100 Judgments 2021

100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021
[Part 1, Judgments 1-52]

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/100-important-supreme-court-judgments-of-2021-part-1-
188014
Search here...
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Home
/
Top Stories
/
100 Important Supreme...
Top Stories
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
19 Dec 2021 4:51 AM GMT
x
As 2021 draws to a close, LiveLaw brings to you a round-up of the major

judgments of the Supreme Court of this year. This year, in view of the huge
number of significant judgments, the round-up is done in three parts. This
parts covers 52 major decisions from January to June 2021. The second and
third parts will cover the significant judgments delivered during the second
half...
Premium account gives you:
Ad Free Content
Special And Exclusive Stories First Available To Subscribers only

Copy Of Judgments/ Orders With Every Reports
Copy Of Petitions (Subject to Consent From Concerned Lawyers)

Weekly Round Ups Of Supreme Court High Court Judgments/Orders
Monthly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
Yearly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts

Live Updates Of Supreme Court And High Courts Hearings
WhatsApp Updates
News Letters
Subscribe Now
Already a subscriber?
Login
As 2021 draws to a close, LiveLaw brings to you a round-up of the major
judgments of the Supreme Court of this year.
This year, in view of the huge number of significant judgments, the round-
up is done in three parts. This parts covers 52 major decisions from January
to June 2021. The second and third parts will cover the significant
judgments delivered during the second half of 2021.

January 2021

1. Supreme Court Upholds Centre's Plan For The Central Vista Project
by 2:1 Majority, Justice Khanna Dissents
[Case: Rajeev Suri v. DDA & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 1; Order dated
January 5, 2021]
The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government's plan for construction
of the Central Vista project and the government's proposal to construct a
new Parliament in Lutyen's Delhi. A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar,
Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna pronounced the judgement, with
Justices Khanwilkar and Maheshwari forming the majority, and with Justice
Khanna pronouncing a separate judgement.
" We cannot be called upon to govern. For, we have no wherewithal or

prowess and expertise in that regard," remarked the Judges in majority.
Justice Khanna on the other hand expressed dissent on the aspects of public
participation on interpretation of the statutory provisions, failure to take
prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee and the order
passed by the Expert Appraisal Committee.
Also Read: Central Vista- Lack Of Public Consultation, No Approval From
HCC, Non Speaking Order Granting Environment Clearance: Justice Sanjiv
Khanna In His Dissent
Also Read: 'We Cannot Be Called Upon To Govern. For We Have No

Wherewithal or Prowess And Expertise In That Regard': Supreme Court In
Central Vista Case
2. Whether Non-Payment Of Stamp Duty On Commercial Contract Will

Invalidate Arbitration Agreement? Supreme Court Refers Issue To
Constitution Bench
[Case : N.N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PVT. LTD VS. INDO UNIQUE FLAME
LTD; CITATION: LL 2021 SC 13; Order dated January 13, 2021]

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has observed that non-payment

of stamp duty on the commercial contract will not invalidate the arbitration
agreement.
Disagreeing with two earlier judgments in this regard, the bench

comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira
Banerjee referred the following question to the Constitution Bench.
"Whether the statutory bar contained in Section 35 of the

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applicable to instruments chargeable to
Stamp Duty under Section 3 read with the Schedule to the Act,
would also render the arbitration agreement contained in such
an instrument, which is not chargeable to payment of stamp
duty, as being non-existent, unenforceable, or invalid, pending
payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract /
instrument ? "
The bench also observed that the ground that allegations of fraud are not
arbitrable is a wholly archaic view, which has become obsolete, and
deserves to be discarded.
3. Incorporation Of One-sided And Unreasonable Clauses In Apartment

Buyer's Agreement Constitutes An 'Unfair Trade Practice': Supreme
Court
[Case: Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna; Citation: LL 2021
SC 14A; Order dated January 11, 2021]
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and

Indira Banerjee held that the incorporation of one-sided and unreasonable
clauses in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement constitutes an unfair trade
practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. It also
observed that the Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be
bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment
Buyer's Agreement.
The Court held thus while disposing an appeal filed by a Developer against
an order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
directing it to refund of the amounts deposited by the Apartment Buyers on
account of the inordinate delay in completing the construction and
obtaining the Occupation Certificate.
4. Is Appointment Of Arbitrator By Ineligible Person Valid?Supreme

Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench
[Case Title: Union of India v. M/S Tantia Constructions Ltd.; Citation: LL

2021 SC 22]
Order dated January 11, 2021
A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph

doubted the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation for Railway
Electrification vs.M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company and
referred to larger bench the issue whether the appointment of an arbitrator
by a person, who is disqualified to be an arbitrator as per Section 12(5) of
the Arbitration Act, is valid.
5. Supreme Court Upholds Sections 3, 4 & 10 Of IBC Amendment Act

2020
[Case: Manish Kumar v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 25] Order
dated January 19, 2021
A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph

upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4 and 10 of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act 2020, in effect upholding the
threshold limit on homebuyers.
The Court rejected the petitioners' contentions that such conditions on

homebuyers amounted to hostile discrimination violating the equality
principle under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that a
homebuyer, though treated as an unsecured creditor as per the judgment in
Pioneer case, stands on a different footing from other creditors.
Also Read: Minimum Threshold For Homebuyers' Insolvency Process

Against Builder Shields Frivolous & Avoidable Applications : Supreme Court
Also Read: 'Malice' Is Not A Ground To Challenge A Law Made By

Legislature : Supreme Court
6. Benefit Of Probation (PO Act) Is Not Excluded By Mandatory

Minimum Sentences Prescribed For IPC Offences: Supreme Court
[Case: Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 27] Order

dated January 19, 2021
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy

observed that the benefit of probation under Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence
prescribed for offences under IPC.
In the facts of the case, the Court observed that Section 4 of the Act could
come to the aid of the accused as the offence committed, of which they have
been found guilty, is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The court also added that since they were under 21 years of age on the date
of the offence and not on the date of conviction, Section 6 would not come
to their aid.
7. Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions Challenging Aadhaar
Verdict, Justice Chandrachud Dissents
[Case: Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.); Citation: LL

2021 SC 30]
The Supreme Court, by 4:1 majority, has dismissed a batch of review

petitions challenging the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Aadhaar
case [Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v Union of India]. While Justices AM
Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and BR Gavai observed that
no case for review of judgment, Justice DY Chandrachud expressed his
dissent.
The review petitions were not heard in open court, but 'by circulation'.
According to majority, a change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment
of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for
review. On the other hand, Justice Chandrachud opined that the review
petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench decides the
questions referred to it in Rojer Mathew.
Also Read: Constitutional Error To Hold At This Stage That No Ground

Exists To Review Aadhaar Verdict: Justice Chandrachud Dissents
8."Whether 'Advocate On Record' Includes Sole Proprietary Firm?"

