{"id":334321,"date":"2024-11-03T15:00:40","date_gmt":"2024-11-03T09:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=334321"},"modified":"2024-12-31T15:42:15","modified_gmt":"2024-12-31T10:12:15","slug":"supreme-court-roundup-october-2024-citizenship-intoxicating-liquor-byjus-insolvency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/03\/supreme-court-roundup-october-2024-citizenship-intoxicating-liquor-byjus-insolvency\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Roundup October 2024| Stories on S. 6A of Citizenship Act; Intoxicating Liquor; Byju\u2019s Insolvency case; RG Kar Rape and Murder; Pune Triple Murder; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Top Stories<\/h3>\n

[Delhi Liquor Excise Policy Scam] Supreme Court grants bail to businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall in CBI case<\/a><\/p>\n

Airports Economic Regulatory Authority not barred from filing appeals challenging orders of TDSAT: Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court closes Habeas Corpus proceedings against Jaggi Vasudev\u2019s Isha Yoga Centre<\/a><\/p>\n

New \u2018Lady Justice\u2019 statue unveiled by Supreme Court: A modern representation of Indian justice<\/a><\/p>\n

Who is Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the name recommended by CJI Chandrachud as his successor?<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court grants bail to Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, former chairperson of Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank, in money laundering case<\/a><\/p>\n

Delhi Court grants bail to RJD leaders Lalu Prasad Yadav, Tej Pratap Yadav, and Tejashwi Yadav in \u2018Land-for-Job\u2019 scam<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court stays Madras HC\u2019s order against Jaggi Vasudev\u2019s Isha Foundation; Police directed not to take further action<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court directs CBI monitored SIT investigation in Tirupati Laddu ghee adulteration allegations<\/a><\/p>\n

SC holds provisions of Prison Manuals\/ Rules enabling caste-based discrimination of manual labour as unconstitutional<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court issues directions to release pending salary & arrears of Patna High Court Judge, Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra.<\/a><\/p>\n

Constitution \/Larger Bench Decisions<\/h3>\n

In-depth analysis of Supreme Court\u2019s majority verdict on Section 6A of Citizenship Act<\/p>\n

In a writ petition concerning the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, CJI, Surya Kant*, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. upheld the validity of Section 6A in a 4:1 majority, with Justice Pardiwala gave the dissenting opinion. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Section 6A of Citizenship Act manifestly arbitrary, temporally unreasonable and, demonstrably unconstitutional\u2019: Justice JB Pardiwala\u2019s Dissent<\/p>\n

In the landmark ruling concerning Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, Justice JB Pardiwala, J. while examining the matter from a different dimension, more particularly by applying the doctrine of temporal reasonableness, held that Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act is invalid with prospective effect. Justice Pardiwala concluded that: Immigrants who migrated before 01-01-1966 and were conferred deemed citizenship on the date of commencement of Section 6A(2), subject to fulfilment of all the conditions mentioned therein, shall remain unaffected. Immigrants who migrated between 01-01-1966 and 24-03-1971 (both inclusive) and have been granted citizenship after following the due procedure prescribed under Section 6A(3) shall remain unaffected. Immigrants who migrated between 01-01-1966 and 24-03-1971 (both inclusive) and who have been detected as foreigners and have registered themselves with the registering authority as per the prescribed rules, shall be deemed to be citizens of India for all purposes from the date of expiry of a period of ten years from the date on which they were detected as foreigners. Immigrants who migrated between 01-01-1966 and 24-03-1971 (both inclusive) and who have been detected as foreigners but have not registered themselves with the registering authority within the prescribed time limit as per the Citizenship Rules, 2009 will no longer be eligible for the benefit of citizenship. Immigrants who migrated between 01-01-1966 and 24-03-1971 (both inclusive) and whose applications are pending for adjudication before the Foreigners Tribunal, or who have preferred any appeal against any order of such tribunal which is pending before any court will continue to be In Re: Section 6-A<\/a> of the Citizenship Act, 1955<\/a> governed by Section 6A(3) as it stood immediately prior to the pronouncement of this judgment, till their appeals are disposed of. From the date of pronouncement of this judgment, all immigrants in the State of Assam shall be dealt with in accordance with the applicable laws and no benefit under Section 6A shall be available to any such immigrant. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Did You Know?<\/span> According to National Judicial Data Grid, there are 1,147 cases pending before the three-judge bench, 265 cases before the five-judge bench, and 37 cases before the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court.1<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Read Supreme Court\u2019s Majority Opinion on States\u2019 power to regulate industry of \u2018Intoxicating Liquor\u2019<\/p>\n

While considering the instant appeal which raised issues pertaining to the scope of the power of the State Legislatures under Entry 8 and the meaning of the phrase \u201cintoxicating liquor\u201d; whether \u201cintoxicating liquor\u201d in Entry 8 only includes potable alcohol, such as alcoholic beverages or also includes alcohol which is used in the production of other products; the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, with a ratio of 8:1, held the following:<\/p>\n