Professional Documents
Culture Documents
100 Major Supreme Court Judgments of 2021 (Part 2, Judgments 53-75) - 1
100 Major Supreme Court Judgments of 2021 (Part 2, Judgments 53-75) - 1
JOB UPDATES BOOK REVIEWS EVENTS CORNER LAWYERS & LAW FIRMS CARTOONS SC JUDGMENTS लाइव लॉ
हिंदी ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT
Home / Top Stories / 100 Major Supreme...
TOP STORIES
SHARE THIS -
This is the second part of the article. The first part covered 52 judgments delivered from
January to June. This part includes judgments(53-75) delivered from July to October. The
third part will cover judgments (76-100) from October to December. Read the first part
here.
53. 'Delhi Can Ill-Afford Another Riots; Role Of Facebook Must Be Looked Into':
[Case: Ajit Mohan & Others v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi
Also Read - 'Cow Exhales Oxygen', 'Skin To Skin' , 'Will You Marry Her' & Other
Advertisement
The Supreme Court refused to quash the summons issued to Facebook India Managing
Director Ajit Mohan by the Peace and Harmony committee of the Delhi Assembly
comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
held that the Delhi Assembly's enquiry cannot encroach into "prohibited domains" of law
and order and criminal prosecution, as they are subjects under the domain of the Union
Government. Therefore, the Court held that any representative of the petitioner can deny
answering any question by the committee if it falls within the prohibited domains.
Also Read - Fact-Check : Media Reports About First Conviction Under UP 'Love Jihad'
The judgment has detailed discussions on the responsibility of social media platforms,
jurisdictional contours of legislative assemblies and the scope of judicial review over
legislative committees.
Also Read: Facebook Can't Disrupt India's 'Unity In Diversity' Claiming Ignorance Or Lack
54. Tribunals Reforms Ordinance : Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Fixing Term
Of Members As 4 Years
Also Read - Negative Discrimination Can't Be Claimed Under Articles 14 & 16 Referring
The Supreme Court by 2 :1 majority set aside the provisions in the Tribunals Reforms
Ordinance 2021 which fixed the term of members of various tribunals as four years. The
majority comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat held that this term
violated the express direction given in the earlier judgments in Rojer Mathew and Madras
Bar Association cases that the term of tribunal members should be 5 years. Accordingly,
the bench set aside those provisions. Justice Hemant Gupta dissented saying that a law
cannot be struck down merely for the reason of being contrary to judgments.
The Madras Bar Association had filed the writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging
the extent it amends Sections 184 and 186 of the Finance Act 2017. Delivering its
judgment in the writ petition filed by the Madras Bar Association challenging the
Ordinance, the majority stated that its provisions will not apply to appointments made
prior to February 4, 2021( the date when the Ordinance was notified).
Supreme Court Strikes Down Minimum Age Limit Of 50 Years For Appointment As
Tribunal Members
Also Read: 'Law Can't Be Struck Down Merely For Being Contrary To Court's Guidelines':
Also Read: Judicial Independence Can Be Sustained Only When Incumbents Are
55. Religious Sentiments Subservient To Right To Health & Life : Case Against Kanwar
Yatra
The Supreme Court has observed that religious sentiments are subservient to the
fundamental right to life and health while adjudicating in the suo motu case taken
against the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government to allow the Kanwar Yatra
pilgrimage amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bench comprising Justices RF Nariman
and BR Gavai observed that the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot go ahead with the Kanwar
Yatra, especially so when the Union Government has taken a stand against holding the
same.
"We are of the view that this is a matter which concerns everyone of us as citizens of
India, and goes to the very heart of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which has a
pride of place in the fundamental rights Chapter of our Constitution. The health of the
citizenry of India and their right to "life" are paramount .All other sentiments, al beit
religious, are subservient to this most basic fundamental right", the Bench observed in
the order.
The Court also made similar observations in the case regarding the lockdown relaxations
announced by the Kerala Government ahead of the Bakrid festival. If the relaxations
disease", action will be taken against those responsible, warned the Supreme Court.
56. Supreme Court Strikes Down 97th Constitutional Amendment To The Extent It
The Supreme Court upheld a 2013 judgment of the Gujarat High Court which struck down
the provisions of the Constitution(97th Amendment) Act 2011 to the extent it introduced
comprising Justices Rohinton Nariman, KM Joseph and BR Gavai dismissed the appeals
filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. The bench
least one-half of the state legislatures as per Article 368(2) of the Constitution, since it
dealt with a entry which was an exclusive state subject (co-operative societies). Since
such ratification was not done in the case of the 97th Constitutional amendment, it was
There was a split in the bench on the point whether Part IX B will survive with respect to
multi-state co-operative societies. While the majority comprising Justices Nariman and
Gavai upheld those provisions of Part IX B which deal with multi-state co-operative
societies by applying the doctrine of severability, Justice Joseph dissented on this count.
