COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

The Supreme Court Registry has released a detailed User Guide for limited physical hearings.  The ‘How to’ User guide answers the ‘How tos’ on

  1. e-Nomination of Counsel/Clerk for Physical hearing
  2. e-Application for Special Hearing Entry Pass
  3. e- Submission of Self-declaration Form

Some Key Points from the User Guide 

For e-Nomination of Counsel/Clerk for Physical hearing

  • AOR can nominate

1. Senior Counsel
2. Advocate-on-record (Other than the user)
3. Appearing counsel (Any other advocate otherwise eligible)
4. Party to the case represented by concerned AOR
5. Registered Clerk of the concerned AOR or nominee.

Total number of AORs appearing in the selected case will be displayed on the top of screen. The working capacity of the Court Room as per standard social distancing norms would also be on display.

  • How will the Limit be calculated: Limit per AOR is Calculated as per total number of AOR in a given case qua the working capacity of given Court Room.  If Limit per AOR is 0 in that case AOR can replace himself/herself with Senior Counsel or Appearing Counsel or Another AOR, as may be the case. If Limit per AOR is 2 in such case besides such AOR he or she can permit any two or combination of Senior Counsel or Appearing Counsel or Another AORs.
  • Entry of registered clerks is permitted to assist AOR or counsel for supplying physical material, as may be required, to argue a case. However, registered clerks
    are not permitted to enter inside the Court Room. Therefore, registered clerks are not counted as attendee inside the Court Room however his entry is permitted up
    to the Court Room. Therefore, Registered Clerk is not counted in the Limit of persons to be nominated by AOR in a given case.
  • If in a given case only AOR is permitted and such AOR replaces and nominates counsel in his place, in such event AOR will not be permitted inside the Court Room for that item number listed before the Court. In the Figure 6 name of AOR shall be at serial No. 1 by default. When AOR desires to replace himself/ herself, he or she can delete his/her entry and make fresh entry with appropriate replacement.
  • Mobile Number is mandatory field for nominating any person for physical hearing. On the basis of mobile number entry pass mechanism is designed, therefore, ensure that correct mobile number is entered, and it is verified before finally submitting nomination to the Registry.
  • On the day a given case is listed before the Court, nominated entries can be edited or changed till 09.00 am.

For e-Application for Special Hearing Entry Pass

  • AOR or Appearing Counsel or Arguing Counsel or Registered Clerk shall click on Special hearing entry pass link available on the official website Supreme Court of India.
  • Person nominated for special hearing and physical appearance before the Supreme Court of India shall enter his mobile number. If his number is registered by concerned AOR he shall receive OTP. If OTP is not received the concerned may contact respective AOR.
  • Photo ID uploaded while generating entry pass will be physically verified while permitting entry Photo ID is required for identification of the nominated person as Advocate or registered Clerk, as may be the case.
  • If on a particular day, appearance is to be marked in more than one case, multiple passes are required to be generated for that day. For each item number listed before the Court, a separate pass is required. Accordingly, one has to check schedule for the day and generate all passes listed for that day before the various Courts.
  • Before physically entering/ visiting the Supreme Court premises, the entrants have to mandatorily sign self-declaration form about fitness and good health ruling out possibility of self-infection

For e- Submission of Self-declaration Form

Any person or Advocate seeking to enter / visit the premises of the Supreme Court by generating Special Hearing Entry Pass, is mandatorily required to Sign in Selfdeclaration form. Self-declaration is to be signed in by entering OTP sent on registered mobile number only on the day of visit.

To download the user manual, click here.


Also read

SOP for limited physical hearings amidst COVIS-19 pandemic

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

After a 7-judge Committee of Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, Rohington Nariman, U U Lalit, A M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and L N Rao recommended re-commencing the physical hearings in some Courts, Chief Justice of India Justice SA Bobde has given the following directions for limited physical hearings amidst COVIS-19 pandemic:

1. On an experimental basis, and as a pilot scheme, physical hearing of matters may initially commence in three Court-rooms; eventually, number of matters or the number of Court-rooms may be increased or reduced, as the situation may warrant or permit;

2. Despite consent by the Advocates/Parties-in-Person, only such number of Counsels/parties may be permitted to appear during physical hearing inside Courtrooms, so that the total number does not exceed the working capacity of the Court(s) as determined considering the physical distancing norms;

3. If in a matter the number of parties is more, then one AOR and one Arguing Counsel per party will be allowed entry; one registered Clerk per party, as may be chosen by the AOR, shall be allowed entry to carry paper-books/journals etc. of the Counsels upto the Court-rooms;

4. Entry into the High Security Zone through proximity cards/long term passes shall be kept suspended, till further orders; entry of counsels/parties or such other stakeholders to appear for such limited physical hearing will be through daily “Special hearing passes” which will be issued by the Registry, on the basis of authorization by the concerned Advocate on Record.

5. Multiple sets of one chair and table are being placed inside the Court Rooms, in the areas demarcated for Advocates/Parties-in-Person, and it shall be incumbent upon the users to maintain minimum prescribed physical distancing norms between each set, which should not be removed from their positions;

6. Advocates/Parties-in-Person/Clerks or other stakeholders, who have been issued Special Hearing Passes, upon completion of necessary formalities, online or otherwise as may be notified in due time, shall enter the High Security Zone through the designated Gate, after subjecting themselves to the thermal and such other scanning devices as may be installed for detecting body temperature, infection status, etc.

