January 2023

Supreme Court

1.   Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India

   Bench- S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, B.V. Nagarathna (dissenting opinion)

·                 4:1 Majority Decision on the validity of demonetization.

·          A larger bench decided the validity.

·         Dissenting opinion- Justice BV Nagarathna- Unconstitutional on legal grounds and not based on objects.

2.   Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

   Bench- Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian

·         Reiteration of “bail is a rule; jail is an exception” principle

·         Excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail/suspension of sentence

3.   Kaushal Kishore v. State of UP

   Bench- S Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna

·         Additional restrictions beyond those laid down under Art. 19(2) cannot be imposed under the right to free speech guaranteed to Ministers, MPs, and MLAs.

4.   KC Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir

   Bench- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha

·         Cinema halls and movie theatres are private property of the owner

·         The owner of a cinema hall has the discretion to decide terms and conditions that they deem fit (including denial to take food items inside the premises) provided that they are not contrary to public interest or safety.

5.   RWA, Chandigarh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh

   Bench- Justices B.R. Gavai and M.M. Sundresh

·         Urban development should not be at the cost of the environment.

·         Legislators and policymakers must give due attention to Environmental Impact Assessment before allowing furtherance of development in urban regions.

What is an Environmental Impact Assessment?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool used to assess the significant effects of a project or development proposal on the environment. EIAs make sure that project decision makers think about the likely effects on the environment at the earliest possible time and aim to avoid, reduce or offset those effects.

6.   Common Cause v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices K.M Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar

·         Petition to remove the difficulties in the guidelines laid down in the 2018 Common Cause judgement which legalised euthanasia for terminally ill patients.

·         Applicant requested the Court to revisit the guidelines and lay down simplified principles.

·         The Court viewed that the directions require modifications, deletion. The Court simplified the process to withdraw life support for a terminally ill patient, by allowing a two-tiered process for authorising passive euthanasia.

·         The new guidelines will remove the difficult three-tiered procedure, where a doctor and the patient’s family had to get a JMIC’s approval to withdraw life support. A detailed order with specific directions is awaited.

7.   Ashish Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh

   Bench- Justices Surya Kant and J.K Maheshwari

·         For the sake of procedural fairness and right to personal liberty under Art 21, the SC granted bail to Ashish Mishra, the accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence.

·         On grounds that the charges have been framed and Mishra has been in custody for over a year, the bail was granted.

·         The trial is to take time due to a lot of evidence, thus bail was granted.

Provisions of Bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Under Section 436 of the CrPC, bail grants temporary release to individuals accused of a crime, allowing them to remain free until their trial. Bail can be granted based on various factors,  including the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, the likelihood of the accused  fleeing or tampering with evidence, and the person’s past criminal record. The granting of bail is at the discretion of the court, ensuring the balance between the accused’s rights and the interests of justice.

8.   Abdul Mateen Siddiqui v Union of India

   Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka

·         The Court emphasised the need for a gradual and planned approach to prevent the sudden displacement of 50,000 individuals within seven days.

·         It stressed the importance of separating those who have rights to the land from those who do not, while also implementing rehabilitation schemes.

·         The Court instructed the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to explore methods to achieve the aforementioned goals.

·         The Court ordered that the ongoing proceedings related to earlier Supreme Court orders under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 should continue, even without a formal stay.

·         Consequently, the Court temporarily halted the implementation of the disputed order from the Uttaranchal High Court, prohibiting any further occupation of the land or construction by the existing occupant or any other party.

9.   Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association

   Bench- Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna

·         The Supreme Court recognized the potential risks of non-qualified individuals performing medical functions similar to those carried out by licensed medical practitioners.

·         It concluded that Rural Health Practitioners listed under the Assam Act are not adequately qualified to perform such functions compared to medical practitioners registered under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

·         Nonetheless, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, which aimed to ensure the continued employment of the practitioners involved.

10. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)

   Bench- Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath

·         The Court recognized the value of platforms that offer global access to knowledge but advised against relying on them for legal dispute resolution. Such sources, although rich in information, can be unreliable and promote misleading content.

11. Munna Lal v. State of U.P.

   Bench- Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta

·         The Court emphasised that defects in the investigative process alone are not sufficient grounds for acquittal.

·         It stated that it is the Court’s duty to thoroughly evaluate the prosecution evidence, regardless of any mistakes made by the Investigating Officer.

