Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Oct 31 – Nov 4, 2022
1) Two finger test re-victimizes & re-traumatizes women, it must not be conducted in cases alleging rape: The Court observed that the two-finger test re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women and is an affront to their dignity, thus it must not be conducted in cases alleging rape and sexual assault.
The Bench while holding so further also held that the Apex Court has time and again deprecated the use of the regressive and invasive test in such cases. Further, the Court held that the so-called test has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape.
Cause Title – The State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai
Date of Judgment – October 31, 2022
Coram – Justice DY Chandrachud & Justice Hima Kohli
2) He cannot be held liable for acts of author of article- SC while quashing defamation case against former India Today Chief Editor: The Court quashed the defamation case registered against former India Today Chief Editor Aroon Purie. The case relates to a news article that was published in India Today Magazine in 2007.
The Bench noted that considering the assertions and allegations made in the complaint, nothing specific has been attributed to Aroon Purie.
Cause Title – Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Date of Judgment – October 31, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
3) SC holds commission vendors of northern railway entitled to pensionary benefits for services rendered prior to their regularization: The Court observed that Commission Vendors/Bearers of Northern Railways shall be entitled to have 50% of their services rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits like other office bearers/Vendors working under the Railway Board, working in different zones/divisions, namely, Western Railway, Eastern Railway, Southern Railway, and South-Eastern Railway.
The Bench held, "In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and even applying the doctrine of stare decisis, on the aforesaid ground alone, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed, by holding that the respondents – Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to have 50% of their services rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits like other office bearers/Vendors working under the Railway Board, working in different zones/divisions, namely, Western Railway, Eastern Railway, Southern Railway and South-Eastern Railway."
Cause Title – Union of India and others v. Munshi Ram
Date of Judgment – October 31, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
4) Chapter-V of MSMED Act related to delayed payments to MSME would override provisions of Arbitration Act: The Court held that Chapter V of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 pertaining to delayed payments to Micro and Small Enterprises would override the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Bench observed, "…the Arbitration Act, 1996 in general governs the law of Arbitration and Conciliation, whereas the MSMED Act, 2006 governs specific nature of disputes arising between specific categories of persons, to be resolved by following a specific process through a specific forum. Ergo, the MSMED Act, 2006 being a special law and Arbitration Act, 1996 being a general law, the provisions of MSMED Act would have precedence over or prevail over the Arbitration Act, 1996."
Cause Title – Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Unit 2) & Anr. with connected matters
Date of Judgment – October 31, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
5) Handing over money with the intent of giving bribe is connected with proceeds of crime under PMLA: The Court while allowing an appeal filed by the Directorate of Enforcement held that an act of handing over the money with the intent of giving a bribe relates to the proceeds of crime.
The Bench held, "By handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Without such active participation on part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being proceeds of crime. The relevant expressions from Section 3 of the PML Act are thus wide enough to cover the role played by such person."
Cause Title – Directorate of Enforcement v. Padmanabhan Kishore
Date of Judgment – October 31, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
6) POCSO Act: Non-Reporting of sexual assault against minor child is serious crime, an attempt to shield offenders: The Court observed that non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child is a serious crime and more than that it is an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime.
The Court noted that prompt reporting of the commission of the offence under the Act if committed by the unknown person, would also enable the investigating agency to commence the investigation without wasting time and ultimately secure the arrest and medical examination of the culprit.
Cause Title – The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Dr. Maroti s/o Kashinath Pimpalkar
Date of Judgment – November 2, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice CT Ravikumar
7) Onus is on prosecution to prove that dead body found at instance of accused was of victim & none else- SC in murder case: While acquitting five murder accused, the Court observed that the onus is on the Prosecution to prove that the dead body recovered at the instance of the accused of that of the victim and none else.
The Bench was hearing appeals filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court which had confirmed the order of the Trial Court of convicting the appellants-accused under Sections 120-B, 147, 364, and 302 IPC and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for varied terms. Out of the total 5 accused, 2 accused (accused no 1 & 5) filed an appeal against the order of conviction before the Supreme Court.
