The Supreme Court fortnightly: 15 important judgments from January 16 to 31, 2024

In this fortnightly series, Bar & Bench brings you 15 important judgments and orders passed by the Supreme Court of India.Below are our picks for the last two weeks of January 2024..1. Supreme Court issues guidelines for functioning of environmental authorities; mandates regular auditCase Title: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and orsA three-judge Bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra issued fresh guidelines to be followed by institutions to ensure compliance with environmental laws in the country.The Court emphasised that one of the roles of constitutional courts is to make sure that environmental bodies function in a vibrant and smooth manner.The verdict came in a case concerning the validity and mandate of the recently reconstituted Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The CEC is a body under the Environment Protection Act tasked with ensuring compliance with judicial orders concerning ecology and recommending measures to the Central and state governments for better implementation of such orders.The top court upheld the validity of the CEC constituted afresh on September 5 last year, observing that a permanent body had been created as earlier ordered to replace the ad-hoc one..2. Professional activity of lawyers not taxable under commercial establishment category: Supreme CourtCase Title: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. BN MagonA Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih upheld a Delhi High Court ruling that services rendered by advocates are professional activities, and, therefore, cannot be taxed under the “commercial establishment” category.The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which sought to levy property tax under the commercial category for advocates conducting their legal practice from home..3. Supreme Court issues directions to tackle deceptive bail pleas; says litigants today mislead courtsCase Title: Kusha Duruka v. State of OdishaA Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal lamented how litigants often have no respect for courts and go to any extent to mislead courts.The Court, therefore, issued directions to streamline bail applications that reach the appellate stages, to prevent anomalies that could mislead the court or result in conflicting bail orders.The Court emphasised that lawyers have to assist benches well in bail cases by acting like true officers of the court, and directed that all bail applications before courts must mandatorily mention the following details:- Details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided.- Details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made..4. 23 years after murder, Supreme Court acquits woman who was juvenile at the time of offenceCase Title: Pramila v. State of ChhattisgarhA Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan acquitted an accused in a murder case from 2000 after finding that she was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident.It also took note of the fact that the accused woman had already undergone 8 years of her life sentence and that remitting her case to the Juvenile Justice Board now would serve no purpose. Hence, it ordered for her release from prison..5. Supreme Court upholds Gauhati High Court decision to quash rule on SP appraisals by CollectorCase Title: State of Assam and ors v. Binod Kumar and OthersA Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar upheld a Gauhati High Court decision to set aside a rule enabling Deputy Commissioners (DCs) in Assam to initiate performance and appraisal reports of Indian Police Service officers in the State who are posted as Superintendents of Police (SPs).The Court stated that the performance of a district Superintendent of Police (SP) cannot be reviewed by a DC since the latter is not hierarchically above the former..6. Supreme Court restores petition filed in 1987 before Uttarakhand High CourtCase Title: JN Puri vs State of Uttar Pradesh now State of Uttarakhand and orsA Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta restored a writ petition filed in 1987 before the Uttarakhand High Court in a land acquisition matter.The High Court had dismissed the matter for non-prosecution and had also dismissed a plea to restore the case, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.It held that the High Court was not right in dismissing the restoration applications for non-prosecution on the ground of a seven-year delay..7. If consent of woman was based on false promise of marriage from inception, offence of rape is made out: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sheikh Arif v. State of Maharashtra and AnotherA Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal reiterated that to sustain the offence of rape on the ground of false promise of marriage, it must be established that right from the start, the consent of the woman for sexual relations was obtained based on the false promise.The case before the Court involved allegations that a man had entered into a physical relationship with a woman on a false promise to marry her. On analysing the facts, however, the Court found that it was "impossible to accept" that the woman had entered the relationship on any such false promise and that she had consented to the four-year physical relationship..8. Need to maintain dignity of judicial officers: Supreme Court upholds conviction of advocate in contempt caseCase Title: Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of DelhiA Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PS Narasimha convicted an advocate in a seventeen-year-old criminal contempt of court case.The Bench reiterated that an apology for contemptuous conduct must be evidence of remorse for such acts. It must not be used as a weapon "to purge the guilty of their offence", the Court said. The Court hearing an appeal by a lawyer, Gulshan Bajwa, who was convicted by the Delhi High Court in 2006 for criminal