7. On entering the High Security Zone, Advocates/Parties-in-Person would proceed to the staging areas/vacant Court-rooms as may be designated, and wait for their turn to enter respective Court Rooms where physical hearing of their respective case(s) may be scheduled, and they would proceed only through the movement corridors created and demarcated for the purpose;

8. At the staging/waiting area(s), concerned volunteers may also guide the Advocates/Parties-in-Person further, as and when their turn comes for entering the designated Court Room for hearing;

9. The entry into and exit from each Court Room shall be by separate doors; entrants into the Court Rooms are advised to use the sanitization devices for sanitizing their hands and also the papers and other items/articles, that they may seek to carry into the Court Rooms with them;

10. It may be noted that wearing of mask, frequent use of hand sanitizer and maintaining physical distancing norms is mandatory for all entrants into the Supreme Court premises, including the Court-rooms;

11. On completion of hearing of their respective case, the Advocates/Parties-in-Person/Clerks, etc. shall move out of the High Security Zone through the movement corridor and exit from the designated gates;

12. Advocates/Parties-in-Person having more than one case for physical hearing in the Court Rooms shall be issued separate Special Hearing Pass for each case and after hearing of one case is complete, they may wait in the designated staging/waiting area(s) for the purpose for appearing for the next hearing(s);

13. In order to facilitate video/tele-conferencing for the Advocates/Parties-in-Person, a dedicated VC Facilitation Centre is located in Block ‘C’, Ground Floor, Additional Building Complex, Supreme Court of India, which can be accessed through Gate No.1 of that Complex.


ALSO READ

COVID-19| 7-judge Committee recommends re-commencing limited physical hearing in Supreme Court

COVID-19| No in-person hearings in SC till further notice; Extremely urgent matters to be heard via video conference

COVID-19| Here’s the list of directions issued by CJI Bobde in the light of Coronavirus lockdown

COVID-19| SC extends limitation period for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals, etc

COVID-19| SC extends limitation prescribed under the A&C, 1996 and the NI Act,1881

Know thy Judge

As Justice N. V. Ramana, next in line to become the Chief Justice of India, celebrates his 63rd birthday today, let’s have a look at his journey so far in shaping the justice system.

Here are some of the notable judgments that Justice Ramana has been a part of:

Jindal Stainless Ltd v. State of Haryana, (2017) 12 SCC 1: A 9-judge bench, by 7:2 majority, upheld the validity of the entry tax imposed by the States on goods imported from other States. The Bench held that taxes simpliciter are not within the contemplation of Part XIII of the Constitution of India and that the word ‘Free’ used in Article 301 does not mean “free from taxation”. T.S. Thakur, CJ and Dr.  A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ, giving the majority view said that States are well within their right to design their fiscal legislations to ensure that the tax burden on goods imported from other States and goods produced within the State fall equally. Read more 

Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1459: The 5-judge constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and NV Ramana, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has held that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information. In the 250-pages long judgment, Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote the majority opinion for the Bench and Justices NV Ramana and DY Chandrachud gave separate but concurring opinion. Read more 

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637: A 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, JJ has asked J&K administration to review all orders imposing curbs on telecom and internet services in the state in a week and put them in public domain. “The existing Suspension Rules neither provide for a periodic review nor a time limitation for an order issued under the Suspension Rules. Till this gap is filled, the Review Committee constituted under Rule 2(5) of the Suspension Rules must conduct a periodic review within seven working days of the previous review, in terms of the requirements under Rule 2(6).” Read more 

Foundations for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 453 : A 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, JJ has constituted a three-member committee to look into demand for allowing 4G mobile internet in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Noticing that since the issues involved affect the State and the nation, the Court found it appropriate to constitute a Special Committee comprising of the following Secretaries at national, as well as State, level to look into the prevailing circumstances and immediately determine the necessity of the continuation of the restrictions in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Read more 

Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, (2016) 8 SCC 1: A 5-judge constitutional bench of Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and N.V.Ramana, JJ. quashed the order of the Governor, preponing the 6th session of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly by a month without consulting the Chief Minister, Council of Ministers or the Speaker, on account of being violative of Article 163 read with Article 174 of the Constitution of India. Read more 

Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar and Co., (2018) 9 SCC 1 : A five-Judge Constitution Bench speaking through N.V. Ramana, J., while invalidating the ratio of Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of Customs(1997) 6 SCC 564, laid at rest the controversy regarding the interpretation of an ambiguous provision exempting tax. The Bench noticed that there was distinction between interpreting a charging section and an exempting section. In case of ambiguity in a charging section, the interpretation has to be made in favour of the assessee. Read more

Roger Mathew v. South India Bank Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1456 : A 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and NV Ramana, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has upheld the validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and held that the said Section does not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative functions as there are adequate principles to guide framing of delegated legislation, which would include the binding dictums of this Court. The Court struck down the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, made under Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, for being contrary to the parent enactment and the principles envisaged in the Constitution. Read more 

Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of T.N., (2016) 2 SCC 725 : The bench held that the appointment of Archakas in temples will have to be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to their due identification as well as their conformity with constitutional mandates and principles. Exclusion of some and inclusion of a particular segment or denomination for appointment as Archakas would not violate Article 14 only so long such inclusion/exclusion is not based on criteria of caste, birth or any other constitutionally unacceptable parameter.

