Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Environment

Environment

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(6) – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Section 5 – Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Order of ban on ‘reinforced’ paper cups is upheld and in the matter of ban non-woven plastic bags, back to Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) for consideration – However, given that there is scientific basis for the ban, and it is the State Government’s policy decision to ban numerous categories of single use plastic products, in public interest, there is little room or reason, for this court to interfere on the ground of merits of the ban

Oct 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY PAPER CUP MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra…

Environment

Corrigendum to Environment Clearance on additional conditions -An aggrieved person may always challenge the corrigendum to the EC, however, the appeal will be restricted to the corrigendum to the EC on additional conditions only, if the original EC is not under challenge and/or the original EC has been confirmed by the NGT earlier on certain conditions which have not been challenged

Feb 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S IL&FS TAMIL NADU POWER COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. T. MURUGANANDAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Environment

Environment – Establishment of new wood-based industries – Appeals challenges the order passed by NGT HELD Forest Survey of India (FSI), undisputedly an expert body, arrived at its estimation based on the scientific method – NGT could not have sat in appeal over the opinion of the expert. NGT order set aside

Oct 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. UDAY EDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Respondent (…

Environment

HELD constrained to point out that out of 1689 units in the country, the applicant has chosen the Project Proponent as it appears to be a motivated petition to target the Project Proponent though the Cold Steel Rolling Mills in the country were operating under the same regime. Not only the Project Proponent, but the country also has suffered immensely on account of closure of the unit which was export oriented unit

Aug 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GAJUBHA JADEJA JESAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

Environment

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Section 2 – Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose – State Government or any other authority can always permit the use of any forest land or any portion thereof for non-forest purposes only with the prior approval of the Central Government

Jul 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DIVESH BHUTANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A. M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and C.…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw