The Supreme Court fortnightly: 15 important judgments - May 16 to 31, 2022

In this series, Bar & Bench will bring you 15 top judgments/ orders delivered by the Supreme Court of India every two weeks.Below are our picks for the last two weeks of May 2022..1. Police should not abuse sex workers verbally or physically; should treat them with dignityCase Title: Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal and Others [Criminal Appeal 135 of 2010]In a landmark order, a division bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, and AS Bopanna held that sex workers are entitled to all basic human rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and police should not abuse those engaged in sex work verbally or physically."The police and other law enforcement agencies should be sensitised to the rights of sex workers who also enjoy all basic human rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all citizens. Police should treat all sex workers with dignity and should not abuse them, both verbally and physically, subject them to violence or coerce them into any sexual activity," the Court ordered.Moreover, the Court directed the Press Council of India to urge the media to take utmost care and not reveal the identities of sex workers or indulge in voyeurism during arrest/raid/rescue operations, and also not publish or telecast their photos especially on TV.The order came based on recommendations made by a panel constituted by the top court in 2011 to examine conditions of sex workers and to ensure that they can live with dignity. The panel had made ten recommendations regarding dignity of sex workers as per Article 21 of the Constitution in its report submitted to the Court..2. Hindu widow has absolute ownership of property she is being maintained out ofCase Title: Munni Devi Alias Nathi Devi v. Rajendra Alias Lallu Lal [Civil Appeal 5894 of 2019]A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi held that in lieu of a Hindu widow's right to maintenance and by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she is entitled to absolute ownership of the property she is being maintained out of.The Court was of the view that Section 14(1) envisages a liberal construction in favor of women, with the objective of promoting socio-economic ends."It is by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, that the Hindu widow’s limited interest gets automatically enlarged into an absolute right, when such property is possessed by her whether acquired before or after the commencement of 1956 Act in lieu of her right to maintenance," the bench held.The Court held that the words “possessed by” and “acquired” used in Section 14(1) are of the widest amplitude and include the state of owning property..3. Rajiv Gandhi assassination: Supreme Court orders release of AG Perarivalan after Governor's delay to decide pardon pleaCase Title: AG Perarivalan v. State of Tamil Nadu [Criminal Appeal 833-834 of 2022]A three-Judge bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and AS Bopanna recently ordered the release of AG Perarivalan, the convict in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order Perarivalan's release after noting that there was considerable delay by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in deciding the convict's plea for remission under Article 161.The main issue before the top court was regarding the power of the Governor to refer such petitions to the President of India when the State Cabinet had already given its recommendation for remission or pardon.The Governor had refused to take a call on Perarivalan's plea under Article 161 of the Constitution prompting the convict to approach the Court.The Supreme Court held that the exercise of powers by Governor under Article 161 cannot suffer from inexplicable delay and it can be subjected to judicial review.Pertinently, the top court held that the advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor in matters relating to commutation/ remission of sentences under Article 161..4. [Domestic Violence] Woman has right to reside in shared household of deceased husband even if she did not live there beforeCase Title: Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi [Criminal Appeal 511 of 2022]A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that every woman in a domestic relationship has a right to reside in the shared household of her husband even after the death of her husband. It was also of the view that a woman can enforce the right irrespective of whether she actually lived in the shared household before."Even when the marital ties cease and there is no subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved woman and the respondent against whom relief is claimed but the acts of domestic violence are related to the period of domestic relationship, even in such circumstances, the aggrieved woman who was subjected to domestic violence has remedies under the DV Act," the apex court held.The Court noted that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed vis-à-vis allegation of domestic violence is raised.However, even in the absence of actual residence in the shared household, a woman, who was at some point of time, in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside there..5. Supreme Court upholds Section 3 of NGT Act; says Act does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction of High CourtsCase Title: Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) 433 of 2012]A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy upheld the constitutionality of Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, which gives the Central government power to establish the NGT. It also held that the NGT Act does not oust the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution." ... [It is] noteworthy that nothing contained in the NGT Act either impliedly or explicitly, ousts the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 and the power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act. The prerogative of writ jurisdiction of High Courts is neither taken away nor it can be ousted, as without any doubt, it is definitely a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The High Court’s exercise their discretion in tandem with the law depending on the facts of each particular case," the Court observed.The judgment ruled the following:- The National Green Tribunal under Section 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.- The remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of India.- Section 3 of the NGT Act is not a case of excessive delegation of power to the Central Government.