Shilpa Mittal v State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2020]

DOJ: 9th Jan, 2020

In this particular case the Apex Court, decided “Whether an offense prescribing a maximum sentence of more than seven years imprisonment but not providing any minimum sentence, or providing a minimum sentence of fewer than seven years, can be considered to be a 'heinous offense' within the meaning of section 2 (33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?” The fact of the case is that a juvenile, above the age of 16 years but below the age of 18 years was involved in the motor vehicle accident and has alleged to commit an offense punishable under Section 304 of IPC (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The Juvenile Justice board decided that the juvenile committed a heinous offense and should be treated as an adult. The juvenile along with the mother approached the Delhi High Court, the court held that no minimum punishment has been prescribed in the offense in question, so the court said that the offense does not fall under Section 2(33) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. An appeal was filed by the sister of the deceased in the Supreme Court and the Apex Court held that an offense that does not provide a minimum punishment of 7 years cannot be considered as a heinous crime.


Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India

[WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1031 OF 2019]

DOJ: 10th Jan, 2020

This case is related to the lockdown in Kashmir and the internet shutdown. The same petition challenged the legality of the curfew order and internet shutdown in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court of India decided that an uncertain suspension of internet providers would be unlawful under Indian law and that orders for web closure should fulfill the trial of need and proportionality. The case concerned the web and development limitations forced in the Jammu and Kashmir district in India on August 4, 2019, for the sake of securing public requests. Eventually, nonetheless, the Court didn't lift the web limitations and all things considered, it guided the public authority to survey the closure orders against the tests delineated in its judgment and lift those that were redundant or didn't have a fleeting cutoff. The Court repeated that the opportunity of articulation online delighted in Constitutional assurance, however could be confined for the sake of public security. The Court held that however the Government was enabled to force a total web closure, any order(s) forcing such limitations must be disclosed and was dependent upon legal audit.


Sushila Aggarwal & Ors v State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.7281¬7282/2017

DOJ: 29th Jan, 2020

In this case, the court decided on two questions relating to Section 438 of Cr.PC (Anticipatory Bail). The questions are as follows:

1. “Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail.”

The assurance allowed to an individual under Section 438 Cr.PC ought not constantly be restricted to a fixed period. The Normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with Section 438(2) ought to be forced; if there are explicit realities or highlights as to any offense, it is open for the court to force any fitting condition (counting fixed nature of help, or its being attached to an occasion) and so forth.

2. “Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court.”

The term of anticipatory bail order does not end ordinarily at that point and the stage when the accused is subpoenaed by the court, or when the charge was framed, but can continue to the end of the trail. Once more, if there are any unique or exceptional highlights requiring the court to restrict the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do as such.


Prithviraj Chouhan vs Union of India

[WRIT PETITION [CIVIL] NO. 1015 OF 2018]

DOJ: 10th Feb, 2020

In this case, the Apex Court sustained the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018, which was instituted to invalidate the impacts of the March 20, 2018 judgment of the SC which had weakened the provisions of the Act.


Rambabu Singh Thakur vs Sunil Arora and others

CONTEMPT PET. (C) NO. 2192 OF 2018

DOJ: 13th Feb 2020

Due to the rise of criminalization in politics, the Supreme Court decided that all the political parties should publish the details of criminal antecedents of their candidates in Lok Sabha election and Assembly polls within 48 hours of selection of the candidate or within two weeks of nomination or which is earlier. The information ought to be distributed in local newspapers, and transferred to true sites and web-based media handles of the parties. The information ought to contain the nature of the crime and the phase of trial/investigation.


The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and others

Civil Appeal Nos 9367-9369 of 2011

DOJ: 17th Feb 2020

Speaking on gender equality, the Supreme Court observed that permanent commission must be granted to women in the army regardless of their service, in all the ten areas where the Central Government has already taken a decision to grant Short Service Commission to women. The Court likewise held that complete denial of women from command assignments in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and inappropriate. In this way, the strategy that women will be given just "staff appointments" was held to be unenforceable by the Court.


