Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2020 SC Judgements
2020 SC Judgements
2020 SC Judgements
In the COVID-19 infected year of 2020, the Supreme Court went through
unprecedented experiences, with video conferencing and e-filing substituting physical
hearings and filings.
Even with virtual functioning, the Supreme Court delivered several important judgments
and settled several prominent questions of law. Here is a list of 65 important judgments
of 2020, including the verdicts which have come under severe criticism.
The arrangement of the judgments in the list is mostly in the order of chronology and
the same is not indicative of their relative importance.
A significant take away from the judgment is its declaration that freedom of speech and
expression and also freedom of trade and commerce through the medium of internet
are constitutionally protected rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and Articles 19(1)(g),
respectively
The Court said : "We declare that the freedom of speech and expression and the
freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over
the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article
19(1)(g)".
The Court observed that indefinite suspension of internet is not permissible and that
repeated orders under Section 144 CrPC will amount to abuse of power. The Court
also added that the Government should publish all orders of restrictions, and should
follow the principles of proportionality to adopt less restrictive measures.
The Court observed that the power under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure cannot
be used as a tool to prevent the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or
exercise of any democratic rights. The Court said that provisions of Section 144,
Cr.P.C. will only be applicable in a situation of emergency and for the purpose of
preventing obstruction and annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed.
While the judgment is laudable for its reaffirmation of the principles of proportionality, its
caution against arbitrary use of Section 144 to curb dissent and its recognition of
internet as a medium to exercise fundamental right to free speech and trade and
commerce, the Court stopped short of giving a ruling of the legality of the prohibitory
orders passed by the administration. The judgment remained as a restatement of
principle without tangible relief to the petitioners.
It directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review all orders of restrictions
imposed in the state post the abrogation of the state's special status within a week.
On January 29, a constitution bench of the the Supreme Court held that anticipatory
bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. But if there are any special or
peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open
for it to do so, the five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has held. Justices
MR Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat penned separate judgments agreeing with each
other. Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and Vineet Saran concurred with the
conclusion reached by both the judges. The Court also held that life or duration of an
anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is
summoned by the court, or when charges are framed but can continue till the end of the
trial except in special and peculiar cases.
Accused Released On Anticipatory Bail Need Not Surrender And Seek Regular
Bail For Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act
The Constitution Bench also discussed in the judgment the impact of recovery under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on the bail granted. In this regard, the bench
comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and
Ravindra Bhat in the case Sushila Aggarwal and others v State of NCT of Delhi and
others largely reaffirmed the principles laid down in the case Shri Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565.
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of West Bengal Madrasah Service
Commission Act 2008 observing that there is no absolute and unqualified right of
appointment for minority educational institutions.
A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and U U Lalit delivered the verdict on Monday in the
case SK Md Raffique v Managing Committee, Contai Rehmania High
Madrasah and others.
The case concerned the validity of West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act
2008, which constituted a commission to appoint teachers in madrasas.
Later, a writ petition was filed against this verdict contending that it was contrary to the
judgment of a 3-judge bench in Chandana Das (Malakar) v. State of West
Bengal, passed on September 25, 2019, on minority rights.
On January 30, a bench headed by the CJI issued notice on the writ petition which
sought reference of the issue to a larger bench.
4. JJ Act: Offences Prescribing Max Sentence Of More Than 7 Years But Not
Providing Minimum Sentence Are Not 'Heinous Offences', But 'Serious Offences':
Shilpa Mittal v State of NCT of Delhi and Another
The Supreme Court has held that Speaker of the Legislative Assembly should decide
on a petition seeking disqualification of a member under Tenth Schedule of the
Constitution within a period of three months, in the absence of exceptional reasons.
Highlighting the importance of taking a decision within a reasonable time, the SC
said ,"The Speaker, in acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, is bound to
decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period...a period of three months
from the date on which the petition is filed is the outer limit within which disqualification
petitions filed before the Speaker must be decided if the constitutional objective of
disqualifying persons who have infracted the Tenth Schedule is to be adhered to." This
was held by a bench comprising Justices R F Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V
Ramasubramanian in a case relating to alleged defection in Manipur assembly.
As a sequel to this order, the Supreme Court in March restrained Manipur BJP minister
Thounaojam Shyamkumar from entering the Legislative Assembly till further orders.
The Court also declared that he will cease to be a Minister. This extraordinary order
was passed by the becnh headed by Justice Nariman after noting that the Speaker
failed to decide on the disqualification petition against Shyamkumar within the time
period stipulated in the earlier order.
6. Validity of SC/ST Amendment Act 2018 upheld - Prathvi Raj Chouhan vs Union
of India
'Fraternity Assures True Equality; Articles 15, 17 & 24 Seek To Achieve This
Ideal' : Justice Ravindra Bhat In SC/ST Verdict
7. A Child In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Kept In Jail Or Police Lockup Under
Any Circumstance: SC
"We make it clear that the Juvenile Justice Boards are not meant to be silent spectators
and pass orders only when a matter comes before them. They can take note of the
factual situation if it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained
in prison or police lock up. It is the duty of the JJBs to ensure that the child is
immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety. The Act
cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all the police".
This was held by a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi in
the case The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v Babita Puniya and others.
Later in March, in another judgment, the court held that women officers in Navy are
also entitled to Permanent Commission at par with men(Union of India v Lt Cdr Annie
Nagaraja).
Other reports about the judgment : Notion That Women Are 'Weaker Sex'
Constitutionally Flawed: SC Calls For Change In Mindset
In a highly debatable judgment, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Friday held
that proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 will not lapse if the compensation
has been tendered by deposit in treasury(Indore Development Authority v
Manoharlal and others etc).
The Court held that land owners cannot insist that the amount should be deposited in
Court so as to sustain the land acquisition proceedings under the old Act on the
commencement of the new land acquisition law with effect from January 1, 2014.
The bench has affirmed the view in the 2018 Indore Development Authority case,
overruling the 2014 judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation case. A bench
comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and
Ravindra Bhat had heard the matter.
The bench read 'or' in Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act as 'and' to hold that the twin
conditions of failure to pay compensation and also to take possession must
cumulatively happen for the acquisition proceedings under the old land acquisition law
to lapse.
Hours before the scheduled execution on March 20, the convicts in the Nirbhaya case
knocked the doors of the Supreme Court past midnight, hoping for a last minute judicial
intervention to extend their lives.
But the last ditch effort of the convicts met with no success, as the bench
comprising Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna dismissed the
plea, after a special sitting which commenced at around 2.45 AM.
At about 3.30 AM, the bench dictated the order dismissing the writ petition filed on
behalf of convict Pawan Kumar Gupta, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by
the President. The Court held that the scope of judicial review over the President's
exercise of clemency power was extremely narrow.
Two hours later, the convicts were hanged to death at 5.30AM at Tihar jail.
12. SC Extends Limitation For Filing In All Courts/Tribunals With Effect From
March 15 Until Further Orders On Account of COVID19
With the objective of reducing physical filings in courts and tribunals across the
countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court on Monday passed a
general order extending the limitation, whether condonable or not, with effect from
March 15, until further orders.