Supreme Court Leaves The Question To SC Rule Making Authority
[Case Title: In Re: Advocate On Record Includes A Proprietary Firm Etc.;

Citation: LL 2021 SC 37]
In the context of the 2013 Supreme Court Rules, a bench of Justices SK

Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy left it to the Rule making
authorities to examine whether they would like to expand the registration
of Advocates on Record to permit persons to carry on the profession in the
style and name of a sole proprietorship firm.
The Court was considering a suo motu writ petition on whether "Advocate
on Record includes a proprietary firm". "Whether an AOR can have his
entry in the AOR register in the form of his style of carrying on his
profession: Instead of just "Name" as "Name", Sole Proprietor, Law
Chambers of "Name"?", was the question framed. "The (Supreme Court)
Rules being sacrosanct, we would not like to interfere with the same in the
present proceeding", said the bench.
February 2021

9. Violation Of Fundamental Right To Speedy Trial Is A Ground For

Constitutional Court To Grant Bail In UAPA Cases: Supreme Court
[Case: Union of India v. KA Najeeb; Citation: LL 2021 SC 56]
A bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha

Bose held that Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of
Constitutional Courts to grant bail on ground of violation of Fundamental
Right to Speedy Trial. It held, "Whereas at commencement of proceedings,
Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail
but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood
of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of
incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the
prescribed sentence."
The court observed this while dismissing the appeal filed by NIA against an
order of the Kerala High Court granting bail to the accused in palm
chopping of Thodupuzha Newman College professor TJ Joseph in 2011.
10.SC Judgment Which Excluded Persons With Over 50% Visual/Hearing

Impairment From Judicial Service No Longer Binding Precedent:
Supreme Court
[Case: Vikash Kumar v. UPSC; Citation: LL 2021 SC 76]
A bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and

Sanjiv Khanna observed that the decision in V Surendra Mohan v. State of
Tamil Nadu would "not be a binding precedent", after the coming into force
of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. The Bench in the same
judgment also held that facility of scribe can be provided for persons with
disabilities other than those having benchmark disabilities.
In Surendra Mohan, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that
stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual
impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post of a judicial officer is a
legitimate restriction. In the present case, the Supreme Court said, "The
principle of reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the
State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with
disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society."
Also Read: Benchmark Disability Not A Precondition To Obtain A Scribe:

Supreme Court Allows Scribe For UPSC Candidate With 'Writer's Cramp'
11."Right To Protest Cannot Be Any Time And Everywhere": Supreme

Court Dismisses Review Petition Against 'Shaheen Bagh' Judgment
[Case: Kaniz Fatima v. Commissioner of Police; Citation: LL 2021 SC 83]
A three judge bench consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha

Bose and Krishna Murari dismissed the review petition filed against the
Shaheen Bagh Judgment in which it is held that the demonstrations
expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. Dismissing the
review petition, the bench held that the right to protest cannot be anytime
and everywhere.
"We have considered the earlier judicial pronouncements and recorded our
opinion that the Constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and
express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties. The right to
protest cannot be anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous
protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued
occupation of public place affecting rights of others," the Court said.
12. Supreme Court Closes Suo Moto Case Taken To Probe "Larger
Conspiracy" Behind Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Ex-CJI
Gogoi
[Case: In Re: Matter Of Great Public Importance Touching Upon The

Independence Of Judiciary; Citation: LL 2021 SC 95]
A bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, AS Bopanna and V.

Ramasubramanian closed the suo moto proceedings which were instituted
to examine if there was a "larger conspiracy" behind the allegations of
sexual harassment against the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.
The bench observed that enquiry panel headed by former SC judge Justice
AK Patnaik has submitted a report opining that a conspiracy behind the
sexual harassment allegations cannot be "ruled out". The report also
surmised that certain tough stances taken by ex-CJI Gogoi during his tenure
could have triggered the allegations. The report also referred to an
Intelligence Bureau input that several persons were unhappy with Justice
Gogoi for driving the Assam-NRC process.
March 2021

13 . Whether Day Of Remand Is To Be Included For Considering A Claim

For Default Bail? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench
[Case: Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan; Citation: LL 2021 SC

118]
Whether the day of remand is to be included or excluded, for considering a

claim for default bail? The Supreme Court referred this issue to a larger
bench.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy

noticed that, in State of MP v. Rustom & Ors.1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 221 , Ravi
Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2015) 8 SCC 340 and M. Ravindran v.
Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence, it was held that the
date of remand is to be excluded for computing the permitted period for
completion of investigation. On the other hand, the judgments in Chaganti
Satyanarayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 3 SCC 141 , CBI v. Anupam J
Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141 , State v. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat (1996) 1 SCC 432,
State of Maharashtra v. Bharati Chandmal Varma (2002) 2 SCC 121, and
Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 10 SCC 445, have held
that the date of remand must be included for computing the available
period for investigation for determining entitlement to default bail.
14. Moratorium Under Section 14 IBC Covers Section 138 NI Act

Proceedings Against Corporate Debtor For Cheque Dishonour :
Supreme Court
Case: P Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021
SC 120]
The Supreme Court held that the declaration of moratorium under Section
14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) covers criminal proceedings
for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act against the corporate debtor.
"We hold that a Section 138/141 NI Act proceeding against a corporate debtor
is covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC", Justice RF Nariman said reading
out the operative portion of the judgment.
A Bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph

also observed that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act to set aside an award is covered by moratorium under
Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Section 34 proceeding is a proceeding against the corporate debtor in a

court of law pertaining to a challenge to an arbitral award and would be
covered just as an appellate proceeding in a decree from a suit would be
covered
15. Amounts Paid By Indian Companies To Use Foreign Software Not

'Royalty';Not Income Taxable In India; No TDS Liability : Supreme
Court
[Case: Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Private Ltd vs The

Commissioner of Income Tax; Citation: LL 2021 SC 124]
Settling an important issue in the income tax law, a bench comprising
Justices R F Nariman, Hemant Gupta and BR Gavai held that the amounts
paid by Indian companies for the use of softwares developed by foreign
companies do not amount to 'royalty' and that such payment do not give
rise to income which is taxable in India. Therefore, there is no liability for
Indian companies to deduct tax at source with respect to purchase of
software from foreign companies.
16. Limitation Period For Filing 'Section 34' Petition Commences From
Date Of Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Arbitral Award By Parties: Supreme
Court
[Case: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/S Navigant