Md. Anwar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 653:. The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, SA Nazeer and Surya Kant, JJ has held that in order to successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of IPC, the accused must show by preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a serious-enough mental disease or infirmity which would affect the individual’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. “Mere production of photocopy of an OPD card and statement of mother on affidavit have little, if any, evidentiary value.” Read more 

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court Registry has written to the President of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) informing about the decision made in a meeting held on August 11 by the 7-Judge Committee regarding the resumption of physical hearing of cases in the Court Rooms.

Here are the recommendations of the 7-judge committee: 

  • as a pilot scheme, three amongst the bigger Court Rooms maybe prepared for the physical hearing on an experimental basis while strictly adhering to the social distancing and other norms as per medical advice.
  • a limited number of cases may be listed for physical hearing in these Court Rooms after 10 days subject to the decision of the Competent Authority and upon prior consent of all parties in writing.
  • the numbers of the cases listed may be gradually increased if the ground situation so warrants and permits.
  • all the matters including miscellaneous matters listed on Mondays and Fridays shall continue to be heard through Video Conferencing as per the existing Standard Operating Procedure till further orders.
  • considering the vulnerability, in medical terms, of some stake-holders and their family members to the COVID-19 infection, particularly in the absence of a preventive vaccine or medicine/ procedures to mitigate cure or overcome the disease resulting from such infection, it has been recommended that requests from stake-holders for exemption from participation in any such limited physical hearing inside the Court Rooms may be considered favorably.
  • steps be taken to improve and strengthen e-filing and such other components of hearing through Video Conferencing.

The letter clarified that the recommendations mentioned relate only to the requests and suggestions received in respect of the functioning of the Supreme Court and such recommendations shall not apply in respect of any other Court, Tribunal, or adjudicatory authority in India.

The Supreme Court, since March 25, has been holding hearings through video conferencing due to a nationwide lockdown and even after the restrictions were relaxed, it has decided to continue with the practice. Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, Rohington Nariman, U U Lalit, A M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and L N Rao are part of the committee set up by the CJI to look into the issue of resumption of physical hearings in the Supreme Court again.


ALSO READ

COVID-19| No in-person hearings in SC till further notice; Extremely urgent matters to be heard via video conference

COVID-19| Here’s the list of directions issued by CJI Bobde in the light of Coronavirus lockdown

COVID-19| SC extends limitation period for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals, etc

COVID-19| SC extends limitation prescribed under the A&C, 1996 and the NI Act,1881

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium Statement

Supreme Court Collegium approves the proposal for elevation of the following Advocates as Judges of the Gujarat High Court:

  • Vaibhavi Devang Nanavati,
  • Nirzarkumar Sushilkumar Desai, and
  • Nikhil Shreedharan Kariel.

Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 14-08-2020]

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

A committee of seven Supreme Court judges is learnt to have recommended holding physical hearings in at least two or three of the 15 benches in the Supreme court as early as next week with some additional safety measures. Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, Rohington Nariman, U U Lalit, A M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and L N Rao are part of the committee set up by the CJI to look into the issue of resumption of physical hearings in the Supreme Court again.

The Supreme Court, since March 25, has been holding hearings through video conferencing due to a nationwide lockdown and even after the restrictions were relaxed, it has decided to continue with the practice. In the last week of July, the 7- judge panel headed by senior most judge Justice N V Ramana had apprised the bar leaders of its decision to not open the apex court for physical hearings “for the time being” and had assured to meet them again after two weeks to reconsider the issue.

(Source: PTI)


ALSO READ

COVID-19| No in-person hearings in SC till further notice; Extremely urgent matters to be heard via video conference

COVID-19| Here’s the list of directions issued by CJI Bobde in the light of Coronavirus lockdown

COVID-19| SC extends limitation period for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals, etc

COVID-19| SC extends limitation prescribed under the A&C, 1996 and the NI Act,1881

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court has issued a circular dated 27.07.2020 notifying that the Advocate-on-Record and Party-in-Person shall file soft copy of the petition as well as the accompanying documents, filed in physical form at the filing counter of the Registry.

To read the Standard Operating Procedure for the same, click here.


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Appointments & TransfersNews

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for appointment of following Additional Judges of Kerala High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Justice V.G. Arun,

2. Justice N. Nagaresh,

3. Justice T.V. Anilkumar, and

4. Justice N. Anil Kumar.


Supreme Court Collegium

[Collegium Statement dt. 21-07-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court Collegium has approved:

“proposal for appointment of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, Additional Judge of Calcutta High Court as Permanent Judge of that High Court.”

“proposal for appointment of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Additional Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court as Permanent Judge of that High Court.”

“proposal for appointment of following Additional Judges of Punjab & Haryana High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

  •  Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul
  • Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi
  • Justice Arun Monga
  • Justice Manoj Bajaj
  • Justice Lalit Batra
  • Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi
  • Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill

Statement 1

Statement 2

Statement 3


Supreme Court Collegium

[Collegium Statements dt. 14-07-2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and S.S. Shinde, J., while addressing the matter in regard to Class X and XII Board examinations for the session 2019-2020, held that the same has been dealt by the Supreme Court and nothing survives in the said matter to be addressed by the Court.