·         The Court scrutinised the prosecution’s evidence closely and did not prioritise the negligence or shortcomings of the Investigating Officer’s perfunctory investigation.

·         The court determined that there was not enough evidence to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the convicts had committed murder. As a result, they were given the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the court overturned the judgments of the Trial Court and Allahabad High Court and acquitted the convicts.

12. Naim Ahamad v. State

   Bench- Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi

·         The prosecutrix consented to a sexual relationship based on a false promise of marriage by the accused. However, since the accused did not fulfil his promise, the consent given by the victim was considered invalid under the law. As a result, the case was categorised under Section 375(2) of IPC.

·         The Supreme Court noted that the prosecutrix had engaged in a relationship with the accused while still being married and having three children, betraying her husband and family. Furthermore, she chose to continue living with the accused even after discovering that he was already married with children.

·         Thus, the case did not qualify as rape based on a breach of promise to marry.

13. Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna

·         The court clarified the interpretation of the term “family” in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

·         It determined that the definition of “family” in the rules is narrow and specific, and cannot be expanded to include all heirs under Hindu or other personal laws.

·         Consequently, a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant  after the government servant’s death cannot be considered part of the “family” as defined

14. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa

   Bench- Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar

·         The Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the Bombay High Court stating that periods of parole taken by a prisoner cannot be included in the calculation of their sentence duration.

·         This decision is relevant when determining eligibility for premature release from prison, which requires a minimum imprisonment period of 14 years under the 2006 Goa Prison   Rules.

·         Therefore, parole periods will not be counted towards the minimum imprisonment requirement for early release.

15. The Union of India v. Rajib Khan

   Bench- Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar

·         A division bench overturned the orders issued by both a single judge and a division bench of the Gauhati High Court, ruling that Nursing Assistants cannot receive the same Nursing Allowance as Staff Nurses due to differing educational qualifications.

16. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand

   Bench- Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha

·         According to the Supreme Court, in cases involving circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each circumstance and the connections between them beyond reasonable doubt.

·         These circumstances, when combined, should form an unbroken chain of evidence that leads to the inevitable conclusion of the accused’s guilt.

·         The Court emphasised that the chain of circumstances should be so compelling that it leaves no doubt that, in all likelihood, the accused committed the crime and that the evidence unmistakably points to their guilt.

·         An accused cannot be convicted solely on the last seen grounds

High Court Judgements

1.   Suneeta Pandey v. State of UP

   Allahabad High Court

·         As per the provisions of IPC, a woman cannot commit rape but can be held guilty of gang  rape if she aids rape by a group of persons

2.   Dolly Gupta v. State of UP

   Allahabad High Court- Justices Suneet Kumar and Syed Waiz Mian

·         The Court held that based on the petitioners’ recorded dates of birth, they are considered adults, and they assert that their decision to be in a live-in relationship is voluntary. Therefore, since they are adults, no authority or individual should interfere with their right to engage in a live-in relationship. Additionally, considering the threat to the petitioners’ lives, the Court ordered the Police to provide them with security.

3.   Chandrapal v. State of UP

   Allahabad High Court-

·         The law applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their position, power, or social status, including police personnel.

·         No special privileges or treatment should be granted to anyone based on their position, power, or place in society when it comes to the application of legal provisions.

4.   Shaik Jareena v. Shaik Dariyavali

   Andhra Pradesh High Court- Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar

·         The Court declared that the decision on the unconstitutionality of a law has a retrospective effect.

·         In the current case, where the husband claimed to have pronounced Triple Talaq, the law applicable to the Court would be that Triple Talaq is no longer valid.

·         The Court disagreed with the trial Court’s opinion that the ruling in Shayara Banu’s case does not have retrospective applicability.

5.   ABC v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

   Bombay High Court- Justices G.S. Patel and S.G. Dige

·         Allowed the termination of a 33 week old pregnancy contrary to the recommendation of a  medical board

·         Stated that the woman has a right to decide her termination of pregnancy and not a  medical board

6.   GoDaddy.com LLC v. Bundl Technologies (P) Ltd

   Bombay High Court- Justice Manish Pitale

·         The Court ruled that in cases of trademark infringement, the plaintiff must provide specific instances of infringement and seek relief against the individuals responsible for  the infringement, allowing the Court to issue appropriate orders.

·         A blanket ban on the protection of a trademark cannot be granted by a court of law.

