The Supreme Court was on summer vacation from May 22, 2023 to July 2, 2023. However, even during the said period, it was not shut completely, functioning at a limited capacity through vacation benches. .Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud nominated fourteen Division Benches to hear cases during the break.In this piece, Bar & Bench brings you some important judgments and orders delivered by the apex court during the summer vacation..1. Theft during train ride not deficiency in service; passengers have to protect their own belongingsCase Title: Station Superintendent and Another v. Surender BholaIn this case, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that theft occurring during train rides does not amount to a deficiency in service by the Railways.The Court emphasized that if passengers lose any of their belongings on train, they cannot claim reimbursement from the Indian Railways for the same.It made the observation while setting aside consumer court orders to pay ₹1 lakh compensation to a man (claimant) who had lost the said amount during a train journey."We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible," the Court held.In this case, a district consumer forum had earlier awarded compensation to the claimant after the cash he had kept in a belt tied around his waist got stolen..2. Supreme Court upholds BCI Rule mandating law degree from recognised institute for enrolment as advocateCase Title: Bar Council of India v. Rabi Sahu and AnotherIn this case, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PV Sanjay Kumar held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) is vested with powers to prescribe qualifications and requirements for an advocate seeking enrolment with State Bar Councils.In view of the recent decision of a Constitution Bench of the Court in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors, the Court upheld the Rule framed by the BCI that requires candidates seeking enrolment as advocates to have completed their course from recognised law colleges."The Constitution Bench held that the BCI’s role prior to enrolment cannot be ousted and the ratio decidendi in V Sudeer (supra), that it was not one of the statutory functions of BCI to frame rules imposing pre-enrolment conditions, was erroneous. It was categorically held that Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Act of 1961 vested BCI with the power to prescribe the norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate... Viewed thus, the rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/ approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid, as was held in the impugned order," the judgment stated..3. Competition Act 2002 is applicable to Coal IndiaCase Title: Coal India Limited and Another v. Competition Commission of India and AnotherIn this case, a three-judge Bench of Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah ruled that the Competition Act, 2002 applies to public sector company Coal India Limited.The Court rejected Coal India's contention that the Competition Act does not apply to them because of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act. The bench stated,"Section 54 of the [Competition] Act gives power to the Central Government to exempt from the application of the Act or any provision and for any period, which is specified in the Notification. The ground for exemption can be security of the State or even public interest. It is not as if the appellants, if there was a genuine case made out for being taken outside the purview of the Act in public interest, the Government would be powerless. We say no more."The Supreme Court underscored that the economy has changed since independence, and the same cannot be perceived in isolation."No nation can remain unaffected by the changes in the state of the world economy. Policies, which are suitable at a given point of time, are not cast in stone. Each generation of people have the right as also the duty to revisit economic policies which found favour with the past. The present cannot put posterity in chains. Equally, the past cannot hold the present hostage to ideas which would then degenerate into what was once original and suitable into dogma which no longer can serve the people.".4. Possessory right of prospective purchaser protected under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act even though agreement to sell does not confer titleCase Title: Ghanshyam v. Yogendra RathiIn this case, Bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta and Pankaj Mithal held that even though an agreement to sell does not transfer proprietary rights in an immovable property, when the prospective purchaser performs his part of the contract and receives possession of the property, then he/she is said to have acquired possessory title and the same is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.“Legally an agreement to sell may not be regarded as a transaction of sale or a document transferring the proprietary rights in an immovable property but the prospective purchaser having performed his part of the contract and lawfully in possession acquires possessory title which is liable to be protected in view of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The said possessory rights of the prospective purchaser cannot be invaded by the transferer or any person claiming under him," the Court observed.The Bench noted that an agreement to sell is neither a document of title nor a deed of transfer of property by sale. Therefore, in the instant case, it does not confer any absolute title upon the respondent over the suit property, in view of Section 54 of the 1882 Act..5. Person not named in FIR can be added as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC if there is sufficient evidence of his involvementCase Title: Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and AnotherIn this case, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta and Pankaj Mithal upheld an order of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed an appeal filed by a person who was not named in an FIR registered under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against a summoning order to face trial passed by a special court."Section 319, CrPC, which envisages a discretionary power, empowers the court holding a trial to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial. Such power can be exercised by the court qua a person who is not named in the FIR, or named in the FIR but not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet. Therefore, what is essential for exercise of the power under section 319, Cr. PC is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime," the Court said..6. Sanction required under Section 197 CrPC for act done in excess of public dutyCase Title: A Srinivasalu v. State represented by Inspector of PoliceIn this case, a Bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal held that sanction for prosecution as per Section 197(1) CrPC is required even in cases where the official was acting in excess of his official duties.The Court held so while acquitting a former Executive Director of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) in a corruption case.