After College Classroom Handout

CASE SUMMARY

MARCH 2023 JUDGMENT SUMMARY

Bench- A.S. Bopanna, J.B. Pardiwala

Date- 14-03-23

c m
Name of the case- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. V. VBR Menon ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185)

o
1.
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

rs .
e
2. Section 5 in The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
3. THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
4.
5.
Section 3(3) in The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

an
Section 26 in The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
k
r
Referred Cases-
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, it was held that the NGT has been given

o p
wide discretionary powers to secure the ends of justice. This power is coupled with the duty to be
exercised for achieving the objectives. The intention understandably being to preserve and protect the
environment and the matters connected thereto.

T
Issue- Vapour recovery system mechanism mandatory for petrol pumps.

Ratio Decidendi- The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 was enacted to provide for strict liability for
damages arising out of any accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for the
establishment of a National Environment Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising
from such accident, with a view to giving relief and compensation for damages to persons, property and
the environment. However, the National Environment Tribunal, which had a very limited mandate, was not
established. The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was enacted to establish the National
Environmenttr-Appellate
6M2R4T7T8SAuthority to hear appeals with respect to restriction of areas in which any industries,
0S5S
operations or processes or class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be
carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The National
Environment Appellate Authority has a limited workload because of the narrow scope of its jurisdiction.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has directed that all the retail petroleum outlets located in cities having
population of more
tr-6J2I4Dthan 105Hlakh and having turn over of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the Vapour
7A8B0A
Recovery System(VRS) mechanism. This should be done within the fresh time line prescribed in the
circular issued by the Central Pollution Control Board on June 4, 2021. A bench comprising Justices
Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala affirmed the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal,
Chennai Bench regarding installation of VRS in retail petroleum outlets across the country.
0S5S
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
 Name of the case- Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242)
Bench- B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
Date- 16-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
2. Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code

Referred cases-
1. Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, it was held that it is our duty to make sure that miscarriage of justice is
avoided at all costs and the benefit of doubt, if any, given to the accused.
2. Gireesan Nair & Others v. State of Kerala, it was held that where the accused has been shown to the

m
witness or even his photograph has been shown by the investigating officer prior to a TIP, holding an
identification parade in such facts and circumstances remains inconsequential.

Issue- Evidentiary value of TIP if the accused was known to the victim

.c o
Ratio Decidendi- Identification parades are not primarily meant for the court. They are meant for

rs
investigation purposes. The object of conducting a test identification parade is twofold. First is to enable
the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect is really the one who was seen

k e
by them in connection with the commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities
that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence.
So the officer conducting the test identification parade should ensure that the said object of the parade is

n
achieved. If he permits dilution of the modality to be followed in a parade, he should see to it that such

a
relaxation would not impair the purpose for which the parade is held.

r
Judgment- The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted for the offence of murder. A

p
bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol set aside the concurrent findings of guilt recorded
by the trial court and the High Court. “We reiterate that the entire necessity for holding an investigation

o
parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a

T
test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence
are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source”, the bench
observed.

Name of the case- Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197)
Bench- Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal
Date- 14-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Section 34 in The Indian0SPenal Code
2R4T7T8S 5S
2. Section 302 in The
tr-6M Indian Penal Code
3. The Indian Penal Code
4. Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code

Issue- Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession

0A 5H
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
Ratio Decidendi- As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a
weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession
provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement.
The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the
natural course of human conduct, normally, atr-person
6M2R4T7Twould
8S0S5S confide about a crime committed by him only
with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to
someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the
confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not
 required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires
more credibility.
Judgment- Highlighting the evidentiary value and the circumstances under which extra-judicial confessions
can be accepted, the Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted of double murders under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. At the outset, the Court noted that the extra-judicial confession,
though a weak piece of evidence, can be sustained provided its voluntary. The evidentiary value of an
extra-judicial confession also depends on the person to whom it is made, it added.

Name of the case- Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs State of West Bengal ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171)
Bench- Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karo
Date- 03-03-23

m
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
1. Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
2. Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Referred Cases-

.c o
rs
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, court held that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

k e
2. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, court held that there is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”.

r an
Issue- Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession

Ratio Decidendi- It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It

p
has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its
credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it

o
is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before

T
placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that
conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of
evidence.
Judgment- Reiterating that it is a weak piece of evidence, the Supreme Court of India recently observed
that the credibility of an extra-judicial confession decreases when the surrounding circumstances are
doubtful. A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol said that Courts would generally look for an
independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra-judicial confession.

Name of the case- Kashibai v. State of Karnataka ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149)
Bench- Justices Ajay Rastogi
0S5S
and Bela M Trivedi
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
Date- 01-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code
2. Section 113A in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Section 34 in The Indian0A
Penal
5H Code
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
4. Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
5. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Referred cases-
1. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, court held that
tr-6M the
2R4T 7T8SCourt
0S5S should be extremely careful in assessing the
facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding
whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide.
2. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, court held that there should be intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is
 different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self- respect. Therefore, it
is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be
decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

Issue- Presumption under section 113-A for the offence of suicide

Ratio Decidendi- We are of the view that the mere fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a
period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act would not
automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of
her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty,
the presumption as defined under Section 498-A IPC, may attract, having regard to all other circumstances
of the case, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The

m
term “the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband” would indicate that the presumption is discretionary.

c o
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that the mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be

.
sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the

rs
accused guilty of Section 306 IPC(abetment to suicide). In this case, the accused (husband, mother in law
and father in law) were convicted under Section 498A and Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. This
conviction was upheld by the High Court.