Cause Title – S. Kaleeswaran & Ors. v. State by the Inspector of Police Pollachi Town, East Police Station, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu
Date of Judgment – November 3, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Read further... (Report 1)
Read further... (Report 2)
8) SC allows appeal filed by DDA against landowners who claimed lapse of acquisition under Land Acquisition Act 2013: The Court allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority against the landowners who claimed a lapse of the acquisition of land under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The Bench observed, "In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), specifically overruling the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside."
Cause Title – Delhi Development Authority v. Bhagwat Singh & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 2, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
9) Red Fort Attack- Supreme Court dismisses review petition by LeT Terrorist Mohd. Arif challenging his death sentence: The Court dismissed the review petition filed by Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Mohd. Arif was awarded a death sentence for opening firing inside the Red Fort and killing three Army jawans in the year 2000.
The Court observed that there was a direct attack on the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India.
Cause Title – Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT Of Delhi)
Date of Judgment – November 3, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
10) There can be no lapse of acquisition proceedings once award for possession is passed U/s. 16 of LA Act- SC reiterates: The Court reiterated once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
The Bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority. The appeal was filed against the Order passed by the Delhi High Court by which the High Court has held that the acquisition with respect to the land in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Cause Title – Delhi Development Authority v. Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 2, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
11) 1992 Bombay Riots- State failed to maintain law & order, affected persons have right to seek compensation: After almost 30 years of the 1992-93 Bombay Riots that shook the nation, the Court issued a slew of directions for the payment of compensation to the families of the victims and further also directed the revival of the dormant cases that were pending before the Courts for early disposal.
The Bench held that the State failed to maintain law and order and protect the rights of the people guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also held that one of the root causes of their suffering was the failure of the State Government to maintain law and order. Therefore, the affected persons had a right to seek compensation from the State Government.
Cause Title – Shakeel Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 4, 2022
Coram – Justice SK Kaul, Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Vikram Nath
12) Statement by rape victim U/s. 164 CrPC should not be disclosed even to accused till chargesheet is filed: The Court while dealing with a Contempt Petition which highlighted the violation of mandatory directions issued in the matter of State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna (2014) 8 SCC 913 and A v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 505 reiterated that a statement made by a rape victim under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person including the accused till the final report or chargesheet is filed.
The Bench suggested that every High Court shall make appropriate modifications or amendments to the Criminal Practice or Trial Rules incorporating consistent provisions.
Cause Title – Eega Soumya v. M. Mahender Reddy & Ors.
Date of Order – November 1, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
13) "Egregious Acts of Civil & Criminal Contempt"- SC sentences Kenyan citizen of Indian origin to one-year imprisonment: The Court sentenced a Kenyan citizen of Indian origin named Perry Kansagra to one-year imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25 lacs.
The Bench observed, "The above referred facts are mentioned only to demonstrate that the contemnor has deliberately and with a clear intention committed egregious acts of contempt. These acts constitute willful disobedience of the judgment, direction and order of this Court coupled with willful breach of the undertaking given by the Court which constitute civil contempt."
Cause Title – In Re: Perry Kansagra…Contemnor (SMC Petition No. 3 of 2021)
Date of Judgment – November 3, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit & Justice PS Narasimha
14) Borrower cannot claim extension of time under OTS scheme as a matter of right: The Court held that a borrower cannot claim a further extension of time as a matter of right to make balance payment under the One Time Settlement Scheme.
The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the Order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the Court granted further six weeks' time to the original writ petitioner-borrower to make the payment of balance amount (Rs.2.02 crores with interest) which was due and payable under the sanctioned OTS Scheme.
Cause Title – State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgment – November 4, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
15) SC commutes death sentence to life imprisonment in rape & murder case, holds solitary confinement of accused for 10 years unlawful: The Court in a criminal appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Karnataka High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru commuted the death sentence of a rape and murder accused to life imprisonment after considering the fact that his solitary confinement for around ten years was unlawful in nature.
The question before the Apex Court was whether the appellant is entitled to have the death sentence commuted on the ground that the period of solitary confinement is for about ten years.