"To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come
physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country
including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such
proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special
Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further
order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings", ordered the bench
comprising CJI S A Bobde, Justices L Nageshwara Rao and Surya Kant.
Case : Suo Moto Writ Petition In Re : Cognizance For Extension of Limitation
Later, on September 19, clarifying its 23 March order, the Bench of CJI SA Bobde,
Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the said order
extended only "the period of limitation" and not the period upto which delay can be
condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The Court held that the
expression "prescribed period" appearing in Section 4 of the Limitation Act cannot be
construed to mean anything other than the period of limitation.
SC Order Extending Limitation Period Does Not Enlarge The Period Upto Which
Delay Can Be Condoned In Exercise Of Statutory Discretion: SC [Read
Judgment]
To avoid overcrowding in prisons in the wake of COVID pandemic, the Supreme Court
on Monday directed all states and Union Territories to set up high level committees to
determine class of prisoners who could be released on parole for four to six weeks
A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde observed that the prisoners convicted of
or charged with offences having jail term of up to seven years can be given parole to
decongest jails.
Case : Suo Moto Writ Petition In Re: Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons
"...environment law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance. This
would be contrary to both the precautionary principle as well as the need for
sustainable development", the court reiterated in light of the observations made
in Common Cause v. Union of India.
The Court held that the RBI's circular, which prevented regulated entities from providing
banking services to those engaged in the trading or facilitating the trading in VCs, was
liable to be set aside on the "ground of proportionality".
"When the consistent stand of RBI is that they have not banned VCs and when the
Government of India is unable to take a call despite several committees coming up with
several proposals including two draft bills, both of which advocated exactly opposite
positions, it is not possible for us to hold that the impugned measure is proportionate",
the Court observed.
The case (Internet and Mobile Association of India vs Reserve Bank of India) was
heard by a three judge bench comprising Justices R F Nariman, Aniruddha Bose
and V Ramasubramanian.
(Case: In Re: Guidelines For Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During
Covid-19 Pandemic)
17.Governor Can Direct Floor Test Even While House Is In Session : Supreme
Court Approves MP Governor's Decision
While hearing a petition filed by Shivraj Singh Chouhan and other BJP leaders seeking
immediate floor test in the MP assembly following the resignation of 22 Congress
MLAs, the bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta held that a
Governor can direct floor test even while house is in session.
The Court therefore affirmed its order passed on May 19 to hold floor test in the MP
assembly for proving the majority of the previous government led by Kamal Nath.
18. Free COVID-19 Testing Only For Persons Under Ayushman Bharat Scheme
And EWS Categories; Supreme Court Allows Private Labs To Charge Others
free testing will be available to persons eligible under Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri
Jan Aarogya Yojana as already implemented by the Government of India, and any
other category of economically weaker sections of the society as notified by the
Government for free testing for COVID-19.
Also Read: SC Dismisses PIL Seeking GST Exemption For Face Masks & Sanitizers
19.100% ST Reservations For Teacher Posts In Scheduled Areas
Unconstitutional: SC
A Constitution bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran,
M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that 100 per cent reservation of teachers
belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category at schools situated in "Scheduled Ares" is
constitutionally invalid.
The Bench also quashed the Government order issued under the hand of Governor of
State of Andhra Pradesh which had affirmed absolute reservation for ST teachers and
imposed costs on both Andhra Pradesh & Telangana Government's, seeking reasons
from the Government's for breaching the 50% ceiling in reservations.
(Case: Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors.)
Also Read: Affluent & Advanced Within SC/ST Not Permitting Reservation Benefits
Trickle Down To Needy : SC Calls For List Revision
While overruling an earlier 2008 decision titled E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer,
Narcotic Control Bureau, bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and M R Shah
held that the quantity of neutral substances in a mixture containing narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances must be taken into account along with the actual weight of the
offending drug while determining 'small or commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act.
Supreme Court held that a 'deemed university' will come under the ambit of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. Bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar
and Ajay Rastogi set aside a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which had allowed
the discharge of trustees of a deemed university, from prosecution in a corruption case.
The Apex Court observed that the High Court was in fact incorrect in holding that a
"Deemed University" is excluded from the ambit of the term "University" under Section
2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Supreme Court upheld the validity of National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) for
admissions to medical and dental courses. Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet
Saran and M R Shah further re-stated principles governing minority educational
institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution, noting that the right conferred on
religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is
not an "absolute right" and is not free of "regulation" from the State.
The Supreme Court held that a citizen must have some standing or knowledge before
questioning the capability of or integrity of a Judge of the Highest Court and cautioned
that the right to criticize Judgments delivered by any court, including the Supreme
Court, does not encompass the right to question the "bona fides" of a judge or to raise
questions with regard to their competence.
A bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose made these observations while
holding Vijay Kurle (State President, Maharashtra & Goa, Indian Bar Association),
Rashid Khan Pathan (National Secretary, Human Rights Security Council) & Nilesh
Ojha (National President, Indian Bar Association) guilty of contempt.
"The cooperative banks under the State legislation and multi State cooperative banks
are 'banks' under section 2(1)(c) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002", held the Constitution Bench
comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and
Aniruddha Bose.
The bench unanimously held that the Parliament had the legislative competence to
bring cooperative banks under the ambit of SARFAESI Act.
It thus rejected the argument that 2013 amendment to the SARFAESI Act adding 'mutli-
state cooperative bank' in Section 2(1)(c)(iva) was a "colourable exercise of power". It
also upheld the 2003 notification issued under the Banking Regulation Act 1949 by
which cooperative bank was brought within the class of banks entitled to seek recourse
to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
[Case: Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule and others V. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari
Bank Limited]
Also Read: Cooperative Banks Must Comply With Banking Regulation Act And Other
Laws Related To Banking: SC
The Supreme Court passed an order detailing reasons for reference of questions of
law, to a larger bench in a review petition.
Limitations in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules are not applicable to
Orders/Judgments in Writ Petitions;
Reference can be made in a pending Review Petition;
No matter is beyond Jurisdiction of Superior Court of Record;
Article 142 justifies the Reference;
Not necessary to refer to facts to decide pure questions of law;
Article 145(3) Proviso that reference to a larger bench can be made only in
Appeals and not in any other proceedings is not applicable to references made
by a bench of five or more Judges.
Also Read: Better Internet Desirable During Pandemic Lockdown; But Can't Ignore
Terrorism Concerns : SC In J&K Pleas For 4G
27. India's Freedom Will Rest Safe As Long As Journalists Can Speak To Power
Without Being Chilled By A Threat Of Reprisal: SC in Arnab Goswami's case
Order dated May 19, 2020
It also declined to transfer the probe to CBI and said that the accused person does not
have a choice in regard to the mode or manner in which the investigation should be
carried out or in regard to the investigating agency. The dictum in the 2018 Bhima
Koregaon case (Romila Thapar vs Union of India) was cited in this regard.
Also Read: SC Rejects Arnab Goswami's Plea To Quash FIR By Maharashtra Police
And Transfer Probe To CBI
The Supreme Court observed that an arbitral award can be set aside under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if it is patently illegal or perverse. A bench
comprising Justices R. Banumathi, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose observed
that ground of patent illegality is a ground available under the statute for setting aside a
domestic award made after the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act.