7.   Uttam Kumar Bose v. State of West Bengal

   Calcutta High Court- Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

·         In a revision petition seeking the dismissal of an FIR and criminal proceedings, the court determined that requesting a mutual divorce while the wife is facing mental and physical health challenges due to infertility constitutes cruelty.

·         The court further emphasised that infertility alone cannot be considered a valid ground for divorce.

·         Consequently, the court rejected the petition to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings, considering the circumstances and the impact on the wife’s well-being.

8.   Neeraj Bhatt v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

   Delhi High Court- Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma

·         In a case, a Writ Petition was filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the State’s order rejecting a parole application.

·         A Single Judge Bench accepted the petition and granted a four-week parole to the convict in a rape case.

·         The court emphasised that a citizen’s right to seek legal remedies in the Supreme Court cannot be denied.

9.   Dabur India Ltd. v. Advertising Standards Council of India

   Delhi High Court- Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

·         Dabur had requested an interim order to stop ASCI from hindering the broadcast of its  ‘Vita’ health drink advertisement.

·         The court dismissed Dabur’s plea, stating that it would be unfair for Dabur to question ASCI’s authority while benefiting from its self-regulatory privileges as an ASCI member.

·         ASCI is an advertising self-regulatory body in India.

What is ASCI?

ASCI, the Advertising Standards Council of India, is a self-regulatory body in India that aims to ensure responsible and ethical advertising practices. It monitors and regulates advertisements across various media platforms, addressing complaints and taking appropriate action to maintain standards and protect consumer interests.

10. Sushil Ansal v. Endemol India Private Limited

   Delhi High Court- Justice Yashwant Verma

·         In a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the exhibition and release of the series “Trial by Fire”on digital/OTT platforms, the Court declined to grant an interim injunction. The Court reasoned that since the authors’ narrative had been public since 2016, the plaintiff was not entitled to interim relief.

11. Naransinh Amarsinh Bihola v. State of Gujarat

   Gujarat High Court- Justice Samir J. Dave

·         The Court observed that the complainant filed an affidavit stating that the matter was settled and had no objection to the accused’s release on bail.

·         However, the Court deemed this practice unwarranted, as it could potentially interfere with evidence and witnesses in a serious murder case.

·         Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the Court rejected the bail application, stating that the complainant’s affidavit cannot be considered.

12. Agnes Michale v. Cheranalloor Grama Panchayath

   Kerala High Court- Justice V.G. Arun

·         The petition was filed due to a neighbour’s CCTV camera pointing towards the petitioner’s residence, invading their privacy. The petition seeks the removal of the camera. According to the court, it is unacceptable to utilize the child as a means of demonstrating the mother’s involvement in adultery.

·         The Court recognized the need to prevent individuals from prying into their neighbours’ affairs under the guise of installing surveillance cameras for security purposes.

·         The Court ordered the State Police Chief to develop guidelines for CCTV camera installation in consultation with the Kerala Government. The State Police Chief was added as a respondent in the case.

13. Aaron S. John v. TKM College of Engineering

   Kerala High Court- Justice Devan Ramachandran

·         In a writ petition challenging the ICC’s sexual harassment inquiry report, Justice Devan Ramachandran instructed college authorities to establish a “Collegiate Students Redressal Committee.”

·         The Court recommended incorporating lessons on good behavior and etiquette into the curriculum and assigned responsibilities to various authorities, including the Government of Kerala, General Education Department, and Higher Education Department, as well as educational boards like CBSE and ICSE.

·         The Court entrusted these entities to examine and address the matter.

February 2023

Supreme Court

1.   Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College

   Bench- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and JK  Maheshwari

·         The 5-judge Constitution Bench has upheld the power of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to conduct the pre-enrolment examination called the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

·         The Court stated that the Advocates Act, 1961, and the role of universities in legal education do not prohibit the BCI from conducting the pre-enrolment examination. The BCI is responsible for ensuring the standard of individuals seeking a license to practice law.

·         The Court has given the authority to the BCI to determine whether the All India Bar Examination should be conducted before or after enrollment. The Court acknowledged that both scenarios have consequences, and it is not the Court’s role to analyze them.

·         The Court believes it is appropriate to leave the decision regarding the timing of the All India Bar Examination to the BCI, as they are better equipped to consider the details and complexities of both situations.