Court observed the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Amit Bathla v. CBSE, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 541 wherein the following was held:

“8. In terms of this order, all proceedings/ petitions pertaining to the subject matter of conducting examinations for classes X and XII by ICSE for Academic Year 2019-2020 pending in this Court or any other Court shall be governed by this order and deemed to be disposed of accordingly.

9. We make it clear that this order does not deal with any other issue which may arise for consideration in some other proceedings pending before the High Court or this Court except the subject matter of conducting examinations for classes X and XII for Academic Year 2019-2020 by the CBSE and ICSE respectively.”

Bench in view of the above stated decision held that “nothing survives for decision” and recorded the formal closure of the proceedings. [Arvind Tiwari v. UOI, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 733 , decided on 29-06-2020]


Also Read:

COVID-19| SC disposes of all petitions as CBSE and ICSE propose to cancel pending Board Exams

Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul and MR Shah, JJ has held that it’s order dated 23.03.2020, wherein the Court had extended limitation period of appeals from high courts or tribunals on account of COVID-19 pandemic, cannot be read to mean that it ever intended to extend the period of filing charge sheet by police as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Setting aside the Madras High Court judgment, where it was had held that the Supreme Court order dated 23.03.2020 eclipsed all provisions prescribing period of limitation until further orders, including the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, the bench said,

“neither this Court in its order dated 23.03.2020 can be held to have eclipsed the time under Section 167(2) CrPC nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) regarding his indefeasible right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed.”

On 23.03.2020, the Court had extended the limitation for filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings to obviate lawyers/litigants to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals. The Court, in the present order explained that the said order was passed to protect the litigants/lawyers whose petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings would become time barred they being not able to physically come to file such proceedings. The order was for the benefit of the litigants who have to take remedy in law as per the applicable statute for a right.

“When this Court passed the above order for extending the limitation for filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings, the order was for the benefit of those who have to take remedy, whose remedy may be barred by time because they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings.”

Stating that the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure clearly delineates that provisions of Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure gives due regard to the personal liberty of a person, the Court explained that without submission of charge sheet within 60 days or 90 days as may be applicable, an accused cannot be detained by the Police. The provision gives due recognition to the personal liberty.

Noticing that the law of limitation bars the remedy but not the right, the Court said that the Investigating Officer in the present case could have submitted/filed the charge sheet before the (Incharge) Magistrate. Therefore, even during the lockdown and as has been done in so many cases the charge-sheet could have been filed/submitted before the Magistrate (Incharge) and the Investigating Officer was not precluded from filing/submitting the charge-sheet even within the stipulated period before the Magistrate (Incharge).

On High Court’s opinion that the lockdown announced by the Government is akin to proclamation of Emergency, the Court said,

“The view of the learned Single Judge that the restrictions, which have been imposed during period of lockdown by the Government of India should not give right to an accused to pray for grant of default bail even though charge sheet has not been filed within the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is clearly erroneous and not in accordance with law.”

It is pertinent to note that another bench of Madras High Court had, in Settu v. State, Crl.OP(MD)No. 5291 of 2020, already considered the judgment of this Court dated 23.03.2020 and noticing that personal liberty is too precious a fundamental right, it had held,

“The noble object of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction is to ensure that no litigant is deprived of his valuable rights. But, if I accept the plea of the respondent police, the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is intended to save and preserve rights would result in taking away the valuable right that had accrued to the accused herein.”

The single judge in the impugned judgment before the Court had called the above mentioned Madras High Court order uncharitable. On this the Court said that the impugned judgment is not only erroneous but also sends wrong signals to the State and the prosecution emboldening them to act in breach of liberty of a person. It, further, said that all Courts including the High Courts and the Supreme Court have to follow a principle of Comity of Courts. A Bench whether coordinate or Larger, has to refrain from making any uncharitable observation on a decision even though delivered by a Bench of a lesser coram.

“A Bench sitting in a Larger coram may be right in overturning a judgment on a question of law, which jurisdiction a Judge sitting in a coordinate Bench does not have. In any case, a Judge sitting in a coordinate Bench or a Larger Bench has no business to make any adverse comment or uncharitable remark on any other judgment.”

[S. Kasi v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 529 , decided on 19.06.2020]


Also read:

COVID-19| SC extends limitation period for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals, etc.

Op EdsOP. ED.

In the normal course all decisions of a High Court would be binding on a District Court or a Tribunal which is subject to supervisory jurisdiction of a particular High Court[1] and the decisions of the Supreme Court are considered the law of the land[2].

When a High Court or Supreme Court is faced with a judgement cited before it there are certain rules for maintaining uniformity in law and of precedents commonly known as the principle of stare decisis.

The following is the practice usually adopted:

  1. The law laid down by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength.
  2. A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of co-equal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of co-equal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.

The principle of stare decisis is stated thus in Waman Rao v. Union of India[3]:

“42… In fact, the full form of the principle, stare decisis et non quieta movere which means “to stand by decisions and not to disturb what is settled”, was put by Coke in its classic English version as: ‘Those things which have been so often adjudged ought to rest in peace.”

Even when a Court is faced with two conflicting judgements of a superior court of equal strength the Court may follow a decision which it considers to be correctly decided. This was stated in Jaydeo v. State of Maharashtra[4].

