|
S.No. |
Case Details |
Synopsis |
Case Status |
|
1.
|
Vivek Narayan Sharma v Union of India |
In a 382-pages-long judgment dealing with the challenge to demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes in 2016 alleging it to being poorly planned, unfair and unlawful, the Constitution Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer, , A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, , JJ. had upheld the Centre’s 2016 demonetisation scheme in a 4:1 majority and had held that demonetisation was proportionate to the Union’s stated objectives and was implemented in a reasonable manner. While Gavai, J had written the majority opinion for himself and SA Nazeer, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ, Nagarathna, J was the lone dissenter who had held that though demonetisation was well-intentioned and well thought of, the manner in which it was carried out was improper and unlawful. The Constitution bench answered the 6 issues for consideration before them.
|
Judgment delivered on 02-01-2023. |
|
2.
|
Kaushal Kishor v State of Uttar Pradesh |
In a 300-pages-long judgment on the issue relating to freedom of speech of public functionaries and whether the right to life and personal liberty of citizens impedes the same and has ruled against imposing further restrictions on freedom of speech of Ministers, a Constitution Bench of S Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, V Ramasubramanian & BV Nagarathna, JJ, delivered the verdict. While V Ramasubramanian, J delivered the verdict for himself and SA Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, JJ, BV Nagarathna, J agreed with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the majority on certain questions, went on to lend a ‘different perspective’ on some issues by way of separate opinion. The Constitution bench answered the following questions which emerged before them after SP leader Azam called the unfortunate incident of 2016 gang-rape of a minor and her mother in Uttar Pradesh a “political conspiracy only and nothing else”:
|
Judgment delivered on 03-01-2023 |
|
3.
|
Common Cause v Union of India |
A 5-Judge Constitution Bench of K.M Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, CT Ravikumar, JJ., delivered judgement on the miscellaneous application filed by Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (‘ISCCM’) seeking modification of the guidelines for living will/advance medical directive that was issued in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1. In 2018, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench had unanimously held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. However, in 2019, ISCCM requested for modification of some of the guidelines prescribed in the 2018 Judgment, while claiming that the procedure for terminally ill patients to exercise their right to die is very inconvenient and requires simplification. The Court viewed that the directions require modifications or deletion. The new guidelines will remove the difficult three-tiered procedure, where a doctor and the patient’s family must get a judicial magistrate’s (first class) approval to withdraw life support. The Bench viewed that the directions contained in paragraphs 198 to 199 of the 2018 judgment required to be modified / deleted. Thus, made necessary changes. The court considered two major issues in the case:
|
Judgment delivered on 02-02-2023 |
|
4.
|
Union of India v Union Carbide Corporation Curative Petition (C) 345 — 347 of 2010 |
Union of India (‘UoI’) filed a Curative petition as parens patriae of the victims of the world’s largest industrial disaster – the Bhopal Gas Tragedy — seeking enhancement of compensation in the settlement. It was alleged that the quantum of damages payable, have vitiated the settlement affirmed in the ‘Settlement Judgement‘ (1989) 3 SCC 38 and ‘Review Judgement‘ (1991) 4 SCC 584. The Court in both the judgements had underscored the possibility for a second look at the settlement and the need that may arise to do so. UoI alleges that after comprehensive review, the basic underlying assumptions of the facts and data in the impugned judgments were in correct. The petition is based upon the difference in the estimated number of deaths, temporary disability and minor injury cases, thus, prayed for redetermining the payment of quantum of damages within a reasonable period. After hearing the parties at length, the Court reserved its order. A detailed order with redetermination of the quantum of damages is awaited. |
Judgment reserved on 12-01-2023 |
|
5.
|
Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of India Civil Appeal 2357 of 2017 |
The Constitution bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha J.J., reserved its judgement in the case concerning administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants in National Capital Territory of Delhi. The issue arose in 2016, when the Division Bench of A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal J.J., referred the matter to the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court which interpreted the insertion of Article 239AA of the Constitution of India which provides for a special status to NCTD. The court in that judgment had ruled that the LG is bound by ‘aid and advice’ of the CoM of Government of NCTD and must attempt to settle any point of difference by way of discussion and dialogue. The Division Bench of A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan J.J., pronounced its split verdict and differed on opinion on issue relating to ‘service’ under Seventh Schedule. The issue before the Court was whether the exclusion of ‘services’ from the legislative and executive domain of GNCTD vide May 2021 notification of UOI, is unconstitutional and illegal. After hearing the parties at length, the Court reserved its judgement. A detailed order, determining the issue is awaited. |
Judgment reserved on 18-01-2023 |
|
6.