- The seat of the NGT benches can be located as per exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every State. The prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur is unmerited and is rejected..6. Central government and States have simultaneous powers to legislate on GSTCase Title: Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Private Limited [Civil Appeal 1390 of 2022]A three-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath ruled that the Central government and States have simultaneous powers to legislate on Goods and Service Tax (GST). The Court observed that the GST council must work in harmonious manner to achieve workable solution between the Centre and States."The Parliament and the State legislatures possess simultaneous power to legislate on GST. Article 246A does not envisage a repugnancy provision to resolve the inconsistencies between the Central and the State laws on GST," the judgment said.Pertinently, the Court ruled that the recommendation of GST Council is not binding on the Central government or States but has only persuasive value."The ‘recommendations’ of the GST Council are the product of a collaborative dialogue involving the Union and States. They are recommendatory in nature. To regard them as binding edicts would disrupt fiscal federalism, where both the Union and the States are conferred equal power to legislate on GST. It is not imperative that one of the federal units must always possess a higher share in the power for the federal units to make decisions," the Court ruled.According to Article 246A, both parliament and State legislature have equal power to legislate on matters of taxation, the Court added."Article 246A treats the Centre and States as equal units by conferring a simultaneous power of enacting law on GST. Article 279A in constituting the GST Council envisions that neither the Centre nor the States can act independent of the other," the judgment said..7. Supreme Court enhances sentence of Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year imprisonment in road rage caseCase Title: Jaswinder Singh (Dead) through Legal Representative v. Navjot Singh Sidhu and Others [Review Petition (Criminal) 477 of 2018]A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul sentenced Congress leader and former Indian cricketer Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year imprisonment in a 1988 road rage case.The Court noted that a 25-year-old international cricketer who is physically fit, is expected to know the impact of a blow inflicted by him.It also quoted the ancient Hindu text of Dharmashastra to explain the necessity of proportionate punishment in the case.The Court thus held that a disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates the victim of a crime when the offender goes unpunished or is let off with a relatively minor punishment. .8. Proceedings under SARFAESI Act cannot be continued once CIRP has been initiatedCase Title: Indian Overseas Bank v. M/s RCM Infrastructure Limited and Another [Civil Appeal 4750 of 2021]A division bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) cannot continue once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is initiated.Referring to Section 14(1)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Court observed:"It is clear that once the CIRP is commenced, there is complete prohibition for any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property...The legislative intent is clear that after the CIRP is initiated, all actions including any action under the SARFAESI Act to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest are prohibited."The Court also reiterated that in view of Section 238 of the IBC, the provisions of the Code would prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent with it, contained in any other law for the time being in force..9. Appointments to public posts governed by existing rulesCase Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar [Civil Appeal 9746-9747 of 2011]A three-judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha recently overruled its 1983 judgment in YV Rangaiah v J Sreenivasa Rao which had held that public posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by the new Rules.It held that the statement in Rangaiah that, “the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules”, does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under Part XIV of the Constitution."After examining the principle in the context of the constitutional position of services under the State, and having reviewed the decisions that have followed or distinguished Rangaiah in that perspective, we have formulated the legal principles that should govern services under the State. Applying the said principles, we have held that the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah does not reflect the correct constitutional position", the Court said in its judgment.The top court further held that rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services..10. Section 106 Evidence Act attracted when prosecution establishes chain of eventsCase Title: Sabitri Samantaray and Another v. State of Odisha [Criminal Appeal 988 of 2017]A three-Judge Bench of the Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act applies when the chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution.It observed that the prosecution is not absolved of the burden to establish the guilt of the accused but, once it has established a chain of events showing their guilt, it is on the accused to prove otherwise."Thus, although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events," the judgment stated.Going through the Section 106 of the Act , the Court noted that it postulates that the burden of proving things which are within the special knowledge of an individual is on that individual."Although the Section in no way exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the prosecution," the Court noted in its judgment..11. Permanent Lok Adalats have both conciliatory and adjudicatory powersCase Title: Canara Bank v. GS Jayarama [Civil Appeal 3872 of 2022]A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha held that Permanent Lok Adalats have both conciliatory and adjudicatory powers.It was of the view that while dealing with a case, Permanent Lok Adalats have to first try to settle the dispute, and only if there isn't any agreement between the parties can it proceed to decide the matter on merits."Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fifth step, can the Permanent Lok Adalat proceed to the final step and decide the dispute on its merits," the judgment stated.Distinguishing between the powers of a Lok Adalat and a Permanent Lok Adalat, the Court said,"The Act indicates that there are similarities between Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats: (i) they can both attempt conciliation proceedings with the parties before them, and can pass awards recording the terms of settlement agreed upon by the parties (ii) in doing so, they are both bound by principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles and (iii) their awards, deemed to be decrees of courts, will be final and cannot be challenged in an appeal. Yet, despite these similarities, there are crucial differences under the statute," the judges noted..12. Use of violence not always an essential condition to invoke MCOCACase Title: Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal 869 of 2022]A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose held that actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non (essential condition) for invoking provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).It ruled that threat of violence or even intimidation or even coercion would fall within the ambit of ‘organised crime' under MCOCA."Actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non for an activity falling within the mischief of organised crime, when undertaken by an individual singly or jointly as part of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Threat of violence or even intimidation or even coercion would fall within the mischief," the judgment held.This apart, use of other unlawful means would also fall within the same mischief, the Court added..13. Section 63 of Copyright Act penalizing copyright infringement is cognizable, non-bailable offenceCase Title: M/s Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi [Criminal Appeal 807 of 2022]A bench of Justices MR Shah and B V Nagarathna held that Section 63 of the Copyright Act, which penalizes infringement of copyright, is a cognizable and a non-bailable offence. "It is observed and held that offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court taking a contrary view is hereby quashed and set aside and the criminal proceedings against respondent no. 2 for the offence under sections 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act now shall be proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits treating the same as a cognizable and non-bailable offence," the top court ruled.In its findings, the bench referred to Section 63 and also part II of the First Schedule to the CrPC which defines cognizable and non-cognizable offences based on the punishment.It then noted that an offence will be non-cognizable only when it is punishable with imprisonment of less than three years."Thus, for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine. Therefore, the Magistrate may sentence the accused for a period of three years also. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be non-cognizable," the bench said adding that the language of the provision in Part II of First Schedule is very clear and that there is no ambiguity..14. Applications for compassionate appointment must be decided within 6 monthsCase Title: Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and Others [Civil Appeal 4103 of 2022]In an important ruling, a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds must be considered and decided by the authorities at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications.The Court observed that the purpose of such appointments is to ensure financial support to the family of a deceased employee."Considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications," the Court said.The Supreme Court noted that there are conflicting views as to whether the scheme or rules in force on the date of death of the government servant would apply or the scheme or rules in force on the date of consideration of the application on compassionate grounds would apply.However, keeping the said issue aside, the Court in the instant case was of the view that the appellant shall be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as per the old rules, which were applicable at the time when the deceased employee died..15. Conviction in murder case cannot be based solely on extra-judicial confession of co-accused Case Title: Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh [Criminal Appeal 378 of 2015]A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi held that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and when made by the co-accused, it can be admitted only as a corroborative piece of evidence.The Court was of the view that conviction in a murder case cannot be based solely on the extra-judicial confession of the co-accused and in the absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused will not be of significance."The extra-judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused," the Court stated.The Supreme Court noted that as per Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and other persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.The Bench, however, made it clear that an extra-judicial confession is weak evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made solely on the basis of such extra-judicial confession..1. Gyanvapi Mosque: Court directs Shivling to be protected, allows entry of Muslims to Mosque for prayersCase Title: Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh and Others [Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 9388 of 2022]In the ongoing Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath case, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha recently lifted the prohibition imposed by a Varanasi court on Muslims from entering the Gyanvapi Mosque in Uttar Pradesh, which has been a subject matter of dispute between Hindus and Muslims.The Court, however, also directed the District Magistrate of Varanasi to ensure that the Shivling recovered from the Mosque complex during a survey by the court commissioner be protected.But the access of Muslims to the mosque for prayers should not be impeded, the Court said. The Court also clarified that Muslims will be allowed to perform wazu (cleansing) since it is part of religious observations..2. Onus to prove all ingredients of offence always upon prosecution, not accusedCase Title: Nanjundappa and Another v. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal 900 of 2017]A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli held that the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shifts to the accused.The Court was of the view that even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false, the burden on the prosecution does not become any less.Relying on its decision in SL Goswami v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the top Court observed that:"For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim. Perusal of the record reveals that out of various witnesses arrayed by the prosecution, there are no eye witnesses. Any evidence brought on record is merely circumstantial in nature.".3. Court grants interim bail to Samajwadi Party leader Azam KhanCase Title: Mohammad Azam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Writ Petition (Criminal) 39 of 2022]A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and AS Bopanna recently granted interim bail to Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan in a case related to forgery and criminal conspiracy.The Court observed that Khan had been granted bail in all 87 cases except one case bearing registered at Police Station Kotwali under Section 420 and 120B of the IPC. It was observed by the top court that the petitioner was implicated after a delay of 1 year and 7 months on May 6, 2022."It is not as if that the allegations which are now sought to be made against the petitioner could not have been made at that point of time. The main allegation against the petitioner in the said FIR No.70 of 2020 is that the certificates are forged. Further allegation is that the person who had issued the certificates was not authorized to issue those certificates," the order said..4. [Sheena Bora murder] Bail granted to Indrani MukerjeaCase Title: Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) 1627 of 2022]A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and AS Bopanna recently granted bail to Indrani Mukerjea, who is the prime accused in the 2015 murder case of her daughter, Sheena Bora.The Court noted that Mukerjea has been in jail for 6.5 years."Indrani Mukherjea has been in custody for 6.5 years. We are not making comments on merits of case. Even if the 50 percent witnesses are given up by prosecution, the trial would not be over soon. She is granted bail. She will be released on bail subject to satisfaction of trial court. The same conditions imposed on Peter Mukherjea will also be imposed on her," the Court ordered..5. Section 138 NI Act: Court accepts Amicus suggestions on special courts to hear cheque bounce casesCase Title: In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 [Suo Motu Writ (Criminal) 2 of 2020]A three-Judge bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and S Ravindra Bhat recently accepted the suggestions to set up special courts to hear cheque bouncing cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and Advocate K Parameshwar, who were appointed as amicus curiae in the suo motu case taken up by the Supreme Court to ensure expeditious disposal of Section 138 cases, had submitted a report calling for the setting up of Special NI Courts by the Central government.The note submitted by the amicus had suggested that retired judicial officers be appointed to helm these Special NI Courts. This scheme, it was advised, could be tested on a pilot basis in five judicial districts with the highest pendency in the five states with the highest pendency of Section 138 cases - namely, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.The viability of utilising services of retired judicial officers can be examined based on the results of the pilot study, the apex court was informed.Taking this suggestion on board, the Bench directed the Registrar General of the Supreme Court to communicate its order to the High Courts in the five states/union territories. These High Courts are required to submit affidavit in response to the proposed pilot scheme..6. Seat of arbitration must be certain; parties should not be in doubt about jurisdiction of courts for remediesCase Title: BBR (India) Private Limited v. SP Singla Constructions Private Limited [Civil Appeal 4130-4131 of 2022]A division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna held that the place fixed for arbitral proceedings would be the jurisdictional ‘seat’ where the courts would have exclusive jurisdiction, to avoid uncertainty.The Court clarified that the only exception to this principle would arise when the parties, by mutual consent, agree that the jurisdictional ‘seat’ would be changed. It was stated that such consent must be express, clearly understood and agreed by the parties.“The place of jurisdiction or ‘the seat’ must be certain and static and not vague or changeable, as the parties should not be in doubt as to the jurisdiction of the courts for availing of judicial remedies,” the top court reasoned..7. Court allows resumption of iron ore mining and export in KarnatakaCase Title: Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) 562 of 2009]A three-Judge bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli recently allowed the resumption of iron ore mining and export in Karnataka, more than a decade after it restricted the same.The Court noted that the time had come to review the system put in place over a decade ago towards the unchecked excavation of iron ore in the three districts of Karnataka."Ever since then, e-auction has been the only mode available for disposal of the excavated iron ore. The said arrangement has worked out satisfactorily so far. The situation that was prevalent in the region prior to the year 2011, has now changed for the better. Having regard to the course correction that has taken place, the regeneration post the ruinous damage caused to the environment and the various steps taken by the Government, we are of the opinion that the order passed on September, 2011 deserves to be relaxed," the Court observed..8. Stay on Delhi High Court judgment upholding right to feed stray dog lifted Case Title: Humane Foundation for People and Animals v. Animal Welfare Board of India [Diary No. 21479 of 2021]A three-judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia recently lifted the interim stay on the Delhi High Court verdict which had held that stray dogs have the right to food and water and that Resident Welfare Associations are duty-bound to ensure the same.The High Court ruling came in a suit filed to restrain certain individuals from feeding stray dogs. The dispute was resolved amicably, but the High Court was asked to lay down guidelines with respect to feeding of stray dogs.It was ruled that community dogs (stray dogs) have the right to food and citizens have the right to feed community dogs. Hence, no person can restrict anybody from feeding dogs, until and unless it is causing harm or harassment to other persons..Read Supreme Court fortnightly from May 1-15 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from April 16-30 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from April 1-15 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from March 16-31 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from March 1-15 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from February 15-28 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from February 1-14 here.