CASES OF 2019-2020

1. Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Topic : Only Lawyers With Minimum 10 Yrs Practice Shall Be Considered For
Representing Accused In Trial Of Offences Punishable With Death Or Life
Term

Overview : The Supreme Court issued guidelines in the matter of appointment

of amicus curiae to defend the accused in serious criminal cases. (i) In all cases
where there is a possibility of life sentence or death sentence, learned Advocates
who have put in minimum of 10 years practice at the Bar alone be considered to
be appointed as Amicus Curiae or through legal services to represent an
accused. (ii) In all matters dealt with by the High Court concerning
confirmation of death sentence, Senior Advocates of the Court must first be
considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae. (iii) Whenever any learned
counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be provided
to enable the counsel to prepare the matter. There cannot be any hard and fast
rule in that behalf. However, a minimum of seven days' time may normally be
considered to be appropriate and adequate. (iv) Any learned counsel, who is
appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused must normally be granted
to have meetings and discussion with the concerned accused.

2. B K Pavitra and others v Union of India

Topic : Karnataka law on reservation of SC/STs in promotions upheld

Overview : The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the

Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants
Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the
State) Act 2018. The said enactment provided for consequential seniority to

1
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes promoted
under the reservation policy of the State of Karnataka. The bench comprising
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud observed that
this law has cured the deficiency noted in the earlier BK Pavitra judgment in
respect of the 2002 law, and it does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power
by the state legislature. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the
enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution, the bench
added.

3. Bikram Chatterji and others v Union of India and others

Topic : Cancellation of Amrapali's RERA Registration

Overview : In a major relief to thousands of homebuyers, the Supreme Court

cancelled the registration of Amrapali group under Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act 2016, and directed the National Building Construction
Corporation take over its pending construction projects in Greater Noida and
Noida. The bench of Justices Arun Mishra and U U Lalit found that Amrapali
group had siphoned off homebuyers money with the connivance of Greater
Noida and Noida authorities. The Court has directed the Enforcement
Directorate to initiate action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act and
Foreign Exchange Management Act against Amrapali directors and authorities,
and update the Court with progress of probe with periodic reports.

4. Birla Institute of Technology v State of Jharkhand

Topic : Teachers entitled to gratuity; SC recalls initial order

Overview : Correcting its earlier erroneous judgment, the Supreme Court has
held that the teachers are entitled to invoke Payment of Gratuity Act for

2
claiming gratuity from his/her employer. On January 7, 2019 the Supreme Court
bench comprising of Justice AM Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra held that, a
teacher, irrespective of the type of educational institute he/she is working, is not
an 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and, therefore,
has no right to invoke the Act for claiming gratuity from his/her employer. On
January 8, Live Law published an article on why this judgment denying gratuity
to teachers is 'Per Incuriam'. It had quoted the 2009 amendment and 1997
notification and some high court judgments post 2009 amendment. On January
9, the bench headed by Justice Sapre suo motu listed the appeal and passed
order observing that it finds prima facie error in this judgment. It then stayed the
operation of the judgment and directed the registry to post the appeal for
rehearing.

5. Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v Subash

Chandra Agarwal

Topic : RTI applicable to the office of CJI

Overview : In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court held that the office of
Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act.
The Constitution Bench comprising the then CJI Ranjan Googi, Justices
Ramana, Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna upheld the the 2010
judgment of Delhi HC which had held that RTI Act was applicable to CJI's
office. The Court has however underlined the importance of maintaining
confidentiality in some aspects of judicial administration, and has qualified the
right to information on the grounds of public interest. Penning his separate but
concurring opinion while dismissing the appeal against Delhi HC judgment that
held office of CJI is under purview of RTI Act, Justice DY Chandrachud

3
observed that the basis for the selection and appointment of judges to the higher
judiciary must be defined and placed in the public realm.

6. D.A.V. College Trust And Management Society vs. Director Of

Public Instructions

Topic : NGOs 'Substantially Financed' by Government amenable to RTI Act

Overview : In an important judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court has

held that non-governmental organisations [NGO] substantially financed,
whether directly or indirectly, by the appropriate government fall within the
ambit of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act,
2005. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose
held so, while considering appeals filed by colleges or associations running the
colleges and/or schools.

7. Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee vs. State of WB

Topic : Wife Divorced By Husband On Ground Of Desertion Entitled To

Maintenance

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that a wife, who has been divorced by
the husband, on the ground that the wife has deserted him, is entitled to claim
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench
comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose, refusing the plea
to refer this issue to a larger bench, observed that this view has been
consistently taken by the Supreme Court and is in line with both the letter and
spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4
 8. G J Raja vs. Tejraj Surana

Topic : Section 143A NI Act On Interim Compensation Has No Retrospective

Application

Overview : Settling a confusion in prosecution of cheque bounce cases, the

Supreme Court held that Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act on
payment of interim compensation to the complainant during the pendency of the
case has no retrospective application.

9. Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v Asset Reconstruction Company

(India) Ltd and others

Topic : Article 137 Limitation Act applies to IBC

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that Article 62 of the Limitation Act
would only apply to suits and not to "an application" which is filed under
Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which would fall only within
the residuary Article 137. The bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice
R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Surya Kant was considering an appeal against the
NCLT order [upheld by NCLAT] that admitted a Section 7 application on the
ground that, as per article 62, the limitation period was 12 years from the date
on which the money sued has become due.

5
 10.Hardev Singh vs Harpreet Kaur

Topic : A Male Between The Age of 18 And 21 Yrs Cannot Be Punished For
Marrying A Female Adult

Overview : The Supreme Court held that a male aged between 18 and 21 years,
who contracts into a marriage with a female adult, cannot be punished under
Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

11.In re matter of great public importance touching upon the

independence of judiciary - mentioned by Solicitor General Tushar
Mehta, SMW(c)

Topic : CJI Sexual harassment conspiracy - Probe ordered

Overview : In an unusual suo moto proceeding, the Supreme Court bench of

Justices Arun Misra, R F Nariman and Deepak Gupta held that former SC judge
Justice A K Patnaik will hold enquiry regarding alleged conspiracy by fixers
and disgruntled employees against CJI Ranjan Gogoi. The allegations were
raised by Advocate Utsav Bains, after an ex-SC staff alleged in media that the
then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had sexually harassed her. A panel comprising three SC
judges constituted by the top court to probe the sexual harassment allegations
later gave a clean chit to the CJI. The complainant had stayed away from the
probe citing likelihood of bias. The report of the panel was not made public.The
enquiry proceedings were widely criticized by several lawyer bodies as opaque
and unfair.

6
 12.Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v State of
Maharashtra, WP(c)

Topic : Blanket ban on Maharashtra dance bars overturned

Overview : A two judges bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan held
that there cannot be a total prohibition of dance bars in Maharashtra. The Bench
also relaxed the stringent conditions imposed by the Government for getting
license for dance bars. The Court however upheld several provisions of the
Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar
Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016. The
Court approved the definition of 'obscenity' in the Act as not vague, and also the
ban on throwing currency notes and money on the performers. The complete
prohibition on serving alcohol in the dance bars was quashed as
disproportionate.

13.Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. vs Govt. Of West Bengal

Topic : Free speech cannot be gagged by fear of mob violence - West Bengal
cinema ban overturned

Overview : The Supreme Court ordered Rs 20 lakhs compensation to the

makers of the Bengali film ""Bhobhishyoter Bhoot", which had suffered an
'unofficial' ban from the West Bengal government. The police authorities had
coerced the movie screens to withdraw the film citing law and order issues. The
makers of the film complained that the movie was targeted for being critical
against the government. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant

7
Gupta held that free speech cannot be gagged by fear of mob violence. "The
police are not in a free society the self-appointed guardians of public morality.
The uniformed authority of their force is subject to the rule of law. They cannot
arrogate to themselves the authority to be willing allies in the suppression of
dissent and obstruction of speech and expression", the Court added.

14.Kantaru Rajeevaru V. Indian Young Lawyers Association

Topic : SC Keeps Sabarimala Review Pending Till Larger Bench Decides

Issues Of Essential Religious Practices

Overview : The Supreme Court by 3 2 majority, decided to keep the review

petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions
related to essential religious practices. The majority of CJI Ranjan Gogoi,
Justice Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra expressed that the issue whether Court
can interfere in essential practises of religion needed examination by larger
bench. Justices Chandrachud and Nariman dissented. Let every person
remember that the "holy book" is the Constitution of India, remarked Justice
Rohinton Fali Nariman, also speaking for Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,
in his dissent against the majority decision to refer the issues to larger bench.
The judges opined that most of the arguments raised in the review petitions
were already argued during the hearing of the writ petitions and were dealt with
in the judgment of 28th September 2018. The judge still dealt with the
arguments that was made by various parties during the hearing of review
petitions

15.M Siddiq (d) through Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das and others

Topic : Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute

8
Overview : In an unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held that the entire
disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over for the
construction of Ram Mandir. At the same time, the Court held that an alternate
plot of 5 acres must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of
mosque. This direction was passed invoking powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution. The Court observed that the destruction of Babri mosque in 1992
was a violation of law. The act of placing idols beneath the central dome of the
mosque in 1949 was an act of "desecration", observed the Court. Later, the SC
dismissed a string of review petitions filed against the verdict.