Justice Joseph held that the doctrine of severability was not applicable and struck down
Also Read: States Have Exclusive Legislative Power In Cooperative Societies' Matter
Also Read: Once Substantive Provisions Of Part IXB Are Held Unconstitutional,
Dissent
Also Read: Supreme Court Sheds Light On The Contours Of Ministry Of Cooperation
Also Read: 'Fundamental Right To Form Cooperative Societies', 'Article 43B': Remnants
While refusing to allow the withdrawal of criminal prosecution against six LDF members
in the Kerala assembly ruckus case of 2015, the Supreme Court made certain significant
observations on the scope of legislative privileges and immunities. The State of Kerala
and the accused persons had raised an argument that the criminal prosecution was not
sustainable against the members for acts committed in the floor of the assembly as they
are protected by legislative privileges under Article 194 of the Constitution. Rejecting this
application of criminal law. "Privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim
exemptions from the general law of the land, particularly as in this case, the criminal law
which governs the action of every citizen. To claim an exemption from the application of
criminal law would be to betray the trust which is impressed on the character of elected
representatives as the makers and enactors of the law", the order stated.
legislature is to enable them to perform their functions without hindrance, fear or favour.
It is to create an environment in which they can perform their functions and discharge
their duties freely that the Constitution recognizes privileges and immunities", the Bench
further observed.
Also Read: 'Destruction Of Property Not Freedom Of Speech In House' : Supreme Court
Also Read: What Is The Larger Public Interest In Withdrawing Prosecution?' Supreme
58.Governor Can Exercise Pardon Power Even If Prisoner Has Not Undergone 14 Years
Imprisonment
The Supreme Court has observed that the power of Governor under Article 161 of the
undergone 14 years or more of actual imprisonment, the Governor has a power to grant
commute the sentence of any person, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and
AS Bopanna observed.
59. State Cannot Plead Financial Burden To Deny Salary For Legally Serving Doctors
[Case: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and others;
The Supreme Court has observed that the state cannot be allowed to plead financial
burden to deny salary to legally serving doctors. Allowing such an excuse raised by the
state would amount to violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14(right to equality)
, 21(right to life) and 23 (right against bonded labour) of the Constitution. "
The Supreme Court has observed that a judgment and/or decree for money in favour of
the Financial Creditor, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery in its favour, would give
rise to a fresh cause of action for the Financial Creditor, to initiate proceedings under
Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Such
judgment/decree may be passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, or any other Tribunal or
Court, and in such cases Insolvency Resolution Process can be initiated, within three
years from the date of the judgment and/or decree or within three years from the date of
issuance of the Certificate of Recovery, if the dues of the Corporate Debtor to the
Financial Debtor, or any part thereof remained unpaid, the court held.
The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian also observed
that an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code would not be
barred by limitation, on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years
from the date of declaration of the loan account of the Corporate Debtor as NPA, if there
were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the
period of limitation of three years. In such a case, the period of limitation would get
61. Emergency Arbitration Award Enforceable In Indian Law : Supreme Court Rules In
2021 SC 357]
The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of e-commerce giant Amazon in its dispute with
Future Retail Limited(FRL) over the latter's merger deal with Reliance group. The top
court held that that Emergency Award passed by Singapore arbitrator stalling FRL-
Reliance deal is enforceable in Indian law. "It is wholly incorrect to say that Section 17(1)
of the Act would exclude an Emergency Arbitrator's orders", the Court said in the
judgment. A Bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai opined, "We declare
that full party autonomy is given by the Arbitration Act to have a dispute decided in
accordance with institutional rules which can include Emergency Arbitrators delivering
interim orders, described as "awards". Such orders are an important step in aid of
decongesting the civil courts and affording expeditious interim relief to the parties. Such
orders are referable to and are made under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act."
This means that the Supreme Court has approved the enforcement of the the Singapore
Emergency Arbitrator (EA) award, passed at the instance of Amazon, restraining the Rs
24,731 crore amalgamation deal between Future Retail and Reliance Industries
Group(Mukesh Dirubhai Ambani Group). Also, the top court has upheld the order of the
single bench of the Delhi High Court which had ruled in favour of the enforcement of the
Emergency Award and has held that single judge's order was not appealable to the
division bench of the High Court under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act.
62. Motor Accident Compensation: Pranay Sethi Judgment Doesn't Limit Operation Of
[Case: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Shukla; Citation: LL 2021 SC 359]
The Supreme Court has observed that the judgment in Pranay Sethi does not limit
Accident Compensation. "If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords
better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless
the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid", the bench of Justices Uday
condition precedent for hearing revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.In this case, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section
The Supreme Court expressed exasperation at the delay on the part of the Union
Government in filling up the mounting vacancies of judges in High Courts across the
country. In an order passed on August 9, the Top Court had observed that the
"recalcitrant attitude" of the Government in not appointing High Court judges even years
after the Supreme Court collegium has cleared the recommendations is causing delay in
adjudication of cases.
