JANUARY<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The 3-Judge Bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ., in a 465-pages long judgment, upheld the validity of several provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, albeit with directions given in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. While so upholding the impugned amendments, the Bench expressed an observation that:<\/p>\n \u201cThere is nothing like a perfect law and as with all human institutions, there are bound to be imperfections. What is significant is however for the court ruling on constitutionality, the law must present a clear departure from constitutional limits.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n More stories from January: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 January 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n In\u00a0a case where a citizen, who suffers from a writer\u2019s cramp, was denied a scribe in the civil services\u2019 examination, the 3-judge bench of\u00a0Dr. DY Chandrachud<\/strong>*, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has held that writer\u2019s cramp Forms part of Entry IV of the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act 2016) and<\/p>\n More stories from February: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 February 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe structures of our society have been created by males and for males. As a result, certain structures that may seem to be the \u201cnorm\u201d and may appear to be harmless, are a reflection of the insidious patriarchal system.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In major win for women Officer in Indian Army, the division bench of\u00a0Dr. DY Chandrachud*<\/strong>\u00a0and MR Shah, JJ has held that the administrative requirement imposed by the Indian Army authorities while considering the case of the Women Short Service Commissions Officers (WSSCO) for the grant of Permanent Commission (PC), of benchmarking these officers with the officers lowest in merit in the corresponding male batch is arbitrary and irrational.<\/p>\n The Court hence, directed that the such requirement shall not be enforced while implementing the decision in\u00a0Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya;,\u00a0<\/strong>(2020) 7 SCC 469<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n More stories from March: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 March 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Noticing that the summary trials of complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are being routinely converted to summons trials in a \u201cmechanical manner\u201d, the Constitution bench of SA Bobde, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has directed the High Courts to issue practice directions to the Magistrates for recording cogent and sufficient reasons while doing so.<\/p>\n More stories from April: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 April 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n In a major verdict, the bench of UU Lalit and KM Joseph<\/strong>*, JJ has held that it is open for Courts to order house arrest under Section 167 CrPC in appropriate cases. The order comes as a milestone for curbing the problem of overcrowded prisons and high cost for their maintenance.<\/p>\n Indicating the criteria for house arrest, the Court highlighted factors like like age, health condition and the antecedents of the accused, the nature of the crime, the need for other forms of custody, the ability to enforce the terms of the house arrest, etc.<\/p>\n More stories from May: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 May 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n The 3-judge bench of\u00a0AM Khanwilkar*<\/strong>, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has held that the right to control one\u2019s identity is a fundamental right and the Central Board of Secondary Education cannot deny such right by refusing to allow a person to change their name in the Certificates without giving them reasonable opportunity.<\/p>\n More stories from June: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 June 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Dealing with the issue relating to the right of promotion under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has held that a person with disability should be considered for promotion along with other persons working in the feeder cadre. It said that,<\/p>\n \u201cThere cannot be methodology used to defeat the reservation in promotion. Once that post is identified, the logical conclusion would be that it would be reserved for PwD who have been promoted.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n More stories from July: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 July 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Holding that an award passed by Emergency Arbitrator is enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. has ruled in favour of Amazon in the infamous Future-Amazon dispute. It has been held that the interim award in favour of Amazon, passed by the Emergency Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre is enforceable under the Indian Arbitration Act.<\/p>\n More stories from August: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 August 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n A Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, the court would not take up for consideration and apply its mind to an application for an interim measure, unless the remedy of applying to the arbitral tribunal for interim relief is inefficacious. However, this bar does not operate where already the application has been taken up for consideration and the court has applied its mind.<\/p>\n More stories from September: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 September 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ appointed an Expert Committee to look into the truth or falsity of the allegations in the Pegasus Spyware case,\u00a0\u201ctaking into account the public importance and the alleged scope and nature of the large-scale violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n More stories from October: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 October 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n A 3-judge bench of UU Lalit,\u00a0Bela Trivedi<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0S. Ravindra Bhat,<\/strong>\u00a0JJ has set aside the Bombay High Court judgment that had acquitted the accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 on the ground that no direct physical contact i.e. skin to skin with sexual intent without penetration would not amount to \u2018sexual assault\u2019.<\/p>\n More stories from November: Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 November 2021<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nManish Kumar v. Union of India,<\/span> <\/strong>(2021) 5 SCC 1<\/a><\/h4>\n
\n
Read: IBC (Amendment) Act, 2020 upheld, albeit with directions<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nFEBRUARY<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nVikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission<\/strong>,<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0(2021) 5 SCC 370<\/a><\/h4>\n
\n
\u201cTo deny the facility of a scribe in a situation such as the present would negate the valuable rights and entitlements which are recognised by the RPwD Act 2016.\u201d<\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Read: \u201cIn their blooming and blossoming, we all bloom and blossom\u201d; Read how denial of scribe to a person suffering from writer\u2019s cramp led to SC issuing directions for formulation of new policies<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nMARCH<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nNitisha v. Union of India, <\/strong><\/span>2021 SCC OnLine SC 261<\/a><\/h4>\n
\n
Read: \u2018Not enough to proudly state that women officers are allowed to serve the nation in the Armed Forces\u2019; Army\u2019s evaluation of Women SSC Officers for grant of permanent commission arbitrary<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nAPRIL <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nIn Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881,\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>2021 SCC OnLine SC 325<\/a><\/h4>\n
Read: No more \u201cmechanical\u201d conversion of complaints under Section 138 NI Act from summary to summons trial; Magistrates \u201cmust\u201d record reasons<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nMAY<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nGautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency,<\/strong><\/span>\u00a02021\u00a0SCC OnLine SC 382<\/a><\/h4>\n
Read: Open for Courts to order house arrest under Section 167 CrPC<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nJUNE<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nJigya Yadav v. CBSE,<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>(2021) 7 SCC 535<\/a><\/h4>\n
Read: Right to control one\u2019s identity a fundamental right; CBSE must permit change of name for just cause<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nJULY<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nState of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph<\/strong>,\u00a0\u00a0<\/span> \u00a0(2021) 9 SCC 208<\/a><\/h4>\n
Read: Govt must reserve posts for promotions for persons with disabilities even under 1995 PwD Act; explore other methods to avoid stagnation<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nAUGUST<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nAmazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd<\/strong>.,\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>2021 SCC OnLine SC 557<\/a><\/h4>\n
Read: Amazon \u2013 Future Dispute| Emergency arbitrator\u2019s award is referable to S. 17(1) of Indian Arbitration Act; enforceable under S. 17(2)<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nSEPTEMBER<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.,\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>2021 SCC OnLine SC 718<\/a><\/h4>\n
Read: SC resolves quandary over interplay of S. 9 and S. 17 of Arbitration Act<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nOCTOBER<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
\nManohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India,\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>2021 SCC OnLine SC 985<\/a><\/h4>\n
Read:<\/h4>\n
\n
\nNOVEMBER<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nAttorney General for India v. Satish,<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>2021 SCC OnLine SC 1076<\/a><\/h4>\n
Read: <\/strong>POCSO| \u201cTouch\u201d, \u201cphysical contact\u201d can\u2019t be restricted to \u201cskin to skin contact\u201d; \u201csexual intent\u201d is the key. SC reverses Bombay HC\u2019s \u201cdangerous precedent\u201d\u00a0<\/a><\/h4>\n
\nDECEMBER<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\nRavindra Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India,<\/strong><\/span>\u00a02021 SCC OnLine SC 1293<\/strong><\/a><\/h4>\n