2.   Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Firodia

   Bench- Justices V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna

·         According to the court, it is unacceptable to utilize the child as a means of demonstrating the mother’s involvement in adultery.

·         The court emphasized that the husband has the option to provide evidence of the wife’s adulterous behavior through other means. However, the child’s right to maintain their identity should not be compromised.

·         The court stated that it is not permissible for the court to sacrifice the rights and well-being of a third party, namely the child, in order to facilitate a fair trial for one of the parties involved in the marriage.

3.   Devu G. v. State of Kerala

   Bench- CJI D. Y. Chandrachud and Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala

·         The petitioner-appellant approached the High Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus, claiming to be in a same-sex relationship with the detenu, who is being illegally detained by her parents.

·         The High Court instructed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to visit the detenu’s residence, record her statements, and determine if she is unlawfully detained. If proven true, she was to be presented before the Court.

·         The Supreme Court’s 3-judge Bench has suspended the Kerala High Court’s order, which mandated the DLSA to record the detenu’s statements and arrange for her counseling.  The woman is allegedly being unlawfully held by her parents.

4.   ITC Ltd v. Aashna Roy

   Bench- Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath

·         A professional model claimed Rs. 3 Crores in compensation for a “bad haircut,” the court determined that while there might have been a service deficiency, the National Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) decision to award Rs. 2 Crores as  compensation was excessive and disproportionate.

·         This was mainly because there was no evidence presented to support the model’s alleged loss of modeling assignments or the income she had received from previous assignments.

What is the remoteness of damage?

Remoteness of damage is a legal principle that limits liability for damages to those that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the wrongful act or breach of duty. It requires a direct and close connection between the act and the resulting harm, excluding damages that are too remote or unforeseeable.

5.   P v. Union of India

   Bench- CJI DY Chandrachud, CJ and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala

·         In a case involving a pregnant woman in her late twenties who approached the Supreme  Court, the 3-judge bench, along with the law officers and the woman’s lawyer,  collaborated to ensure justice in its truest form

·         The court granted her request to give birth to the child earlier and safeguarded the child’s future by arranging adoption through a couple registered with the Child Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). This decision was reached after considering the woman and her family’s inability to provide the necessary care for the child.

6.   Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

   Bench- Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia

·         In a criminal appeal against the High Court’s affirmation of the Trial Court’s conviction and sentencing, the court rejected the appeal. It determined that the prosecution had convincingly established the appellant’s guilt through a strong and persuasive chain of circumstances.

·         The court emphasized that even in the absence of a clear motive, when the evidence unequivocally proves guilt, it does not undermine the conclusions.

·         The Supreme Court denied the appellant the benefit of the General Exception of unsoundness of mind under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as he failed to meet the burden  of proof required to establish his claim.

7.   Dr. Roya Rozati v. Mohammed Humayun Ahmed Khan

   Bench- Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol

·         A Division Bench will assess whether the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has the authority to investigate a case of criminal medical negligence, despite the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) taking a different stance favoring the petitioner.

·         The NHRC declined to intervene in the medical negligence case, citing the absence of a public servant’s involvement. Conversely, the SHRC issued specific directives in the matter.

·         The High Court found no fault with the SHRC’s directives, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court for resolution in the present case.

8.   Odisha Lokayukta v. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi

   Bench- Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi

·         The appeals were filed to challenge the judgment of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court, which overturned the order of the Odisha Lokayukta. The Lokayukta had directed the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, regarding corruption allegations against Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, an MLA.

·         The division bench concluded that the High Court had made a clear and significant mistake by violating the principles of natural justice. As a result, the bench set aside the challenged judgment and order.

·         The division bench determined that the High Court’s decision was erroneous and failed to uphold the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the judgment and order were invalidated.

9.   Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka

·         A writ petition was filed to challenge the legality and validity of establishing a Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the delimitation process conducted by the Commission.

·         The Court determined that there was no illegality in forming the Delimitation Commission as per the contested order. Additionally, the Court found nothing illegal regarding the delimitation or readjustment of constituencies carried out by the Commission.

·         The Court concluded that both the establishment of the Delimitation Commission and the delimitation exercise were lawful and valid, dismissing the claims made in the writ petition.

10. Mohammad Arif v. Enforcement Directorate

   Bench- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar

·         By exercising their criminal writ jurisdiction, the court granted interim baile to the petitioner on bail. The court acknowledged that the petitioner had completed nearly half of the imposed sentence and considered the unfortunate passing of the petitioner’s wife due to cancer, leaving behind a child from their marriage.