“24. The Full Bench of this Court in  Kamleshwar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India[5] reported in 1994 Mh LJ 1669 dealing with a question as to what course has to be followed by the High Court when confronted with contrary decisions of the Supreme Court emanating from Benches of co-equal strength, has held that the High Court is not necessarily bound to follow the decision later in point of time, but must follow the one which in its view is better in point of law. For coming at such a conclusion, the Full Bench of this Court has relied on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in f Atma Ram v. State of Punjab[6].”

The question posed in this article relates to the question we are often faced with at one time or another. What is the correct course to follow when we are faced with a decision which decides in a particular way but does not refer to any statutory provision, decides contrary to statute or ignores relevant provisions or does not give any reasons etc for its decision. What is the value of such a decision, does it amount to a precedent or can it be ignored even though it may be a decision of a superior Court.

In such a case it is open to invoke the principle of “per incuriam” and contend that the judgement be ignored as it does not lay down the correct position in law.

The concept of per incuriam was examined in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa[7] where it was held:

46. Before I consider the correctness of the aforementioned decisions, it would be necessary to elaborate upon the concept of “per incuriam”. The Latin expression “per incuriam” literally means “through inadvertence”.A decision can be said to be given per incuriam when the court of record has acted in ignorance of any previous decision of its own, or a subordinate court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the court of record. As regards the judgments of this Court rendered per incuriam, it cannot be said that this Court has “declared the law” on a given subject-matter, if the relevant law was not duly considered by this Court in its decision. In this regard, I refer to State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.[8], wherein R.M. Sahai, J. in his concurring opinion stated as follows: (SCC p. 162, para 40)

“40. ‘Incuria’ literally means ‘carelessness’. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The ‘quotable in law’ is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, ‘in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority’.”

Some of the factors to consider while contending that a decision is not a binding precedent and should not be followed or be ignored on the above principle are now considered set out hereafter:

A decision where the point in issue is not argued or considered by the Court or decision rendered without argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule, and without any citation of authority.

A decision where a mere direction is issued without laying down any principle of law.

State of UP v. Jeet S. Bisht[9]

18. No doubt in the aforesaid decision various directions have been given by this Court but in our opinion that was done without any discussion as to whether such directions can validly be given by the Court at all. The decision therefore passed sub silentio. The meaning of a judgment sub silentio has been explained by this Court in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur[10]  (vide paras 11 and 12) as follows: (SCC pp. 110-11)

“… ‘A decision passes sub silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind. The court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of Point A, which it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown, however, that logically the court should not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided Point B in his favour; but Point B was not argued or considered by the court. In such circumstances, although Point B was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an authority on Point B. Point B is said to pass sub silentio.’

In Gerard v. Worth of Paris Ltd.[11] the only point argued was on the question of priority of the claimant’s debt, and, on this argument being heard, the court granted the order. No consideration was given to the question whether a garnishee order could properly be made on an account standing in the name of the liquidator. When, therefore, this very point was argued in a subsequent case before the Court of Appeal in Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd.[12]  the court held itself not bound by its previous decision. Sir Wilfrid Greene, M.R., said that he could not help thinking that the point now raised had been deliberately passed sub silentio by counsel in order that the point of substance might be decided. He went on to say that the point had to be decided by the earlier court before it could make the order which it did; nevertheless, since it was decided ‘without argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule, and without any citation of authority’, it was not binding and would not be followed. Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. This rule has ever since been followed.”

*                             *                               *

21. It is well settled that a mere direction of the Supreme Court without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent. It is only where the Supreme Court lays down a principle of law that it will amount to a precedent.

22. In Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh[13]  the Supreme Court observed that only a statement of law in a decision is binding. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh[14] this Court observed that everything in a decision is not a precedent. In Delhi Admn. v. ManoharLal[15]  the Supreme Court observed that a mere direction without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent.”

(emphasis supplied)

A decision decided without a discussion on facts and law

D.J. Malpani v. Commissioner of Central Excise[16]

“27. In this case, CESTAT decided against the assessee relying on Panchmukhi[17] (supra). The case of Panchmukhi (supra) was apparently decided not after a discussion on facts and law but because the counsel for the revenue submitted that the matter is covered by the decision in TISCO Ltd.[18] (supra) and the counsel for the assessee “was not in a position to dispute this legal position”. The judgment in Panchmukhi (supra) has little precedential value. The point whether Dharmada involved in Panchmukhi (supra) and the surcharge held as price in Tata Iron & Steel (supra) were identical and liable to be included in the transaction value passed sub-silentio. Salmond on Jurisprudence, Twelfth Edition p.15 states that a decision held is not binding since it was decided “without argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule, and without any citation of authority”, therefore, would not be followed. The author also states that precedents sub-silentio and without arguments are of no moment. This is enough reason for not treating the decision in Panchmukhi (supra) as a binding precedent.”                          

(emphasis supplied)

A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor proceeds on consideration of issue

(i) State of U.P.v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.[19]

“40. ‘Incuria’ literally means ‘carelessness’. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The ‘quotable in law’ is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, ‘in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority’. (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd.[20] ) Same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this Court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law. In Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey[21]  this Court while pointing out the procedure to be followed when conflicting decisions are placed before a bench extracted a passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England incorporating one of the exceptions when the decision of an appellate court is not binding.

41. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In other words can such conclusions be considered as declaration of law? Here again the English courts and jurists have carved out an exception to the rule of precedents. It has been explained as rule of sub-silentio. “A decision passes sub-silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind.” (Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., p. 153). In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd.[22]  the Court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered ‘without any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority’. It was approved by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur[23].The Bench held that, ‘precedents sub-silentio and without argument are of no moment’. The courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment without any occasion is not ratio decidendi. In B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry[24]  it was observed, ‘it is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the principles, laid down therein’. Any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. Restraint in dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law.”              

(emphasis supplied)

(ii) Arnit Das v.State of Bihar[25]

“20. A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on a conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the judgment is not the ratio decidendi. This is the rule of sub silentio, in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously determined. (See State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd.[26] ).                                       

(emphasis supplied)

(iii) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty[27]

“23. So far as Nagesha case relied upon by the claimant… precedent sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. Mere casual expression carry no weight at all, nor every passing expression of a judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority.”

Any direction given on special facts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, is not a binding precedent

Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar[28]

“23. The appellant next submitted that this Court, in some cases, has directed absorption in similar circumstances. Reliance is placed on the decision in G. Govinda Rajulu v. A.P. State Construction Corpn. Ltd.[29]  We extract below the entire judgment: (SCC p. 651, paras 1-2)

“1. We have carefully considered the matter and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Ltd. whose services were sought to be terminated on account of the closure of the Corporation shall be continued in service on the same terms and conditions either in the government departments or in the government corporations.

2. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.”

The tenor of the said order, which is not preceded by any reasons or consideration of any principle, demonstrates that it was an order made under Article 142 of the Constitution on the peculiar facts of that case. Law declared by this Court is binding under Article 141. Any direction given on special facts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, is not a binding precedent. Therefore, the decision in Govinda Rajulu[30]  cannot be the basis for claiming relief similar to what was granted in that case. A similar contention was negatived by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3)[31] : (SCC p. 39, para 46)

“The fact that in certain cases the court had directed regularisation of the employees involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation.”

To conclude one has to be mindful of the above when decisions are cited both when you are yourself citing it and when it is used against you  and every attempt must be to cite decisions with caution and responsibility so that the correct principle of law is laid down.


* Advocate, High Court, Bombay. Assisted by Arjun Prabhu, Sheetal Parkash and Mayur Agarwal. Author can be reached at karlshroff@gmail.com

[1] Article 227.  Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.–  Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

[2] Article 141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.—The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.

[3] (1981) 2 SCC 362

[4] 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1283 

[5] 1995 Supp (3) SCC 732 

[6] 1959 Supp (1) SCR 748

[7] (2015) 2 SCC 189

[8] (1991) 4 SCC 139

[9] (2007)  6  SCC  586 

[10] (1989) 1 SCC 101

[11] (1936) 2 All ER 905 (CA)

[12] (1941) 1 KB 675 : (1941) 2 All ER 11 (CA)

[13] (1975) 1 SCC 794

[14] (1999) 6 SCC 172

[15] (2002) 7 SCC 222

[16] (2019) 9 SCC 120 

[17] CCE v. Panchmukhi Engg. Works, (2018) 11 SCCC 791 

[18] TISCO Ltd. v. CCE, (2002) 8 SCC 338 

[19] (1991) 4 SCC 139

[20] (1944) 1 KB 718 : (1944) 2 All ER 293

[21] (1962) 2 SCR 558

[22] (1941) 1 KB 675, 677 : (1941) 2 All ER 11

[23] (1989) 1 SCC 101

[24] (1967) 2 SCR 650

[25] (2000) 5 SCC 488

[26] (1991) 4 SCC 139, para 41

[27]. (2003) 7 SCC 197

[28] (2006) 8 SCC 381 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1986 at page 395

[29] 1986 Supp SCC 651

[30] 1986 Supp SCC 651

[31] (2006) 4 SCC 1

Hot Off The PressNews

SCBA writes to Secretary General, Supreme Court, requesting inclusion of RuPay card and UPI for payment of court fees.

For the payment of Court Fees, the Supreme Court website is accepting payments from only four credit Cards i.e. Visa, Mastercard, Mistro and American express. It does not provide the facility of payment through Rupay Cards and UPI. 

Rupay was a payment scheme launched by the Government of India to fulfill vision of India’s own, domestic, open and multilateral payment system and UPI is an initiative by Government of India with multiple benefits. Both schemes are being highly promoted by the Government of India, therefore most of the Banks are issuing RuPay Cards where a large population as also many members of the Bar use the Rupay Cards and UPI system for payments.

Therefore, SCBA requested that payments for this purpose should also be accepted through RuPay Card and UPI. 


Supreme Court Bar Association

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

The Supreme Court Registry has notified the list of 1239 matters that are likely to be heard by the Supreme Court through Video Conferencing from June 1, 2020.

Earlier, the Registry had notified the new schedule for summer vacations of the Court. The Notice read:

“the period from 18th May, 2020 to 19th June, 2020 (both inclusive) shall be declared as period functioning for the Supreme Court of India.”

The Court was originally supposed to remain closed from May 18, 2020 to July 5, 2020 but the same was changed due to the ongoing Coronavirus Pandemic.  The Court had, on March 23, 2020, opted to hold video-conference to hear urgent matters in an unprecedented move

Click here to access the list of matter.


