception to the proviso of Section 49, and therefore, this proviso shall apply to the documents other than the ones referred to in Section 17(1A).Section 17(1A) provides that the documents containing contracts to transfer any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 of the Transfer of Properties Act 1882 (1882 Act) is compulsorily to be registered if they have been executed on or after 2001. If such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then there shall have no effect for the purposes of said Section 53A of the 1882 Act.At the outset, the top court noted that despite the 'explanation' to subsection (2) of Section 17 has been omitted, there is no corresponding amendment made to Section 49 of the 1908 act, which provides that even an unregistered agreement to sell the immovable property, which otherwise requires registration under the 1908 act, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be affected by registered document..12. Tenant has to deposit rent to landlord once he expresses his willingness to accept it: Supreme CourtCase Title: Man Singh v. Shamim Ahmad (Dead) through LRsA Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala observed that once a landlord expresses his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant has no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord.The Court was of the view that Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 provides that the deposit of rent may be made in the court on refusal by the landlord, but this position only lasts till the landlord signifies his willingness to receive the rent."If the landlord has been refusing to accept the rent at the correct rate and has been claiming rent at higher rate, the tenant as a consequence of landlord’s earlier refusal in the past, deposited the rent in the Court under Section 30 and if thereafter landlord serves formal notice to of demand against the higher rate and expresses his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant after receipt of notice is under an obligation to tender the rent at least at the rate admitted to him to the landlord and has got no right to straight away deposit the same under Section 30(1) of the Act," the Court stated..13. High Court not required to conduct mini trial while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme CourtCase Trial: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh etcA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.The Court was of the view that in an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."It appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial," the Court observed.The Court further stated that it was not right for the High Court to have observed that the charges against the accused-respondents are not proven."This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency.".14. Accused not entitled to default bail when first extension passed in absence of accused not challenged & second extension was passed in his presence: Supreme CourtCase Title: Qamar Ghani Usmani v. The State of GujaratA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar held that an accused cannot claim the benefit of default bail, when he did not challenge the first extension of time granted for investigation and the second extension was granted in his presence and when the chargesheet was subsequently filed within the period of extension.The Court relied upon its Constitution Bench judgement in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) in which it was laid down that a notice to the accused is not required to be given by the designated court before it grants any extension for completing the investigation, meaning thereby the accused is to be kept present before the court when it grants any extension for completing the investigation..15. Supreme Court confirms quashing of 6,000 acre land acquisition for Vedanta University in OdishaCase Title: Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc v. State of Orissa and OthersA Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari affirmed a 2010 Orissa High Court ruling that had quashed land acquisition of 6,000 acres towards a proposed university by mining company, Vedanta.The Court also imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on the appellant, Vedanta's Anil Agarwal Foundation.In its judgment, the Bench noted that two rivers passed through the land in question. Therefore, it made some scathing observations against the State for non-application of mind in allowing the land acquisition."The most important aspect, which is required to be considered is the non-application of mind by the State Government on environmental aspects and passing of two rivers from the acquired lands in question. It is not in dispute that from the lands in question two rivers namely ‘Nuanai’ and ‘Nala’ are flowing, which as such were acquired by the State Government. How the maintenance of the rivers etc. can be handed over to the beneficiary company," the judgment stated..1. Shocking and unsustainable: Supreme Court on NSA detention of Samajwadi Party's Yusuf Malik in revenue caseCase Title: Yusuf Malik v. Union of India and OthersA Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah took exception to the Uttar Pradesh government detaining Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Yusuf Malik under the National Security Act (NSA) in connection with a land revenue recovery case.The Court said that the authorities concerned had not applied their minds by invoking the NSA in the case."...the exercise of the said Act in respect of the incident is shocking and unsustainable. That such a proposal was made, received the imprimatur of the senior officer(s) and even of the Advisory Board does not reflect well on the manner in which the authorities exercise their mind by invoking the provisions of the said Act...".2. Cannot shut our eyes to such constitutional questions: Supreme Court in plea for reservation to Christian, Muslim Dalit convertsCase Title: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of IndiaA three-judge Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar said that it could not shut its eyes to constitutional questions surrounding the applicability of reservation to Christian and Muslim Dalit converts.The Court asked whether it could proceed hearing in a matter based on the contents of a report that has been rejected by the Central government.It noted that it will consider whether such reports can be looked into for determining the constitutional issue of reservation for Dalit converts to Islam and Christianity..3. High Court seeking explanation from sessions judge who granted bail will have 'chilling effect' on district judiciary: Supreme CourtCase Title: Totaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh and AnotherA Division Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala took exception to the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking an explanation from a sessions judge for an order he had passed granting bail to an accused person.The Court said that it was unwarranted for the High Court to have issued a show-cause notice to the judge while also ordering the immediate arrest of the accused.Such orders, the top court said, can have a chilling effect on district judiciary."The order of the High Court directing that the appellant be arrested immediately and seeking an explanation from the Second Additional Sessions Judge was wholly disproportionate and was not warranted. Such orders of the High Court produce a chilling effect on the District judiciary. The members of the district judiciary cannot be placed in a sense of fear if they were to exercise the jurisdiction lawfully entrusted to them for granting bail in appropriate cases," the Court said. .4. Menstrual hygiene, free sanitary pads for students: Supreme Court calls for implementation of uniform policy in all statesCase Title: Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of IndiaA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala directed the Central government to implement a uniform national policy on menstrual hygiene, including distribution of free menstrual pads to students.The Court also asked states and union territories to submit details on availability of girls toilets in schools and the supply of menstrual products/sanitary pads in schools..5. "Important issue": Supreme Court issues notice on plea against non-uniform and exorbitant enrolment fees collected by State Bar CouncilsCase Title: Gaurav Kumar v. Union of IndiaA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala sought responses from State Bar Councils on a plea challenging the non-uniform and exorbitant enrolment fees collected by different State Bar Councils.The Court said that the issue was important and, therefore, granted petitioner the liberty to serve a copy of the petition on Bar Council of India (BCI) as well..6. Supreme Court rebukes lawyer for bringing wheelchair-bound client to court for "sympathy"Case Title: Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Rahul Kumar and AnotherA Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and PV Sanjay Kumar took exception to a lawyer bringing his paralysed and wheelchair-bound client to court even though such personal presence of the litigant was not ordered.The Court noted that the matter could have been heard by relying on counsel's submissions alone."Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the said respondent, said to be paralyzed, is before the Court to attend the hearing. We are at loss to find any reason that the said claimant-respondent has been advised to attend the hearing in this Court, particularly when he is said to be otherwise not in a proper physical condition. This Court has never asked or expected him to appear for the purpose of hearing", the order stated..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.