While confirming the High Court view, the Apex Court dealt with the history of 'Patent
illegality' ground. It observed that such a ground for setting aside a domestic award was
first expounded in the judgment of Saw Pipes Ltd. Later the ground of "patent illegality"
for setting aside a domestic award has been given statutory force in Section 34(2A) of
the 1996 Act, it noted
The Supreme Court held that its suo motu order extending limitation and the lockdown
restrictions of the government will not affect the right of an accused to seek default bail
under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
Also Read: Judicial Discipline Ordains That Coordinate Bench Cannot Take Contrary
View; Can Only Refer To Larger Bench : SC
The Supreme Court recalled its March 27 order which allowed sale of 10% of unsold
BS-IV vehicles for ten days after the lockdown, in areas except Delhi-NCR, after noting
that the automobile dealers sold such vehicles during the lockdown in violation of the
order.
Following the recall of the order, a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul
Nazeer & Indira Banerjee held that such vehicles sold during lockdown should not be
treated as sold, and that the consideration received should be refunded to the
purchasers. The Court also ordered that no such vehicle, sold after March 31, should
be registered.
[Read Report Here]
Notably, the proposals regarding the Administrative Committee and the delegation of
powers to it came from the family itself.
The Supreme Court upheld the rights of erstwhile royal family of Travancore in the
administration of Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple at Thiruvananthapuram. Allowing
the appeal filed by members of the Travancore family, a bench of Justices UU Lalit &
Indu Malhotra reversed the finding of the High Court of Kerala that the rights of family
ceased to exist with the death of the last ruler of the Travancore in 1991. The death of
the last ruler will not result in escheat of the rights in favour of the government, the
Court held.
The Supreme Court has held that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a
condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record.
The bench has also clarified that that the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is
unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. The court said that the
judgment in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473 need not be
revisited, subject to the above clarifications.
The bench also overruled the 2018 decision delivered by a 2-judge bench in the
case Shafi Mohammad vs State of Himachal Pradesh.
The Supreme Court held that organizations supporting public causes without political
affiliations are not banned from accepting foreign contributions in terms of the Foreign
Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) 2010 and Rules made thereunder.
35. Supreme Court Passes Directions For Welfare Of Migrant Workers Who Lost
Job Due To Lockdown
The Supreme Court had come under a lot of criticism for its inaction on the plight of
migrant workers during lockdown. The Court had summarily closed several PILs filed
during March-April on migrants issue accepting the statements of Central Government.
In the last week of May, the Court took suo moto cognizance of the migrant workers
issue.
Later, the Court passed a slew of directions to the Centre and States for smooth
transportation of migrants back to their native places, for ensuring employment
opportunities after their return etc.
36.No Coercive Action Against Employers On MHA Order For Full Payment Of
Wages : SC
The Supreme Court interfered with the order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on
March 29 which had directed employers not to deduct wages of their employees during
lockdown.
The Court directed that no coercive action should be taken against employers for the
violation of the MHA order.
The Supreme Court batted for negotiations between establishments and workers on the
full payment of wages, regardless of the direction issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs on March 29.
"No industry can survive without the workers. Thus employers and employee need to
negotiate and settle among themselves. If they are not able to settle it among
themselves, they need to approach the concerned labour authorities to sort the issues
out", the order said.
37. Supreme Court Transfers Sushant Singh Rajput Death Case To CBI
A single bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy ordered the transfer without finding any wrong
doing by the Mumbai police.
While stating that the steps so far taken by the Mumbai Police cannot be faulted, the
Court said that investigation must be handed over to an "independent agency not
controlled by either of the two-state governments" considering the apprehension of
unfair investigation raised.
The most criticized judgment of the Supreme Court in 2020 was its verdict holding
Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for his tweets criticising
judiciary. A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari
formed the opinion that his tweets shook public confidence in judiciary and thererby
amounted to scandalizing the court. The hearings in the case witnessed dramataic
scenes when Prashant Bhushan refused to apologize and affirmed the views
expressed in his tweets. He filed a detailed affidavit in the court explaining the reasons
for his views. However, the judgment did not address the points raised in Bhushan's
affidavit or the arguments made by his lawyer Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave in court.
Though the bench repeatedly urged Bhushan to apologize, he stood his ground stating
that he was willing to undergo any punishment for his views. Attorney General K K
Venugopal requested the bench not to punish him. Ultimately, the bench sentenced
Bhushan to a fine of Rupees One.
39. Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Transfer PM CARES Funds To NDRF; Says
Fresh National Disaster Plan For COVID-19 Not Needed
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah also
held that there was no need for a fresh national disaster relief plan for COVID-19, and
that the minimum standards of relief as issued under the Disaster Management Act
prior to COVID-19 were enough.
The bench also clarified that the Centre will be free to transfer the funds to NDRF as it
deems appropriate and that individuals are at liberty to donate to NDRF.
40. Daughters Have Coparcenery Rights Even If Their Father Was Not Alive When
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Came Into Force: SC
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a daughter will have a
share after Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, irrespective of whether her
father was alive or not at the time of the amendment.
A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra today pronounced the judgment in a batch of
appeals that raised an important legal issue whether the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave equal right to daughters in ancestral property, has
a retrospective effect.
"Daughters must be given equal rights as sons, Daughter remains a loving daughter
throughout life. The daughter shall remain a coparcener throughout life, irrespective of
whether her father is alive or not", Justice Mishra said while pronouncing the judgment
today. The bench also comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah, overruled
the contrary observations made in Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v. T.B.
Raju.
Injustice To Daughters In Hindu Shastric Law Done Away With: SC Explains The
Impact Of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 [Read Judgment]
41. Supreme Court settles conflicts between UGC and State Disaster
Management Authority
The Supreme Court harmonized the conflicts between the directions issued by the
UGC regarding conduct of final semester exams and the directions issued by the State
Disaster Management Authorities in different states to cancel exams in view of the
pandemic situation.
The Court held that the State Disaster Management Authority can direct the
cancellation of exams taking note of the pandemic situation. However, the SDMA
cannot give a direction that students should be promoted without exams as that is a
matter pertaining to the UGC. The Court held that States may seek extension of the
September 30 deadline for exams based on the SDMA directions.
State Govt/SDMA Can Override UGC Deadline For Exam Based On Local
Pandemic Situation: SC
The Supreme Court has quashed the notification issued by the Gujarat Labour and
Employment Department granting exemptions to all factories in Gujarat from provisions
of the Factories Act, 1948 relating to daily working hours, weekly working hours,
intervals for rest and spread overs of adult workers as well as from payment of overtime
wages at double rates viz. Section 59.
In yet another debatable judgment, the Supreme Court held that the protests must be
carried out only in designated places. The Court made this pronouncement in the
petitions seeking the removal of Shaheen Bagh protests against CAA-NRC.
During the pendency of the case, the Court had appointed interlocuters to mediate with
the protesters. In March, with the onset of COVID-19, the protesters, mostly Muslim
women, had vacated the site.
Months after the protests had ceased, the Supreme Court in October delivered the
judgment on the legitimacy of the mode of protest.
"Dissent and democracy go hand in hand but protests must be carried out in
designated area", said the bench comprising Justices S K Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and
Krishna Murari.