Also read: 

COVID-19| No in-person hearings in SC till further notice; Extremely urgent matters to be heard via video conference

COVID-19| Here’s the list of directions issued by CJI Bobde in the light of Coronavirus lockdown

COVID-19| SC extends limitation period for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals, etc

COVID-19| SC extends limitation prescribed under the A&C, 1996 and the NI Act,1881

Hot Off The PressNews

On 13.05.2020, the Supreme Court notified that all the advocates to wear “plain white-shirt/white-salwar-kameez/ white saree, with a plainwhite neck band” during the hearings before the Supreme Court of India through Virtual Court System till medical exigencies exist or until further orders. The said decision was taken after considering the medical advice, as a precautionary measure to contain spread of Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection under the prevailing conditions.

Click here to read the Notification.

Hot Off The PressNews

In furtherance of the amendment to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as published in the gazette of India on 18.09.2019, single-judge bench to hear matters for the first time from Wednesday.

As per the Notification published on the Supreme Court website, following matters will be listed before Single-judge bench:

  1. special leave petitions arising out of grant, dismissal or rejection of bail application or anticipatory bail application in the matters filed against the order passed under Section 437, Section 438 or Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) involving the offences punishable with sentence up to seven years imprisonment;
  2. applications for transfer of cases under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);
  3. application of an urgent nature for transfer of cases under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908);

Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, Deepak Gupta and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has directed extended the limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The Court directed that the limitation period under the said Acts,

“shall be extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed by this Court in the present proceedings.”

The said order of the Court came in furtherance of the order passed on March 23, 2020 in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 343, wherein the 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao and Surya Kant, JJhad  invoked its power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and extended limitation period of appeals from high courts or tribunals on account of coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

The Court took into consideration the effect of the Corona Virus (COVID 19) and resultant difficulties being faced by the lawyers and litigants and passed the present order with a view to obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunal across the country including this Court.

The Court further said,

“In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown.”

[IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION,  2020 SCC OnLine SC 434 , order dated 06.05.2020]

Op EdsOP. ED.

Almost half a century ago, on 23-4-1973, the legal fraternity in India and perhaps the world over, rejoiced as the largest ever Bench constituted by the Supreme Court of India gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine vide its verdict in His Holiness Keshavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala[1] (‘Keshavananda Bharati’), thereby forever circumscribing the amendment powers of Parliament. Objectively viewed, one cannot overstate the impact and influence that the Doctrine has had on Indian constitutionalism. In fact for those looking to redeem the Indian Constitution from the onslaught of incessant amendments during that era, it is akin to a ‘re-birth’ thereof; altering the scope and sphere of Article 368 for possibly all times to come. Inherent, therefore, to the study of Kesavananda Bharati[2] verdict is an examination of how the Constituent Assembly eventually arrived at Part XX of the Constitution of India. 

The task of drafting the ‘amending procedure’ for the Constitution came up before the Union Constitution Committee (UCC) sometime around early June 1947. From the very beginning, the members of the UCC were divided into two camps – those favouring a stricter amendment process and those in favour of a more facile one. Notably, stalwarts such as Nehru and B.N. Rau (and to an extent even Ambedkar) always remained in favour of the latter such that ‘a Constituent Assembly, not elected by adult suffrage, can draft a Constitution by simple majority, but a Parliament elected by adult suffrage cannot amend it except by special majorities’ [3].

In fact, between June 1947 when the UCC began its meetings and February 1948 when the Draft Constitution was laid out before the Constituent Assembly, the amending procedure began to shape-up in the manner in which it would appear vide Article 368. Nevertheless, all throughout that period, an un-alterable ‘basic structure’ such as to render certain parts/chapters of the ensuing Constitution beyond the pale of Parliament’s amendment powers was never the cynosure of any debate. In fact, the Union Constitution Committee was rather preoccupied with internal squabbles over constitutional amendment by ‘simple majority’ or by way of a ‘special procedure’ involving 2/3rd majority as well as the State Legislatures. As has been enunciated above, Nehru and Rau (perhaps to an extent even Ambedkar) always remained in favour of a ‘pliant’ Constitution such that it could be moulded by future Parliaments towards the social and economic exigencies likely to be faced by the newly formed Republic of India. In fact, Nehru remained steadfast in his demand for amendment by a simple majority and though eventually Part XX of the Constitution did not incorporate the same, many provisions of the Constitution carry that legacy, most notable being the power vested in Parliament to alter State borders without their consent and without having to adopt the procedure laid out i.e. requiring a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that house present and voting.

B.N. Rau presented his Draft Constitution just a month after independence in September of 1947 and though the amendment clause therein favoured the flexible approach based on simple majority, for the first time perhaps there was enunciation of an express prohibition against amending the provisions for reservation of seats for minorities in the legislatures[4]. However, the Drafting Committee was at odds with the same and the Draft Constitution, 1948 as was presented to the President of the Constituent Assembly was more in the nature of Part XX as appears in the Constitution of India.

