IN RE: ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DATED 17.07.2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUES
2024 INSC 594 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 5 JUDGES BENCH IN RE: ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DATED 17.07.2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUES ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 341 — Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 — The Supreme Court has quashed the Bihar government’s 2015 resolution that sought to merge the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste with the “Pan-Sawasi” caste in the Scheduled Castes list — The court ruled that the state government had no authority or power to alter the list of Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341 of the Constitution — The court also directed that any appointments made under the 2015 resolution be set aside, and the posts be returned to the Scheduled Castes quota — The members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community who were appointed under the resolution will be accommodated in their original category of Extremely Backward Classes.
2024 INSC 528 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH BIHAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 19 — Interim bail — Whether the “need and necessity to arrest” is a separate ground to challenge the order of arrest passed under Section 19(1) of the Act (PMLA) to a larger bench — The court also questioned whether the “need and necessity to arrest” refers to the satisfaction of formal parameters to arrest and take a person into custody or if it relates to other personal grounds and reasons regarding the necessity to arrest a person in the facts and circumstances of the case — The court further questioned the parameters and facts that are to be taken into consideration by the court while examining the question of “need and necessity to arrest” — The court’s observations are for deciding the present appeal and will not be construed as findings on the merits of the case or allegations — The court granted interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, who was arrested in connection with a money laundering case.
2024 INSC 512 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARVIND KEJRIWAL — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 131 — Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 — Section 6 — The State of West Bengal filed a suit against the Union of India, challenging the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s authority to register cases in West Bengal after withdrawing consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act — The main issue is the maintainability of the suit, which focuses on whether the CBI can continue to register and investigate cases without the state’s consent — The State argues that post-withdrawal of consent, the CBI’s actions are unconstitutional and violate federalism principles — The Union of India argues that the suit is not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution and that the CBI is under the superintendence of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) — The Court rejected the Union’s preliminary objections, stating that the jurisdiction under Article 131 is applicable and the dispute involves a question of law on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends — The suit will proceed on its merits, with the next hearing scheduled for August 13, 2024.
2024 INSC 502 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…
Foreigners Act, 1946 — Section 9 — Burden of proof — A person who is suspected of being a foreigner and whose case is referred to a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) under the Foreigners Act, 1946, must be given an opportunity to prove that they are not a foreigner — The burden of proof is initially on the state to establish a prima facie case that the person is a foreigner — If the state succeeds in doing so, the burden of proof shifts to the person to prove that they are an Indian citizen — The court must examine the evidence produced by both sides and make a determination based on a preponderance of evidence — If the state fails to establish a prima facie case, the person cannot be declared a foreigner — The court must also ensure that the person’s right to a fair trial is not violated and that they are not subjected to arbitrary detention or deportation -Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 (Referred).
2024 INSC 511 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. RAHIM ALI @ ABDUR RAHIM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and…
Water sharing Dispute — Sharing of Yamuna water between the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the States of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh — The court found that the issue is complex and sensitive, and that it lacks the expertise to decide on the matter — Instead, the court directed the Upper Yamuna River Board (UYRB), a body constituted with the agreement of the parties in a 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), to consider the issue — The UYRB has already directed the State of Delhi to submit an application for the supply of additional 150 Cusec of water on humanitarian grounds, and the court directed that the application be made by 5 p.m. today and that the UYRB convene a meeting tomorrow to take a decision on the matter.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VACATION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna Bhalachandra…
Rule for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 – Rule 6 – The case involves appeals against the order of the Patna High Court which directed a de novo trial and made observations against the Special Judge’s approach in conducting the trial – The appeals raise questions regarding the legality of the High Court’s order, the conduct of the trial by the Special Judge, and the application of video conferencing rules in court proceedings – The appellant challenges the High Court’s order of remittal and the observations made against the Special Judge – The respondent defends the High Court’s decision and the observations made therein – The Supreme Court’s judgment addresses the legal provisions for conducting a trial, witness protection, fair trial principles, and the supply of documents to the accused – The Court examines the rules for video conferencing, witness protection scheme, and the importance of a fair trial in the criminal justice system – The judgment discusses the procedural safeguards in the CrPC, 1973, and their substantive elements that protect constitutional rights – The Court emphasizes the need for due compliance with procedural laws to ensure a fair trial and the rights of all stakeholders, including the accused, the victim, and society
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNITA DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and S. V. N. Bhatti,…
Fundamental Right To Health Includes Customer’s Right To Be Made Aware Of Quality Of Products
“We are of the firm view that advertisers/advertising agencies and endorsers are equally responsible for issuing false and misleading advertisements. Such endorsemehat are routinely made by public figures, influencers, celebrities…
Supreme Court Directs Union To Immediately Deport 17 Foreigners Detained In Assam’s Transit Camps As No Cases Are Pending Against Them
“We direct the Assam State Legal Services Authority to visit the detention centres of declared foreigners in the State of Assam and ascertain from the records maintained in detention centres…
Writ Petition By Employees Against Air India Not Maintainable After Its Privatisation
“In wake of discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court…