16.Manoharan v State

Topic : Rape-death of minor girl. Death penalty upheld with 2 : 1 majority

Overview : The Supreme Court (21) upheld the death sentence awarded to a
man involved in gang rape of a ten year old girl and thereafter murdering her
and her brother.The appeal filed by Manoharan against the High Court
judgment was heard by a three judge bench comprising of Justice Rohinton Fali
Nariman, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sanjeev Khanna. However, Justice
Sanjiv Khanna dissented with the confirmation of death sentence and opined
that the case does not fall under the category of 'rarest of rare' case, but would
fall within the special category of cases, where the appellant should be directed
to suffer sentence for life i.e. till his natural death, without
remission/commutation.

17.P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep vs. State of Kerala.

Topic : Contents Of Memory Card Will Be 'Document' And Not 'Material

Object'

9
Overview : The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate cannot withhold any
"document" submitted by the investigating officer along with the police report
except when it is voluminous. Further, in case of voluminous documents, the
accused can be permitted to take inspection of the concerned document either
personally or through his pleader in Court, the bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar
and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. The contents of a memory card in relation to a
crime amount to a 'document' and not a 'material object', held the Supreme
Court while deciding Kerala actor Dileep's plea for handing over copy of the
visuals of the alleged sexual crime committed on a Kerala actress in February
2017. The SC bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh
Maheswari overturned the view taken by the High Court of Kerala that the
memory card was a material object, and hence it will not come under the ambit
of Section 207 CrPC. In cases involving issues of privacy and identity of the
complainant or witnesses, such as sexual offences, the Court said that a
balanced approach needs to be taken. The right to fair trial of the accused and
the right to privacy of the victim should be balanced.

18.Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd and another v Union of

India

Topic : Treating homebuyers as financial creditors under IBC not

unconstitutional

Overview : Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by nearly 200 realtors, the

Supreme Court upheld the amendments made to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code in 2018 to treat homebuyers as financial creditors. A bench of Justices R F
Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant held that the amendments do not
violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and rejected the argument
that they are 'arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive and disproportionate'.

10
 19.Pratap Gouda Patil and others v State of Karnataka and others

Topic : Karnataka Assembly case

Overview : In the first round of Karnataka assembly imborglio, the Supreme

Court passed an interim order holding that the fifteen rebel MLAs cannot be
compelled to attend assembly proceedings, and that they were at liberty to skip
attending house. The bench of CJI Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and
Aniruddha Bose also refused to fix a time frame for the Speaker to decide on
the resignations submitted by the MLAs. The MLAs had approached the Court
contending that the Speaker had not acted on their resignations. Speaker
maintained that their resignations were a method to circumvent the
consequences of their defection. The SC bench comprising the then CJI Googi,
Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held that the interim order was
passed to maintain 'constitutional balance'.

20.Rajendra Diwan v Pradeep Kumar Ranibala

Topic : State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Which Affects Jurisdiction Of

Supreme Court - SC Constitution Bench

Overview : The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that Section
13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, is unconstitutional as the
State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact a provision providing
direct appeal to Supreme Court of India. The Bench comprising Justices Arun
Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Ravindra Bhat was
considering the reference made to it in Rajendra Diwan vs. Pradeep Kumar
Ranibala. It approved the view taken in HS Yadav vs. Shakuntala Devi Parakh,
by the bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose.

11
 21.Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others v Manjit Kaur

Topic : Person can maintain suit to claim title by adverse possession

Overview : In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that any person
who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for
restoration of possession in case of dispossession. The bench comprising Justice
Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah observed that plea
of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under
Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act,
1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a
plaintiff.

22.Satvinder Singh alias Satvinder Singh Saluja and others v State of

Bihar

Topic : Liability for consuming liquor in a private vehicle

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that a private vehicle is not exempted
from the definition of 'public place' under the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act
2016. This means that consumption of liquor within a private vehicle in a public
place will be an offence under the prohibition laws in Bihar. "as per Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 even a person consumes liquor outside the
State of Bihar and enter into the territory of Bihar and is found drunk or in a
state of drunkenness, he can be charged with offences under Section 37(b)", the
Court said.

