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 last two weeks of November 2023.
1. High Courts have duty to prevent unwanted prosecutions, long trials: Supreme CourtCase Title: Vishnu Kumar Shukla and Another v. State of Uttar PradeshA Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasised that High Courts should not let criminal trials drag on due to vexatious prosecutions.The Court underscored that it is unjustified to make an accused person go through full-fledged trials in the absence of suspicion.The Bench made the observations while criticising the Allahabad High Court for not discharging the accused in a theft case, despite there being doubts regarding the genuineness of the criminal complaint against them.
2. Supreme Court quashes reappointment of Dr Gopinath Raveendran as Kannur University VCCase Title: Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth and Another v. Chancellor, Kannur University and OthersA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra quashed the re-appointment of Dr. Gopinath Raveendran as Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University, holding that the Kerala government's unwarranted interference in the matter has vitiated the appointment.The Court held that only the Chancellor (the Kerala Governor) can make appointments to the post and not even the Pro-Chancellor can intervene in the matter.
3. PMLA cannot be invoked citing criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC unless conspiracy is for money laundering: Supreme CourtCase Title: Pavana Dibbur vs Directorate of EnforcementA Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal ruled that for a money-laundering case to be initiated on allegations of a criminal conspiracy, the conspiracy has to be linked with a money-laundering offence already included in the scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).The Court held that allowing criminal conspiracy to be a scheduled offence by itself, without any link to any money laundering offence, would render the PMLA meaningless and redundant.It explained that if a standalone allegation under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is allowed to be treated as sufficient to launch a PMLA probe, then any and every offence under the IPC could attract PMLA.The Court opined that it was not the intention of the legislature to allow any offence capable of generating proceeds to become a scheduled offence by applying Section 120B of IPC.
4. Supreme Court allows Centre to extend tenure of Delhi Chief Secretary; says move prima facie not illegalCase Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India and Others.A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra allowed the Central government to extend the tenure of the incumbent Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar.The Court held that the Central government has the power to appoint the Chief Secretary of the Delhi government and that such power includes the power to extend the term of the superannuating officer. The Court clarified that its views are prima facie in the nature, subject to the adjudication by the Constitution Bench on the validity of the Centre's services law.It said that the role of the Delhi Chief Secretary is distinct as the position is responsible for subjects both within and outside the purview of the Delhi government.
5. Punjab Governor cannot thwart lawmaking by legislature or cast doubts on validity of sessions: Supreme Court.case Title: State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and anr.A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that a Governor is only a symbolic head of a state, and cannot thwart the lawmaking powers of legislatures.The Court held that there was no valid constitutional basis to cast doubt on the validity of the sessions of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha held on June 19, June 20 and October 20, 2023. It made it clear that a Governor cannot use his/her constitutional powers to stall the enactment of legislative bills.On the expression "as soon as possible" in Article 200 of the Constitution, which mandates a Governor to either give his assent to a bill or return it to the legislature expeditiously, the Court held,"The expression “as soon as possible” is significant. It conveys a constitutional imperative of expedition. Failure to take a call and keeping a Bill duly passed for indeterminate periods is a course of action inconsistent with that expression. Constitutional language is not surplusage...The Governor cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever."
6. Economic offences like money laundering a real threat with advancements in AI: Supreme CourtCase Title: Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of EnforcementA Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi said that economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the country's financial system with the advancements in technology including Artificial Intelligence.The Court added that it has become a great challenge for investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions and the role of the persons involved in them.The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously, the Court opined.
7. Stray witness deposing that he saw attesting witness sign a will is not proof of its validity: Supreme CourtCase Title: Moturu Nalini Kanth vs Gainedi KaliprasadA Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar held that in order to prove that a will is genuine and where its attesting witnesses are not found, it is not enough to merely examine a random witness who claims that he saw the attesting witness sign the will.The Court underscored that Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with cases where the attesting witness cannot be found, should be strictly complied with.8. High Courts, Sessions Courts can grant anticipatory bail to accused even if FIR registered in another State: Supreme CourtCase Title: Priya Indoria vs State of Karnataka and OrsA Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that High Courts and sessions courts can grant anticipatory bail to an accused even if the first information report (FIR) is registered in another state.The Court took the view that in the interest of justice, courts should provide limited interim protection while considering the liberty of citizens, subject to certain conditions. It stressed that the fundamental rights to personal liberty and access to justice have to be interpreted in a contextually sensitive manner to preserve constitutional values.It stressed the importance of the concerned court ascertaining the territorial proximity, and 'exceptional and compelling circumstances', when granting anticipatory bail. Further, it cautioned against forum shopping and clarified that accused cannot travel to any other state solely for filing bail pleas without clear reasons.