While ordering the release of Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswmai from prison, the
Supreme Court held that High Courts can grant bail even in a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constittution in appropriate case.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee observed "the High
Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been
arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power".
Deprivation For A Single Day Is A Day To Many, Courts Must Ensure That
Criminal Law Does Not Become A Weapon For Selective Harassment Of Citizens:
SC In Arnab Goswami Judgment
45. Confession made to NDPS officers not admissible in evidence -SC rules by
2:1 majority in Tofan Singh case
The Supreme Court held by 2:1 majority that officers of the Central & State agencies
appointed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are police officers
and therefore the 'confessional' statements recorded by them under Section 67 are not
admissible.
Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha held thus, while Justice Indira
Banerjee gave a dissenting opinion in the case Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu.
Explainer: Why Supreme Court Held That Officers Designated U/s 53 NDPS Act
Are 'Police Officers' ?
46. Merely Because The Investigation Officer And Complainant Are The Same
The Trial In NDPS Cases Will Not Be Vitiated And Accused Cannot Be Acquitted
On That Ground : SC Constitution Bench
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that it cannot be held as a general
proposition that an accused under NDPS Act is entitled to an acquittal merely because
the complainant is the investigating officer.
"Merely because the informant and the investigating officer is the same, it cannot be
said that the investigation is biased and the trial is vitiated", the bench observed while
specifically overruling Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the decision of a
coordinate bench in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh requires to be revisited
and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before an appropriate larger
bench.
The bench expressed the view that once a State Government has the power to make
reservation, it also has the power to make sub-classifications and that such sub-
classification will not amount to tinkering with the reservation list.
'Are They Destined To Carry Their Backwardness Till Eternity?': SC Says Fruits
Of Reservation Not Reaching Lowest Strata Of SC-STs [Read Judgment]
48. Medical Council Of India Has No Power To Make Any Reservation For In-
Service Candidates; States Have: SC Constitution Bench
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that Medical Council of India has
no power to make any reservation for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Medical
Course in any particular state.
The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah
and Aniruddha Bose observed that the power of Medical Council of India Act is
referable to Entry 66, List 1, which is a limited source of power to lay down standards. It
held that the Medical Council of India regulations providing for reservation for in-service
candidates in PG Medical Courses are ultra vires the Medical Council of India Act.
The Court has however clarified that the judgment will apply only prospectively and will
not affect any admissions already made. The Court further observed that States can
make regulations to provide reservation for in-service doctors in PG medical course
and suggests that States may ask such beneficiaries to serve in rural, hilly and tribal
areas for five years.
A three judge bench of the Supreme Court found the Tribunal Rules 2020 to be
problematic. However, the bench refrained from striking the rules down after the
Attorney General agreed to the suggestions made by amicus curiae Senior Advocate
Arvind P Datar and undertook to amend the rules.
The bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao observed that the amendments are
necessary to ensure the independence and efficiency of tribunals. Significant in the
judgment passed in the case Madras Bar Association v Union of India are the
directions to constitute a National Tribunals Commission and to allow lawyers having at
least 10 years practice to become judicial members in tribunals.
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case Amish Devgan v Union of
India contains an elaborate discussion on the concept of 'hate speech'.
"In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any
legitimate way to democracy and, in fact,repudiates the right to equality", the judgment
authored by Justice Khanna observed.
The Supreme Court has observed that where the accused has already applied for
default bail, the Prosecutor cannot defeat the enforcement of his indefeasible right by
subsequently filing a final report, additional complaint or report seeking extension of
time.
52. Prior Environmental Clearance for Land Acquisition for National Highway -
Supreme Court explains
The Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition notifications for the proposed Chennai
-Salem eight lane national highway by holding that prior enviornemntal clearance is not
needed at the stage of notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act.
Reversing the judgment of the Madras High Court, the top court held that the stage
where prior environmental clearance is required is before issuing declaration of
acquisition under Section 3D of the Act.
Centre Has Power To Notify Any Land For Acquisition For A New National
Highway : Supreme Court
53. [Domestic Violence Act] Wife Entitled To Claim Right Of Residence Which
Belongs To Relatives Of Husband Also: Supreme Court Overrules Its 2006 'SR
Batra' Judgment
It added, "The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some
permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared
household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of
household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat
the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, Act 2005 was enacted to
give a higher right in favour of woman. The Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for
more effective protection of the rights of the woman who are victims of violence of any
kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate
the very purpose and object of the Act."
A three judge bench of the Supreme Court answered a reference to hold that landlord-
tenant disputes are arbitrable unless covered by specific rent contorl laws.
The judgment delivered by a three judge bench in the case Vidya Drolia and others v
Durga Trading Enterprises also decides several issues such as tests for arbitrability,
who determines arbitrability, scope of enquiry under Sections 8/11, meaning of
'existence of arbitration agreement' etc.
The bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari
overruled the view in Himangni Enterprises vs Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia.
In a path-breaking Judgment, the Supreme Court has directed that in case of any
human right violation by investigating agencies like police, CBI, NIA, ED Etc, the victims
have the right to get the copy of CCTV footage of interrogation and also to approach
the National/State Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the
Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered to take cognizance of an
offence.
The Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to install CCTV cameras and
recording equipment in the offices of Central Agencies like Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), National Investigation Agency (NIA), Enforcement Directorate (ED),
Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and
Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
The court observed that it should also be installed in the offices of any other agency
which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest.
The only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2),
Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be,
and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no
chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is
prepared to furnish bail, the Court observed.
The court also added that the circumstances while considering the regular bail
application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, while considering the application for
default bail/statutory bail.
[Case: Saravanan v. State]
58. Eviction order under Senior Citizens Act cannot defeat rights under Domestic
Violence Act
The Supreme Court has held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act has no overriding effect over the right of residence of a woman in a shared
household within the meaning of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee
observed thus while cancelling anticipatory bail granted to in-laws of a deceased
woman in a dowry death case and also directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to
further investigate the case.
Also from the judgment : Selective Leaks During Investigation To Media Affect
Rights Of Accused And Victims: Supreme Court
The bench headed by Justice RF Nariman, said that the High Courts are subordinate
judicially to the Supreme Court and the directions issued in Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Private Limited. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ought to be followed.
Addendum :
The Supreme Court has observed that the candidates belonging to reserved category,
are eligible to fill general/open category vacancies also.
The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Hrishikesh
Roy held that this principle should also be followed while filling vacancies in horizontal
reservations in open category.
The Court has disapproved the view taken by some High Courts that, at the stage of
accommodating candidates for effecting horizontal reservation, the candidates from
reserved categories can be adjusted only against their own categories under the
concerned vertical reservation and not against the "Open or General Category.
62. Judicial Officers Cannot Seek Direct Recruitment To Post Of District Judges
Against Quota For Advocates : SC [Read Judgment]
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that civil judges are not eligible
to seek direct recruitment to post of District Judges in bar quota.
The Supreme Court has held that a complaint before Consumer Fora by allottees
against builders is not barred by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016.
