Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 25 – November 29, 2024
1) ‘Socialism’ reflects goal of economic & social upliftment, doesn’t restrict fundamental right to business & trade under Article 19(1)(g)
The Court emphasized that the word ‘socialism’ reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and does not restrict private entrepreneurship and the right to business and trade, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).
The Court also highlighted the fact the Constitution is a living document with power given to the Parliament to amend it in terms of and in accord with Article 368. The Court made such observations while dismissing the Petition challenging insertion ofthe words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976.
Cause Title- Balram Singh v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 893)
Date of Judgment- November 25, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
2) SC quashes Andhra Pradesh GoMs classifying MPs, MLAs, State Govt. officers, SC & HC Judges, Journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at basic rate
The Court quashed a GoM classifying MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS/State Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate. The Court found the allotment of land by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under several Government Memoranda (GoMs) issued between 2005 and 2008 bad in law being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Appeals arose from the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had partially allowed Writ Petitions challenging the allotments made under GoMs. The High Court held that the land allotments violated public interest, directing the restoration of the allocated land to the government and requiring fresh allotments only under revised policies consistent with constitutional principles.
Cause Title- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 894)
Date of Judgment- November 25, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
3) Section 498A IPC| Courts should consider whether there's “over implication” to pressurise husband’s family to yield to wife’s demands
The Court quashed an FIR under Section 498A of the IPC against a brother-in-law while observing that a Court should consider whether the implication is an “over implication” to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the wife’s demands.
The Court observed that the allegations in the FIR against the brother-in-law were nothing but an exaggerated version invariably suggesting “over implication.” The Court also quashed an FIR against the wife of the brother-in-law, who too was implicated under Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC. The Bench dismissed the complainant’s appeal challenging the quashing of proceedings against the brother-in-law by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Cause Title- Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 896)
Date of Judgment- November 26, 2024
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
4) Invocation of urgency clause for planned development of Yamuna expressway by State in consonance with law: SC dismisses landowner’s plea
The Court observed that the invocation of the urgency clause for the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway by the State was in consonance with the law while dismissing the landowner’s appeal challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court.
The Court upheld the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (the Act) which allowed the State of Uttar Pradesh to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A for the Yamuna Expressway Project. It also affirmed the compensation formula applied by the Allahabad High Court, granting a 64.7% increase to landowners. The Division Bench of the High Court while upholding the acquisition proceedings also held that it could not be accepted that the entire exercise for invocation of the urgency clause was "mechanical."
Cause Title- Kali Charan & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 898)
Date of Judgment- November 26, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) Longer duration of physical relationship without protest & insistence on marriage indicates consensual relationship: SC quashes rape case
The Court held that the longer duration of a physical relationship between partners without protest and insistence by a female partner for marriage is indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on a false promise of marriage by the male partner.
The Court quashed an FIR under Sections 376, 420, 504, and 506 of the IPC which alleged that the Appellant had engaged in a physical relationship with the complainant under a false promise of marriage. It held that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that no prima facie case was made out against the Appellant for the offence of rape.
Cause Title- Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 897)
Date of Judgment- November 26, 2024
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
6) Conferment of Scheduled Caste status to Christian candidate who embraced Hinduism only for availing reservation in employment amounts to fraud on Constitution
The Court held that the conferment of Scheduled caste communal status to a person, who is a Christian by religion, but claims to be still embracing Hinduism only for the purpose of availing reservation in employment, would go against the very object of reservation and would amount to fraud on the Constitution.
The Appeal before the Court was directed against the Order of the Madras High Court dismissing the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant for quashing the proceedings registered against her and also directing the Respondent Authorities to issue Scheduled Caste community certificate to her as per the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964.
Cause Title- C. Selvarani v. The Special Secretary- Cumdistrict Collector and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 900)
Date of Judgment- November 26, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan
7) Adequacy of consideration irrelevant to draw presumption u/s. 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
The Court referred to Section 20 of the Prevention Of Corruption Act and clarified that adequacy of consideration is irrelevant to draw the presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.
The Court made this observation while setting aside an order of acquittal passed by the Karnataka High Court in a corruption case and held that no two views are possible in the matter once the aspects of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount have been established beyond doubt. The State had approached the Court with an Appeal against the final Judgment of the Karnataka High Court acquitting the respondent-accused from the charges punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1984.
Cause Title- The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 899)
Date of Judgment- November 26, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan
8) Bidders participating in tender process have no other right except the right to equality & fair treatment in matter of evaluation of competitive bids: SC
The Court held that the bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids.
The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA/Appellant), setting aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had directed the allotment of land to Shri Humad Jain Samaj Trust (Trust/Respondent), the highest bidder in a public auction.
Cause Title- Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. v. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 904)
Date of Judgment- November 25, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
9) Section 164 CrPC statement can’t be discarded on a mere witness statement that it wasn’t recorded correctly
The Court held that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be discarded at the drop of a hat on a mere statement of the witness that it was not recorded correctly.
