The Supreme Court fortnightly: 15 important judgments from July 1 to 15, 2023

In this fornightly series, Bar & Bench brings you 15 important judgments and other orders passed by the Supreme Court of India over the past two weeks.Below are our picks for the first two weeks of July 2023..1. Motor accident claims cases should be decided based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt: Supreme CourtCase Title: Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi and AnotherIn this case, a Division Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a motor accident claim seeking compensation on account of death or injury."The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident," the Court said..2. Reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities should not "open gates" for other horizontal reservation candidates: Supreme CourtCase Title: Reserve Bank of India v. AK Nair And OthersA Division Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to retrospectively extend the benefit of reservation in promotions to an employee afflicted with post-polio limb paralysis.In a separate but concurring opinion, Justice Bhat cautioned that reservations in promotions cannot be unduly extended to others entitled to horizontal reservation (like reservations for women, transgender persons etc), just because persons with disabilities have been given such reservations.Justice Bhat explained that it was not the intention of the Constitution of India to completely kill the spirit of competition. To earmark promotions for one class of citizens (that is, those who stand to benefit from horizontal reservation) is not constitutionally protected, he said..3. Supreme Court rules that Kerala High Court process of selecting district judges in 2017 was illegal, but refrains from unseating candidatesCase Title: Sivanandan CT and Others v. High Court of KeralaA Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra ruled that the selection process adopted by the Kerala High Court for recruitment of district judges in the year 2017 suffered from several infirmities and was in violation of the Kerala High Judicial Services Rules of 1961.The Court, however, did not unseat the candidates selected in 2017, opining that doing so would be harsh to them and would also deprive the judiciary of experienced judges..4. Liberty important but gravity of offence, impact on society should also be considered in bail cases: Supreme CourtCase Title: Pratibha Manchanda and Another v. State of Haryana and AnotherIn this case, a Division Bench of Justices Surya Kant and CT Ravikumar emphasised that in order to ensure a just outcome in anticipatory bail applications, courts should weigh the gravity of the alleged offence and its impact on society, and balance these with the applicant's right to liberty.The Court acknowledged that the relief of anticipatory bail serves as a crucial tool to misuse the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment."The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome," the Court explained..5. Supreme Court strikes down tenure extension of ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra, but upholds amendment to CVC Act Case Title: Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and OthersIn this case, a three-judge Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol struck down the extension of the tenure of incumbent Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED) Sanjay Kumar Mishra.The Court held that the extension granted to Mishra was contrary to a 2021 judgment rendered by a division bench of the Supreme Court. In that judgment, the top court had directed that Mishra cannot be given any extension beyond November 2021.Pertinently, the Court upheld the amendments made by the legislature to the Central Vigilance Commission Act (CVC Act), which confer power on the Central government to extend the tenure of the ED Director by upto 5 years.The Court said that while the legislature is empowered to enact law allowing the extension of tenure of the ED Director, it would not come to the rescue of Mishra since there was a specific bar by the apex court in its 2021 judgment against Mishra..6. Magistrate order under Section 14 SARFAESI Act cannot be quashed by High Court under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme CourtCase Title: MS Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. V Ganesh Murthy and AnotherA Division Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh held that a magistrate's order under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI Act) cannot be quashed by High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).The Court observed that only remedies under the SARFAESI Act can be availed against such orders..7. Supreme Court gives life term to four in 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast; says delay by trial court, prosecution compromised national interestCase Title: Mohd. Naushad v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)A three-judge Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol took exception to the lack of promptness and attention shown by investigating agencies and the trial court in the conduct of criminal proceedings against accused in the 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast in Delhi.The Court underscored that the matter ought to have been treated with urgency and sensitivity to avoid the resultant compromise of national security.It appeared that influential persons influenced proceedings, given the number of accused versus those who actually were put on trial, the Bench noted. Pertinently, it was highlighted that accused whose acquittals/reduced sentences were not a part of the instant batch of appeals also prima facie seemed involved in the conspiracy behind the blast..8. No discretion to reduce minimum sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sonu KushwahaIn this judgment, a Division Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal said that courts do not have the discretion to reduce the minimum sentences imposed for offences, including aggravated sexual assault, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).The Court was of the view that when a penal provision expressly prescribes a minimum sentence, courts cannot do offence to such a Section and impose a lesser sentence.It further emphasised that the POCSO Act was enacted to provide for stringent minimum punishments for various kinds of child sexual abuse."When a penal provision uses the phraseology ‘shall not be less than…’, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence,” the order stated..9. Employee terminated from service not automatically entitled to back wages on reinstatement: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport CorporationIn this case, a Division Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal reiterated that an order to reinstate an employee back to service does not mean that the reinstated employee would also be automatically entitled to back wages.The Court stated that such relief would be dependent on the facts of each case.An employee so reinstated would have to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period in order to claim back wages, the Court explained..10. Section 420 IPC: Supreme Court flags "disquieting trend" of cheating cases transforming into money recovery