11. M/S Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others

   Bench- Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta

·         Having the option of an appeal or revision does not automatically prevent the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissing a writ petition.

·         The court believed that the existence of an alternative remedy does not always prevent a writ petition from being valid, and the requirement to pursue such a remedy is more of a guideline based on policy, convenience, and discretion rather than a legal rule.

·         The court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy does not establish an absolute barrier to the maintainability of a writ petition.

What is Article 226 of the Indian Constitution?

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants the power of the High Courts to issue writs. It states  that every High Court has the power to issue writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for  any other purpose. The writs are intended to ensure that justice is served and that the rights of individuals are protected. The High Courts have the authority to exercise this power within their respective jurisdictions.

12. Baini Prasad through LRs v. Durga Devi

   Bench- Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar

·         An encroacher is not considered a ‘transferee’ and therefore cannot claim the right to compensation under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.

·         Section 51 of the Act protects transferees who make improvements to property in good faith, believing they have absolute ownership. They are entitled to compensation if evicted by someone with a better title or can purchase the part of the property they improved at market value.

·         The court determined that to qualify under Section 51, the occupant must have held possession under the belief that they had obtained good title to the property, demonstrating a genuine belief of ownership.

13. Debashis Sinha and Others v. M/S RNR Enterprise represented by its Proprietor/Chairman, Kolkata and Others

   Bench- Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta

·         Consumer forums should not dismiss consumer complaints based on the argument that consumers were aware of what they were buying.

·         The court noted that consumer forums are typically approached by consumers after they have made a purchase. Therefore, rejecting complaints on the basis of consumers’ knowledge would undermine the purpose and intent of the Consumer Protection Act.

·         The court emphasized that the enactment’s objective would be defeated if consumer complaints were summarily dismissed on the grounds that consumers were already aware of their purchase decisions.

14. Ajai @ Ajju and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh

   Bench- Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath

·         The conviction and life sentence of four individuals accused of murder were upheld based on the testimony of a single eyewitness in the case.

·         The court emphasized that the quality of witnesses, not their quantity, is crucial in criminal trials.

·         Consequently, the court dismissed the argument of the accused regarding the prosecution’s failure to call two additional witnesses, stating that their non-examination did not significantly impact the case.

15. In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail

   Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka

·         The court ordered that local courts have the authority to independently review and potentially ease bail conditions if the accused has not provided bail bonds for more than a month.

·         The court further stated that local courts should not always require local sureties, as this requirement could hinder the process of obtaining bail.

16. Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Anr.

   Bench- Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Ajay Rastogi

·         The Court ruled that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied universally in all cases. Its applicability depends on the unique qualities and characteristics of individuals, and it can be considered a reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

·         The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, stating that the power of judicial review in matters involving financial implications is extremely limited. The court criticized the High Court and Tribunal for intervening in cases where pay scales had been recommended by the Pay Commission, deeming their actions a serious mistake.

·         The court emphasized the importance of respecting the recommendations of the Pay Commission and recognized the limited scope for judicial interference in financial matters.

17. Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura

   Bench- Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol

·         An extra-judicial confession, especially when retracted during trial, is considered a weak form of evidence, according to the court.

·         The court highlighted the prosecution’s failure to establish the motive behind the crime, noting that while motive is significant in cases of both direct and circumstantial evidence, it holds even greater importance in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

18. Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and Ors. v State of Gujarat and Ors.

   Bench- Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh

·         The court determined that lowering the cut-off marks to favor a specific category, especially after the results were announced, is a violation of Article 14.

·         The court noted that the cut-off marks are established based on the qualifications needed for a particular position, and they cannot be reduced or altered.

High Court

1.   Sr. Sephy v. CBI

   Delhi High Court- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

·         The petitioner was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as a murder suspect and was subjected to a virginity test without her consent while in CBI custody.

·         On February 7, 2023, the Delhi High Court noted that since the filing of the petition in 2009, several judgments had been passed declaring the ‘virginity’ or ‘two-finger’ test unconstitutional. The court deemed the test a violation of Article 21 and stated that it is outdated, irrational, and not supported by modern scientific or medical standards.

·         The court emphasized that modern science and medical laws disapprove of such tests on women and declared the practice to be archaic and against constitutional principles.