k e
n
Name of the case- Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203)

a
Bench- Ajay Rastogi, Hon’Ble Ms. Trivedi
Date- 17-03-23

r
1.
Relevant Acts & Provisions-

o p
Section 202 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

T
2. Section 203 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. The Indian Penal Code
5. The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Referred cases-
1. Dwarka Nath Mondul v. Beni Madhab Banerjee, it was held that a fresh complaint can be entertained
where there is manifest error, or manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order or when fresh
evidence is forthcoming.
7T8S0S5S
2R4T
Issue- Judicial Activism
tr-6M vis-à-vis limits of the courts as per the Indian Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi- In our opinion, the jurisprudential enthusiasm and wisdom for doing the substantial justice
has to be applied by the courts within the permissible limits. The belief of self-righteousness or smugness
of the High Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review should not overawe the other authorities
discharging their statutory functions. We may not have to remind the High Courts that judicial restraint is a
0A5H
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
virtue, and the predilections of individual judges, howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be
operated in utter disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law.
Unwarranted judicial activism may cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities
but also in the mind of the litigants.
0S5S
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
Judgment- In a set back to Cardinal George Alencherry, the Major Archbishop of Syro-Malabar Church, the
Supreme Court on Friday refused to quash the criminal cases against him over alleged irregularities in the
sale of properties belonging to Ernakulam-Angamalay Archdiocese. The Court dismissed the Special
 Leave Petition filed by George Alencherry against the judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in
August 2021 which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against him over the land scam.

Name of the case- Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159)
Bench- Justice KM Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Date- 27-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. The Children Act, 1960
2. The Indian Penal Code
3. Section 9(2) in The Children Act, 1960

m
4. Section 7 in The Children Act, 1960
5. Section 9 in The Children Act, 1960

c o
Issue- Juvenile accused subjected to death penalty is to be released free or not

.
rs
Ratio Decidendi- Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and the 2007 Rules has nothing
to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion, etc. There may

k e
be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate
from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority
or a panchayat may not be correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the

correctness of those

r an
JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the

p
documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or
certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the

o
committee need to go for medical report for age determination.

T
Judgment- The Supreme Court released a death row convict upon finding that even though he was a
juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence he was tried as an adult and was sentenced to death.
Noting that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2015 Act), one cannot
be subjected to death penalty and the maximum punishment is three years sentence, a Bench comprising
Justice KM Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Hrishikesh Roy passed orders to release Narayan
Chetanram Chaudhary forthwith, after he has been in detention for over 28 years.

Name of the case- Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159)
Bench- B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath
Date- 03-03-23 0S5S
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
1. The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985
2. The Children Act, 1960
3. The Indian Penal Code
4. Section 9 in The6JChildren 0AAct,
5H 1960
tr- 2I4D7A8B
5. Section 25 in The Children Act, 1960

Issue- Death penalty awarded to a juvenile at the time of commission of a crime.

Ratio Decidendi- The sum and substance of the tr-6Mabove discussion

2R4T7T8S0S5S is that in one set of cases this Court has
found the juvenile guilty of the crime alleged to have been committed by him but he has gone virtually
unpunished since this Court quashed the sentence awarded to him. In another set of cases, this Court has
taken the view, on the facts of the case that the juvenile is adequately punished for the offence committed
by him by serving out some period in detention. In the third set of cases, this Court has remitted the entire
 case for consideration by the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board, both on the innocence or guilt of the
juvenile as well as the sentence to be awarded if the juvenile is found guilty. In the fourth set of cases, this
Court has examined the case on merits and after having found the juvenile guilty of the offence, remitted
the matter to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board on the award of sentence.
Judgment- The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence imposed on a convict for the rape and murder
of a minor girl after he was found to be a juvenile at the time of the offence. The convict had approached
the Top Court after the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial
court. While the appeal was pending in the Supreme Court, he filed an application claiming juvenility. The
Supreme Court then asked the trial court to enquire about his claim of juvenility. The trial court reported
that his date of birth was conclusively proved to be 25.07.2002. This meant that on the date of the offence,
15.12.2017, he was 15 years old.

m
Name of the case- Guna Mahto vs State of Jharkhand ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 240)
Bench- B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
Date- 16-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

.c o
rs
1. Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code
2. Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code

Cases referred-

k e
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Mahrashtra, it was held that the circumstances from which the

n
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

a
2. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that the facts so established should be

r
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be

o p
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

Issue- Conviction based on doubts and circumstances

T
Ratio Decidendi- It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case revolving around
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and
the circumstances relied upon must point out only towards one hypothesis, that is, the guilt of the accused
alone and none else. On various occasions, this Court has stated essential conditions that must be fulfilled
before conviction of an accused can take place based on circumstantial evidence.

Judgment- The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was concurrently convicted by the trial court
and the High Court for the alleged murder of his wife thirty five years ago. “In our considered view, the
courts below have seriously erred in passing the order of conviction based on incorrect and incomplete
2R4T7T8S0S5S
appreciation tr-
of6Mevidence, causing serious prejudice to the accused, also resulting into travesty of justice”,
a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol stated after finding serious deficiencies in the
case built on circumstantial evidence.

Name of the case- Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186)
Bench- B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
0A5H
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
Date- 14-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provision-

1. Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
2. Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code tr-6M2R4T7T8S
0S5S

Referred Cases-
1. Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, court held that the non-explanation of the injuries sustained
by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important
circumstance.
 2. Ramashish Ray v. Jagdish Singh, court held that previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one
hand, it can provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled
out.

Issue- Non-explaination of injuries by the prosecution in a murder trial

Ratio Decidendi- First information report, in a case of this nature, provides for a valuable piece of evidence
although it may not be a substantial evidence. The reason for insisting on lodging of first information report
without undue delay is to obtain the earlier information in regard to the circumstances in which the crime
had been committed, the name of the accused, the parts played by them, the weapons which had been
used as also the names of eyewitnesses. Where the parties are at loggerheads and there had been
instances which resulted in death of one or the other, lodging of a first information report is always

m
considered to be vital.” As held by this Court, the FIR is a valuable piece of evidence, although it may not
be substantial evidence. The immediate lodging of an FIR removes suspicion with regard to over implication

o
of number of persons, particularly when the case involved a fight between two groups. When the parties

c
are at loggerheads, the immediate lodging of the FIR provides credence to the prosecution case.