contempt of court. Bajwa was accused of having made improper and reckless allegations against judges. .9. For conviction under SC/ST Act, offence of outraging woman's modesty must be committed on ground of caste: Supreme CourtCase Title: Dashrath v. State of RajasthanA three-judge Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta observed that conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (SC/ST Act) cannot be sustained if the act of outraging the modesty of a woman was not committed on the ground of caste.The complainant in this case was engaged to do household jobs in the house of the accused. The accused was alleged to have tried to outrage the complainant's modesty while she was doing household chores.The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused under the SC/ST Act after noting that, even going by the allegations of the complainant..10. [Section 138, NI Act] If accused is disputing sign on cheque, certified copy of specimen signature can be procured from bank: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and anotherA Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the accused is disputing the signature on the cheque, then the certified copies of the signatures could be summoned from the bank to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque.The Court added that the endorsements on a cheque carry a presumption of genuineness as per Section 118(e) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, it is incumbent upon the accused to lead evidence to rebut the presumption of genuineness of signatures..11. Accused cannot seek default bail merely because investigation is pending against other accused or chargesheet is incomplete: Supreme CourtCase Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil WaddhawanA Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal set aside an order granting default bail to former promoters of DHFL, Kapil Wadhawan and his brother Dheeraj Wadhawan, who were arrested in a multi-crore bank loan scam case.The Court held that the accused could not have claimed statutory bail as a right and that they cannot claim a right to default bail citing the submission of an "incomplete" chargesheet or on the ground that the investigation is pending against other persons co-accused..12. Acquittal under Prevention of Corruption Act should not be based solely on invalid sanction: Supreme CourtCase Title: PI Babu v. Central Bureau of InvestigationA Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and KV Vishwanathan opined that an acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) cannot be based solely on invalid sanction to prosecute.The case was sent back to the trial court for a fresh decision on merits. .13. Magistrate cannot take cognizance of supplementary chargesheet if it lacks fresh evidence after further investigation: Supreme CourtCase Title: Mariam Fasihuddin and Another v. State by Adugodi Police Station and AnotherA Bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan observed that it would be impermissible under the law for a judicial magistrate to take cognizance of a supplementary charge-sheet submitted after further investigation, if it does not contain any fresh evidence.The Court noted that while submitting the supplementary charge-sheet [as a result of an order for further investigation under Section 178(8), CrPC], the investigating officer shall mention new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by him. Otherwise, the supplementary charge-sheet would lack investigative rigour and fail to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8), CrPC..14. Children from void marriage cannot be denied share in their parent's property: Supreme CourtCase Title: Raja Goudar and Others v. M Sengodan and OthersA Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti held that the children born out of void and voidable marriages shall be considered legitimate children and be treated as part of the extended family of the common ancestor for the purpose of deciding on the inheritance of property belonging to the common ancestor.The Court noted that once the common ancestor has admittedly considered the children born of void and voidable marriage as his legitimate children, then such children would be entitled to the same share as the successors in the property of the common ancestor as that of children born out of a valid marriage..15. Criminal justice machinery being misused by certain persons; courts must stay vigilant: Supreme CourtCase Title: Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar PradeshA Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih urged courts to be vigilant against the misuse of the criminal justice machinery by certain persons having vested interests.High Courts, while exercising their powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), must quash proceedings where the allegations prima facie do not establish an offence, it added..1. Bail cannot be cancelled only because accused did not personally appear before court: Supreme CourtCase Title: Krishna Kumar Sharma vs State of West Bengal and anrA three-judge Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta held that bail granted to an accused cannot be canceled only because the accused did not appear in person before a court.The Court also made it clear that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different..2. Review committee orders are meant to be published, not put in the cupboard: Supreme Court on J&K internet banCase Title: Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and AnrA Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol urged the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir to publicise review committee orders related to internet bans in the region.The Court was hearing a miscellaneous application that sought the publication of the review committee orders passed by the Jammu and Kashmir administration in accordance with the apex court's 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India..3. Supreme Court slams Gujarat police, magistrate for remand of accused who was granted anticipatory bailCase Title: Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of GujaratA Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta pulled up a Surat magistrate and the Gujarat Police for remanding an accused to custody after he was granted interim anticipatory bail by the apex court..4. Supreme Court orders all courts not to mention caste, religion of litigants in case papersCase Title: Shama Sharma v. Kishan KumarA Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a general order directing its registry, all High Courts and subordinate courts to stop the practice of mentioning the caste or religion of litigants in case papers..5. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay v. Justice Soumen Sen: Supreme Court transfers Caste Certificate scam case from Calcutta High Court to itselfCase Title: In Re: Orders of Calcutta High Court dated 24.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 and Ancillary IssuesThis was a suo motu case initiated by the Supreme Court in view of the rift that emerged between two sitting judges of the Calcutta High Court over a case involving allegations of a caste certificate scam in West Bengal. The suo motu case was initiated after a single judge, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court decided to "ignore" a stay order passed by a division bench headed by Justice Soumen Sen. Before the top court took up the matter, both Justice Gangapadhyay and Justice Sen passed parallel orders criticising each other. On January 29, the a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court transferred all proceedings in the caste certificate scam case from the High Court to itself..6. Supreme Court junks PIL seeking directions to States to ensure compliance with court ordersCase Title: KK Ramesh vs Union of IndiaA three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to States to ensure compliance with court orders..7. Krishna Janmabhoomi case: Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court direction appointing Commissioner to inspect Shahi Eidgah mosqueCase Title: Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman & Ors.A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta stayed an Allahabad High Court order for the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the premises of the Shahi-Idgah mosque in connection with the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute.The Court ordered that the proceedings before the High Court can continue, but the direction for an inspection by the commission cannot be executed for the time-being. .8. Law officer cannot say he does not endorse law made by parliament: Supreme Court to Solicitor General Tushar MehtaCase Title: Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v Naresh Agarwal and orsDuring a court hearing, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud orally observed that a government law officer cannot say that he does not stand by a law enacted by Parliament.The Court was hearing a case involving the question of whether the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was entitled to the status of a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution. During a hearing of the matter, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that he does not accept an amendment made to the Aligarh Muslim University Act in 1981, by which AMU was conferred minority status..9. Supreme Court issues non-bailable warrant against litigant who said contempt notice was "useless, disrespectful"Case Title: In Re: Contempt Against Upendra Nath DalaiA Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal issued a non-bailable warrant against a litigant who had refused to deposit costs earlier imposed on him and then gone on to call the notice of contempt proceedings "useless" and "disrespectful.".10. Supreme Court pulls up Gujarat cops who publicly flogged Muslims but extends stay on contempt orderCase Title: AV Parmar and Others v. State of Gujarat and OthersA Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta extended the stay on the contempt of court conviction and prison sentence imposed by the Gujarat High Court on four Gujarat Police officials who had publicly beaten five Muslim men after tying them to a pole.The Court, however, pulled up the cops in question for their conduct..11. Supreme Court stays defamation proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal, Sanjay Singh in PM Modi degree rowCase Title: Sanjay Singh v. Dr. Piyush M. Patel and AnotherA Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta stayed the defamation proceedings initiated against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh for comments concerning the academic degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.The Court also asked the Gujarat High Court to expeditiously dispose of a plea for interim relief filed by the politicians in the matter during this time..Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - January 1 to 15, 2023 here.To read important judgments from the Supreme Court in December 2023 click here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - November 16 to 30, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - November 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - October 16 to 31, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - October 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - September 16 to 30, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - September 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - August 16 to 31, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - August 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - July 16 to 31, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - July 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court during summer vacation - June 1 to 30, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - May 16 to 30, 2023 here.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.