2.   Harsh Ajay Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

   Delhi High Court- CJ Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

·         The court held that the Agneepath scheme is not arbitrary and has a reasonable basis. It also acknowledged that the scheme was formulated with the objective of serving national interest.

·         The court rejected the petitions and stated that the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot be used to compel the government to complete the recruitment process, considering the broader public interest.

·         The court emphasized that while these principles may apply in certain cases, they cannot be invoked in this particular instance to enforce the government’s obligation to fulfill recruitment requirements.

What is the Agnipath Scheme?

The Agnipath Scheme is an approved initiative by the Government of India, introduced on June 14, 2022. It is a tour of duty style program aimed at recruiting non-commissioned officers for a period of four years in the three branches of the armed forces. The recruits under this scheme will be referred to as Agniveers, a new military rank. However, the scheme has faced criticism for being implemented without sufficient consultation and public debate. It was officially launched in September 2022.

What is a promissory estoppel?

Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from going back on their promise or  representation when another party has relied on that promise to their detriment. In simpler terms,  if one party makes a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance to another party, and the other  party reasonably relies on that promise and acts upon it, the promisor is generally prevented from  retracting or reneging on the promise. This principle is aimed at ensuring fairness and preventing  injustice when one party has suffered harm or incurred losses due to their reliance on the promise  made by the other party.

3.   Anees v. State of Uttar Pradesh

   Allahabad High Court- Justice Krishan Pahal

·         The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that a dying declaration given to a police officer can be considered if it is truthful, coherent, consistent, and not influenced by coercion.

·         After examining both dying declarations, the court found their contents to be nearly identical despite being recorded in different languages. There was no evidence of bias against the applicant from the police or treating doctors. The investigating officer cleared the accused mentioned in the FIR, but not in the deceased’s statements, strengthening the presumption of fair action.

·         The court emphasized that a dying declaration is hearsay evidence and carries significant weight, yet the accused cannot cross-examine the deceased. It stressed the need for the dying declaration to be trustworthy and free from tutoring, prompting, or imagination for the court to fully rely on its accuracy.

4.   Sayed Usama v. State of Maharashtra

   Bombay High Court- Justices Mangesh S Patil and S G Chapalgaonkar

·         The petitioner, a social activist, filed a PIL addressing the concern of police department mock drills that portrayed individuals of a specific community as terrorists. In response, the court ordered the State Police to refrain from conducting such mock drills.

·         The court’s directive prohibits the police from depicting members of a particular community as terrorists during mock drills, as raised by the petitioner in their public interest litigation.

5.   Hardik Kapoor v. Bar Council of India

   Delhi High Court- Justice Pratibha M. Singh

·         The court clarified that advocates appearing in courts, from lower to higher levels, should wear white bands as part of their uniform, along with other prescribed attire. Interns are allowed to wear white shirts, black ties, black pants, and black coats when entering court complexes.

·         This ruling aligns with Rule 27 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, and the Bar Council of India (BCI) has established rules regarding the dress code for advocates, stating that all advocates must wear bands from lower to higher courts. Rule IV only provides a relaxation for wearing a black coat, not allowing black ties in courts.

·         Therefore, advocates, in general, are required to wear white bands when appearing in courts at any level, as stated by the court and in accordance with the BCI rules.

6.   Dipak Banki v. State of West Bengal

   Calcutta High Court- Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

·         According to the court, for an offense to be established, a woman’s consent to sexual activities in a relationship must be obtained through misrepresentation and a false promise of marriage. This element of deception should be evident from the very beginning of their relationship.

·         The court emphasized that a “promise to marry” can be considered a misleading  representation only if it forms an integral part of the false understanding that induces the  woman to consent to the accused person’s sexual proposal. If the accused person made a promise at the start but failed to fulfill it due to unforeseen circumstances, it would not be considered a false promise leading to a misconception of facts and thus not an offense under the law.

·         The court highlighted the importance of establishing the presence of a deliberate falsehood, existing from the inception of the relationship, in order for a false promise of marriage to be considered as a factor inducing the woman’s consent to engage in sexual activities.

7.   Jai A Dehadrai v GNCTD

   Delhi High Court- Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

·         In a PIL challenging Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and seeking changes to allow interviews with legal advisers throughout the week without a limit on the number of interviews, the court declined to issue a writ of mandamus.