.
Judgment- The Supreme Court reiterated that omission on the part of the prosecution to explain injuries

rs
on the person of the accused assumes greater importance where the evidence consists of interested
witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution.

k e
A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol reversed conviction
imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court primarily on the grounds that, the
prosecution had not explained the injuries on the person of the accused; the delay in filing the FIR; and

parties.

r an
evidence consisted of interested witnesses, especially it being a case of pre-existing rivalry between the

p
Name of the case- Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152)
Bench- B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
Date- 01-03-23

o
1.
2. T
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
Section 161 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code

Referred cases-
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, it was held by the court that the circumstances
taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that
within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of
explanation on any 0S hypothesis
5S
other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his
innocence. tr-6M2R4T7T8S
2. Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc, court held that in a case of circumstantial
evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances
necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the
guilt of the accused.
6J2I4D7A8B0A
5H
tr-

Issue- Non-recovery of corpse in a murder trial

Ratio Decidendi- In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an important role to play. Motive may
also have a role to play even in a case of direct
tr-6Mevidence but it carries much greater importance in a case
2R4T7T8S0S5S
of circumstantial evidence than a case of direct evidence. It is an important link in the chain of
circumstances. The principle of corpus delicti has judgments on both sides stating that conviction can be
recorded in the absence of the recovery of the corpus and the other view that no conviction could be
recorded in the absence of recovery of the corpus. The later view is for the reason that if subsequently the
 corpus appears as alive, someone may have been convicted and sentenced and suffered incarceration for
no crime committed by him.

Judgment- The Supreme Court, reversed a conviction recorded by the Trial Court, affirmed by the Tripura
High Court on the ground that major links of the chain of circumstances had not been proved by the
prosecution evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence. A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai
and Justice Vikram Nath was of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where
a case based on circumstances evidence was not made out, it would be unjust to uphold the conviction.
Considering the same, the Bench noted that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. It acquitted the
accused of all charges and directed to release him.

Name of the case- Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155)

m
Bench- K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, C.T. Ravikumar
Date- 02-03-23

1.
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
Article 324 in The Constitution Of India 1949

.c o
rs
2. Article 326 in The Constitution Of India 1949
3. Article 324(2) in The Constitution Of India 1949
4.
5.
The Representation of the People Act, 1950
THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT, 1850

k e
Referred cases-

an
1. In Indian Aluminium Co. and others v. State of Kerala, court held that the adjudication of the rights of

r
the parties is the essential judicial function. Legislature has to lay down the norms of conduct or rules

o p
which will govern the parties and the transactions and require the court to give effect to them.

Issue- Whether right to vote is a fundamental right or a constitutional right.

T
Ratio Decidendi- the right to vote was denied to women and those were socially oppressed. Our
Constitution took a visionary step by extending franchise to everyone. In that way, the right to vote
enshrines the protection guaranteed under Article 15 and 17…The right to take part in the conduct of public
affairs as a voter is the core of the democratic form of government, which is a basic feature of the
Constitution. The right to vote is an expression of the choice of the citizen, which is a fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(a). The right to vote is a part of a citizen’s life as it is their indispensable tool to shape
their own destinies by choosing the government they want. In that sense, it is a reflection of Article 21.
Otherwise, they had stressed the importance of the right to vote and universal adult franchise.Seventy-five
years after Independence, we have the opportunity to realize their absolute vision by recognizing what they
4T7T8S0S5S
to 2R
could not duetr-6M socio-political circumstances of their time.
Judgment- The Supreme Court’s decision to reform the process of making appointments to the Election
Commission has once again sparked the debate surrounding the status of citizens’ right to vote. The
Constitution bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT
Ravikumar was of the view that right to vote is a Constitutional right. The four judges in majority however
refrained from making a 0A
final
5H judicial declaration in this regard, citing the 2006 judgment in Kuldip Nayar vs
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
Union Of India, where a bench of coordinate strength had held that “there is no Constitutional Right”. In his
concurring opinion however, Justice Rastogi observed that right to vote is not merely a constitutional right,
but a component of Part III of the Constitution. He goes on to state that right to vote is not limited only to
Article 326, but flows through Article 15, 17, 19, 21 of the Constitution.
0S5S
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
 Name of the case- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217
Bench- Hon’Ble The Justice, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date- 21-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Section 65B in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. The Indian Penal Code
4. Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. Section 65A in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Referred Cases-

m
1. Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar, court held that before imposing the extreme penalty of death sentence,
the Court should satisfy itself that death sentence is imperative, as otherwise the convict would be a

o
threat to the society, and that there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the convict, after giving

c
the convict an effective, meaningful, real opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence, by
producing material.

.
Issue- Rarest of the rare doctrine and it’s applicability.

k e rs
Ratio Decidendi- Death sentence cases are a distinct category of cases altogether. Quite apart from Article
134 of the Constitution granting an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court in all death sentence

n
cases, and apart from death sentence being granted only in the rarest of rare cases, two factors have

a
impressed us. The first is the irreversibility of a death penalty. And the second is the fact that different

r
judicially trained minds can arrive at conclusions which, on the same facts, can be diametrically opposed

p
to each other. Adverting first to the second factor mentioned above, it is well known that the basic principle
behind returning the verdict of death sentence is that it has to be awarded in the rarest of rare cases. There

o
may be aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances which are to be examined by the Court. At the

T
same time, it is not possible to lay down the principles to determine as to which case would fall in the
category of rarest of rare cases, justifying the death sentence. It is not even easy to mention precisely the
parameters or aggravating/ mitigating circumstances which should be kept in mind while arriving at such a
question. Though attempts are made by Judges in various cases to state such circumstances, they remain
illustrative only.
Judgment- The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, commuted the death sentence awarded for kidnapping and
murder of a 7 year old child to life imprisonment for not less than twenty years without remission of
sentence. A Bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha
observed that though the crime was grave and unpardonable, ‘the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires that the
death sentence not be imposed
0S5S
only by taking into account the grave nature of crime but only if there is no
possibility of tr-6M2R4T7T8S in a criminal. The Court noted that the scope of review is quite narrow and in case
reformation
of criminal proceedings it cannot be exercised except on the ground of error apparent on the face of record.
It observed that the grounds raised by the petitioner (Sundar) have already been dealt with by all the Courts.
Moreover, the case of the prosecution is founded on consistent interlinked evidence.