|
N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. V Indo Unique Flame Ltd. Civil Appeal 3802-3803 of 2020
|
The appellants challenged the scope of applicability of Section 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, in respect of an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (‘ACA’) which states the appointment of an Arbitrator. The appellants contended that if the scope of examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement was widened to include examination of whether or not the instrument was duly stamped, such interpretation, apart from being contrary to the plain language of Section 11(6A) of the ACA, wholly defeated the legislative intention of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, and puts a spoke in the wheel of conduct of the arbitration process at its very inception. The 2015 Amendment Act was introduced to emphasise the speedy disposal of cases relating to arbitration with least court interference. The petitioner contended that after the amendment, all that the Courts needed to see was whether an arbitration agreement existed. The legislative policy and purpose were essentially to minimise the Court’s intervention at the stage of appointing the arbitrator. The Stamp Act was a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue of the State and not to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality. It was alleged that failure to stamp a document which is needed to be stamped under the provisions of the Stamp Act did not affect the validity of the transaction embodied in the document but merely renders the document inadmissible in evidence. Non-payment is a curable defect, which may be cured at any stage before the instrument was admitted into evidence by the Arbitral Tribunal. The adjudication of stamp duty is a time-consuming process that does not naturally align with the stated goal of the ACA to ensure expeditious appointment of arbitrators. It was further argued that compelling the judge under Section 11 to adjudicate stamp duty would be to encourage parasitical challenges and dilatory tactics in resisting reference to arbitration. A detailed order, determining the issue is awaited. |
Judgment reserved on 25-01-2023
|
|
7.
|
Joseph Shine v Union of India Secretary Miscellaneous Application 2204 of 2020 in Writ Petition (Criminal) 194 of 2017 |
An application for clarification of the Supreme Court Judgement dated 27-09-2018 was filed on behalf of Department of Military Affairs, Ministry of Defence. By way of the 2018 judgement:
The petitioner posed important questions of law for consideration of the bench:
Unlike Section 497, the Armed Forces do not make a difference between a male or a female, who is subject to the Army Act, if they are guilty of an offence. |
Judgement reserved on 31-01-2023 |
|
8.
|
Assam Public Works v Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) 274 of 2009 |
In a batch of petitions, the petitioner contended that the entire debate revolves around the issue of Citizenship. Assam has been facing a silent invasion for decades. It was feared of being extinct in the hands of illegal immigrants coming from erstwhile East Pakistan and present Bangladesh. It was further contended that if Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was not struck off being ultra vires, it would be impossible to free Assam from the clutches of illegal immigrants, who have entered Assam in view of the impugned provisions of the Citizenship (Amended) Act,1985. The petitioners posed many issues for consideration before the Supreme Court: a. Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 suffers from any constitutional infirmity? b. Whether the reason that immigrants from East Pakistan have enjoyed rights of citizens for over 40 years, can be a ground for grant of any relief? c. Whether the Assam Accord-a Memorandum of Settlement between the Union of India, the State of Assam, All Assam Students Union, and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad arrived at for resolving a long pending issue-being a political settlement and a matter of great policy importance can at all be judicially reviewed at this stage, as Courts will decline to enter into the ‘political thicket’ and annul matters of such magnitude and with immense consequences? d. Whether delay is a factor that can be taken into account in fashioning reliefs in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950? e. Whether the Immigrants (Expulsions from Assam) Act, 1940 being a special enactment qua immigrants into Assam, alone can apply to immigrants from East Pakistan/Bangladesh to the exclusion of the general Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 made thereunder? f. Whether the children born in India to illegal migrants who have migrated after 25 March 1971 from the specified territories in Assam are entitled to be granted citizenship? |
Next Date of Hearing: 14-02-2023 |
|
9.
|
Subhash Desai v Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra Writ Petition (Civil) 493 of 2022 |
In a batch of petitions, Subhash Desai, General Secretary of the Shiv Sena Political Party challenged the ex-facie arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal action of the Governor of Maharashtra for inviting Eknath Rao S. Shinde to be the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. He further prayed for quashing the proceeding of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held in July 2022, the election of the Speaker, confidence motion in favour of the respondent and call for records of all pending disqualification petition filed against the respondents under para 2(1)(a) and para 2(1)(b) of Tenth Schedule and Article 142 of the Constitution. Sunil Prabhu, a member of the 14th Maharashtra Legislative Assembly sought to set aside the communication of the speaker of the house recognising the respondent as leader and Bharat Gogawale as Chief Whip. He also sought to quash the summons by the Speaker in the disqualification petitions filed against 14 MLAs of the Shiv Sena Legislature Party Leader and quash the proceedings initiated by Bharat Gogawale. He also sought to quash the direction issued to Uddhav Thackrey, President of Shiv Sena by the Governor, to prove his majority on the floor of the house by holding a trust vote. The matter is further listed for hearing. |
Next Date of Hearing: 14-02-2023 |
|
10.
|
Aatmnirbhar Digital India Foundation v WhatsApp Inc Writ Petition (Civil) 463 of 2021 |
In a batch of petitions, issue involved around public remedies and Constitutional interpretation: judicial review of acts of persons who are not ‘State’ under Article 12. The preliminary issue which arose in the present matter was to assess whether the judgement of a five-judge bench of Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) SCC OnLine SC 6 was in conflict with previous decisions of five judges in P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd., 1952 SCR 391, and Vidya Verma v. Dr. Shiv Narain Verma, 1955 (2) SCR 983 which had held that Article 19 of the Constitution was intended to protect freedom against State action other than in the legitimate exercise of its power to regulate private rights in public interest. Petitioner in the matter posed 4 issues for consideration of Supreme Court.
|
Next Date of Hearing: 11-04-2023 |
*Simran Singh, Editorial Assistant has summated this data.