“For the purpose of finding out whether the first appellant (former executive director of BHEL) acted or purported to act in the discharge of his official duty, it is enough for us to see whether he could take cover, rightly or wrongly, under any existing policy. The existing policy shows that he at least had an arguable case, in defence of the decision he took to go in for restricted tender. Once this is clear, his act, even if alleged to be lacking in bona fides or in pursuance of a conspiracy, would be an act in the discharge of his official duty, making the case come within the parameters of Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the prosecution ought to have obtained previous sanction. The Special Court as well as the High Court did not apply their mind to this aspect," the judgment stated..7. Supreme Court acquits father-son duo in 27-year-old murder caseCase Title: Mohd. Muslim v. State of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand)A Bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal acquitted a father-son duo in a murder case registered almost 28 years ago, after finding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the two accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt.In doing so, the Court set aside the decisions of the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court convicting the accused-appellants under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).By the time the Court passed its ruling, one of the two accused had passed away, while the other was 79 years old. The appeal had been filed in 2011 after the High Court's 2010 verdict..8. In case of circumstantial evidence, chain has to be complete in all respects to indicate guilt of accusedCase Title: Laxman Prasad @ Laxman v. State of Madhya PradeshWhile acquitting a man in a 22-year-old murder case, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence has to be complete in all respects and also exclude any other theory.The Court added that if there are any missing or unproven links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the case against the accused would fall apart."In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime. The law is well settled on the above point," the judgment stated..9. Bail condition to furnish bank guaranatee is unsustainable in lawCase Title: Karandeep Singh v. Central Bureau of InvestigationIn this case, a Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal set aside a bail condition imposed by the High Court for furnishing a bank guarantee worth ₹2 crore.The Court modified the condition by directing the accused to deposit a bail bond of ₹5 lakh instead. .10. Under Companies Act 2013, decision to allot additional shares cannot be set aside merely because promoters have also benefitedCase Title: Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel and Another v. Ambika Food Products Private Limited and OthersA Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna upheld the largely disproportionate allotment of rights share in favour of one group of shareholders of a private limited company, substantially increasing its shareholding percentage in the company over other group of shareholders.The Court found that the increase in the appellant’s shareholding from 30.80 per cent to 63.58 per cent of the paid-up share capital of the private company was the result of the other shareholder-group’s refusal to apply for the additional shares, despite being given the opportunity. Thus, the allotment of fresh shares could not be characterised as oppressive, the Court ruled..Other important order/observations.1. Supreme Court stays bike taxi operations of Rapido, Uber in DelhiCase Title: Government of NCT of Delhi and Others v. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd and OthersA Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal stayed two decisions of the Delhi High Court that had directed the Delhi government not to take any coercive action against bike taxi aggregators Rapido and Uber till guidelines governing grant of licenses to such aggregators are notified.The Court effectively stayed the operations of such bike taxis until the government notifies guidelines governing the same.It observed that given the fact that the Delhi government was in the process of formulating a policy for granting licenses to bike taxi aggregators, a complete stay by the High Court on the notification that prohibited their operation was unwarranted..2. Supreme Court grants interim anticipatory bail to Muslim doctor accused of raping Hindu woman on pretext of marriageCase Title: Dr Abdul Qadir v. State of Uttar Pradesh and AnotherA Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal granted interim protection from arrest to a Muslim doctor accused of raping a Hindu woman on the pretext of marriage.The Court sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government in the matter and directed that the accused should not enter Muradabad (where the case has been filed), till the next date of hearing.The accused, Dr Abdul Qadir, has been accused of establishing sexual relations with a Hindu woman under the pretext of marriage..3. Supreme Court reduces punishment of DTU student found guilty of using unfair means in examinationCase Title: Yogesh Parihar v. Delhi Technical University and OthersA Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol sustained the finding of guilt against a Delhi Technological University (DTU) student found to have used unfair means in his second-semester examination.The Court however, found that the punishment imposed on him directing him to register for the second semester of his course afresh, was disproportionate to his actions and therefore, reduced the same..4. Rape on promise of marriage: Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court order seeking woman's kundali to ascertain her mangalik statusCase Title: In re order dated 23.05.2023 in Monu v. State of Uttar PradeshIn this case, a Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Pankaj Mithal stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court that had directed the astrology department of Lucknow University to study a woman's kundali (horoscope or birth chart) to find out whether she is a mangalik (person born under the influence of Mars).The High Court had passed the order while deciding the bail plea of a person accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage.The rape accused had taken the defence that the marriage could not be solemnised because the woman was a mangalik.The Supreme Court, however, said that a court of law, when deciding a bail plea, cannot enter into the realm of astrology which are private matters of an individual..5. Don't initiate young children into litigation: Supreme Court in plea by minor OCIs challenging ban from national chess tournamentsCase Title: Amaya Agarwal and Another v. All India Chess Federation and OthersA Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal expressed its reluctance to entertain a plea filed on behalf of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) children challenging a bar on their participation in national chess tournaments.The Court said that it would like to have the benefit of a High Court's ruling on the issue first."Do not initiate such young children into litigation at this age like this. Go before the (Article) 226 court (High Court). We will not allow a 32 like this. Let us have the benefit of the High Court's view," Justice Datta remarked during the hearing..NOTE: The Fortnightly series will resume again from July. Read the previous editions of our fortnightly series below:.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.