23.Shivnarayan (D) by LRs v Maniklal (D) by LRs

12
Topic : Suit In Respect To Properties Situated In Jurisdiction Of Different
Courts Can Be Instituted In One Of Those Courts

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that, a suit in respect to

immovable property or properties situate in jurisdiction of different courts may
be instituted in any court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion
of the property or one or more properties may be situated. The bench
comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that
interpretation of word "portion of the property" in Section 17 CPC cannot only
be understood in a limited and restrictive sense of being portion of one property
situated in jurisdiction of two courts.

24.Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil V.Hon'ble Speaker, Karnataka

Legislative Assembly

Topic : SC Upholds Disqualification Of 17 Karnataka MLAs; Resignation Not

To Affect Impact Of Defection

Overview : The Supreme Court upheld the decision of former Karnataka

Speaker's decision to disqualify 17 rebel MLAs on the ground of defection.
However, in partial relief to the MLAs, the apex court held that the duration of
disqualification cannot be till the end of the term of the house. This means that
they can re-contest in the upcoming by polls scheduled to take place in
December. A significant point in the Supreme Court's judgment in the
Karnataka MLAs disqualification case is the discussion on the interplay
between resignation and disqualification of a legislator. The apex court held that
resignation of a legislator will not efface the effect of disqualification if
defection has taken place before the date of resignation.

13
 25.Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi

Topic : Section 148 Of Negotiable Instruments Act Has Retrospective Effect

Overview : In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that Section 148
of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of
the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to 2018 amendment
Act i.e., prior to 01.09.2018.

26.Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd & Anr v Union of India, WP(c)

Topic : Constitutionality of IBC upheld

Overview : A two judges bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and Navin

Sinha rejected a bunch of petitions which challenged the constitutional validity
of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The Court held that distinction
between operational creditors and financial creditors were based on intelligible
differentia. The Court also upheld the validity of Sections 12A (prescribing
threshold for CoC approval for withdrawal of resolution application) and 29A
(on bar of 'related persons' in participating in resolution bids).

27.Tanu Ram Bora v Promod Ch.Das (D) through LRs and others

Topic : Sec.43 TP Act - Transfer By Erroneous Representation Of Title Will

Hold Good If Transferor Acquires Title Later

Overview : Applying the principle of "feeding the grant by estoppel" under

Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court granted relief to

14
a party, who was misled to purchase a property by erroneous representation of
title by the vendor.

28.Tek Singh v Shashi Verma and anr

Topic : Section 115 CPC - Revision Petition Not Maintainable Against

Interlocutory Orders

Overview : The Supreme Court has reiterated that revision petitions filed under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not maintainable against
interlocutory orders. We are constrained to observe that every legal canon has
been thrown to the winds, this is how the bench comprising Justice Rohinton
Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran described the impugned judgment in the
appeal which allowed a revision petition against an interlocutory order.

29.The State Of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan

Rabidas & Anr

Topic : Road Traffic Offences Can Be Prosecuted Under Both IPC & Motor
Vehicles Act

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that road traffic offences can be
prosecuted under Motor Vehicles Act as well as Indian Penal Code. The bench
comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Khanna observed thus while
setting aside the direction issued by the Gauhati High Court to States of Assam,
Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh that
road traffic offences shall be dealt with only under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act and not under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.

15
 30.Union of India v State of Maharashtra and others

Topic : Centre's review against dilution of SC/ST Act allowed

Overview : A three judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices

Arun Mishra, M R Shah and B R Gavai allowed Centre's petition seeking
review of its March 20, 2018 judgement which had virtually diluted provisions
of arrest under the SC/ST Act. The Court observed that powers under Article
142 of the Constitution could not have been exercised to pass directions against
the statute. The two-judges bench should not have framed guidelines as it is
within legislature's domain to do so, the Court said. It observed that the
protective nature of the Act was necessary in view of the abuses to which
people from marginalized communities are being subjected to.

31.Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v The State of Gujarat

Topic : Magistrate can invoke power under section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure even at post-cognizance stage

Overview : A three judge bench of the Supreme Court virtually overruled a 43

year old precedent and held that Magistrate can invoke power under section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure even at post-cognizance stage. The
bench headed by Justice RF Nariman held that this judgment was rendered
without adverting to the definition of "investigation" in Section 2(h) of the
CrPC. It was observed that the finding in law in the said that the judgment that
the power under Section 156(3) CrPC can only be exercised at the pre-
cognizance stage is erroneous.