Name of the case- Royden0A5HHarold Buthello vs State of Chattisgarh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 154
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
Bench- A.S. Bopanna, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Date- 01-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
tr-6M2RAct, 1985
4T7T8S0S5S
2. Section 22(b) in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Referred Cases-
 1. State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Committee, it was held that though there is no inflexible guideline or a
straightjacket formula laid down, the power to transfer the investigation is an extraordinary power. It is
to be used very sparingly and in an exceptional circumstance where the Court on appreciating the facts
and circumstance arrives at the conclusion that there is no other option of securing a fair trial without
the intervention and investigation by the CBI or such other specialized investigating agency which has
the expertise.

Issue- Direction of investigation to CBI

Ratio Decidendi- Despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing
any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these
constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its

m
exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is
concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should

o
be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter

c
of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This

.
extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes

rs
necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have
national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice

k e
and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and
with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process
lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.

n
Judgment- The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the Court’s power to transfer cases to the Central

a
Bureau of Investigation or any other specialised agency is an extraordinary power and therefore, should

r
be used sparingly. A Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the transfer

p
of a case should be made to a specialised agency only if there’s no other option of securing a fair trial
otherwise. The Bench was considering an appeal of a person who was accused of alleged possession and

o
sale of 9.2 grams of cocaine. He was challenging two orders of the Chhattisgarh High Court which refused

T
to transfer his case to the CBI and to quash the proceedings initiated against him

Name of the case- State Bank of India vs Rajesh Agarwal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243
Bench- Hon’Ble The Justice, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala
Date- 27-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949
2. BANKING REGULATION ACT,1949
3. The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
4T7T8S0S5S
tr-6M2RCode
4. The Indian Penal
5. Article 19(1)(g) in The Constitution Of India 1949

Referred cases-
1. Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. V. Masood Ahmed Khan, it was held that the lender banks should provide an
opportunity to a borrower
0A5H by furnishing a copy of the audit reports and allow the borrower a reasonable
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
opportunity to submit a representation before classifying the account as fraud.

Issue- Right of hearing even before registration of FIR

Ratio Decidendi- Principles of natural justice are

tr-6Mnot
2R4Tapplicable
7T8S0S5S at the stage of reporting a criminal offence,
which is a consistent position of law adopted by this Court. In Union of India v. W N Chadha, a two-judge
bench of this Court held that that providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused in every criminal case
before taking any action against them would “frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action
as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and make the provisions of law relating to the investigation
 lifeless, absurd, and self-defeating.” Again, a two-judge bench of this Court in Anju Chaudhary v. State of
UP has reiterated that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not provide for right of hearing before
the registration of an FIR. The rule of audi alteram partem ought to be read in Clauses 8.9.4 and 8.9.5 of
the Master Directions on Fraud. Consistent with the principles of natural justice, the lender banks should
provide an opportunity to a borrower by furnishing a copy of the audit reports and allow the borrower a
reasonable opportunity to submit a representation before classifying the account as fraud. A reasoned
order has to be issued on the objections addressed by the borrower
Judgment- The Supreme Court has held that an accused cannot claim to have a right of hearing before the
registration of an FIR and that the principles of natural justice are not applicable at the stage of reporting a
criminal offence. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli made
this observation while deciding the issue whether borrowers have the right to be heard before their accounts
are classified as fraudulent in terms of the RBI’s Master Directions on Frauds.

Name of the case- Pulen Phukan v. State of Assam 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 265
Bench- B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
Date- 28-03-23

c o m
1.
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code

rs .
2.
3.
4.
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code

k e
5. Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code

r an
Issue- Doubt raised on the investigation done by the police in a murder trial

o p
Ratio Decidendi- The job of the prosecution is not to accept the complainant’s version as Gospel Truth and
proceed in that direction but the investigation must be made in a fair and transparent manner and must

T
ascertain the truth. The evidence collected during investigation should then be analysed by the
Investigating Officer and accordingly a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC should be submitted.
Further, the duty of the Trial Court is to carefully scrutinise the evidence, try to find out the truth on the basis
of evidence led. Wherever necessary the Trial Court may itself make further inquiry on its own with regard
to facts and circumstances which may create doubt in the minds of the Court during trial. If the investigation
is unfair and tainted then it is the duty of the Trial Court to get the clarifications on all the aspects which
may surface or may be reflected by the evidence so that it may arrive at a just and fair conclusion. If the
Trial Court fails to exercise this power and discretion vested in it then the judgment of the Trial Court may
be said to be vitiated.
Judgment- The Supreme Court recently acquitted four persons who were convicted for a murder which
7T8S0S5S
6M2R4TAfter
happened in tr-1989. appreciating the evidence, the Court formed an opinion that the case might have
been set up by the police themselves after killing the deceased in the process of arrest. The Court was
hearing an appeal challenging a Gauhati High Court judgement, which confirmed a Trial Court judgement
convicting 11 in a murder case. Challenging this, four out of the 11 moved the Supreme Court.

Name of the case- State0A

of5HChattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
Bench- S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
Date- 01-03-23
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
1. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 0S5S
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
2. Section 13(1)(b) in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
3. Section 13(2) in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
4. Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
5. Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
 Referred cases-
1. Issue- Is corruption the cause of unequal distribution of wealth?
Ratio Decidendi- Though it is the preambular promise of the Constitution to secure social justice to the
people of India by striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth, it is yet a distant dream. If not the
main, one of the more prominent hurdles for achieving progress in this field is undoubtedly ‘corruption’.
Corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life. It is not now limited
to the spheres of activities of governance; regrettably, responsible citizens say it has become a way of
one’s life. Indeed, it is a matter of disgrace for the entire community that not only on the one hand is
there a steady decline in steadfastly pursuing the lofty Ideals which the founding fathers of our
Constitution had in mind, degradation of moral values in society is rapidly on the rise on the other. Not
much debate is required to trace the root of corruption. ‘Greed’, regarded in Hinduism as one of the
seven sins, has been overpowering in its impact.

m
Judgment- In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court of India recently lamented, that corruption was
one of the main reasons as to why the ‘preambular promise’ of the Constitution to achieve equal distribution

o
of wealth remains a distant dream. “Though it is the preambular promise of the Constitution to secure social

c
justice to the people of India by striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth, it is yet a distant dream. If

.
not the main, one of the more prominent hurdles for achieving progress in this field is undoubtedly

rs
‘corruption’. Corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life”, a Bench
of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed.

k e
Name of the case- Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232
Bench- Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal
Date- 23-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

r an
1.
2.
3.

o p
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 13(1)(d) in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

T
4. Neeraj Dutta vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022
5. Section 13(2) in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Cases referred-
1. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), it was held that the demand and recovery both must be
proved to sustain conviction under the Act.