·         The court acknowledged that the state has made a decision to restrict the total number of visits by family members, relatives, friends, and legal advisers to two times a week, based on the number of undertrials and prisoners. The court found this decision to be reasonable, taking into account prison facilities, staff availability, and the number of undertrials.

·         The court concluded that the decision to cap visitations was not arbitrary but made after careful consideration of various factors, and therefore, there was no need for the court to intervene through a writ of mandamus.

8.   Master Medhansh Jawar v. Rajesh Bhushan

   Delhi High Court- Justice Pratibha M Singh

·         In response to a petition filed by primarily children with Rare Diseases, asserting that the costs of medicines and therapies for these conditions are excessively high, the Court ordered the Union government to release Rs. 5 crores to AIIMS, Delhi.

·         The directive ensures immediate financial support of Rs. 5 crores from the Union of India to AIIMS, Delhi, enabling uninterrupted treatment for children suffering from Rare Diseases who have already initiated their medical care. This measure aims to address the financial challenges faced by these children and prevent any disruption in their ongoing treatment.

9.   Ved Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)

   Delhi High Court- Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma

·         In a case where the petitioner sought the respondent’s obligation to provide a functional prosthesis for the amputated hand and compensation for the incurred loss, the court established specific guidelines for convicts experiencing work-related amputation or life-threatening injuries. These guidelines will remain in effect until new guidelines are formulated or existing rules are amended.

·         The Court laid down the following guidelines:

ü  In case of a convict suffering work related amputation or life-threatening injury, the Jail Superintendent would be duty bound to immediately inform the concerned Jail Inspecting Judge within 24 hours of the incident.

ü  A Three-Member Committee consisting of (i) Director General (Prisons), Delhi, (ii) Medical Superintendent of a government hospital and (iii) Secretary, DSLSA of the concerned district where from the convict had been sentenced, would be constituted, who would assess and quantify the compensation to be paid to the victim of such work-related injury, after perusing the opinion of a board of doctors which would be constituted at their request by the treating hospital.

ü  The government hospital from where the victim would be medically  examined/treated for the injury or the disability, if any, the same would be put up  before the above-mentioned committee for assessment of compensation.

ü  For assessing the injury/disability, the contributory negligence, if any, of the victim would be kept in mind. These guidelines would be applicable only in the case of amputation, or any other life-threatening injury, arising out of work-related injury, sustained by the convict.

ü  The essential interim compensation would be provided to such victim in case of  amputation or life-threatening injury

10. Philip Marandi v. Satya Hansda

   Jharkhand High Court- Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

·         The Court noted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court based their decisions on witnesses’ testimonies regarding the existence of customs for adopting sons, and even if these provisions were not explicitly stated, the adoption of sons and daughters by Santhals has been recognized. The Court referred to a previous judgment acknowledging the custom of adoption among Santhals and refused to consider the findings of the lower courts as legally flawed.

·         The Court dismissed the second appeal, stating that the previous judgments affirming the prevalence of the custom of adoption among Santhals, along with the lack of merit in the  case, rendered the findings of the lower courts valid in law.

11. Nida Amina Ahmad v. Union of India

   Patna High Court- Justice Purnendu Singh

·         In a case where a girl was denied a fresh passport by the Regional Passport Officer due to an incorrect date of birth, the court ruled that the date of birth stated in the Matriculation Certification issued by CBSE should be given the utmost priority. The court directed the Regional Passport Officer to issue a new passport to the girl with the corrected date of birth.

·         The court decided that the Regional Passport Officer’s refusal to issue a new passport to the girl based on an incorrect date of birth was unfounded. The court emphasized that the Matriculation Certification granted by CBSE should carry significant weight in determining the girl’s date of birth, and as a result, ordered the Regional Passport Officer to rectify the date of birth and provide her with a fresh passport.

12. Philips Thomas v. State of Kerala

   Kerala High Court- Justice Kauser Edappagath

·         In a criminal appeal involving doctors and nurses accused of medical negligence resulting in a patient’s death, the Court overturned the conviction and acquitted the medical staff.  The Court emphasized that not every patient death can be attributed to medical negligence. The case involved the death of a healthy woman following a routine laparoscopic sterilization procedure.

·         The Court clarified that the acquittal of the medical staff under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code does not impact the ongoing appeal for compensation before the National Commission.

13. Shailesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka Karnataka High Court- Justice M. Nagaprasanna

·         In a criminal petition seeking the cancellation of an FIR and charge sheet for offenses under the Penal Code and the SC/ST Act, the court partially granted the petition by quashing the charge sheet related to the SC/ST Act.

·         The court referred to previous legal decisions and emphasized that simply mentioning the victim’s caste does not automatically constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act. The intention to insult the person belonging to the caste must be present for it to be considered an offense.

·         The court’s decision recognized that specific intent to insult based on caste is a crucial element in determining whether an offense under the SC/ST Act has been committed.

March 2023

Supreme Court

1.   Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India

   Bench- Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar

·         The 5-judge Constitution Bench settled the dispute over the appointment of members of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

·         The Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners will be appointed by the President on the advice of a 3-member committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the  leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha (or the leader of the largest party in the opposition),  and the Chief Justice of India.

·         The Court emphasized the need for a law to be made by Parliament to ensure the independence of the Election Commission.

·         The Court appealed to the Union of India/Parliament to consider establishing a permanent Secretariat for the Election Commission and charging its expenditure to the Consolidated Fund of India.

·         Justice Rastogi suggested that the grounds for removal of Election Commissioners should be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner, and their conditions of service should not be varied to their disadvantage after appointment.

·         The Court highlighted the vacuum in Article 324 of the Constitution regarding the appointment of Election Commissioners and the need to fill this void to safeguard the independence of the Election Commission.

2.   Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation

   Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and J.K. Maheshwari

·         The Union of India filed a petition seeking enhanced compensation for the victims of the Union Carbide gas tragedy.

·         The court noted that the Union’s own position was that the claims were adjudicated upon by the Commissioner according to the established legal procedure.

·         The court held that the responsibility for addressing the compensation shortage fell on the Union of India, and they should have taken out relevant insurance policies.

·         The court stated that the Union could not neglect its responsibility and then seek to shift the blame onto Union Carbide Corporation by seeking enhanced compensation without any fundamental legal basis.

3.   Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra

   Bench- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud C.J. and Justices M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha

·         The Supreme Court heard petitions from different factions on various issues, including the Maharashtra Governor’s trust vote, the alleged illegal swearing-in of Eknath Shinde as Chief Minister, and the proposal for a new Speaker.

·         Chief Justice Ramana referred questions regarding the interpretation of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, disqualification, powers of the Speaker and Governor, and the power of judicial review to a 5-judge Constitution bench.

·         The issue of whether a disqualification petition can be decided by High Courts or the Supreme Court under Article 226 or Article 32 was raised.

·         Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the matter should be referred to a 7-judge bench to reconsider the accuracy of the 2016 judgment in Nabam Rebia, which stated that the Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when a resolution for their removal is pending. The need for a larger bench would be determined along with the merits of the case.

4.   Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Saurakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra

   Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Manoj Misra

·         The Supreme Court addressed a batch of appeals against a Bombay High Court order regarding the affinity test’s role in determining the correctness of a caste claim.

·         The full bench held that the affinity test is not a litmus test for deciding a caste claim in every case and is not an essential part of the process.

·         The Court emphasized the need for detailed scrutiny of caste claims by the Scrutiny Committee and stated that the same level of scrutiny by both the Competent Authority and the Committee is necessary.

·         The Court clarified that the Scrutiny Committee should not mechanically refer cases to the Vigilance Cell for an inquiry, especially in cases involving the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe, and outlined the considerations for issuing caste validity certificates based on blood relatives and lawful inquiry.

What is an affinity test?

The affinity test refers to a method used to determine the authenticity and validity of a caste or tribe claim. It involves examining the level of social, cultural, and traditional affinity or connection the individual has with the claimed caste or tribe. The test aims to assess whether the person seeking recognition as a member of a particular caste or tribe has sufficient evidence of belonging to that community based on their social practices, customs, rituals, and other relevant factors.

5.   Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India

   Bench- CJI Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala

·         The Supreme Court has formed an Expert Committee led by retired Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre to evaluate the regulatory framework for protecting investor interests in India.

·         The court has instructed SEBI to conclude its investigation into investor losses related to the decline in Adani Group’s share price within two months.

·         The petitions seek a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or a court-monitored investigation into the Hindenburg report and key individuals involved, through a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

·         The court acknowledged SEBI’s commitment to investigating the allegations against the Adani Group and assigned them to provide a status report on the ongoing investigation, including any regulatory failures and actions taken.

6.   Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra Bench- Just