9. If document required to be stamped is insufficiently stamped, copy of document cannot be adduced as secondary evidence: Supreme CourtCase Title: Vijay v. Union of IndiaA Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol reiterated that if a document that is required to be stamped is not sufficiently stamped, then a copy of such document cannot be adduced as secondary evidence.The object of the Stamp Act is to collect proper stamp duty on an instrument or conveyance on which such stamp duty is payable, the Court said. Section 35 of the Stamp Act caters to instruments that are not properly stamped and, hence, not admissible in evidence. But if the documents sought to be admitted are not chargeable with duty, Section 35 has no application, the Court explained.
10. [Fire Insurance] Exact cause of fire immaterial if insured was not responsible for initiating fire: Supreme CourtCase Title: New India Assurance Co Ltd v. M/S Mudit RoadwaysA Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol held that the exact cause of the fire is immaterial if the insured is not implicated as the one responsible for initiating the fire.The Court noted that this principle reinforces the insurer's duty to honour the terms of the insurance policy and fulfill its obligations to the insured.
11. Eligibility conditions for post can't be relaxed after last date of application without giving wide publicity: Supreme Courtcase Title: Ankita Thakur and Others v. The HP Staff Selection CommissionA Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra held that eligibility criteria for a post could not be relaxed unless the said relaxation was envisioned in the Rules or advertisements for the post.The Court said that in case of any such relaxation passed, the same had to be widely publicized to be held valid.It underlined its earlier precedents to reiterate that the eligibility criteria, unless provided otherwise in the extant rules or the advertisement, must be fulfilled by the candidate by the last date for receipt of applications specified in the advertisement.
12. Deviation from plain terms of contract warranted only when it serves business efficacy better: Supreme CourtCase Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited and OthersA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that commercial contracts have to be interpreted in alignment with the original intent of the parties involved.The Court also opined that a deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better.
13. Gain from foreign exchange fluctuations cannot be claimed as deduction under Section 80 HHC Income Tax Act: Supreme CourtCase Title: Shah Originals v. Commissioner of Income Tax-24, MumbaiA Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and SVN Bhatti while interpreting Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, held that the profit from exchange fluctuation is independent of export earnings. Section 80 HHC provides for the deduction of profits which the assessee derives from exporting goods/merchandise.The Court refused to accept the interpretation offered by the assessee that the profits earned due to price fluctuation can be treated as derived from the business of export income of the assessee.
14. Where exact assessment of age of juvenile accused is not possible, reduction of one year can be given: Supreme CourtCase Title: Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttar PradeshA Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia accepted the plea of juvenility of a convict after 27 years in an assault and murder case that took place in 1995.The Court noted that although Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force at the time of offence and conviction, a five-judge Constitution Bench in the Pratap Singh case (2005) had clarified that the 2000 Act applied to pending proceedings initiated under the 1986 Act.In this case, the medical report showed the appellant’s age to be 19 years, the school register to approximately 16 years, and the panchayat register to 20 years.The Court held that even if the medical report which shows the age of the appellant as 19 years is taken to be correct, even then, in a case where an exact assessment of age was not possible, the provision given in sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 12(2007) would come into play and the Court ought to have given the appellant a benefit of one year in the present case.
15. Supreme Court acquits man accused in drug case 22 years after he was bookedCase Title: Nababuddin vs State of HaryanaA Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal acquitted a man accused of possessing narcotic substances, 22 years after he was booked in the case on allegations that poppy straws (a narcotic substance) were seized from him.The Court took exception to the failure of the courts below to consider the fact that the accused was not properly examined or allowed to explain his alleged conduct under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure (CrPC).It proceeded to order the release of the accused man instead of ordering a retrial, considering that the case dates back to 2001. The man had served five-and-a-half years in jail before his acquittal on November 24.
TAGS: Delhi High Court Supreme Court Wife Suicide Attempt Husband Divorce Fortnightly Judgments High Courts