Issue- Bribery accused released after 30 years of FIR filed.

Ratio Decidendi- The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an
tr-6M2R4T 7T8S0S5S
illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts
have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis
of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering
whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is
subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. In the event of
complaint turns6J‘hostile’, or5Hhas died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal
0A
tr- 2I4D7A8B
gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence,
either orally or by documentary evidence or the presumption can prove the case by circumstantial evidence.
The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
Judgment- The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act
1988 for accepting a bribe of Rupees 300 intr-the 6M2Ryear 2003.
4T7T8S0S5S The convict, who was working as a cleaner,
was accused to taking bribe for supplying a copy of the death certificate to the complainant. The Supreme
Court allowed his appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High
Court. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal noted that the demand of illegal
gratification was not proved in the case. As per the recent judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench in
 Neeraj Dutta vs State 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 the demand and recovery both must be proved to sustain
conviction under the Act.
Name of the case- Secretary of Consumer Affairs vs Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161
Bench- M.R. Shah, Manoj Misra
Date- 03-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
2. Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949
3. Section 30 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
4. Article 233 in The Constitution Of India 1949
5. Section 24 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Referred Cases-

o m
1. Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala, court held that transgression of constitutional limitations and

c
intrusion into the judicial power by the legislature is violative of the principle of separation of powers,
the rule of law and of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

rs
Issue- Appointment of practicing advocates as member of consumer courts..
k e
Ratio Decidendi- The Commissions are quasi judicial authorities and the standards expected from the
Tribunal should be as nearly as possible to the appointment of Judges…There is a need to assess the skill,

n
competency of the candidates before they are empanelled. The Rule 2020 does not contemplate written

a
examinations to assess the merits of candidates. Till the amendments are made in order to do complete

r
justice under article 142 we direct that in future a person having Bachelor’s degree from a recognised

p
university and who is a person of ability, integrity standing and having special knowledge and professional
experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration etc. shall be

o
treated as qualified for appointment as President and member of State and District Commission. We also

T
direct that for appointment the appointment shall be based on the performance in 2 papers. Qualifying
marks in the papers shall be 50% and there must be a viva for 50 marks each.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that persons having a Bachelors degree and having a professional
experience of at least 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration etc. should be treated
as qualified for appointment as President and members of State Consumer Commissions and District
Consumer Forums. This means that lawyers with at least 10 years standing are eligible for appointment as
President and members of State and District Consumer Commissions. The Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) to quash the provisions of Consumer Protection Rules,
2020, framed by Central Government u/s 101 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, which prescribe a
minimum professional 0S experience
5S
of 20 years and 15 years for adjudicating members to the State
tr-6M2R4T7T8S and District forums respectively and which did away with the requirement of a
consumer commissions
written exam for appointment.

Name of the case- ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156
Bench- Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna
Date- 01-03-23 6J2I4D7A8B0A5H
tr-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. The Constitution of India, 1949
2. Article 14, The Constitution of Indian, 1949
0S5S
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
Issue- Changing names of city in the name of secularism.

Ration Decidendi- The golden principle of fraternity which in enshrined in the preamble is of the greatest
importance and rightfully finds its place in the preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that the
 maintenance of harmony among different sections alone will lead to a true notion of nationhood, bonding
sections together for the greater good of the nation and find fraternity. We are, therefore, of the view that
the reliefs which have been sought for should not be granted by the Court acting as the guardian of
Fundamental Rights under Article 32 bearing in mind the values which a court must keep uppermost in
mind as the Preamble gives us a clear light in this direction.
Judgment- A country cannot remain a prisoner of the past”, observed the Supreme Court while dismissing
a PIL seeking to rename historical cities which have been named after “foreign invaders”. “The history of
any nation cannot haunt the present and future generations to the point that succeeding generations
become prisoners of the past”, a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna stated while
affirming the secular nature of the country. "India, that is Bharat, is a secular country”, the bench observed
in the beginning of the order.

m
Name of the case- State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184
Bench- S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
Date- 14-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

.c o
rs
1. Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
2. National Textile Corpn. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S Haribox Swalram & Ors on 5 April, 2004
3.
4.
5.
Article 304 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Article 301 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Article 19(1)(g) in The Constitution Of India 1949

k e
an
Issue- Test to determine jurisdiction of High Courts

r
p
Ratio Decidendi- While dealing with an objection as to lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition
on the ground that the cause of action has not arisen within its jurisdiction, a high court essentially has to

o
arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the averments made in the petition memo treating the contents as