Technologies Pvt. Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 126]
A bench comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed

that the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which
the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties
17. OBC Reservation Cannot Exceed 50%: Supreme Court Reads Down
Section 12(2)(c) Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act
[Case: Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State Of Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021

SC 132]
The Supreme Court read down Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 which provides reservation of
27 per cent of seats in the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis.
"Reservation in favour of OBCs in the concerned local bodies can be notified

to the extent that it does not exceed aggregate 50 per cent of the total seats
reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together," the bench comprising
Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed.
18. Sole Proprietorship Will Fall Under International Commercial

Arbitration If Proprietor Is Foreign Resident: Supreme Court
[Case: Amway India v. Ravindranath Rao & Anr.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 133]
A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai held that a sole
proprietorship will fall under international commercial arbitration if the
proprietor is a habitual resident of a foreign country, notwithstanding the
fact that the proprietary concern is carrying out business in India.
The Bench set aside an order of the Delhi High Court appointing an
arbitrator in the case Amway India v. Ravindranath Rao, holding that the
High Court had no jurisdiction as the dispute was an international
commercial arbitration within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
19. All Consumer Complaints Filed Before CPA 2019 Should Be Heard By
Fora As Per Pecuniary Jurisdiction Under CPA 1986: Supreme Court
[Case: Neena Aneja & Ors. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021
SC 164]
The Supreme Court held that consumer complaints filed before the coming
into effect of the Consumer Protection Act 2019(CPA 2019) should continue
in the fora in which they were filed as per the pecuniary jurisdiction under
the previous Consumer Protection Act of 1986(CPA 1986).
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah set aside the

directions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that
the previously instituted cases as per the 1986 Act should be transferred to
the respective fora as per the new pecuniary limits under the 2019 Act.
20. Default Bail: State Cannot Take Advantage Of Filing One Charge
Sheet First And Seeking Time To File Supplementary Charge-sheets To
Extend The Time Limit U/S 167(2)
[Case: Fakhrey Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 165]
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy

observed that the time period for investigation specified under Section 167
of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be extended by seeking to file
supplementary charge sheet qua UAPA offences.
The Court while granting default bail to Fakhrey Alam, a person accused
under Section 18 of the UAPA Act, reiterated that default bail under first
proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental right and not
merely a statutory right.
21. "Insurer Should Deposit Award In Bank Account Maintained By

MACT By RTGS/NEFT': SC Issues Directions For Uniform Procedure In
Granting Motor Accident Compensation
[Case: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of

India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 166]
A bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and R Subhash Reddy issued a slew of

directions regarding process of disbursement of compensation as well as
expediting the matter before the MACTs across the country. According to
these directions, jurisdictional police station has to submit an Accident
Information Report about the accident to the tribunal and insurer within
first 48 hours either over email or a dedicated website. They shall also
submit a detailed accident report to them within three months.
22. Courts Should Avoid Patriarchal & Stereotypical Notions About

Women: Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Dealing With Sexual
Crimes
Case: Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 168]

While setting aside the "rakhi-for-bail" order of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court, the Supreme Court issued a set of guidelines to be followed by Courts
while dealing with sexual crimes.
The Supreme Court suggested that gender sensitization training should be
imparted to Judges and public prosecutors.
The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat also

observed that each High Court should formulate a module on judicial
sensitivity to sexual offences, to be tested in the Judicial Services
Examination. It also directed the Bar Council of India to take steps to
include such courses as part of LLB and AIBE syllabus.
23. SC Overrules 'NV International' Verdict Which Held Delay Beyond
120 Days For Arbitration Appeal Under Section 37 Can't Be Condoned
[Case: Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers and

Contractors Pvt Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 170]
A two-judge bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat

overruled its 2019 verdict in the case M/s NV International vs State of
Assam which had strictly held that a delay of more than 120 days in filing of
appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
cannot be condoned.
The Top Court has now held that delay beyond 90, 60 or 30 days for filing
appeals under Section 37, depending on the forum, can be condoned. But
the Court added a rider that such condonation of delay should be an
exception and not the norm, having regard to the objective of the
Arbitration Act for expeditious settlement of claims.
Also Read: Commercial Courts Act Does Not Exclude Application Of Section
5 Limitation Act: Supreme Court
24. Supreme Court Bars Charging Compound Interest Or Penal Interest

On Any Borrower During Loan Moratorium; Refuses Moratorium
Extension
[Case: Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association(Regd) v. Union of

India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 175]
A Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah

directed that there should be no charging of compound interest, interest on
interest or penal interest on the instalments which were due during the
loan moratorium period from March 1 to August 31 last year on any
borrower, irrespective of the loan amount. If such interest has already been
collected, it should be either refunded to the borrower or adjusted towards
the next instalments.
It observed that there is no rationale in the Centre's policy to limit the

benefit of waiver of compound interest only to certain loan categories less
than Rs Two Crores. Last year, the Centre had taken a decision to allow
waiver of interest on interest in eight specified categories for loans up to
Rupees 2 crores.
The Court observed that there is no justification shown to restrict the relief
of not charging interest on interest with respect to the loans up to Rs. 2
crores only and that too restricted to the aforesaid categories.
Also Read: Compound Interest In Nature Of Penal Interest; No Justification

For Charging It Once RBI Has Allowed Loan Moratorium : SC
Also Read: Functions Of Ministries Don't Get Transferred To NDMA During

National Disaster: Supreme Court
25. 'Structures Of Our Society Created By Males For Males': Supreme

Court Holds Army's Evaluation Criteria To Grant Permanent
Commission For Women Officers Arbitrary
[Case: Lt. Col Nitisha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC
181]
A Division Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR

Shah declared that the evaluation criteria adopted by the Indian Army to
consider the grant of permanent commission for women officers to be
"arbitrary and irrational". The Court directed the Army to reconsider the
pleas of women Short Service Commission officers for grant of PC within
two months in accordance with the fresh directions issued by the Court.
The top court held that the evaluation criteria adopted by the Army to
benchmark the women officers with the lowest credentials of their male
counter-parts and to freeze their ACR evaluation at the 5th or 10th years of
their services to be "arbitrary and irrational", causing women officers
"systemic discrimination".
Also Read: 'Not Enough To Proudly Say Women Are Allowed To Serve
Army When Their Service Conditions Tell A Different Story' : Supreme
Court In Permanent Commission Case
Also Read: Permanent Commission For Women Army Officers- Indirect
Discrimination Even Without Discriminatory Intent Must Be Prohibited:
Supreme Court
26. Call For Justice Not Hate Speech": Supreme Court Quashes FIR
Against Journalist Patricia Mukhim
[Case: Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC

182]
A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara and S. Ravindra Bhat quashed

a FIR registered against Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim over a
Facebook post on violence against non-tribal people in Meghalaya. The
Court noted that the Facebook post was directed against the apathy shown
by the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, the Director General of Police and the
Dorbar Shnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits who
attacked the non-tribals youngsters.
The Court allowed the appeal filed by Mukhim challenging the Meghalaya
High Court order which had dismissed her plea to quash the FIR.
Also Read: Free Speech Of Citizens Cannot Be Stifled By Implicating Them

In Criminal Cases: Supreme Court
27. Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Anonymous Electoral Bonds

[Case: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India & Ors.;

The Supreme Court refused to stay the release of the fresh set of electoral
bonds from April 1 for the assembly polls in West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil
Nadu, Assam and Puducherry.
The Court dismissed the application filed by NGO Association for

Democratic Reforms seeking stay of the bonds.
Since the bonds were allowed to be released in 2018, 2019 and 2020 without
interruption, and sufficient safeguards are there, there is no justification to
stay the electoral bonds at present, held a bench comprising CJI SA Bobde,
Justice AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian,

Also Read : Supreme Court's Refusal To Stay Electoral Bonds

Undermines Transparency In Electoral Process[Column]
28. Supreme Court Allows Tata Sons Appeal Against NCLAT Order To
Reinstate Cyrus Mistry As Chairman
[Case: Tata Sons Ltd v. Cyrus Mistry & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 184]
In a big win for Tata Sons Ltd, the Supreme Court bench headed by CJI SA
Bobde allowed its appeal against the order of the National Company Law
Tribunal, which had ordered to reinstate the ousted Chairman Cyrus Mistry.
The Court held that the actions of Tata Sons board against Mistry did not
amount to oppression of minority shareholders or mismanagement. The
bench also said that it was open for Tatas and Mistry to work out their
separation terms.
On December 18, 2019, The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

restored Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Group. Allowing
Mistry's appeal, the Appellate Tribunal had set aside the judgment of
Mumbai bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that had upheld
the appointment of N Chandrasekharan as Chairman in his place. The said
NCLAT order was stayed by the Apex Court in January 2020 whereas the
judgment was reserved on 17th December 2020.
Also Read: Company Tribunal Not A Labour Court Or Administrative

Tribunal To Focus Entirely On Removal Of Director : Supreme Court In Tata-
Mistry Case
April 2021
29. 'Right Not To Be Deported' Is Ancillary To A Fundamental Right

Available Only To Indian Citizens: Supreme Court In Rohingyas Case
[Case: Mohammad Salimullah v. Union Of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 202]
While rejecting a plea to stop the deportation of Rohingya refugees

detained in Jammu, a bench comprising of then CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS
Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the right not to be
deported is ancillary to the fundamental right to reside or settle in any part
of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution.
It thus dismissed an interlocutory application filed seeking (i) the release of

the detained Rohingya refugees; and (ii) a direction to the Union of India
not to deport them. The Court however clarified that the Rohingyas in
Jammu shall not be deported unless the procedure prescribed for such
deportation is followed.
30. High Courts Shall Not Pass Order Of 'Not To Arrest' Or 'No Coercive
Steps' While Dismissing/Disposing Petition U/s 482 CrPC: Supreme
Court
[Case: M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra;

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah and Sanjiv

Khanna held that a High Court, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing
petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, shall not pass order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps"
either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or
till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC.
It observed that when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy
and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High
Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest
or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to
apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before the competent
court.
32. Balance Sheets Entries Can Amount To Acknowledgement Of Debt

U/s 18 Limitation Act: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Full Bench
Ruling
[Case: Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal;
A bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh

Roy held that entries in balance sheets can amount to acknowledgement of
debt for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the
Limitation Act. It referred to an old Calcutta High Court decision in Bengal
Silk Mills Co. v. Ismail Golam Hossain Ariff, AIR 1962 Cal 115, the bench
observed.
33.'Amend Section 138 NI Act To Allow One Trial For Multiple Cases
From Single Transaction' : Supreme Court Issues Directions For
Expeditious Trial Of Cheque Cases
[ Case: In Re Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I Act;

A constitution bench of the Supreme Court issued a set of directions to
expedite the trial of cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
34. High Courts Are In A Crisis Situation': Supreme Court Lays Down
Time Line For Appointment Of High Court Judges
[Case: PLR Projects Ltd v. Mahanadi Coalfields Pvt Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC
223]
Expressing grave concerns at the mounting vacancies of High Court judges,

a bench comprising of then CJI SA Bobde, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and
Surya Kant emphasized that the Central Government should proceed to
make appointments immediately after the Supreme Court Collegium has
cleared the names.
If the Government has any reservation over the Collegium

recommendations, it should send back the names with specific reasons for
reservations. Once the Supreme Court Collegium reiterates the names, the
Centre should make the appointment within 3-4 weeks of such reiteratio
35. Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Adopt Draft Rules Of Criminal
Practice Within 6 Months
[Case: In Re To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and

Deficiencies in Criminal Trial v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021
SC 224]
A bench comprising of then CJI SA Bobde, Justices L Nageswara Rao and S

Ravindra Bhat directed the High Courts to adopt the draft rules of criminal
practice, which has been prepared by amici curiae Senior Advocates R
Basant, Sidharth Luthra and Advocate K Paremshwar, within a period of 6
months
36. 'Ad-Hoc Judges Not An Alternative To Regular Appointments':

Supreme Court Passes Guidelines On Appointment Of Ad-Hoc Judges In
HCs Under Article 224A
[Case: Lok Prahari v. Union of India & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 225]
A bench comprising of then CJI SA Bobde, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul

and Surya Kant passed a slew of guidelines regarding the appointment of
ad-hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A of the Constitution, to
tackle the problem of mounting case arrears in High Courts.
37.Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act Will Attract As Long As Caste Identity Is

One Of The Grounds For The Occurrence Of Offence: SC Doubts Earlier
Judgments
[Case: Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC

231]
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah doubted the

earlier judgments which interpreted Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, to mean that
the offence should have been committed "only on the ground that the
victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste".
It observed that this provision will attract as long as caste identity is one of
the grounds for the occurrence of the offence. To deny the protection of
Section 3 (2) (v) on the premise that the crime was not committed against
an SC & ST person solely on the ground of their caste identity is to deny how
social inequalities function in a cumulative fashion, the court said.
38. Supreme Court Directs High Courts To Reconsider And Update