proceedingsCase Title: Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of DelhiIn this case, a Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta took exception to the trend of courts allowing cases involving allegations of cheating - punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - to effectively become money recovery proceedings on the whims of the lawyer.The Court stressed that High Courts and trial courts should not be 'unduly swayed' by lawyers who call for making the amount in dispute the deposit needed for the grant of anticipatory bail in such cases..11. "Downright bizarre": Supreme Court on High Court decision to award different jail terms to convicts for same offenceCase Title: Uggarsain v. State of Haryana and OthersA Division Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta expressed surprise at a High Court decision to award different jail terms to various persons convicted for the same offence in a case, and having indistinguishable roles in the crime.The Court was dealing with an appeal against a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision to convict and sentence eight persons for forming an unlawful assembly and killing a person after attacking him with deadly weapons.It was noted that the role of each person convicted in the case was practically indistinguishable..12. Supreme Court pulls up NGT (again) for relying on expert committee report without giving party opportunity to objectCase Title: Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwini Kumar DubeyA Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) being an adjudicatory body must comply with the principles of natural justice. It also held that if the NGT intends to rely on the report of an expert committee or any other material that is brought to its knowledge, the concerned party must be informed of it in advance, and be given an opportunity for discussion and rebuttal."The NGT is a judicial body and therefore exercises adjudicatory function. The very nature of an adjudicatory function would carry with it the requirement that principles of natural justice are complied with, particularly when there is an adversarial system of hearing of the cases before the Tribunal or for that matter before the Courts in India. The NGT though is a special adjudicatory body constituted by an Act of Parliament, nevertheless, the discharge of its function must be in accordance with law which would also include compliance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged in Section 19(1) of the Act,” the Court observed..13. Ballistic expert's evidence important in cases of murder caused by firearms: Supreme CourtCase Title: Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of PunjabIn this case, a Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol observed that in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the failure to examine a ballistic expert would be a glaring defect when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence."... in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent," the Court observed..14. School transfer certificate cannot be relied upon to determine age under Juvenile Justice Act: Supreme CourtCase Title: P Yuvaprakash vs State Rep by Inspector of PoliceA Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar held that a school transfer certificate cannot be the basis to determine the age of a person under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act).The Court held that as per Section 94 of the JJ Act, wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the following documents have to be relied upon:(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board;(ii) in the absence of (i), the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;(iii) in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test..15. Income Tax AO cannot reopen assessment under Section 153A if no incriminating material is found: Supreme CourtCase Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. King Buildcon Private LimitedA Division Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Manoj Misra held that an income tax Assessing Officer (AO) cannot reopen an assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in respect of completed or unabated assessments if no incriminating material is unearthed during a search under Section 132 of the Act.The Court passed the ruling keeping in view the law laid down recently in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 3 v. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited (2023)..1. Permission of Supreme Court no more required for transfer of presiding officers of special MP/MLA courts by High CourtsCase Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and OthersA Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra lifted the condition of apex court approval for transfer of presiding officers of special courts hearing cases against Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs).The Court was of the view that such officers can now be transferred after obtaining the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court on the administrative side..2. Supreme Court seeks views of SCBA, SCAORA to address misconduct of AoRs; says AoRs being used like postmenCase Title: Mohan Chandra P vs State of Karnataka and OthersA Bench Justices BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala lamented that Advocates-On-Record (AoRs) were being used merely to file and sign off on petitions without such petitions going through an ideal level of scrutiny."We find that in the Supreme Court, Advocates-On-Record are being used like postmen,” Justice Gavai remarked during the hearing..3. Not happy with how issue of toilets for women lawyers in Nilgiris court was taken to the press: Supreme CourtCase Title: Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Registrar, Madras High CourtA Division Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha recorded its displeasure with how the issue concerning the lack of toilets for women lawyers in the Nilgiris court complex in Ooty, Tamil Nadu was pursued before the media.The Court stated that it was deeply disconcerted by how this matter was taken to the media and the High Court received bad press due to the differences between rival sections of the Bar."Madras High Court was displayed in poor light but I am not happy with the way this matter was pursued before the media. We are deeply disconcerted by how this matter has been pursued by the party. The High was portrayed in a bad light in a fight between two rival segments and HC said It had made arrangement," the CJI further said..4. Supreme Court stays NGT order appointing Delhi LG as Chairman of High-Level Committee to deal with pollution in YamunaCase Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Ashwani YadavA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud as well as Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra stayed an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) appointing the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi as the Chairman of the High-Level Committee to deal with pollution in Yamuna river.The Court issued notice on a plea by the Delhi government challenging the NGT order passed on January 9..Read the Supreme Court during summer vacation - June 1 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.