The Court also held that period for allotment of flat to a homebuyer has to be reckoned
from the date of the buyer agreement and not from the date of the registration of the
project under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act (RERA Act). A division
bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran said that entitlement of the
Complainants must be considered in the light of the terms of the Builder Buyer
Agreements.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
Also Read :
The Good And Bad : Read 35 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2018
Best Of 2016: Read 25 Significant Judgments Of Supreme Court of India in 2016
Reminiscing 2014: 15 judgments by the Apex Court that altered the course
In the COVID-19 infected year of 2020, the Supreme Court went through
unprecedented experiences, with video conferencing and e-filing substituting physical
hearings and filings.
Even with virtual functioning, the Supreme Court delivered several important judgments
and settled several prominent questions of law. Here is a list of 65 important judgments
of 2020, including the verdicts which have come under severe criticism.
The arrangement of the judgments in the list is mostly in the order of chronology and
the same is not indicative of their relative importance.
A significant take away from the judgment is its declaration that freedom of speech and
expression and also freedom of trade and commerce through the medium of internet
are constitutionally protected rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and Articles 19(1)(g),
respectively
The Court said : "We declare that the freedom of speech and expression and the
freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over
the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article
19(1)(g)".
The Court observed that indefinite suspension of internet is not permissible and that
repeated orders under Section 144 CrPC will amount to abuse of power. The Court
also added that the Government should publish all orders of restrictions, and should
follow the principles of proportionality to adopt less restrictive measures.
The Court observed that the power under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure cannot
be used as a tool to prevent the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or
exercise of any democratic rights. The Court said that provisions of Section 144,
Cr.P.C. will only be applicable in a situation of emergency and for the purpose of
preventing obstruction and annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed.
While the judgment is laudable for its reaffirmation of the principles of proportionality, its
caution against arbitrary use of Section 144 to curb dissent and its recognition of
internet as a medium to exercise fundamental right to free speech and trade and
commerce, the Court stopped short of giving a ruling of the legality of the prohibitory
orders passed by the administration. The judgment remained as a restatement of
principle without tangible relief to the petitioners.
It directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review all orders of restrictions
imposed in the state post the abrogation of the state's special status within a week.
On January 29, a constitution bench of the the Supreme Court held that anticipatory
bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. But if there are any special or
peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open
for it to do so, the five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has held. Justices
MR Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat penned separate judgments agreeing with each
other. Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and Vineet Saran concurred with the
conclusion reached by both the judges. The Court also held that life or duration of an
anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is
summoned by the court, or when charges are framed but can continue till the end of the
trial except in special and peculiar cases.
Other reports about the judgment : Rights Cherished By Citizens Are
Fundamental, Not The Restrictions
Accused Released On Anticipatory Bail Need Not Surrender And Seek Regular
Bail For Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act
The Constitution Bench also discussed in the judgment the impact of recovery under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on the bail granted. In this regard, the bench
comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and
Ravindra Bhat in the case Sushila Aggarwal and others v State of NCT of Delhi and
others largely reaffirmed the principles laid down in the case Shri Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565.
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of West Bengal Madrasah Service
Commission Act 2008 observing that there is no absolute and unqualified right of
appointment for minority educational institutions.
A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and U U Lalit delivered the verdict on Monday in the
case SK Md Raffique v Managing Committee, Contai Rehmania High
Madrasah and others.
The case concerned the validity of West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act
2008, which constituted a commission to appoint teachers in madrasas.
Later, a writ petition was filed against this verdict contending that it was contrary to the
judgment of a 3-judge bench in Chandana Das (Malakar) v. State of West
Bengal, passed on September 25, 2019, on minority rights.
On January 30, a bench headed by the CJI issued notice on the writ petition which
sought reference of the issue to a larger bench.
4. JJ Act: Offences Prescribing Max Sentence Of More Than 7 Years But Not
Providing Minimum Sentence Are Not 'Heinous Offences', But 'Serious Offences':
Shilpa Mittal v State of NCT of Delhi and Another
The Supreme Court has held that Speaker of the Legislative Assembly should decide
on a petition seeking disqualification of a member under Tenth Schedule of the
Constitution within a period of three months, in the absence of exceptional reasons.
Highlighting the importance of taking a decision within a reasonable time, the SC
said ,"The Speaker, in acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, is bound to
decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period...a period of three months
from the date on which the petition is filed is the outer limit within which disqualification
petitions filed before the Speaker must be decided if the constitutional objective of
disqualifying persons who have infracted the Tenth Schedule is to be adhered to." This
was held by a bench comprising Justices R F Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V
Ramasubramanian in a case relating to alleged defection in Manipur assembly.
As a sequel to this order, the Supreme Court in March restrained Manipur BJP minister
Thounaojam Shyamkumar from entering the Legislative Assembly till further orders.
The Court also declared that he will cease to be a Minister. This extraordinary order
was passed by the becnh headed by Justice Nariman after noting that the Speaker
failed to decide on the disqualification petition against Shyamkumar within the time
period stipulated in the earlier order.
6. Validity of SC/ST Amendment Act 2018 upheld - Prathvi Raj Chouhan vs Union
of India
'Fraternity Assures True Equality; Articles 15, 17 & 24 Seek To Achieve This
Ideal' : Justice Ravindra Bhat In SC/ST Verdict
7. A Child In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Kept In Jail Or Police Lockup Under
Any Circumstance: SC
"We make it clear that the Juvenile Justice Boards are not meant to be silent spectators
and pass orders only when a matter comes before them. They can take note of the
factual situation if it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been detained
in prison or police lock up. It is the duty of the JJBs to ensure that the child is
immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of safety. The Act
cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all the police".
This was held by a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi in
the case The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v Babita Puniya and others.
Later in March, in another judgment, the court held that women officers in Navy are
also entitled to Permanent Commission at par with men(Union of India v Lt Cdr Annie
Nagaraja).
Other reports about the judgment : Notion That Women Are 'Weaker Sex'
Constitutionally Flawed: SC Calls For Change In Mindset
In a highly debatable judgment, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Friday held
that proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 will not lapse if the compensation
has been tendered by deposit in treasury(Indore Development Authority v
Manoharlal and others etc).
The Court held that land owners cannot insist that the amount should be deposited in
Court so as to sustain the land acquisition proceedings under the old Act on the
commencement of the new land acquisition law with effect from January 1, 2014.
The bench has affirmed the view in the 2018 Indore Development Authority case,
overruling the 2014 judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation case. A bench
comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and
Ravindra Bhat had heard the matter.
The bench read 'or' in Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act as 'and' to hold that the twin
conditions of failure to pay compensation and also to take possession must
cumulatively happen for the acquisition proceedings under the old land acquisition law
to lapse.
Hours before the scheduled execution on March 20, the convicts in the Nirbhaya case
knocked the doors of the Supreme Court past midnight, hoping for a last minute judicial
intervention to extend their lives.
But the last ditch effort of the convicts met with no success, as the bench
comprising Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna dismissed the
plea, after a special sitting which commenced at around 2.45 AM.
At about 3.30 AM, the bench dictated the order dismissing the writ petition filed on
behalf of convict Pawan Kumar Gupta, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by
the President. The Court held that the scope of judicial review over the President's
exercise of clemency power was extremely narrow.
Two hours later, the convicts were hanged to death at 5.30AM at Tihar jail.