Rules Relating To Execution Of Decrees
[Case: Rahul S Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi; Citation: LL 2021 SC 232]
A bench comprising former CJI SA Bobde, Justices L. Nageswara Rao and

S. Ravindra Bhat directed the High Courts to reconsider and update all the
Rules relating to Execution of Decrees, made under exercise of its powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of CPC, within
one year.
May 2021

39. State Regulation Of Profiteering By Schools Does Not Violate

Managements' Fundamental Rights Under Article 19(1)(g) : Supreme
Court
[ Case: Indian School, Jodhpur v. State Of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC

240]
The Supreme Court has held that State's regulation of profiteering by

education institutions cannot be held to be violating the managements'
fundamental right to trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution.
A bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari

held so while upholding the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan
Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016.
Also Read: State Regulation Of Profiteering By Schools Does Not Violate

Managements' Fundamental Rights Under Article 19(1)(g): Supreme Court
Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan Private Schools To Give 15%
Deduction In Annual School Fees; No Student To Be Debarred For Non-
Payment Of Fees
Also Read: Authorities Under Disaster Management Act Cannot Alter Fee
Structure Of Private Schools: Supreme Court
40. "Encroachment Of State Legislature Upon The Domain Of

Parliament": Supreme Court Strikes Down West Bengal Housing
Industry Regulation Act
[Case: Forum for People's Collective Efforts v. State of West Bengal;

A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah struck down the West

Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017, holding it to be
unconstitutional in view of the 2017 Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act which is the central legislation on the identical subject-
matter. However, with a view to prevent any chaos in the real estate
industry in the state, the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142,
clarified that all sanctions and registrations previously granted under the
HIRA prior to the date of this judgment shall continue to prevail
Also Read: Concept Of Repugnancy Under Article 254 : Supreme Court

Explains
41. Supreme Court Strikes Down Maratha Quota; Says No Exceptional

Circumstance To Grant Reservation In Excess Of 50% Ceiling Limit
[Case: Dr Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister; Citation: LL 2021 SC

243]
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Ashok

Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S.
Ravindra Bhat has struck down the Maratha quota in excess of 50% ceiling
limit as unconstitutional. The Court unanimously held that there were no
exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in
excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.
The Court has held by 3:2 majority that the 102nd Constitution Amendment
has abrogated the power of states to identify "Socially and Educationally
Backward Classes (SEBCs)".
The majority judgment held that after the introduction of Articles 338B and
342A to the Constitution "the final say in regard to inclusion or exclusion (or
modification of lists) of SEBCs is firstly with the President, and thereafter, in
case of modification or exclusion from the lists initially published, with the
Parliament".
The Court also held that alteration of the content of state legislative power
in an oblique and peripheral manner would not constitute a violation of the
concept of federalism or basic structure of the Constitution.
Also Read: States Have No Power To 'Identify' Socially & Educationally

Backward Classes After 102nd Constitution Amendment : Supreme Court
Holds By 3:2 Majority
Also Read: 'To Change 50% Reservation Limit Is To Have A Society Which
Is Not Founded On Equality But Based On Caste Rule': SC Refuses To Revisit
Indra Sawhney Judgment
Also Read: Reservation In Public Services Not The Only Method For
Improving Welfare Of Backward Classes; State Should Bring Other
Measures: Supreme Court
Also Read: Alteration Of Content Of State Legislative Power In An Oblique

& Peripheral Manner Would Not Constitute A Violation Of Basic Structure:
Supreme Court
Also Read: Parliamentary Committee, Minister & AG Said 102nd

Constitutional Amendment Won't Affect States' Power To Identify SEBCs;
Supreme Court Holds Otherwise
42. 'Citizens Have Right To Know What Transpires In Judicial

Proceedings': Supreme Court Upholds Media's Freedom To Report
Court Hearings
[Case: Election Commission of India v. MR Vijaya Bhaskar; Citation: LL

2021 SC 244]
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah upheld the

freedom of media to report the oral observations and discussions made by
judges and lawyers during a court proceeding. It held that freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) extends to reporting judicial
proceedings as well. "The concept of an open court requires that information
relating to a court proceeding must be available in the public domain.
Citizens have a right to know about what transpires in the course of judicial
proceedings", it observed.
The bench was delivering its judgment in a petition filed by the Election
Commission of India seeking to restrain media from reporting oral remarks
made by judges, after the Madras High Court orally said that the ECI
"should probably be booked for murder" for being "singularly responsible
for COVID second wave" by allowing election rallies.
Also Read: No Question Of Expunging Judges' Oral Remarks Which Are Not
Part Of Judicial Record: Supreme Court In ECI Case
Also Read: Real Time Reporting Of Court Hearing In Social Media Not A
Cause Of Apprehension; A Virtual Extension Of 'Open Court': Supreme
Court
Also Read: Unless Live-streaming Sees Light Of The Day, Absence Of

Records Of Oral Proceedings Would Continue To Bedevil The System:
Supreme Court
43. Supreme Court Constitutes National Task Force To Formulate

Methodology For Scientific Allocation Of Medical Oxygen To States, UTs
[Case: Union of India v. Rakesh Malhotra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 250]
A division bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah

constituted a 12-member National Task Force to formulate a methodology
for scientific allocation of liquid medical oxygen to all the States and Union
Territories in order to deal with the dearth of oxygen supply amid the
second Covid wave. The Task Force which will be at liberty to draw upon
the human resources of the Union Government for consultation and
information and may also constitute one or more sub-groups on specialised
areas or regions for assisting it, before finalising its recommendations.
The Court constituted the task force after noting deficiencies in the Centre's
formula for oxygen allocation, which is based on hospital-beds in a state.
The Court had earlier flagged that this formula required a re-look as it did
not take into account individuals who may not have secured hospital
admission, but are in need of oxygen support.
44. IBC - Approval Of Resolution Plan Does Not By Itself Discharge

Liabilities Of Personal Guarantor Of Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court
[Case: Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India;
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat held

that the approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a
personal guarantor of a corporate debtor. The release or discharge of a
principal borrower from the debt owed by it to its creditor, by an
involuntary process, i.e. by operation of law, or due to liquidation or
insolvency proceeding, does not absolve the surety/guarantor of his or her
liability, which arises out of an independent contract, the Court observed in
the judgment in which it upheld the provisions of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which applies to personal guarantors of corporate
debtors.
It referred to recent judgments in State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan,

Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel (I) Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, and
observed that the sanction of a resolution plan and finality imparted to it by
Section 31 does not per se operate as a discharge of the guarantor's liability.
It said that an involuntary act of the principal debtor leading to loss of
security, would not absolve a guarantor of its liability.
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds IBC Provisions Applicable To Personal

Guarantors Of Corporate Debtors
45. Phrase "Soon Before" Section 304B IPC Cannot Mean 'Immediately
Before': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Trial In Dowry Death
Cases
[Case: Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 262]

A Bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the
phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code
cannot be construed to mean 'immediately before'. The prosecution must
establish existence of "proximate and live link" between the dowry death
and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his
relatives. It also observed that Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole
approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental.
The bench observed thus while dismissing the appeal filed by accused who
were convicted under Section 304B IPC. Section 304B (1) provides that
'dowry death' is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily
injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within
seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death, she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband, in connection with demand for dowry.
46. Centre's Policy Of Paid Vaccination For 18-44 Years Prima Facie
Arbitrary & Irrational : Supreme Court
[Case: Re Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During

Pandemic; Citation: LL 2021 SC 263]
The Supreme Court has made a prima facie observation that the Centre's
vaccination policy, which does not provide free vaccination for those in the
age-group of 18 to 44 years, as "arbitrary and irrational" and asked the
Centre to revisit the same.
Also Read: How Rs 35000 Crores Budget Allocation Spent For Vaccines?
Why Can't It Be Used To Vaccinate 18-44 Years Group? SC Asks Centre
Also Read: 'Digital Divide Will Have Serious Implications On Right To

Equality & Health': Supreme Court On CoWIN Portal
Also Read: Constitution Doesn't Envisage Courts To Be Silent Spectators

When Executive Policies Infringe Citizens' Rights : SC In COVID Vaccine
Case
June 2021
47. ' Name Is An Intrinsic Element Of Identity': Supreme Court Issues
Guidelines For Recording Corrections & Changes In CBSE Certificates
[Case: Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E; Citation: LL 2021 SC 264]
A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna

Murari issued guidelines for the Central Board of Secondary Education to
process the applications for correction or change in the certificates issued
by it. The Court also directed CBSE to take immediate steps to amend its
Byelaws so as to incorporate these guidelines for recording correction or
change in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it.
48. Every Journalist Entitled To Protection Of Kedar Nath Judgment':

Supreme Court Quashes Sedition Case Against Journalist Vinod Dua
[Case: Vinod Dua v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 266]
A bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran while quashing the FIR
against senior journalist Vinod Dua for sedition observed, "Every Journalist
will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh , as every
prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict
conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and
completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh." In the case
of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar(1962), the Supreme Court had read
down Section 124A IPC and held that the application of the provision
should be limited to "acts involving intention or tendency to create
disorder, or disturbance of law and order; or incitement to violence".
49. Stop Illegal Adoption Of Children Orphaned By COVID; Public

Advertisements For Adoptions Unlawful: Supreme Court
[Case: In Re Contagion of COVID Virus In Children Protection Homes;

A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose in

the suo moto case initiated by the Court to deal with the problems of
children affected by COVID observed "No adoption of affected children
should be permitted contrary to the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015.Invitation to
persons for adoption of orphans is contrary to law as no adoption of a child
can be permitted without the involvement of CARA. Stringent action shall be
taken by the State Governments/Union Territories against
agencies/individuals who are responsible for indulging in this illegal activity."
The Court also directed the State governments and Union Territories to
prevent any NGO from collecting funds in the names of the affected
children by disclosing their identity and inviting interested persons to
adopt them.
Wide publicity should be given to the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 and the
prevailing schemes of the Union of India and the State Governments/Union
Territories which would benefit the affected children, the Court added.
50. Persons With Disabilities Have Right To Reservation In Promotions:

Supreme Court
[Case: State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph; Citation: LL 2021 SC 273]
A Division bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash

Reddy held that persons with physical disabilities have right to reservation
in promotions also. It held so while dismissing an appeal filed by the State
of Kerala against a judgment of the Kerala High Court (State of Kerala v.
Leesamma Joseph). Further, the Apex Court directed the Kerala
Government to implement reservation in promotion for disabled within 3
months.
51. States Must Implement 'One Nation, One Ration Card' Scheme By
July 31; Run Community Kitchens For Migrants
[Case: Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers ; Citation: LL

2021 SC 274]
A Division bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah

directed that all states must implement the "one nation, one ration card"
scheme - which enables migrant workers to avail ration benefits from any
part of the country - by July 31. It also passed a slew of other directions for
the benefit and welfare of migrant workers. The Central government was
directed to develop a portal in consultation with the National Informatics
Centre (NIC) for registration of the unorganized labourers/migrant workers.
Accordingly, all States and Union territories were ordered to complete the
process of establishment of the portal and registration under National Data
Base for Unorganised Workers (NDUW Project) by not later than July 31.
Further, the Central Government, Department of Food and Public
Distribution (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution)
was also directed to allocate and distribute food grains as per the demand
of additional food-grains from the States for migrant labourers.
The Central Government was also ordered to undertake exercise under

Section 9 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 to re-determine the total
number of persons to be covered under the Rural and Urban areas of the
State. In order to ensure that migrant labourers have access to food, the
Bench also ordered the Central and State governments to oversee the
functioning of community kitchens.
52.COVID Victims Entitled to Ex-Gratia Compensation; Supreme Court

Directs NDMA To Frame Guidelines Within 6 Weeks
[Case: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 277]
A Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah held that

Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act casts a statutory obligation on
the part of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to
recommend minimum relief for the victims of a national disaster. Such
minimum relief will also include 'ex-gratia assistance' as per Section 12(iii)
of the Act. Further, it observed, "No country or state has unlimited resources.
Dispensation of the same is based on a number of circumstances and facts.
Therefore, we don't think it is proper to direct the Union to pay a particular
amount. This is to be fixed by the government. Ultimately, the priorities are
also to be fixed by the government"
Accordingly, the Apex Court directed the NDMA to come up with guidelines
for giving ex-gratia compensation to the family members of persons who
died due to COVID 19. The Court also directed that simplified guidelines be
framed for issuance of death certificates/ official documents stating the
exact cause of death - that is death due to COVID.
Read Part 2 here : 100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 2,
Judgments 53-75]
Part 3 to be published.
Next Story
Similar Posts
+ View more
Live Law subscriptions starting

₹ 599 +GST
X
Subscribe to Live Law now and get unlimited access.
subscribe now
Already have an account? Sign In

100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 2,
Judgments 53-75]
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/100-major-supreme-court-judgments-of-2021-part-2-
judgments-53-75-188189
Search here...
Home
/
Top Stories
/
100 Major Supreme...
Top Stories
22 Dec 2021 10:53 AM
x
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': Supreme Court
Upholds Delhi...
Ad Free Content