Dheeraj Mor v Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1698 OF 2020

DOJ: 19th Feb 2020

In a crucial judgement, the SC stated that civil judges can not seek direct recruitment for the post of District Judges against the Advocate’s quota. The court said in its adjudication, “Article 233(2) nowhere provides eligibility of in-service candidates for consideration as a District Judge concerning a post requiring 7 years' practice as an advocate or a pleader. Requirement of 7 years' experience for advocate or pleader is qualified with a rider that he should not be in the service of the Union or the State.” Justice Arun Mishra said “Only practising candidates can avail the quota. It is exclusively for them". Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India prescribes 7 years of continuous practice.


New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10941¬10942 OF 2013

DOJ: 4th March 2020

A bench comprising 5-judges Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat held that the Consumer Forum can not extend the time of filling of the opposite party’s version in the Consumer case for more than 45 days. The Consumer Protection Act does not give power to the Consumer Forum to extend the time limit of 45 days. Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes the time period for filing the application.


Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10941¬10942 OF 2013

DOJ: 4th March 2020

The Supreme Court provided the guidelines for the payment of maintenance in matrimonial issues. A bench involving Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy observed that maintenance in all cases will be awarded at the time of filling for application for maintenance. The court said that for installment of Interim Maintenance, the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, will be recorded by the two players in all upkeep procedures, including forthcoming procedures under the watchful eye of the concerned Family Court/District Court/Magistrates Court, all things considered, all through the nation. The model affidavit is attached as Enclosures I, II, and III of the judgment.


Internet and Mobile Association of India v Reserve Bank of India

Writ Petition (Civil) No.528 of 2018

DOJ: 4th March,2020

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a verdict by quashing a circular issued by RBI. The circular issued by RBI barred the banks on trading or dealing in virtual currencies i.e. Cryptocurrencies. The court stated that the circular issued by RBI was illegal and that it cannot be enforceable under the law. In this particular judgment, it is clear that the petitioner succeeded and the circular issued by RBI is declared unenforceable.


Indian Social Action Forum v Union of India

Civil Appeal No.1510 of 2020

DOJ: 6th March 2020

The Supreme Court held that associations supporting public causes without political affiliations are not restricted from taking foreign contributions under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) 2010 and Rules.


Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Ors. v. Speaker Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No. 439 of 2020

DOJ: 13 April 2020

The Apex Court held that the governor of any state can direct floor test during the session of the house. Shivraj Singh Chouhan and other BJP leaders was seeking immediate floor test in the Madhya Pradesh State Assembly after the resignation of 22 Congress MLAs. The court stated that to hold a floor test in the MP assembly to prove the majority of the current government, led by Kamal Nath.


State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.989 OF 2018

DOJ: 27 April 2020

The Apex Court overruled the judgment given by Gujarat High Court that Deemed University comes under the ambit of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Previously, the high court stated that Deemed Universities do not come under the ambit of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 thus, the trustee of deemed universities can not be prosecuted for corruption cases. The SC affirmed that the High Court was wrong in its finding that “Deemed University” does not come under the term “University” under Section 2(c)(xi) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.


Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India & Ors.

CIVIL ORIGINAL/ APPELLATE JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.98 OF 2012

DOJ: 29th April,2020

The SC observed that the NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) will apply to get admission in private unaided minority professional institutes for MBBS, MD, BDS and MDS courses. Article 30 of the Constitution of India which talks about the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions is not absolute and not free from the regulation made by the state.


Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Ors

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Crl) No. 130 of 2020

DOJ: 19th May 2020

Republic TV Editor in Chief, Arnab Goswami filed a writ petition seeking quashing of FIRs registered against him in different states and transferring the probe to CBI. The Supreme Court stated that to permit a journalist to be exposed to different objections and to the quest for cures navigating numerous states and locales when confronted with progressive FIRs and protests bearing a similar establishment, oppressively affects the exercise of his freedom. Further, the SC observed that Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India also provides the right of freedom to a journalist and it is not superior to any citizen's right. It has the same effect. We live in a co-existing society where free citizens cannot live without the media and vice versa. However, the SC declined both the prayers of the Petitioner on the grounds that the accused have no right to choose the mode or manner in which the investigation should be carried out and about the investigation agency.