What piques one’s curiosity, however, is that in consonance with Rau’s draft, Part XVI of the Draft Constitution also included a prohibition on amendment of reservation of seats for Muslims, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Indian Christians in Parliament and State Legislatures[5]. Some may embark on the misadventure of citing this as a primitive form of the Basic Structure Doctrine, however, that would be disingenuous to say the least. During the intervening years of 1947 and 1949, records clearly point to a preoccupation of the Constituent Assembly, as also others involved with the framing of the Constitution, with the ‘how’ rather than ‘whether’. In fact, as Granville Austin has lucidly encapsulated in his work, the Constituent Assembly was very much conscious of the fact that their efforts were prone to error and thus did not look favourably upon an uncompromising procedure[6]. At this juncture several doubts were raised as to the representative character of the Constituent Assembly[7].

Yet Ambedkar, despite being in favour of the importance of an amending process in the Constitution of a federal republic, was never tolerant of any insinuation that strayed towards impugning the representative character of the Constituent Assembly. It was thus in the above background that he eventually, about a couple of months before adoption of the Constitution on 26 November 1949, introduced Amendment No. 118 to Article 304 of the Draft Constitution, thus finally giving shape to the amendment procedure as would thereafter be contained in Article 368 (Part XX) of our Constitution.

Perusal of the Constituent Assembly Debates of 17 September 1949[8] would bring out that despite the widespread support for Nehru’s views in favour of a pliant and flexible approach towards amendment of the Constitution and Article 305 of the Draft Constitution, the final version was wholly devoid of any such entrenched provisions. Thus, before concluding this discussion, two conspicuous omissions on part of the Framers of our Constitution must be evinced. Firstly, vide Article 305 of the Draft Constitution, though certain subjects were put beyond the pale of constitutional amendment for a period of 10 years, surprisingly very little thought was given to entrenching the portion containing Fundamental Rights. Secondly, when Ambedkar moved his Amendment No. 118 as above, Article 305 was done away in its entirety as an express exception to the amendment procedure of the Constitution.

Evidently thus, without going into a merit based discussion on the Basic Structure Doctrine, perhaps to the Constituent Assembly the Constitution was a constantly evolving document in line with the social and economic realities and towards that the Framers were at ease to not entrench any part thereof. The happenings of early 1970s in all probability forced the hand of the Supreme Court in superimposing the embargo of basic structure. It thus becomes absolutely necessary that the Indian Republic be willing to expunge and efface it in line with the evolution of times as may present in the future.


*Author,  Practising in Supreme Court of India

[1] (1973) 4 SCC 225 

[2] Ibid

[3] Austin, The Indian Constitution, Oxford University Press; p. 325

[4] Vide Clause 232 of B.N. Rau’s Draft Constitution

[5] See Article 305, Part XVI, Draft Constitution of India, 1948, available at https://www.constitutionofindia.net/historical_constitutions/draft_constitution_of_india__1948_21st%20February%201948

[6] Austin, The Indian Constitution, Oxford University Press; p. 328

[7] Constituent Assembly of India Debates (Proceedings), Vol. IX (17 September 1949)

[8] Id

Appointments & TransfersCase BriefsNewsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: After 228 advocates have filed their application for registration as Advocate-on-record, Justice BR Gavai directed that the names of all these advocates be registered as Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court.

These advocates have appeared in the Advocate-on-Record examination held in June, 2019 and have passed the prescribed written test for making them eligible for registration as an Advocate-on-Record of this Court. The registration was put on hold due to COVID-19 lockdown.

[APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION OF ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 11088/2020, order dated 05.05.2020]


Also read:

Tahira Karanjawala on securing top rank in the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Examination

Namit Saxena on securing second rank in the Advocate on Record (AoR) exam

Swarnendu Chatterjee on clearing Advocate-on-Record examination 2019

COVID 19

Functioning of courts

Supreme Court issues guidelines on functioning of courts through video conferencing


Release of prisoners

Ensure that prisoners released on parole are not left stranded due to lockdown: SC to Centre

No prisoner shall be released without taking appropriate steps if he/she has suffered from coronavirus disease

SC refuses to pass blanket order for release of prisoners above 50 years of age on parole

Agusta Westland VVIP chopper scam middleman Christian Michel seeks bail; SC asks him to approach HC


Children and women in Protection & shelter homes

SC issues extensive directions to protect children in Protection Homes from spread of coronavirus

SC suggests Centre to extend directions to protect children in Protection Homes from spread of coronavirus to Nari Niketans as well


Migrant workers

SC refuses to entertain plea seeking requisition of private properties to provide shelter to migrant workers

SC seeks Centre’s response on plea seeking payment of basic minimum wages to migrant workers

Centre submits affidavit on plea seeking minimum wages for migrant workers during lockdown

SC leaves issue of payment of minimum basic wages to migrant workers to Centre


Healthcare professionals, testing kits, masks, etc.

Doctors and healthcare professionals are “warriors”; protect them: SC issues directions

Don’t charge exorbitant fees from public for Coronavirus testing: SC asks Centre

SC seeks Centre’s response on PIL calling for WHO-approved protection kits for health care professionals

We are making masks, sanitisers, etc available to public at reasonable price: Govt. tells SC

Everyone not eligible for free testing kits; To be made free only to the economically weaker sections of society

SC refuses to pass order on petition seeking changes in the treatment guidelines; Asks ICMR to look into the matter


Other orders

Ration to people without ration cards: SC refuses to pass order on ‘policy issue’

Not appropriate to impose a financial emergency right now; SC adjourns the matter

This institution is not hostage of government: Furious SC tells advocate Prashant Bhushan during migrant workers hearing