WhatsApp Updates
News Letters
Subscribe Now
Login
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': Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Assembly Summons
[Case: Ajit Mohan & Others v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital

Territory of Delhi and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 288]
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 Committee seeking his appearance in an enquiry related to
Delhi Riots. A Bench 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.
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 Of Pivotal Role : Supreme Court
54. Tribunals Reforms Ordinance : Supreme Court Strikes Down
Provisions Fixing Term Of Members As 4 Years
[Case: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC

296]
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 Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and
Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021, to 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).
Also Read: Excludes Young Successful Advocates; Arbitrary &

Discriminatory' : 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': Justice Hemant Gupta's Dissent In Tribunals Case
Also Read: Judicial Independence Can Be Sustained Only When

Incumbents Are Assured Fair Service Conditions, Security Of Tenure :
Supreme Court
Also Read: Fill Up Vacancies In Tribunals Without Delay: Supreme

Court Directs Centre
55. Religious Sentiments Subservient To Right To Health & Life : Case
Against Kanwar Yatra
[Case: In Re : Alarming Newspaper Report Regarding Kanwar Yatra in

State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 300]
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 announced by the Kerala Government
lead to any "untoward spread of COVID-19 disease", action will be taken
against those responsible, warned the Supreme Court.
56. Supreme Court Strikes Down 97th Constitutional Amendment To

The Extent It Relates To Co-operative Societies
[Case: Union of India v. Rajendra Shah and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC

312]
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 Part IX B in the Constitution to deal with co-
operative societies. A 3-judge bench 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
unanimously held that the 97th Constitutional Amendment required
ratification by at 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 liable to be struck down.
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 the
entire amendment.
Also Read: States Have Exclusive Legislative Power In Cooperative

Societies' Matter
Also Read: Once Substantive Provisions Of Part IXB Are Held

Unconstitutional, Provisions On Multi-State Co-operative Societies
Can't Be Saved: Justice Joseph's 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 Of 97th Constitutional Amendment After Supreme
Court Judgment
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds A Citizen's Right To Challenge A

Constitutional Amendment Affecting States' Power
57.Legislative Privileges & Immunities Not Gateways To Claim

Exemption From Criminal Law : Supreme Court In Kerala Assembly
Ruckus Case
[Case: State of Kerala v. K.Ajith; Citation: LL 2021 SC 328]

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 argument ,a Division bench comprising Justices DY
Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that legislative privileges cannot be
claimed to seek exemption from the 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.
"The purpose of bestowing privileges and immunities to elected members of

the 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 Rejects Kerala Govt Plea To Withdraw Prosecution In
Assembly Ruckus Case
Also Read: 'Must Subserve Administration Of Justice': Supreme Court

Formulates Principles On Withdrawal Of Prosecution Under Section
321 CrPC
Also Read: What Is The Larger Public Interest In Withdrawing

Prosecution?' Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Kerala Assembly
Ruckus Case
58.Governor Can Exercise Pardon Power Even If Prisoner Has Not

Undergone 14 Years Imprisonment
[Case: State of Haryana v. Rajkumar @ Bittu; Citation: LL 2021 SC 345]
The Supreme Court has observed that the power of Governor under Article
161 of the Constitution to commute sentence or to pardon will override the
restrictions imposed under Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Even if the prisoner has not undergone 14 years or more of actual
imprisonment, the Governor has a power to grant pardons, reprieves,
respites and remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or 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; Citation: LL 2021 SC 346]
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. "
60. Money Decree/Certificate Of Recovery In Favour Of Financial

Creditor Gives Fresh Cause Of Action To Initiate CIRP U/s 7 IBC
[Case: Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy; Citation: LL 2021 SC 349]
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 extended by a further period of three years, the court observed.
Also Read: No Bar In Permitting Amendment Of Pleadings Or Filing Of

Additional Documents In CIRP Application U/s 7 IBC
61. Emergency Arbitration Award Enforceable In Indian Law : Supreme

Court Rules In Favour Of Amazon In Case Against Future Retail
[Case: Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail

Limited; Citation: LL 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 Statute Providing Greater Benefits
[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 operation of a statutory provision granting greater benefits in the
matter of Motor 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 Umesh Lalit and
Ajay Rastogi observed.
63. Condition Of Pre-deposit Of Fine Amount Cannot Be Imposed To

Hear Revision Petition Filed By Convict
[Case: R. Kalai Selvi v. Bheemappa; Citation: LL 2021 SC 361]
The Supreme Court has observed that deposit of fine amount cannot be
made a 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 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
64. Pendency A Direct Result Of Centre's 'Recalcitrant Attitude' In Not

Appointing HC Judges For Years After Collegium Clearances
[Case: M/s Indian Solar Manufacturers Association v. Solar Power
Developers Association; Citation: LL 2021 SC 365]
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 Of Their Selection: Supreme Court Modifies Earlier
Direction
[Case: Brajesh Singh v. Sunil Arora; Citation: LL 2021 SC 367]
With the objective of decriminalization of politics, the Supreme Court on

Tuesday directed that the political parties must publish the criminal
antecedents, in any, of the candidates within 48 hours of their selection. A
bench comprising Justices RF Nariman 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
application containing information published by candidates regarding their
criminal antecedents, so that at one stroke, each voter gets such
information on his/her mobile phone.
"Political parties are to publish information regarding criminal antecedents

of candidates 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 directed to create a dedicated mobile
application containing information published by candidates regarding their
criminal antecedents, so that at one stroke, each voter gets such information
on his/her mobile phone", the Bench further directed.
Also Read: SC Directs Political Parties To Publish Criminal Antecedents

Of Candidates In LS & Assembly Polls
Also Read: Politicians With Criminal Antecedents Cannot Be Permitted

To Be Law-Makers; But Our Hands Are Tied
Also Read: Supreme Court Imposes Fine On 8 Political Parties For

Violating Directions To Publish Criminal Antecedents Of Candidates In
Bihar Polls
66. NCLT/NCLAT Has No Residual Equity Jurisdiction While Dealing

With Resolution Plan Approved By CoC
[Case: Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. v. Monitoring Committee of Reliance

Infratel Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 368]
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 approved by the Committee of Creditors.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah reiterated that these
authorities can not enter into the commercial wisdom underlying the
approval granted by the CoC to the resolution plan.
67.Perversity' Or 'Patent Illegality' Not Grounds To Refuse Enforcement

Of Foreign 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 of
"patent illegality appearing on the face of the award" is an independent
ground of 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
`
68. Right To Shelter Does Not Mean Right To Government

