These are the five cases a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court will hear from March 27

These are the five cases a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court will hear from March 27

Murali Krishnan

A Constitution Bench of five judges will sit in Supreme Court from March 27.

Five cases are listed before the Bench. They are as follows:

1. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India

This case challenges Sections 156 to 189 of Finance Act, 2017 which amend provisions relating to structuring and re-organisation of tribunals.

Various issues will be heard in this case including uniformity of tribunals, the passage of Finance Act as Money Bill etc.

2. Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Suresh Chandra Agarwal

This is an appeal filed by the Supreme Court against an order of the Central Information Commission which had held that the information relating to appointment of Supreme Court judges should be furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This case involves important questions including whether the Chief Justice of India will come under the scope of RTI Act, 2005.

3. Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors.

This case pertains to Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

The case itself stems from the judgment, Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) Through Lrs. And Ors, which was delivered on February 8, 2018 by a three-judge Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, AK Goel and M Shantanagoudar.

This Bench had, by a 2:1 majority, held that a 2014 judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case is per incuriam.

In the process, the Court had answered five questions in relation to Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

However, the catch was that the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment was also rendered by a three-judge Bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph, as well former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha.

This created a minor controversy.  Eventually, the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice by two Benches headed by Justice Mishra and Justice Goel. The matter was then ordered to be placed before a Constitution bench.

The Constitution Bench is likely to consider the following questions:

  • What is the meaning of the expression ‘paid’/ ‘tender’ in Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and Section 31 of the Act of 1894? Whether non-deposit of compensation in court under section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 results into a lapse of acquisition under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. What are the consequences of non-deposit in Court especially when compensation has been tendered and refused under section 31(1) of the Act of 1894 and section 24(2) of the Act of 2013? Whether such persons after refusal can take advantage of their wrong/conduct?
  • Mode of taking physical possession as contemplated under section 24(2)of the Act of 1894.
  • Whether section 24 of Act of 2013 revives barred and stale claims?
  • Whether the conscious omission referred to in paragraph 11 of the judgment in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2015) 3 SCC 353] makes any substantial difference to the legal position with regard to the exclusion or inclusion of the period covered by an interim order of the Court for the purpose of determination of the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
  • Whether the principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit”, namely act of the Court should not prejudice any parties would be applicable in the present case to exclude the period covered by an interim order for the purpose of determining the question with regard to taking of possession as contemplated in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

4. State of Haryana v. Maharana Pratap Charitable Trust

This case also relates to the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and will be decided based on the outcome in relation to the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act.

5. Sita Soren v. Union of India

This case will decide whether a legislator enjoys immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution from prosecution for accepting bribes to vote in Parliament or an Assembly.

The case is an appeal filed by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MLA Sita Soren challenging a Jharkhand High Court judgment. The charge against the appellant is that he had accepted bribe to vote in favour of a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha election that was held sometime in 2012 in Jharkhand. The High Court had refused to quash the cognisance taken by a CBI court in relation to the same.

Read the notice below. 

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news