A division bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy made
these serious observations while hearing a special leave petition filed against an
interlocutory order passed by the Delhi High Court in a matter related to anti-dumping
proceedings. From the proceedings, the Supreme Court bench noted that the High Court
is not in a position to give an early hearing for the case, as it is working at half its
strength. "We are facing the problem raised in these petitions on account of the
recalcitrant attitude of the Government in not appointing High Court Judges for years
together even where the recommendations have been cleared by the Collegium", the
bench stated at the very beginning of the order. "This is the direct result of there being
inadequacies of the number of High Court Judges including in the capital of the Country
where the Delhi High Court is located", the Court noted agonizingly.
65. Political Parties Must Publish Criminal Antecedents Of Candidates Within 48 Hours
directed that the political parties must publish the criminal antecedents, in any, of the
and BR Gavai modified the direction in its February 13, 2020 judgment in that regard. The
court has also directed the Election Commission of India to create a dedicated mobile
antecedents, so that at one stroke, each voter gets such information on his/her mobile
phone.
on the homepage of their websites, thus making it easier for the voter to get to the
information that has to be supplied. It will also become necessary now to have on the
homepage a caption which states "candidates with criminal antecedents. The ECI is
Also Read: Supreme Court Imposes Fine On 8 Political Parties For Violating Directions
66. NCLT/NCLAT Has No Residual Equity Jurisdiction While Dealing With Resolution
[Case: Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. v. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited;
The Supreme Court has observed that there is no residual equity based jurisdiction in the
Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while dealing with the resolution plan
Shah reiterated that these authorities can not enter into the commercial wisdom
Arbitration Award
[Case: Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd; Citation: LL
2021 SC 369]
The Supreme Court has observed that perversity of an award is not a ground to refuse
enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
after 2015 amendment. The Court held that the ground of "patent illegality" is only
available to set aside domestic arbitration awards made under Part 1 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act and will not apply to international commercial awards. "The ground
challenge which applies only to awards made under Part I which do not involve
international commercial arbitrations.", the bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and
BR Gavai observed
The right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation, the Supreme
Court observed while setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order allowing a
observed that government accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and
not to the retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse. The bench of Justices
Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna added that compassion howsoever genuine does not
Retrospectively
[Case: M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax; Citation: LL 2021
SC 373]
A retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be
the law as it earlier stood, the Supreme Court has observed while holding that
Explanation 3C to Section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act is 'clarificatory' and does not add
a new condition retrospectively. The bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai
observed that Explanation 3C was introduced to curb the misuse of the provisions of
Section 43B by not actually paying interest, but converting such interest into a fresh loan.
70. There Cannot Be Repeated Test Identification Parades Till Accused Is Identified
The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be repeated Test Identification Parades
till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the
accused. The bench of Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy observed that mere
identification in the test identification parade cannot form the substantive basis for
conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the
corroborative evidence.
Members
[Case: J. Chitra v. District Collector and Chairman State Level Vigilance Committee;
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Supreme Court has observed.
The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose said that the purpose of
72. Magistrate While Accepting Chargesheet Has To Invariably Issue Summons And Not
Arrest Warrant
The Supreme Court has observed that, while accepting charge-sheet, the Magistrate or
the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh also observed
that, if an accused in a non-bailable offence has been enlarged and free for many years
and has not even been arrested during investigation, it would be contrary to the
governing principles for grant of bail to suddenly direct his arrest merely because charge
73. Investigating Officer Is Not Required To Arrest Each And Every Accused At The Time
Of Filing Charge-sheet
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does not
impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kual and Hrishikesh Roy observed that the
formality to take the charge-sheet on record is misplaced and contrary to the very intent
Committees
[Case: Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change;
The Supreme Court has observed that adjudicatory function of the National Green
obviated by tasking committees to carry out a function which vests in the tribunal", the
75 .Railways Liable To Pay Compensation For Late Arrival Of Trains If Delay Is Not
Explained Or Justifiable
[Case: Northern Western Railway and Another v. Sanjay Shukla; Citation: LL 2021 SC
427]
The Supreme Court has held that until and unless the railways provide evidence and
explain the late arrival of a train to establish and prove that delay occurred because of
the reasons beyond their control, they would be liable to pay compensation for such
delay. "Therefore, unless and until the evidence is laid explaining the delay and it is
established and proved that delay occurred which was beyond their control and/or even
there was some justification for delay, the railway is liable to pay the compensation for
delay and late arrival of trains", a bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Aniruddha Bose
observed.
Read the first part here : 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 1, 52
judgments]
Part 3 to be published.
Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599
Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.