32.Yashwant Sinha & Ors. V. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Topic : SC Dismisses Rafale Review Petitions

16
Overview : The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed against the
December 14, 2018 judgment which declined to order probe into the corruption
allegations regarding the deal to procure 36 Rafale jets by Indian Government
form French company Dassault Aviation. The bench comprising CJI Ranjan
Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph observed that the review petitions
filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha
and Arun Shourie lacked merits. Justice K M Joseph observed in his separate
judgment in the Rafale review that the main verdict will not stand in the way of
CBI taking lawful action on the complaint raising corruption allegations on the
Rafale deal, subject to getting approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The same bench also closed the contempt case against Congress
MP Rahul Gandhi for 'chowkidhar chor hain' remarks, accepting his apology

33.Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao vs State Of A.P

Topic : Reservation Review: SC

Overview : The Supreme Court of India has ruled the January 2000 order of the
Governor of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh which provided 100%
reservation to Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates in posts of school teachers in
Scheduled Areas, unconstitutional.

The court also noted that within the Other Backward Castes (OBCs) and the
Scheduled Castes (SCs) and STs, reservation benefits are not reaching the truly
deserving.

The Bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M
R Shah and Aniruddha Bose, agreed with Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan that
the lists of those entitled to reservation must be revised from time to time.

34.Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) vs Union Of India

17
Topic : Centre Cannot Brand Organisations ‘Political’

Overview : The Supreme Court recently held that the central government cannot
brand an organisation political and deprive it of its right to receive foreign funds
for using legitimate forms of dissent to aid a public cause.

The judgement was delivered in response to a petition filed by the Indian Social
Action Forum (INSAF) challenging certain provisions of the Foreign
Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010 and the Foreign Contribution
(Regulation) Rules of 2011.

SC observed that an organisation, which supports the cause of a group of

citizens agitating for their rights without a political goal or objective, cannot be
penalised by being declared as an organisation of a political nature.

However, foreign funding could be stopped if an organisation took recourse to

these forms of protest to score a political goal. Organisations with political
objectives in their memorandum of association or bye-laws cannot be permitted
access to foreign funds because of their clear political nature.

35.Rambabu Singh Thakur vs Sunil Arora

Topic : Criminalisation of politics

Overview : The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered political parties to publish the
entire criminal history of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha
elections along with the reasons that forced them to field suspected criminals.

The order was a reply to the contempt petition about the general disregard
shown by political parties to a 2018 Constitution Bench judgment (Public
Interest Foundation v. Union of India) to publish the criminal details of their
candidates in their respective websites and print as well as electronic media for
public awareness.

18
The SC passed an order while exercising powers under Articles 129 and 142 of
the Constitution which deals with the contempt power of the Supreme Court and
enforcement of its decrees and orders.

36.Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Uttarakhand

Topic : Reservation in the matter of promotions in public posts is not a

fundamental right.

Overview : The Supreme Court has ruled that reservation in the matter of
promotions in public posts is not a fundamental right, and a state cannot be
compelled to offer the quota if it chooses not to. The idea that reservation is not
a right may be in consonance with the Constitution, however, the government is
still under the obligation to perform Reservation for vulnerable sections of
society.

Referring to Articles 16(4) and 16(4A), the Supreme Court held that
Reservation programmes allowed in the Constitution are derived from “enabling
provisions” and are not rights as such. No mandamus can be issued by the court
directing state governments to provide reservations. There is neither a basic
right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it.

37.Sk. Md. Rafique vs Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High

Madrasah and Others

Topic : State can Regulate Minority Institutions

Overview : The Supreme Court held that the state has the rights to introduce a
regulatory regime in the national interest to provide minority educational
institutions with well-qualified teachers so that they can achieve excellence in
education.

19
Minority institutions have the fundamental right under Article 30 of the
Constitution to establish and administer their educational institutions according
to their choice. However, they cannot ignore the regulations recommended by
the state.

The court held that the regulatory law should be a balance of the dual objectives
of ensuring the standard of excellence as well as preserving the right of
minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions.

38.Christian Medical College vellore association vs Union Of India

Topic : Rights of Minority Institutes not Absolute. Regulating academics and

imposing reasonable restrictions to ensure educational standards is in national
and public interest.

Overview : The Supreme Court of India gave its judgement on the admission
criteria of minority institutions. It held that National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) is mandatory for admission to all the medical colleges and the
right of minority institutions is not absolute and is amenable to regulation.

The SC held that the fundamental and religious rights of minorities and rights
available under Article 30 are not violated by provisions carved out in Section
10D of the MCI and Dentists Act.

The right to freedom of trade or business is not absolute. It is subject to

reasonable restriction in the interest of the students’ community to promote
merit, recognition of excellence, and to curb the malpractices. A uniform
entrance test qualifies the test of proportionality and is reasonable.

20
The NEET is mandatory for admission to medical colleges run by religious and
linguistic minority communities and it would apply for both aided and unaided
medical colleges administered by minorities.

21