T
true and correct. That is the fundamental principle. Bearing this in mind, we have looked into the petition
memo of and searched in vain to trace how at least part of the cause of action has been pleaded by the
petitioning company to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. This is a case where
clause (2) of Article 226 has been invoked by the High Court to clothe it with the jurisdiction to entertain
and try the writ petitions. The Constitutional mandate of clause (2) is that the ‘cause of action’, referred to
therein, must at least arise in part within the territories in relation to which the high court exercises
jurisdiction when writ powers conferred by clause (1) are proposed to be exercised, notwithstanding that
the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person is not within those territories.
Judgment- In a notable judgment explaining the concept of ‘cause of action’ under Article 226(2) of the
Constitution of India, the0SSupreme Court held that only those facts, which are relevant to the grant of the
2R4T7T8S 5S
relief, will give
tr-6Mrise to ‘cause of action’. Applying this principle, the Court held that a company cannot
challenge a GST notification issued by one state before a High Court located in another State only on the
ground that it has office there. The Court said that in the context of a writ petition, what would constitute
such ‘cause of action’ is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to
obtain relief as claimed. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based
on which the prayer can 0A
be5Hgranted. Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court.
Name of the case- Icon Education Society vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202
Bench- Dinesh Maheshwari, Sanjay Kumar
Date- 17-03-23 4T7T8S0S5S
tr-6M2R
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
1. Section 9(1) in The National Commission for Women Act, 1990
2. Section 9 in The National Commission for Women Act, 1990
3. Section 4 in The National Commission for Women Act, 1990
4. Article 30(1) in The Constitution Of India 1949
5. Section 4(1) in The National Commission for Women Act, 1990
Referred cases-
1. Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, in
this case the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh
Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for short, the Act of 2007’) was upheld.
2. P.A. Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, it was held that setting up a reasonable fee structure
is also a component of the right to establish and administer an institution, within the meaning of Article
30(1) of the Constitution, and every institution is free to devise its own fee structure subject to the
limitation that there can be no profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged directly or indirectly or
in any form.

m
Issue- Exemption to minority educational institutions established under article 30 of The Indian Constitution.

o
Ratio Decidendi- Setting up a reasonable fee structure is also a component of the right to establish and

c
administer an institution, within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and every institution is free

.
to devise its own fee structure subject to the limitation that there can be no profiteering and no capitation

rs
fee can be charged directly or indirectly or in any form. It was further held that it is permissible to regulate
admission and fee structure for achieving that purpose”, the bench observed after discussing the
precedents

k e
Judgment- The Supreme Court has held that a minority educational institution cannot claim complete
immunity from the exercise undertaken by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee by claiming

n
protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court was deciding the issue whether a

a
minority educational institution in the State of Madhya Pradesh is required to get the fees charged by it

r
fixed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Niji

short, the Act of 2007’).

o p
Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for

(SC) 241
T
Name of the case- Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw

Bench- Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Manoj Misra
Date- 24-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Issue- Whether test of affinity is integral to the determination of caste status made by the Caste Scrutiny
7T8S0S5S
Committee? tr-6M2R4T

Ratio Decidendi- While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the
Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were
somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a
determinative factor. However,
0A5H with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities,
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional
characteristics of the tribe. Hence, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the
link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe.
Judgment- The Supreme Court, on Friday, answered the reference pertaining to the question – whether
the affinity test is integral to the determinationtr-6Mof caste
2R4T 7T8S0Sstatus
5S made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
Affinity test is used to ascertain if the person follows the traditional cultural traits of the community. A Bench
comprising Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Manoj Misra held that affinity test is not a litmus
test to decide a caste name and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness
of a caste/tribe name in every case. Moreover, it observed that the occasion to conduct affinity test would
 arise only in those cases where the matter has been referred to the Vigilance Cell by the Scrutiny
Committee. However, it was also stated that when a case is required to be referred, the Scrutiny Committee
should record reasons as to why it is not satisfied with the material provided by the applicant.

Name of the case- Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 204
Bench- Justice MR Shah, Justice BV Nagarathna
Date- 17-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Section 24(2) in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
2. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
3. 3 Section 24 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Issue- Effect of a ruling based on a judgment which is now overruled.

c o m
Ratio Decidendi- Having held that the judgments/orders sought to be reviewed by the petitioners is

rs .
impermissible in law, the ground realities would also have to be now taken into consideration on account
of the passage of time. It is noted that Section 24 of the L.A. Act, 2013 is in the nature of a saving clause
which is evident on a reading of the same, including the proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the L.A.

k e
Act, 2013. The object is to save the acquisition as far as possible. Possibly taking a cue from the proviso,
this Court in the impugned judgments reserved liberty to the petitioners herein to initiate acquisition
proceedings afresh within one year in some of the cases failing which the land was to be returned to the

n
land owners if in possession of the review petitioners herein. Thus, if no fresh acquisition proceedings are

a
initiated within the said period of one year by issuing a notification under Section 11 of the L.A. 2013 Act

r
and if the review petitioners herein are in possession of the land, the physical possession thereof shall be
returned to original land owners.

p
Judgment- A Division Bench of the Supreme Court took a divergent view on the scope of review, when the

o
judgment relied on in the impugned order and all subsequent judgment that followed it is eventually

T
overruled by a superior court. While Justice MR Shah allowed the review petitions, Justice BV Nagarathna
opined that they are not maintainable and are in the teeth of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 Code
of Civil Procedure (Application for review of judgment) which categorically states that a fact that the decision
on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the
subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment.

Name of the case- Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203
Bench- Ajay Rastogi, Hon’Ble
0S5S
Ms. Trivedi
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
Date- 17-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Section 202 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Section 203 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Section 482 in The Code0AOf
5H Criminal Procedure, 1973
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
4. The Indian Penal Code
5. The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Referred cases-
1. Dwarka Nath Mondul v. Beni Madhab Banerjee, it 8S
tr-6M2R4T7T was
0S5Sheld that a fresh complaint can be entertained
where there is manifest error, or manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order or when fresh
evidence is forthcoming.

Issue- Right of alienation of the church asset and properties.

 Ratio Decidendi- The jurisprudential enthusiasm and wisdom for doing the substantial justice has to be
applied by the courts within the permissible limits. The belief of self-righteousness or smugness of the High
Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review should not overawe the other authorities discharging their
statutory functions. We may not have to remind the High Courts that judicial restraint is a virtue, and the
predilections of individual judges, howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter
disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law. Unwarranted
judicial activism may cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities but also in the
mind of the litigants.
Judgment- The Supreme Court on Friday refused to quash the criminal cases against him over alleged
irregularities in the sale of properties belonging to Ernakulam-Angamalay Archdiocese. The court
dismissed the special leave petition (SLP) filed by George Alencherry against the judgment delivered by

m
the Kerala High Court in August 2021 which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against him over
the land scam. At the same time, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure towards the subsequent orders

against him).

