In this fortnightly series, Bar & Bench brings you 15 important judgments and orders passed by the Supreme Court of India.
Below are our picks for the first two weeks of October 2023.
1. ED must supply grounds of arrest to PMLA accused in writing; should not be vindictive: Supreme Court
Case Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others
A Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PV Sanjay Kumar ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must supply in writing the grounds of arrest to persons accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Court took strong exception to the conduct of the ED in its probe against and arrest of M3M India directors Basant Bansal and Pankaj Bansal. It further stated that the central agency acted arbitrarily while exercising its powers in the matter.
The Court stressed that every action of ED is expected to be transparent, above board and conforming to pristine standards of fair play in action and that the agency is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct. It said that the accused has a constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the grounds of arrest.
It also held that mere reading of the grounds of arrest would not be an adequate compliance with the mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the PMLA.
2. Company can be prosecuted if it did not disown authorized agent’s defamatory statements: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GmbH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and Another
A Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Dipankar Gupta held that a company can be prosecuted for defamatory statements made by its authorized agent or Power of Attorney holder if it has not cautioned the agent against doing so or has not disowned such statements.
The Court added that there was no reason to nip a defamation case in the bud on the specious ground that an authorized agent is always supposed to act lawfully.
It said that a magistrate, while deciding whether to issue process, can also prevent a frivolous complaint from triggering an unnecessary trial.
3. Supreme Court objects to Rajasthan High Court mentioning caste of accused in title of judgment
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Gautam
A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said that the caste or religion of an accused person has no relevance when a court is deciding his case and the same should never be mentioned in the title of the judgment.
The Court took exception to the Rajasthan High Court and a trial court mentioning the caste of the accused in the cause title of the judgment in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
4. Supreme Court all-woman bench gives split verdict in medical termination of pregnancy case
Case Title: X v. Union of India and Others
A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and BV Nagarathna delivered a split verdict in a case concerning the medical termination of pregnancy of a married woman who was in the 26th week of pregnancy.
The matter involved a married couple who had conceived a third time. The pregnancy had crossed the legally permissible limit of 24 weeks for abortions under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act).
The Bench passed a split verdict, with Justice Kohli not being in favour of termination of the pregnancy. Justice Nagarathna opined that the view of the mother should be respected over claims of viability of the foetus.
5. No judge shall decline request for video conference hearing; publish VC links in causelists: Supreme Court to High Courts
Case Title: Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took a stern view of High Courts discontinuing virtual hearing facilities after the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court observed that no judge shall decline requests made by lawyers or litigants for a hearing through video conference and that every High Court must make available such facilities.
The Court, therefore, directed State governments to provide the necessary infrastructure for it within two months. It added that WiFi should be also made available free of charge to advocates and litigants.
6. 2021 order extending limitation during COVID also applies to delay period condonable by courts: Supreme Court
Case Title: Aditya Khaitan and Others v. IL and FS Financial Services Limited
A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan clarified that a 2021 suo motu order passed by the Court during the COVID-19 pandemic not only extended the period of limitation for filing cases, replies, etc. but was also applicable to the delay condonable by courts in such matters.
7. Acquittal in criminal case does not imply closure of disciplinary proceedings: Supreme Court
Case Title: State Bank of India and Others v. P Zadenga
A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol held that an employee's acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically mean that they are entitled to be discharged from disciplinary proceedings initiated over the same incident.
It noted that the nature of criminal cases is distinct from departmental proceedings.
8. Accused has no right to produce any material at the time of framing of charge: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao
A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar held that at the stage of framing charges, the accused does not have the right to produce any material or documents to contest the case.
The Court further emphasized that at the charge stage, the trial court should base its decision solely on the chargesheet provided by the prosecution, presuming the material to be true for the purpose of determining the existence of a prima facie case.
9. Only that person who was responsible for conduct of company's affairs at the time of cheque dishonour is liable: Supreme Court
Case Title: Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Limited
A Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar clarified the principles relating to liability of a director of a company for the dishonour of a cheque issued by the company.
Referring to Section 141(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the Court said, "only that person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished."
10. Advocates cannot claim right of legal representation under Industrial Disputes Act: Supreme Court answers reference
Case Title: Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited and Others v. Suresh Maruti Chougule and Others
A three-judge Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia affirmed that an advocate cannot claim the right of legal representation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Court agreed with the view expressed in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs. Their Workmen (1977). The issue that arose before the Bench was whether the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act dealing with the aspects of representation by either of the parties through a specific lawyer and limitation thereon, needs to be re-looked.
In Paradip Port Trust, the Supreme Court had clarified the application of this provision and held that legal practitioners who were officers of companies or corporations and not actively practicing as advocates could still represent the entities in legal matters.
11. Will cannot be presumed to be valid merely because it is registered: Supreme Court
Case Title: Dhani Ram (died) through LRs. and others v. Shiv Singh
A Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar held that mere registration would not sanctify document.
The Court had held that valid execution of a Will in this case had not been proved despite its registration.
It found that the essential legal requirements, under Sections 68 (Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested) and 71 (Proof when attesting witness denies the execution) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 (Execution of unprivileged Wills) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had not been established to prove the execution of the Will in question.
12. Courts should be sensitive in cases of crimes against women, ensure criminals do not escape on technicalities: Supreme Court
Case Title: Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Prashant Mishra underscored the importance of sensitivity in such cases to ensure that justice prevails and wrongdoers are held accountable.
In doing so, the Court upheld the conviction of a husband in a case related to the murder of his wife and domestic cruelty against her.
The Court also reiterated the crucial role that courts play in ensuring justice, especially in cases involving crimes against women.
13. Supreme Court refuses to halt transfer of AFT member Justice DC Chaudhary but seeks Centre's response on divesting AFT from MOD control
Case Title: Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India
A Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra declined to interfere with the transfer of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) judicial member Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary from Chandigarh to the Kolkata bench of the tribunal.
However, the Court sought the Central government's response on the wider prayer to divest control over the AFT from the Union Ministry of Defence (MOD).
This prayer was made by the AFT Bar Association at Chandigarh in view of concerns that the MOD has been interfering in the functioning of AFTs, thereby denting its independence.
14. Section 50 NDPS Act not applicable to recovery from bag carried by a person: Supreme Court
Case Title: Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh
A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala held that the conditions for personal search as specified in Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act are applicable only for the search of the physical body of the person and not for the search of any bag carried by the person.
15. Article 142 cannot be invoked against statutory provision of SARFAESI Act : Supreme Court
Case Title: Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Private Limited and Others
A Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi held that the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, though wide in their amplitude, cannot be exercised to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case.
The Court reiterated that when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.
TAGS: Supreme Court Pankaj Bansal Union of India Enforcement Directorate PMLA Accused Grounds of Arrest Written Communication Arbitrary