12. SC Extends Limitation For Filing In All Courts/Tribunals With Effect From
March 15 Until Further Orders On Account of COVID19
With the objective of reducing physical filings in courts and tribunals across the
countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court on Monday passed a
general order extending the limitation, whether condonable or not, with effect from
March 15, until further orders.
"To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come
physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country
including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such
proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special
Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further
order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings", ordered the bench
comprising CJI S A Bobde, Justices L Nageshwara Rao and Surya Kant.
Later, on September 19, clarifying its 23 March order, the Bench of CJI SA Bobde,
Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the said order
extended only "the period of limitation" and not the period upto which delay can be
condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The Court held that the
expression "prescribed period" appearing in Section 4 of the Limitation Act cannot be
construed to mean anything other than the period of limitation.
SC Order Extending Limitation Period Does Not Enlarge The Period Upto Which
Delay Can Be Condoned In Exercise Of Statutory Discretion: SC [Read
Judgment]
To avoid overcrowding in prisons in the wake of COVID pandemic, the Supreme Court
on Monday directed all states and Union Territories to set up high level committees to
determine class of prisoners who could be released on parole for four to six weeks
A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde observed that the prisoners convicted of
or charged with offences having jail term of up to seven years can be given parole to
decongest jails.
Case : Suo Moto Writ Petition In Re: Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons
"...environment law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance. This
would be contrary to both the precautionary principle as well as the need for
sustainable development", the court reiterated in light of the observations made
in Common Cause v. Union of India.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court lifted the curbs imposed by the Reserve
Bank of India on regulated entities such as banks and NBFCs from dealing with virtual
currencies and from providing services to crypto businesses.
The Court held that the RBI's circular, which prevented regulated entities from providing
banking services to those engaged in the trading or facilitating the trading in VCs, was
liable to be set aside on the "ground of proportionality".
"When the consistent stand of RBI is that they have not banned VCs and when the
Government of India is unable to take a call despite several committees coming up with
several proposals including two draft bills, both of which advocated exactly opposite
positions, it is not possible for us to hold that the impugned measure is proportionate",
the Court observed.
The case (Internet and Mobile Association of India vs Reserve Bank of India) was
heard by a three judge bench comprising Justices R F Nariman, Aniruddha Bose
and V Ramasubramanian.
(Case: In Re: Guidelines For Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During
Covid-19 Pandemic)
17.Governor Can Direct Floor Test Even While House Is In Session : Supreme
Court Approves MP Governor's Decision
While hearing a petition filed by Shivraj Singh Chouhan and other BJP leaders seeking
immediate floor test in the MP assembly following the resignation of 22 Congress
MLAs, the bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta held that a
Governor can direct floor test even while house is in session.
The Court therefore affirmed its order passed on May 19 to hold floor test in the MP
assembly for proving the majority of the previous government led by Kamal Nath.
18. Free COVID-19 Testing Only For Persons Under Ayushman Bharat Scheme
And EWS Categories; Supreme Court Allows Private Labs To Charge Others
free testing will be available to persons eligible under Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri
Jan Aarogya Yojana as already implemented by the Government of India, and any
other category of economically weaker sections of the society as notified by the
Government for free testing for COVID-19.
Also Read: SC Dismisses PIL Seeking GST Exemption For Face Masks & Sanitizers
The Bench also quashed the Government order issued under the hand of Governor of
State of Andhra Pradesh which had affirmed absolute reservation for ST teachers and
imposed costs on both Andhra Pradesh & Telangana Government's, seeking reasons
from the Government's for breaching the 50% ceiling in reservations.
(Case: Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors.)
Also Read: Affluent & Advanced Within SC/ST Not Permitting Reservation Benefits
Trickle Down To Needy : SC Calls For List Revision
While overruling an earlier 2008 decision titled E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer,
Narcotic Control Bureau, bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and M R Shah
held that the quantity of neutral substances in a mixture containing narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances must be taken into account along with the actual weight of the
offending drug while determining 'small or commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act.
Supreme Court held that a 'deemed university' will come under the ambit of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. Bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar
and Ajay Rastogi set aside a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which had allowed
the discharge of trustees of a deemed university, from prosecution in a corruption case.
The Apex Court observed that the High Court was in fact incorrect in holding that a
"Deemed University" is excluded from the ambit of the term "University" under Section
2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Supreme Court held that a citizen must have some standing or knowledge before
questioning the capability of or integrity of a Judge of the Highest Court and cautioned
that the right to criticize Judgments delivered by any court, including the Supreme
Court, does not encompass the right to question the "bona fides" of a judge or to raise
questions with regard to their competence.
A bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose made these observations while
holding Vijay Kurle (State President, Maharashtra & Goa, Indian Bar Association),
Rashid Khan Pathan (National Secretary, Human Rights Security Council) & Nilesh
Ojha (National President, Indian Bar Association) guilty of contempt.
"The cooperative banks under the State legislation and multi State cooperative banks
are 'banks' under section 2(1)(c) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002", held the Constitution Bench
comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and
Aniruddha Bose.
The bench unanimously held that the Parliament had the legislative competence to
bring cooperative banks under the ambit of SARFAESI Act.
It thus rejected the argument that 2013 amendment to the SARFAESI Act adding 'mutli-
state cooperative bank' in Section 2(1)(c)(iva) was a "colourable exercise of power". It
also upheld the 2003 notification issued under the Banking Regulation Act 1949 by
which cooperative bank was brought within the class of banks entitled to seek recourse
to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
The Supreme Court passed an order detailing reasons for reference of questions of
law, to a larger bench in a review petition.
Limitations in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules are not applicable to
Orders/Judgments in Writ Petitions;
Reference can be made in a pending Review Petition;
No matter is beyond Jurisdiction of Superior Court of Record;
Article 142 justifies the Reference;
Not necessary to refer to facts to decide pure questions of law;
Article 145(3) Proviso that reference to a larger bench can be made only in
Appeals and not in any other proceedings is not applicable to references made
by a bench of five or more Judges.
Also Read: Better Internet Desirable During Pandemic Lockdown; But Can't Ignore
Terrorism Concerns : SC In J&K Pleas For 4G
27. India's Freedom Will Rest Safe As Long As Journalists Can Speak To Power
Without Being Chilled By A Threat Of Reprisal: SC in Arnab Goswami's case
Order dated May 19, 2020
It also declined to transfer the probe to CBI and said that the accused person does not
have a choice in regard to the mode or manner in which the investigation should be
carried out or in regard to the investigating agency. The dictum in the 2018 Bhima
Koregaon case (Romila Thapar vs Union of India) was cited in this regard.
Also Read: SC Rejects Arnab Goswami's Plea To Quash FIR By Maharashtra Police
And Transfer Probe To CBI
The Supreme Court observed that an arbitral award can be set aside under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if it is patently illegal or perverse. A bench
comprising Justices R. Banumathi, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose observed
that ground of patent illegality is a ground available under the statute for setting aside a
domestic award made after the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act.