Cause Title – B.A. Umesh v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 4, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice PS Narasimha
16) Academic matters are best left to academics, Courts should not re-evaluate answer sheets as it has no expertise: The Court held that the Courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic matters are best left to academics.
The Bench while deciding the appeal answered the issue that whether in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation, the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation after calling for the record of the answer scripts or not.
Cause Title – Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others
Date of Judgment – November 4, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
17) Odisha Resettlement & Rehabilitation Policy- Two male members eligible for employment benefit, unmarried daughter is separate entity: The Court held that the Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (R&R Policy, 2006) would be applicable for the purpose of employment benefits, as it was more beneficial as opposed to the subsequent policy passed in 2013, and therefore observed that "A family unit would comprise of head of family or father, a major son, and an unmarried daughter having regard to the definition and the note appended thereof. In case, for some reason, the major son cannot be given employment, and there exists a major grandson, he would then be eligible for consideration. In other words, two members (father and son or father and grandson) would be eligible for employment and not three, in addition to the unmarried daughter who is also to be treated as separate unit."
The Bench passed a detailed order in the interest of providing relief to persons displaced from their land back in 1988.
Cause Title – Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. vs Mathias Oram & Anr.
Date of Judgment – November 3, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
18) Industrial Areas fall within definition of "Local Areas" under Orissa Entry Tax Act- SC upholds decisions of Orissa & Allahabad HCs: The Court while dealing with an appeal upheld the decisions of the Orissa and Allahabad High Courts and stated that the industrial areas fall within the ambit of the definition of "local areas" as per the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 and the relevant laws and provisions of the Constitution.
"The Court is of the opinion that the argument – made by counsel that the levy could not be retrospective, in the facts of this case, is insubstantial. The earlier effort to tax the assessee by demand led to petitions which quashed them – where the legal regime was that some compensatory element had to be disclosed. With the object of curing this defect, the fresh law was enacted by the State of U.P., with retrospective effect which on the application of principles enunciated by this Court, in Sri Prithvi Cotton Mills v. Baroda Borough Municipality & Ors.24, is valid," the Court held.
Cause Title – M/s. OCL India Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 4, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
19) Subsequent purchaser of land cannot claim lapse of acquisition proceedings U/s. 24(2) of LA Act, 2013: The Court has held that subsequent purchaser of land cannot claim lapse of proceedings under Section24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 2013.
The Bench observed, "Under the circumstances and even accepting the case on behalf of the original writ petitioner that she might have acquired some interest on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2016, being a subsequent purchaser and/or having acquired the interest in the lands in question subsequently, she was not having any right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner claiming lapse of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013."
Cause Title – Delhi Development Authority Vs Damini Wadhwa & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 4, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
20) Section 293 CrPC- Ballistic Report Forwarded By Lab Director Or Deputy/Assistant Director Under Seal Is Admissible In Evidence: The Court upheld the judgment confirming the conviction of murder-accused, passed by the Allahabad High Court.
The Court observed, " The rejection of the FSL (ballistic) report is another grave mistake of the Trial Court. The conclusion of the Trial Court that the ballistic report is inadmissible as it is not in consonance with the requirement of Section 293 Cr.P.C. is entirely wrong. We have explained this in detail. In an identical situation this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram has explained how the ballistic report is in complete compliance of the statutory provision. The High Court had to necessarily step in to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice."
Cause Title – Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of UP
Date of Judgment – November 4, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice PS Narasimha
21) Supreme Court upholds validity of Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme of 2014, quashes Rs 15,000 salary limit: The Court held that the provisions of the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014 be valid and legal and quashed the salary limit of Rs. 15,000.
In this case, judgments of the High Courts of Kerala, Rajasthan, and Delhi were assailed, which had quashed the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014. The 2014 notification had increased pensionable salary to Rs. 15,000/-, among other modifications that restricted the scheme's coverage.
Cause Title – The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr Etc vs Sunil Kumar B & Ors Etc.
Date of Judgment – November 4, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice Aniruddha Bose & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