.c o
passed by the single bench of the High Court in Alencherry’s petition (after refusing to quash the case

rs
Name of the case- UoI And Ors. V. M/s. Union Carbide Corporation And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200
Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari
Date- 09-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

k e
1.
2.
3.
an
Article 142 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Section 9 in The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing Of Claims) Act, 1985

r
Section 6 in The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing Of Claims) Act, 1985

p
Issue- Failure of central government to provided compensation to the Union Carbide gas tragedy victims.

o
T
Ratio Decidendi- The Union has filed the present curative petitions seeking to reopen the settlement after
opposing attempts by private parties to do so. The scenario arising in case of a shortage was clearly
outlined in the review judgment, i.e. the responsibility was placed on the Union of India, being a welfare
State to make good the deficiency and to take out the relevant insurance policies. Surprisingly, we are
informed that no such insurance policy was taken out. This is gross negligence on part of the Union of India
and is a breach of the directions made in the review judgment. The Union cannot be negligent on this
aspect and then seek a prayer from this Court to fix such liability on UCC. We are equally dissatisfied with
the Union being unable to furnish any rationale for raking up this issue more than two decades after the
incident. Even assuming that the figures of affected persons turned out to be larger than contemplated
earlier, an excess amount 0S5S
of funds remained available to satisfy such claims.
6M2R4T7T8S
Judgment- Atr-Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the curative petition filed by Central
Government seeking to reopen the settlement with the Union Carbide Corporation (now Dow Chemicals)
to claim additional compensation for victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984. It noted that settlement
can be set aside only on the ground of fraud, but no ground of fraud has been pleaded by the Union of
India. However, the Court directed that a sum of INR 50 crores lying with RBI ought to be utilized by the
Union Government to satisfy
0A5H pending claims, if any. A Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Sanjiv
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
Khanna, Justice A.S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, which had reserved judgment
on January 12, 2023, said that the Union’s curative petition has no basis in legal principles. The Court
noted that the Union Government had itself failed to take out insurance policies as directed by the Apex
Court
0S5S
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
 Name of the case- Ms.X vs State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205
Bench- Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli
Date- 19-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Section 437, The Code of Criminal Procedure
2. Section 438, The Code of Criminal Procedure

Referred cases-
1. Jagjeet Singh And Others v. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu And Another, court held that a victim of the crime
has the right to be heard in the bail application of the accused.

m
Issue- Cancellation of bail in exceptional cases of offences being added in the FIR

o
Ratio Decidendi- Addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance where a Court can direct that the

c
accused be arrested and committed to custody even though an order of bail was earlier granted in his

.
favour in respect of the offences with which he was charged when his application for bail was considered

rs
and a favourable order was passed. The recourse available to an accused in a situation where after grant
of bail, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added to the FIR, is for him to surrender and apply

k e
afresh for bail in respect of the newly added offences. The investigating agency is also entitled to move the
Court for seeking the custody of the accused by invoking the provisions of 437(5)3 and 439(2)34 Cr.P.C.,
falling under Chapter XXXII of the Statute that deals with provisions relating to bails and bonds.

n
Judgment- The Supreme Court has reiterated that subsequent addition of more serious offences to the FIR

a
can be a circumstance for a Court to cancel the bail granted by it. “Addition of a serious offence can be a

r
circumstance where a Court can direct that the accused be arrested and committed to custody even though

p
an order of bail was earlier granted in his favour in respect of the offences with which he was charged when
his application for bail was considered and a favourable order was passed”, a bench comprising Justices

o
AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli observed while setting aside an order of the Bombay High Court which

T
granted bail to a man in a ‘casting couch’ case.

Name of the case- Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233
Bench- Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Aravind Kumar
Date- 21-03-23
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
1. The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
2. The Special Courts Act, 1979
3. The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949
4T7T8S0S5S
6M2RCode
5. Section 41 intr-The Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Referred Cases-
1. Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. Through Director, it was held that not only is there a duty of the Court but
also of the public prosecutors to plead correct legal position before the Court as officers of the Court.
2. Mahdoom Bava vs. Central
0A5H Bureau of Investigation, it was held that the appellants are entitled to be
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
released on bail, in the event of the Court choosing to remand them to custody, when they appear in
response to the summoning order.

Issue- Non-compliance of bail procedure orders given by Supreme Court to lower courts.
0S5S
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
Ratio Decidendi- The misuse of the criminal law is a matter of which the High Court and the lower courts
in this country must be alive. Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring
that the due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it.
Equally it is the duty of courts across the spectrum the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme
 Court to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens.
Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal
law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for
targeted harassment. Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the
vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule
of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty when one of these components is found
wanting.
Judgment- The Supreme Court was irked to note that even after 10 months of the judgment being passed,
the District judiciary is not complying with directions issued in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of
Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577, wherein it had laid down elaborate guidelines regarding arrest and
bail. It observed that the non-compliance would have a dual ramification – a) sending people to custody
when not required to be sent; b)creating further litigation, both of which the Court believed could not be

m
countenanced. A displeased Apex Court stated that if magistrates are passing orders in derogation of the
law laid down in the said judgment, they may be required to be sent to judicial academies for upgradation

the law laid by the Supreme Court is followed.

.c o
of their skills. The High Court having supervision over the District judiciary was also advised to ensure that

Bench- Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Hrishikesh Roy.

Date- 27-03-23

k rs
Name of the case- Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249

e
1.
2.
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The General Clauses Act, 1897

r an
3.
4.
5.

o p
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
Section 167 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 9 in The General Clauses Act, 1897

Referred cases-

T
1. ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla, court held that the right to personal liberty is directly related to the
inalienable right towards human dignity and personhood. The concept of dignity is central to our
Constitutional law discourse. In fact, the Preamble itself, provides the guarantee of upholding ‘the
dignity of the individual.

Issue- Whether days of remand should be calculated for default bail application.