The Court upheld the life sentence imposed on the husband and the mother-in-law (Appellants) for the murder of the wife while dismissing their Appeals against the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Bench upheld the decisions of the Trial Court and the Uttarakhand High Court, which had found the Appellants guilty based on circumstantial evidence.
Cause Title- Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State Of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 905)
Date of Judgment- November 25, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
10) Promotion only becomes effective upon assumption of duties of post and not on date of occurrence of vacancy or date of recommendation
The Court held that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.
The Court reversed the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court and the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), which had directed notional financial benefits for a promotional post that was never assumed before retirement. The Appeal, filed by the Government of West Bengal, challenged the High Court’s decision to grant benefits for the post of Chief Scientific Officer (employee) who had retired.
Cause Title- Government Of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 906)
Date of Judgment- November 27, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
11) Section 27 Evidence Act| Disclosure statement not admissible in evidence if alleged discovery was not made pursuant to that statement
The Court held that a disclosure statement is not admissible in evidence if the alleged discovery was not made pursuant to that statement.
The Court acquitted two convicted under Section 304 Part I of the IPC in 1997 after reiterating that the Courts must be cautious that the prosecution makes no effort to make out a statement of an accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact to attract Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act). The Bench noted that the disclosure statement in this case was recorded at the police station whereas recovery was made from the place pointed out by the Appellants enroute to the police station.
Cause Title- Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State Of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 907)
Date of Judgment- November 28, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
12) Fixing time-bound schedule for conclusion of trials by High Courts while rejecting bail applications adversely affects functioning of Trial Courts
The Court observed that the High Courts fixing a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of trials while rejecting bail applications in a routine manner adversely affects the functioning of the Trial Courts. The Court had granted bail to the Appellant for offences under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of the IPC after noting the “well-settled rule that bail is rule and jail is an exception.”
While directing the Appellant to cooperate with the Trial Court for the expeditious conclusion of the trial, the Bench stated that it noticed several orders passed by different High Courts which were fixing a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of the trials while hearing bail applications.
Cause Title- Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 899)
Date of Judgment- November 25, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
13) Few discrepancies in FIR compared to victim’s statement recorded u/s. 164 CrPC not good ground to grant bail in rape case
The Court observed that few discrepancies in FIR compared to victim’s statement is not a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of accused in serious offence like rape.
The Appeal before the Court arose from the impugned order of the Rajasthan High Court in a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application pertaining to a rape case by which the bail application filed by the Respondent No.2 (original accused) came to be allowed and he was ordered to be released on bail pending trial.
Cause Title- X v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation- 2024 INSC 909)
Date of Judgment- November 27, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
14) Broken relationship by itself does not amount to abetment to suicide
The Court acquitted a man convicted of abetment of suicide while holding that a broken relationship by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide. The Court set aside the Order of conviction by the Karnataka High Court under Sections 417 and 306 of the IPC.
The Court said that simply because the Appellant refused to marry the deceased, it would not become a case of instigating, inciting or provoking the deceased to commit suicide.
Cause Title- Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 908)
Date of Judgment- November 29, 2024
Coram- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
15) Whenever conflict arises between the powerful & the powerless, Courts should lean in favour of the weaker & poorer sections
The Court emphasised that the State instrumentalities have the duty to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order, in which justice – social, economic, and political – shall inform all the institutions of national life and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities.
The Court emphasised thus in a Civil Appeal filed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Bench remarked that, "whenever a conflict arises between the powerful and the powerless, social justice commands the Courts to lean in favour of the weaker and poorer sections where the scales are evenly balanced."
Cause Title- Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar v. Monika & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 911)
Date of Judgment- November 29, 2024
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice R. Mahadevan
16) SC deprecates practice of High Court in deciding second appeal without giving party an opportunity to be heard
The Court deprecated the practice of the High Court in deciding an appeal without giving the party an opportunity to be heard. The Court allowed an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court holding that the appeal was decided without giving a notice to the Appellant.
The Division Bench of the High Court in 2022 had declared the sale deeds in respect of the suit property executed by the Appellant as null and void to the extent of the 3/4th share of the Respondent.
Cause Title- Shivaji v. Parwatibai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 917)
Date of Judgment- November 26, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
17) Generation of revenue by project proponent would have no nexus with amount of penalty to be ascertained for environmental damages
The Court observed that generation of revenue by project proponent would have no nexus with the amount of penalty to be ascertained for environmental damages. It quashed two orders issued by the NGT which imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 crores while expressing “deep anguish” over the methodology adopted by the NGT in imposing a penalty “totally unknown to the principles of law.”
The Court allowed the Appeal by Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited (Appellant) challenging the Orders by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which held the Appellant liable to pay for alleged environmental damages.
Cause Title- Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 914)
Date of Judgment- November 26, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
