Year Ender 2022
The passing year 2022 is full of happenings not only politically or socially but judicially as well. The Supreme Court of India cannot be an exception to this. Various Benches of the Supreme Court have given so many notable judgments, here we bring some of the most important for you:
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, C.T. Ravikumar
Issue: Territorial limits of central administrative tribunal
Judgment: The SC held that an order passed by a tribunal can only be challenged before the high court within whose territorial limits the central administrative tribunal bench is located.
Criticism- It ignores the principal of Article 226(2)
Bench: Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna
Issue: The Directorate General of Health Services in the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued a notice for providing 27 percent reservation for OBC (NCL) and 10 percent reservation for EWS in the 15% and 50% PG seats in All India Quota ( AIQ) from the academic year 2021-2022.
Judgment: The court observed that Article 16 (4), Article 16 (1), Article 15 (4), Article 15 (5) work as a group to achieve “substantive equality” in the society. It upheld the reservation for Other Backward Classes, in All-India Quota category for UG and PG medical and dental courses as constitutionally valid.
According to the bench, the Constituent Assembly felt that there must be a provision (Article 16 (4)) that enables entry of those communities into administration since they were deprived of such access in the past and formal equality of opportunity would not suffice.
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Issue: A man in Punjab belonging to the SC community purchased land from the man belonging to the SC community in Rajasthan. As per Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, a man from SC community cannot purchase land from another man of SC community if belonging to a different state.
Judgment: The SC observed that a person belonging to SC and ST in relation to his original state of which he is permanent or ordinarily resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other on his migration to that state.
Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, Justice Hima Kohli
Issues: The appellant was charged under section 397 read with section 11/13 of (MPDVPK) 1981 Act by the Trial Court as well as the High Court. Aggrieved by this the appellant went to the Supreme Court where his appeal was partly allowed.
Judgment: The SC clarified two important positions of law relating to Robbery law under IPC 390.The Judgement notes that in order to meet the ingredients of section 397 of IPC, it is not necessary for the offender to literally use the weapon for the purpose it serves, even showcasing the same to create fear in the mind of the victim would be sufficient. Section 397 does not automatically apply to all co-accused unless a charge under section 34 of IPC (common intention) specifically raised. Only the person who uses a dangerous weapon can be framed for the usage of the same.
Bench: Justice MR shah, Justice Sanjeev Khanna
Issue: Bail Considerations
Judgment:
The SC retreated that the gravity and nature of the offense alleged against the accused are relevant considerations while considering the bail application.
Conditions for bail:
Nature of seriousness of the offense
Character of the evidences and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused
Likelihood of the accused feeling from justice.
The impact that his release may make on the prosecution whereas the impact on the society
Likelihood of his tampering
Bench: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Bea M Trivedi
Issue: The husband had registered a complaint against his wife accusing that she had an existing marriage before marrying him to a said person called Shoukat Ali. According to the second respondent, the wife had kept this fact concealed before the wedlock. Based upon the family court’s findings and investigation, it was held that Rehana Begum did not have an existing marriage when she married her husband on 11 January 1996.
Judgment: The Supreme Court recently observed that a High Court’s decision to allow the criminal proceeding to proceed for offenses under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code – which deal with bigamy – despite the Family Court’s finding that the wife did not have a subsisting prior marriage, would constitute an abuse of the process.
Bench: Justice Vineet Saran, Justice Aniruddha Bose
Issue:
Judgment: The Supreme Court observed that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offense on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report or in the FIR.
Bench: Justice RS Ramanatham
Issue: Will in favor of strangers
Judgment: The Supreme Court reiterated that an absolute owner of a property is entitled to bequeath his properties by Will in favor of strangers.
Bench: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Krishna Murari
Issue: Daughter would be entitled to inherit elf-acquired property
Judgment: The SC held that even in cases prior to enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (1956 Act), if a Hindu male dies intestate leaving behind self-acquired property, such self-acquired property would devolve by inheritance and its devolution shall not be by way of survivorship. Further, the daughter of such a Hindu male would be entitled to inherit such self-acquired property.
10 Jameel Ahmad v Mohammed Umair Mohammad Haroon
15 February, 2022
Bench: JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Issue: chance of rejection of bail
Judgement:
The SC ruled that Order Granting Bail Requires Exercise of Discretion in Judicious Manner on Application of Settled Parameters.
“More heinous the crime, greater is the chance of rejection of bail, though the exercise also depends on the factual matrix of the matter.”
Prima facie view to be considered. Accused was convicted of S.302 IPC and all the evidences were against him.
Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Bivas Pattanayak
Issue: life imprisonment till death in Rape Case
Judgement: Calcutta High Court issued a directive to trial courts in West Bengal stipulating that a sentence of life imprisonment till death, without any scope of remission, can only be passed in rape cases. According to the law, punishment is given to deter the offender from committing the offense once again. A person’s wrongdoing has a consequence or outcome called punishment. Section 53 and Chapter III contain provisions for punishment under the Indian Penal Code 1860.
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai
Issue: Covid-19 Strict Rules
Judgment: Jacob Pulivel v. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark case on the Covid-19 vaccination drive. The judiciary has rightfully balanced the interest of the public with government policy. However, the court specifically stated that the right to not get vaccinated is subsistent till the covid-19 cases remained low. The government is at liberty to bring any restrictions to avoid infection from spreading by bringing guidelines to prohibit unvaccinated people from attending workplaces.
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai
Issue: FERA- A Fundametal Policy of Indian Law
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the expression ‘public policy of India’ under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, would mean the ‘fundamental policy of Indian law’, and the understanding of ‘fundamental policy of Indian law’ may be drawn from Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v National Highways Authority of India (2019) 15 SCC 131, which held that the same is in accordance with understanding of the Supreme Court in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v General Electric Co. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 644], wherein it was held that the violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, a law enacted and enforced in national economic interest and disregarding the Supreme Court, would be a gross contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law.
Bench: THE HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
Issue: Whether a direction given to an accused to give sample of his voice for comparison would violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Judgment: The Hon’ble Kerala HC has held in the case of Mahesh Lal N.Y. vs. State Of Kerala that the consent of the accused is not required for the purpose of obtaining their voice sample for comparison, as the same has already been established and is not considered to be a violation of the doctrine of self incrimination as envisaged in Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Bench: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai
Issue: Whether the Kerala government was legislative competent to enact The Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998(state act)? Whether it is constitutional under article 254 of The Constitution of India?
Whether the state act encroaches upon the judicial power of the state, are involved in the present appeals?
Judgment: The Supreme Court after interpreting every aspect of the case held that the act which was passed by the Kerala government is constitutional in nature and justified to a great extent giving due regard to the doctrine of pith and substance. However, if any order is passed with an intent to surpass the arbitration clause, then it will be considered to narrow the power of the judiciary. It will be restricting the powers vested with the judiciary and will be against the doctrine of separation of power. Hence, the bench comprising L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai held the act to be unconstitutional and dismissed the same.
Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Bivas Pattanaya
Issue: The question before the Court was, whether the trial courts may sentence the accused to life imprisonment till death or without remission.
Judgment: The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court ruled in Monirul Molla v. State of West Bengal that the trial courts may only sentence accused to life imprisonment in rape cases and in no other circumstances.
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai
Facts: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation entered into a Concession Agreement with a consortium led by Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. viz., Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.
Issue: Before the court is, whether the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court erred in its judgment by setting aside the award and deviating from the settled principles for interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act?
Judgement
The Supreme Court disagreed with the judgment of the Division Bench as the termination notice was valid. The Supreme Court then upheld the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal concerning the validity of the certificate issued by CMRS. Lastly, given the confines of Section 34 of the Act, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had erred on dual fronts viz., (i) by re-appreciating facts and (ii) by substituting its view with that of the Arbitral Tribunal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restored the arbitral award that was passed in favor of DAMEPL.
Bench: Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and Aniruddha Bose.
Issue: co Sensitive Zone (ESZ)
Judgment: In a significant order, the Supreme Court directed that each protected forest should have an Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of 1 kilometer.
The Court Further directed that no permanent structure will be allowed within the zone. Moreover, mining cannot be permitted. If the existing eco-sensitive zone goes beyond the 1 km buffer zone or any statutory instrument prescribes a higher limit, such extended boundary shall prevail.
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari, Hon’Ble Ms. Kohli
Issue: right of private defense
Judgment: The Supreme Court of India held that Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 provides for the circumstances in which a person can claim the right of private defense of the body can be stretched to the extent of voluntarily causing death. According to the ruling, the defendant must be able to show that the conditions were such that there was a plausible basis to believe he would sustain severe harm, possibly even death.
Bench: Justices C.T Ravishukla and Sudhanshu Dhulia
Issue: recalling of the witness
Judgment: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 311. Merely because a different statement given by the same prosecution witness in another case that itself would not be a reason for recalling the witness. (Cont.)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concern over the health of farmers' leader Dallewal and…
The Delhi High Court will hear AAP MP Raghav Chadha’s plea on December 19, where…
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stated that its doors were “always open” to the demands…
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the virtual presence of Rohit and Sachin Chikara,…
The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the ED regarding the bail application…
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted 2 weeks to the co-accused in the Yasin Malik…