S. Kasi v. State Thr. Inspector, PS Madurai

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2020

DOJ: 19th June 2020

Taking suo moto on that particular case, the SC held that extending limitations and lockdown cutback does not affect the right of an individual to obtain a default bail under Section 167 (2) of CrPC. The bench involving Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah and V Ramasubramanian overrule the adjudication of a single bench given by Madras High Court S Kashi v State, which held that the time to file charge sheet u/s167 (2) 0f CrPC will get extended in the regard of SC order to extending limitation and lockdown cutback. The bench also upheld a judgment given by another single division bench of Justice G R Swaminathan in the case Settu v The State, which held that SC order extending does not affect the right to default bail.


Sri Marthanda Varma & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2732 OF 2020

DOJ: 13th July 2020

While maintaining the privileges of the recent Royal Family of Travancore as the shebait of Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple at Thiruvananthapuram, the Supreme Court likewise coordinated that the forces of 'the Ruler of Travancore' under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act (TC Act) concerning temple organization be designated to the Administrative Committee established by the court. Prominently, the recommendations with respect to the Administrative Committee and the designation of forces to it came from the family itself. The Supreme Court maintained the privileges of recent illustrious group of Travancore in the organization of Sree Padmanabha Swamy sanctuary at Thiruvananthapuram Allowing the allure recorded by individuals from the Travancore family, a seat of Justices UU Lalit and Indu Malhotra over-ruled the finding of the High Court of Kerala that the privileges of family stopped to exist with the passing of the last ruler of the Travancore in 1991. The passing of the last ruler won't result in the escheat of the rights for the public authority, the Court held.


Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal And Ors

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 20825-20826 OF 2017

DOJ: 14th July 2020

The fact of the case is that CDs are presented before the court without the written certificate as needed under Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, which the High Court conceded in proof while holding that there was " substantive compliance" of the prerequisite under Section 65B (4) via oral proof in interrogation. It is additionally relevant to specify that all endeavors to acquire the declaration were to no end. The SC held that the certificate required u/s 65B (4) is a prerequisite preceding the admissibility of evidence by way of an electronic record. The court stated that in a real situation where the imperative certificate has been applied for from the individual or the power concerned, and the individual or authority either won't give such declaration or doesn't answer to such request, the party requesting such authentication can apply to the Court for its creation under the arrangements previously mentioned of the Evidence Act, CPC or CrPC. The bench has also explained that the certificate u/s 65B (4) is not necessary if the original document is present in the court. The bench also overruled the 2018 judgment given by a two-judge bench in the case Shafi Mohammad vs State of Himachal Pradesh.


Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 32601 OF 2018

DOJ: 11 Aug 2020

In a major adjudication, the SC stated that the daughter will have a share in property irrespective of whether her father was alive or not at the time of amendment under Hindu Succession Act in 2005. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted to remove gender discrimination in society. According to the same act, the daughter has the same rights and liabilities as a son and would be a ‘coparcener’ by birth. A bench led by Justice Arun Mishra marked the judgment in various appeals raised an important question of whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave equal right to daughters in ancestral property, has a retrospective effect. Justice Mishra said, “Daughters must be given equal rights as son, Daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life. The daughter shall remain a coparcener throughout life, irrespective of whether her father is alive or not”, in his judgement. The bench also overruled the contradictory judgement given in the case “Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju.”


Praneeth K and others v University Grants Commission

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.724 OF 2020

DOJ:28th Aug 2020

The Apex Court resolved the conflict between the directions provided by the UGC concerning the final semester examinations and the direction given by State Disaster Management Authorities in different states to call off the exams in the midst of a pandemic situation. The court stated that the State Disaster Management Authorities can cancel the examination in view of the pandemic situation but they did not give instructions to promote students without conducting any exam. This decision lies in the ambition of UGC. However, the court held that states may extend the deadline to September 30 as per the SDMA instructions.


Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v Union of India

CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 196 OF 2018

DOJ: 31 Aug 2020

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the Medical Council of India has no capacity to reserve any spot for in-administration applicants in Post Graduate Medical Course in a specific state. The bench involving Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose saw that the intensity of Medical Council of India Act is referable to Entry 66, List 1, which is a restricted wellspring of capacity to set down principles. It held that the Medical Council of India guidelines accommodating booking for in-administration applicants in PG Medical Courses are ultra vires the Medical Council of India Act. The Court has anyway explained that the judgment will apply just tentatively and won't influence any confirmations previously made. The Court additionally saw that States can make guidelines to give reservation to in-administration specialists in PG clinical courses and recommends that States may request that such recipients serve in rustic, uneven and ancestral zones for a very long time.


Rhea Chakraborty v Union of India and others

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 2386 OF 2020

DOJ: 7th Oct 2020

A single bench of Apex Court while exercising the power under Section 406 of CrPC, has transferred the case of the death of Sushant Singh to CBI. However, the court does not find any wrongdoing by Mumbai Police in this case but as a precaution, the case was handed to CBI for a free and fair investigation, without any influence of the involved state government.


Saravanan v. State

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 681¬682 OF 2020
(Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos.4386¬4387/2020)

DOJ: 15th Oct 2020

A Bench including Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah held that while giving default bail/legal bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC, state of store of sum can't be forced. The solitary necessity for the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no charge sheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused apply for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail, the Court noticed. The court likewise added that the conditions while considering the regular bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are extraordinary, while thinking about the application for default bail/legal bail.


Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2483 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.1048 of 2020)

DOJ:15th Oct, 2020

In this particular case, the SC overruled the 2006 judgment in the case SR Batra v Taruna Batra stating that a wife is entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household belonging to relatives of the husband. The bench marked that, “In the event, a shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household”. Further, they added, “The living of women in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of the household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as a shared household or not. As noted above, Act 2005 was enacted to give a higher right in favour of women. The Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act."


Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.152 OF 2013

DOJ: 29th Oct, 2020

In a significant judgment, SC stated that the Central and State officers appointed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are similar to police officers and confessions made by them are not admissible in evidence under Section 67. This judgement is passed by a 2:1 majority, Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha held the judgement, while Indira Banerjee had the dissenting opinion in the similar case.


Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni

Appeal (Civil) No. 3581-3590 of 2020

DOJ: 2nd Nov, 2020

The Supreme Court has held that a complaint before Consumer Fora by allottees against builders isn't banned by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act, 2016. The Court additionally held that period for apportioning of level to a homebuyer must be figured from the date of the purchaser understanding and not from the date of the enlistment of the task under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act (RERA Act). A division seat including Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran said that qualification of the Complainants should be considered in the light of the details of the Builder Buyer Agreements


Amish Devgan v Union of India

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 160 OF 2020

DOJ: 7th Dec, 2020

The judgment delivered by the 2-judge bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna stated the distinction between ‘hate-speech and ‘free-speech’ and it is high time to criminalise the ‘hate-speech’ and a test to identify the same. The adjudication contains a detailed discussion on the topic ‘hate-speech’. The author of the judgment Justice Khanna observed, “In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and, in fact, repudiates the right to equality.”


Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors

WRIT PETITION NO: 20173 OF 2020

DOJ: 17th Dec, 2020

A constitutional bench involving Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that 100% reservation of teachers having a place with the Scheduled Tribe class at schools arranged in "Scheduled Areas" is constitutionally not valid. The Bench likewise bashed down the Government order published under the hand of Governor of State of Andhra Pradesh which had insisted on supreme booking for ST teachers and forced expenses on both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana governments, looking for reasons from the Government for breaking the half roof in the reservation.


Saurav Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.2641 OF 2019
(Arising from SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.23223 OF 2018)

DOJ:18th Dec, 2020

In a judgment delivered by a 3-judge bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Hrishikesh Roy held that the candidates belonging to reserved category are qualified to fill the open/general category vacancies. The court held that this guideline ought to likewise be followed while filling opportunities in horizontal reservations in the open category. The Court has dissented the view taken by some High Courts that, at the phase of obliging possibility for affecting horizontal reservation, the reserved category candidate can be changed uniquely against their own category under the concerned vertical reservation and not against the "Open or General Category".

About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Ms. Unnati Mishra law student at Maharishi Law School, Maharishi University of Information Technology, Noida and is a Campus Ambassador at MyLawman. She can be reached at mishra.unnati03@gmail.com  

MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.

 

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here