While confirming the High Court view, the Apex Court dealt with the history of 'Patent
illegality' ground. It observed that such a ground for setting aside a domestic award was
first expounded in the judgment of Saw Pipes Ltd. Later the ground of "patent illegality"
for setting aside a domestic award has been given statutory force in Section 34(2A) of
the 1996 Act, it noted
The Supreme Court held that its suo motu order extending limitation and the lockdown
restrictions of the government will not affect the right of an accused to seek default bail
under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
Also Read: Judicial Discipline Ordains That Coordinate Bench Cannot Take Contrary
View; Can Only Refer To Larger Bench : SC
The Supreme Court recalled its March 27 order which allowed sale of 10% of unsold
BS-IV vehicles for ten days after the lockdown, in areas except Delhi-NCR, after noting
that the automobile dealers sold such vehicles during the lockdown in violation of the
order.
Following the recall of the order, a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul
Nazeer & Indira Banerjee held that such vehicles sold during lockdown should not be
treated as sold, and that the consideration received should be refunded to the
purchasers. The Court also ordered that no such vehicle, sold after March 31, should
be registered.
[Read Report Here]
Notably, the proposals regarding the Administrative Committee and the delegation of
powers to it came from the family itself.
The Supreme Court upheld the rights of erstwhile royal family of Travancore in the
administration of Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple at Thiruvananthapuram. Allowing
the appeal filed by members of the Travancore family, a bench of Justices UU Lalit &
Indu Malhotra reversed the finding of the High Court of Kerala that the rights of family
ceased to exist with the death of the last ruler of the Travancore in 1991. The death of
the last ruler will not result in escheat of the rights in favour of the government, the
Court held.
The Supreme Court has held that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a
condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record.
The bench has also clarified that that the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is
unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. The court said that the
judgment in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473 need not be
revisited, subject to the above clarifications.
The bench also overruled the 2018 decision delivered by a 2-judge bench in the
case Shafi Mohammad vs State of Himachal Pradesh.
The Supreme Court held that organizations supporting public causes without political
affiliations are not banned from accepting foreign contributions in terms of the Foreign
Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) 2010 and Rules made thereunder.
35. Supreme Court Passes Directions For Welfare Of Migrant Workers Who Lost
Job Due To Lockdown
The Supreme Court had come under a lot of criticism for its inaction on the plight of
migrant workers during lockdown. The Court had summarily closed several PILs filed
during March-April on migrants issue accepting the statements of Central Government.
In the last week of May, the Court took suo moto cognizance of the migrant workers
issue.
Later, the Court passed a slew of directions to the Centre and States for smooth
transportation of migrants back to their native places, for ensuring employment
opportunities after their return etc.
36.No Coercive Action Against Employers On MHA Order For Full Payment Of
Wages : SC
The Supreme Court interfered with the order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on
March 29 which had directed employers not to deduct wages of their employees during
lockdown.
The Court directed that no coercive action should be taken against employers for the
violation of the MHA order.
The Supreme Court batted for negotiations between establishments and workers on the
full payment of wages, regardless of the direction issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs on March 29.
"No industry can survive without the workers. Thus employers and employee need to
negotiate and settle among themselves. If they are not able to settle it among
themselves, they need to approach the concerned labour authorities to sort the issues
out", the order said.
37. Supreme Court Transfers Sushant Singh Rajput Death Case To CBI
A single bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy ordered the transfer without finding any wrong
doing by the Mumbai police.
While stating that the steps so far taken by the Mumbai Police cannot be faulted, the
Court said that investigation must be handed over to an "independent agency not
controlled by either of the two-state governments" considering the apprehension of
unfair investigation raised.
The most criticized judgment of the Supreme Court in 2020 was its verdict holding
Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for his tweets criticising
judiciary. A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari
formed the opinion that his tweets shook public confidence in judiciary and thererby
amounted to scandalizing the court. The hearings in the case witnessed dramataic
scenes when Prashant Bhushan refused to apologize and affirmed the views
expressed in his tweets. He filed a detailed affidavit in the court explaining the reasons
for his views. However, the judgment did not address the points raised in Bhushan's
affidavit or the arguments made by his lawyer Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave in court.
Though the bench repeatedly urged Bhushan to apologize, he stood his ground stating
that he was willing to undergo any punishment for his views. Attorney General K K
Venugopal requested the bench not to punish him. Ultimately, the bench sentenced
Bhushan to a fine of Rupees One.
39. Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Transfer PM CARES Funds To NDRF; Says
Fresh National Disaster Plan For COVID-19 Not Needed
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah also
held that there was no need for a fresh national disaster relief plan for COVID-19, and
that the minimum standards of relief as issued under the Disaster Management Act
prior to COVID-19 were enough.
The bench also clarified that the Centre will be free to transfer the funds to NDRF as it
deems appropriate and that individuals are at liberty to donate to NDRF.
40. Daughters Have Coparcenery Rights Even If Their Father Was Not Alive When
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Came Into Force: SC
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a daughter will have a
share after Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, irrespective of whether her
father was alive or not at the time of the amendment.
A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra today pronounced the judgment in a batch of
appeals that raised an important legal issue whether the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave equal right to daughters in ancestral property, has
a retrospective effect.
"Daughters must be given equal rights as sons, Daughter remains a loving daughter
throughout life. The daughter shall remain a coparcener throughout life, irrespective of
whether her father is alive or not", Justice Mishra said while pronouncing the judgment
today. The bench also comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah, overruled
the contrary observations made in Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v. T.B.
Raju.
Injustice To Daughters In Hindu Shastric Law Done Away With: SC Explains The
Impact Of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 [Read Judgment]
41. Supreme Court settles conflicts between UGC and State Disaster
Management Authority
The Supreme Court harmonized the conflicts between the directions issued by the
UGC regarding conduct of final semester exams and the directions issued by the State
Disaster Management Authorities in different states to cancel exams in view of the
pandemic situation.
The Court held that the State Disaster Management Authority can direct the
cancellation of exams taking note of the pandemic situation. However, the SDMA
cannot give a direction that students should be promoted without exams as that is a
matter pertaining to the UGC. The Court held that States may seek extension of the
September 30 deadline for exams based on the SDMA directions.
State Govt/SDMA Can Override UGC Deadline For Exam Based On Local
Pandemic Situation: SC
The Supreme Court has quashed the notification issued by the Gujarat Labour and
Employment Department granting exemptions to all factories in Gujarat from provisions
of the Factories Act, 1948 relating to daily working hours, weekly working hours,
intervals for rest and spread overs of adult workers as well as from payment of overtime
wages at double rates viz. Section 59.
In yet another debatable judgment, the Supreme Court held that the protests must be
carried out only in designated places. The Court made this pronouncement in the
petitions seeking the removal of Shaheen Bagh protests against CAA-NRC.
During the pendency of the case, the Court had appointed interlocuters to mediate with
the protesters. In March, with the onset of COVID-19, the protesters, mostly Muslim
women, had vacated the site.
Months after the protests had ceased, the Supreme Court in October delivered the
judgment on the legitimacy of the mode of protest.
"Dissent and democracy go hand in hand but protests must be carried out in
designated area", said the bench comprising Justices S K Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and
Krishna Murari.
While ordering the release of Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswmai from prison, the
Supreme Court held that High Courts can grant bail even in a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constittution in appropriate case.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee observed "the High
Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been
arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power".