Ratio Decidendi- The leaning towards the accused’s right to personal liberty by reducing the 60 day period
7T8S0S5S
6M2R4Tthan
to somethingtr-more 59 days, and a few hours, is based on the constitutional protection afforded to an
accused under Article 22(2) and Article 21. In this way, the Code’s application in dealing with an accused
would be consistent with the Inviolable right of personal liberty and dignity. The interpretation whereby
personal liberty is safeguarded and justice would not be compromised and in the grand scheme of things,
the unjustified detention of individuals is eschewed. As a court of law, once the legal stipulations of the
Code are satisfied, we are duty bound to apply the law and prevent unlawful detention and protect personal
0A5H
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
liberty.
Judgment- Answering a reference on a significant point of law, the Supreme Court has held that the day of
remand is to be included for considering for considering a claim for default bail. The remand period will be
calculated from the date when the Magistrate remanded the accused, held a bench comprising Justices
KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Hrishikesh tr-6MRoy.
2R4T7TThe
8S0S5Sbench observed that an interpretation which
advances personal liberty should be adopted.
 Name of the case- Union of India And Ors. V. Parashotam Dass 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224
Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar
Date- 21-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
2. Section 31 in the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007
3. Article 227(4) in The Constitution Of India 1949
4. Section 30 in the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007
5. Article 136(2) in The Constitution Of India 1949

Issue- Whether an appeal can be filed against an order of armed forces tribunal?

m
Ratio Decidendi- The power of judicial review is, however, confined not merely to deciding whether in

o
making the impugned laws the Central or State Legislatures have acted within the four corners of the

c
legislative lists earmarked for them; the courts also deal with the question as to whether the laws are made

rs .
in conformity with and not in violation of the other provisions of the Constitution… As long as some
fundamental rights exist and are a part of the Constitution, the power of judicial review has also to be
exercised with a view to see that the guarantees afforded by those rights are not contravened…. Judicial

k e
review has thus become an integral part of our constitutional system and a power has been vested in the
High Courts and the Supreme Court to decide about the constitutional validity of provisions of statutes. If
the provisions of the statute are found to be violative of any article of the Constitution, which is touchstone

provisions.

r n
for the validity of all laws, the Supreme Court and the High Courts are empowered to strike down the said

a
Judgment- The Supreme Court overruled its decision in Union of India And Ors. V. Major General Shri Kant

p
Sharma And Anr. Which barred the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
cases assailing orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul, Justice

o
AS Oka and Justice BV Nagarathna noted the decision in Major General Shri Kant Sharma And Anr. Had

T
indeed diluted provisions of judicial review, which forms the basic structure of the Constitution. Moreover,
it was held that the judgment in Major General Shri Kant Sharma is in the teeth of the judgments in L
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. And Ors., which held that
per se there are no restrictions on the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Name of the case- Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 219
Bench- Krishna Murari, Sanjay Karol
Date- 21-03-23

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

4T7T8S0S5S
6M2RCode
1. Section 439,tr-The of Criminal Procedure

Referred Cases-
1. Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, court held that the courts, while passing adverse remarks, must
be extremely careful and must resort to passing such remarks only if it is necessary to come to fair
conclusion in order to0Ameet
5H the ends of justice.
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
2. State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, court held that judges, must refrain from passing adverse remarks, as
the same can cause great mischief and might become an antithesis to the ends of achieving justice.

Issue- Limitation on passing of remarks during the Court proceedings.

0S5S
tr-6M2R4T7T8S
Ratio Decidendi- Remarks passed in court, due to the live broadcasting of court proceedings, now have
ramifications that are far reaching, and as can be seen in the present case, can cause great injury to the
reputation of the parties involved. In such a circumstance, it is essential for the courts to be extremely
cautious while passing adverse remarks against the parties involved, and must do so with proper
 justification, in the right forum, and only if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice. When the evidence is
not fully analysed, and a presumption of innocence is still operational in favour of the accused, the courts
must then be extremely cautious in passing adverse remarks against the accused. This becomes especially
important in cases where the party against whom the remarks are passed do not have a lis in the said
proceedings, for such comments, especially if passed by constitutional courts, can cause great injury to
the reputation of the parties at the receiving end of such remarks. This burden of caution on the courts has
been held in a catena of judgments by this Court.
Judgment- The Supreme Court cautioned judges against passing adverse remarks in court, unless
accompanied by a proper justification, in the right forum, and necessary to meet the ends of justice. A
bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the appeals filed by Karnataka
ADGP Seemant Kumar Singh, former Bengaluru Urban Deputy Commissioner J Manjunath and the
Karnataka ACB against certain oral remarks made by High Court judge Justice HP Sandesh which created

m
a sensation.

Bench- Hon’Ble The Justice, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Date- 21-03-23

. o
Name of the case- Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

c
1.
2.
3.
Relevant Acts & Provisions-
Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
The Constitution Of India 1949

k e rs
4.
5.

r an
Article 77 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Referred cases-

p
1. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd, the court in this case said that there is a need-based

o
requirement to conduct “judicial impact assessment” of all the Tribunals referable to the Finance Act,

T
2017 so as to analyse the ramifications of the changes in the framework of tribunals as provided under
the Finance Act, 2017.

Issue- Fundamental right of access to justice and its applicability.

Ratio Decidendi- Article 323-A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs because it
is an enabling provision which confers the Union Government with the power to establish an administrative
tribunal at its discretion (upon receiving a request from the relevant State Government in terms of the
Administrative Tribunals Act). The legal and factual context of the power to establish administrative
tribunals, the purpose of0S5S this power and the intention of the legislature establish that there is no duty to
6M2R4T 7T8S
exercise the tr-
power conferred by the Administrative Tribunals Act, such that the enabling provision becomes
a mandatory provision. The Union Government acted in valid exercise of its powers when it invoked Section
21 of the General Clauses Act read with Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act to rescind the
notification establishing the OAT because the decision to establish the OAT was an administrative decision
and not a quasi-judicial decision. Moreover, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is not repugnant to the
subject matter, context and
0A5Heffect of the Administrative Tribunals Act and is in harmony with its scheme and
tr-6J2I4D7A8B
object.
Judgment- Abolition of OAT does not violate right of access to justice as cases will be heard by High Court,
court said. The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under
the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must
house every forum of adjudication created by tr-6Mstatute
2R4T7T8Sor
0S5Sthe Constitution, observed the bench. It is an
undeniable fact that some courts and forums will be located in some towns and cities and not others. Some
or the other litigants will be required to travel some distance to access a particular forum or court.