Deprivation For A Single Day Is A Day To Many, Courts Must Ensure That
Criminal Law Does Not Become A Weapon For Selective Harassment Of Citizens:
SC In Arnab Goswami Judgment
45. Confession made to NDPS officers not admissible in evidence -SC rules by
2:1 majority in Tofan Singh case
The Supreme Court held by 2:1 majority that officers of the Central & State agencies
appointed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are police officers
and therefore the 'confessional' statements recorded by them under Section 67 are not
admissible.
Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha held thus, while Justice Indira
Banerjee gave a dissenting opinion in the case Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu.
Explainer: Why Supreme Court Held That Officers Designated U/s 53 NDPS Act
Are 'Police Officers' ?
46. Merely Because The Investigation Officer And Complainant Are The Same
The Trial In NDPS Cases Will Not Be Vitiated And Accused Cannot Be Acquitted
On That Ground : SC Constitution Bench
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that it cannot be held as a general
proposition that an accused under NDPS Act is entitled to an acquittal merely because
the complainant is the investigating officer.
"Merely because the informant and the investigating officer is the same, it cannot be
said that the investigation is biased and the trial is vitiated", the bench observed while
specifically overruling Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the decision of a
coordinate bench in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh requires to be revisited
and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before an appropriate larger
bench.
The bench expressed the view that once a State Government has the power to make
reservation, it also has the power to make sub-classifications and that such sub-
classification will not amount to tinkering with the reservation list.
'Are They Destined To Carry Their Backwardness Till Eternity?': SC Says Fruits
Of Reservation Not Reaching Lowest Strata Of SC-STs [Read Judgment]
48. Medical Council Of India Has No Power To Make Any Reservation For In-
Service Candidates; States Have: SC Constitution Bench
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that Medical Council of India has
no power to make any reservation for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Medical
Course in any particular state.
The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah
and Aniruddha Bose observed that the power of Medical Council of India Act is
referable to Entry 66, List 1, which is a limited source of power to lay down standards. It
held that the Medical Council of India regulations providing for reservation for in-service
candidates in PG Medical Courses are ultra vires the Medical Council of India Act.
The Court has however clarified that the judgment will apply only prospectively and will
not affect any admissions already made. The Court further observed that States can
make regulations to provide reservation for in-service doctors in PG medical course
and suggests that States may ask such beneficiaries to serve in rural, hilly and tribal
areas for five years.
A three judge bench of the Supreme Court found the Tribunal Rules 2020 to be
problematic. However, the bench refrained from striking the rules down after the
Attorney General agreed to the suggestions made by amicus curiae Senior Advocate
Arvind P Datar and undertook to amend the rules.
The bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao observed that the amendments are
necessary to ensure the independence and efficiency of tribunals. Significant in the
judgment passed in the case Madras Bar Association v Union of India are the
directions to constitute a National Tribunals Commission and to allow lawyers having at
least 10 years practice to become judicial members in tribunals.
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case Amish Devgan v Union of
India contains an elaborate discussion on the concept of 'hate speech'.
"In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any
legitimate way to democracy and, in fact,repudiates the right to equality", the judgment
authored by Justice Khanna observed.
The Supreme Court has observed that where the accused has already applied for
default bail, the Prosecutor cannot defeat the enforcement of his indefeasible right by
subsequently filing a final report, additional complaint or report seeking extension of
time.
52. Prior Environmental Clearance for Land Acquisition for National Highway -
Supreme Court explains
The Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition notifications for the proposed Chennai
-Salem eight lane national highway by holding that prior enviornemntal clearance is not
needed at the stage of notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act.
Reversing the judgment of the Madras High Court, the top court held that the stage
where prior environmental clearance is required is before issuing declaration of
acquisition under Section 3D of the Act.
Centre Has Power To Notify Any Land For Acquisition For A New National
Highway : Supreme Court
53. [Domestic Violence Act] Wife Entitled To Claim Right Of Residence Which
Belongs To Relatives Of Husband Also: Supreme Court Overrules Its 2006 'SR
Batra' Judgment
It added, "The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some
permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared
household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of
household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat
the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, Act 2005 was enacted to
give a higher right in favour of woman. The Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for
more effective protection of the rights of the woman who are victims of violence of any
kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate
the very purpose and object of the Act."
A three judge bench of the Supreme Court answered a reference to hold that landlord-
tenant disputes are arbitrable unless covered by specific rent contorl laws.
The judgment delivered by a three judge bench in the case Vidya Drolia and others v
Durga Trading Enterprises also decides several issues such as tests for arbitrability,
who determines arbitrability, scope of enquiry under Sections 8/11, meaning of
'existence of arbitration agreement' etc.
The bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari
overruled the view in Himangni Enterprises vs Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia.
In a path-breaking Judgment, the Supreme Court has directed that in case of any
human right violation by investigating agencies like police, CBI, NIA, ED Etc, the victims
have the right to get the copy of CCTV footage of interrogation and also to approach
the National/State Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the
Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered to take cognizance of an
offence.
The Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to install CCTV cameras and
recording equipment in the offices of Central Agencies like Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), National Investigation Agency (NIA), Enforcement Directorate (ED),
Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and
Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
The court observed that it should also be installed in the offices of any other agency
which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest.
The only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2),
Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be,
and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no
chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is
prepared to furnish bail, the Court observed.
The court also added that the circumstances while considering the regular bail
application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different, while considering the application for
default bail/statutory bail.
[Case: Saravanan v. State]
58. Eviction order under Senior Citizens Act cannot defeat rights under Domestic
Violence Act
The Supreme Court has held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act has no overriding effect over the right of residence of a woman in a shared
household within the meaning of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee
observed thus while cancelling anticipatory bail granted to in-laws of a deceased
woman in a dowry death case and also directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to
further investigate the case.
Also from the judgment : Selective Leaks During Investigation To Media Affect
Rights Of Accused And Victims: Supreme Court
The bench headed by Justice RF Nariman, said that the High Courts are subordinate
judicially to the Supreme Court and the directions issued in Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Private Limited. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ought to be followed.
Addendum :
The Supreme Court has observed that the candidates belonging to reserved category,
are eligible to fill general/open category vacancies also.
The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Hrishikesh
Roy held that this principle should also be followed while filling vacancies in horizontal
reservations in open category.
The Court has disapproved the view taken by some High Courts that, at the stage of
accommodating candidates for effecting horizontal reservation, the candidates from
reserved categories can be adjusted only against their own categories under the
concerned vertical reservation and not against the "Open or General Category.
62. Judicial Officers Cannot Seek Direct Recruitment To Post Of District Judges
Against Quota For Advocates : SC [Read Judgment]
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that civil judges are not eligible
to seek direct recruitment to post of District Judges in bar quota.
The Supreme Court has held that a complaint before Consumer Fora by allottees
against builders is not barred by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016.
The Court also held that period for allotment of flat to a homebuyer has to be reckoned
from the date of the buyer agreement and not from the date of the registration of the
project under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act (RERA Act). A division
bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran said that entitlement of the
Complainants must be considered in the light of the terms of the Builder Buyer
Agreements.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
Also Read :
The Good And Bad : Read 35 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2018
Best Of 2016: Read 25 Significant Judgments Of Supreme Court of India in 2016
Reminiscing 2014: 15 judgments by the Apex Court that altered the course