Accommodation
[Case: Union of India v. Onkar Nath Dhar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 372]
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 retired Intelligence Bureau Officer to retain
Government accommodation. The court 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 give a right to a retired person from continuing to occupy
a government accommodation
69. 'Clarificatory' Provision In Tax Laws Cannot Impose A New

Condition Retrospectively
[Case: M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax;

A retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts"
cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used,
if it alters or changes 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
[Case: Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand; Citation: LL 2021 SC 374]
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
identification. It reiterated that a test identification parade under Section 9
of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution
but is only corroborative evidence.
71 .Repeated Inquiries For Verification Of Caste Certificate Detrimental

To SC-ST Members
[Case: J. Chitra v. District Collector and Chairman State Level Vigilance

Committee; Citation: LL 2021 SC 413]
Repeated inquiries for verification of caste certificates would be

detrimental to the 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 verification of caste certificates by
Scrutiny Committees is to avoid false and bogus claims and reopening of
inquiry can be only in case they are vitiated by fraud or when they were
issued without proper inquiry.
72. Magistrate While Accepting Chargesheet Has To Invariably Issue

Summons And Not Arrest Warrant
[Case: Aman Preet Singh v. CBI; Citation: LL 2021 SC 416]
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 sheet has been filed.
73. Investigating Officer Is Not Required To Arrest Each And Every

Accused At The Time Of Filing Charge-sheet
[Case : Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 391]
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 time of filing of the charge sheet.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kual and Hrishikesh Roy

observed that the practice of some Trial Courts of insisting on the arrest of
an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the charge-sheet on record is
misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
Also Read : Personal Liberty- Merely Because An Arrest Can Be Made

Lawfully, It Does Not Mandate That Arrest Must Be Made : Supreme
Court
74. Adjudicatory Function Of National Green Tribunal Cannot Be

Assigned To Expert Committees
[Case: Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and

Climate Change; Citation: LL 2021 SC 420]
The Supreme Court has observed that adjudicatory function of the National
Green Tribunal cannot be assigned to committees. "The discharge of its
functions cannot be obviated by tasking committees to carry out a function
which vests in the tribunal", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, MR
Shah and Hima Kohli observed
75 .R ailways 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;

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.

Next Story
Similar Posts
+ View more
₹ 599 +GST
X
subscribe now

100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 3,
Judgments 76 -100]
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/100-major-supreme-court-judgments-of-2021-part-3-
judgments-76-100-188424
Search here...
Home
/
Top Stories
/
100 Major Supreme...
Top Stories
27 Dec 2021 4:55 AM GMT
x
This is the third part of the article covering 100 major Supreme Court
judgments of 2021. The first part covered 52 judgments delivered from
January to June. The second part included 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 and the second part here.76. National
Green Tribunal Has Suo...
Ad Free Content



WhatsApp Updates
News Letters
Subscribe Now
Login
This is the third part of the article covering 100 major Supreme Court
judgments of 2021. The first part covered 52 judgments delivered from
January to June. The second part included 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 and the second part here.
76. National Green Tribunal Has Suo Motu Jurisdiction
[Case : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha;

Citation : LL 2021 SC 549]
The Supreme Court declared that the National Green Tribunal is vested
with suo motu powers to take cognizance on the basis of letters,
representations and media reports.
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and CT

Ravikumar delivered the judgment on a batch of petitions which raised the
issue whether NGT has suo motu jurisdiction (Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and other and connected cases).
The Court held that the NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution as the
National Green Tribunals Act, 2010 (NGT Act) provides the Tribunal with
wide ranging powers beyond that of a mere adjudicatory body.
Opining on the intention behind the legislature in establishing such a

tribunal, the Court held,
"NGT Act, when read as a whole, gives much leeway to the NGT to go
beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament's intention is clearly
discernible to create a multifunctional body, with the capacity to
provide redressal for environmental exigencies. Accordingly, the
principles of environmental justice and environmental equity must be
explicitly acknowledged as pivotal threads of the NGT's fabric. The
NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution and not unus multorum,
and its special and exclusive role to foster public interest in the area
of environmental domain delineated in the enactment of 2010 must
necessarily receive legal recognition of this Court"
The Court also acknowledged that environmental impact on climate change

is gaining increasing visibility in recent times and thus the NGT must be
given the discretion to exercise suo moto powers in order to salvage
adverse environmental consequences for generations to come.
77 .Director Of Enforcement Can Be Appointed For A Period Of More

Than Two Years
[Case: Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India; Citation:

LL 2021 SC 429]
The Supreme Court has held that a Director of Enforcement can be

appointed for a period of more than two years by following the procedure
prescribed Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. The
bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai also upheld the power
of the Union of India to extend the tenure of Director of Enforcement
beyond the period of two years. It clarified that extension of tenure granted
to officers who have attained the age of superannuation should be done
only in rare and exceptional cases.
The Court was delivering its judgment in a PIL that challenged the
extension of tenure given to ED Director SK Mishra. The Court however
held that SK Mishra's tenure should not be further extended.

Note : The Parliament later passed a law allowing the extension of the term
of ED Director and CBI Chief up to five years.

78. Magistrates Cannot Extend Time To Complete Investigation In UAPA

Cases
[Case: Sadique v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 434]
The Supreme Court held that magistrates would not be competent to extend
the time to complete investigations in UAPA cases. The only competent
authority to consider such request would be "the Court" as specified in the
proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA, the bench of Justices Uday
Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Belam M Trivedi held.
79. PC Act Is A Code By Itself- Bank Account Of A Person Accused of

Prevention of Corruption Act Cannot Be Attached U/S 102 CrPC
[Case: Ratan Babulal Lath v. The State Of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021

SC 440]
The Supreme Court has observed that bank account of a person accused
under Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be attached invoking Section
102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. "It is not possible to sustain the freezing
of the bank account of the appellant taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. as
the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself", the bench of Justices
Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed while allowing an appeal
against a Karnataka High Court judgment. I
80 .Refund For Unutilised Input Tax Credit Can't Be Claimed On

Account Of Input Services: Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Section
54(3) CGST Act
[Case: Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC
446]
The Supreme Court has held that Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and
Services Act excludes unutilised input tax credit that accumulated on
account of input services. "When there is neither a constitutional guarantee
nor a statutory entitlement to refund, the submission that goods and services
must necessarily be treated at par on a matter of a refund of unutilized ITC
cannot be accepted", the court observed while rejecting the challenge
against Section 54(3) on the ground that it violates equality doctrine under
Article 14 of the Constitution. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and
MR Shah set aside the Gujarat High Court judgment which held that Rule
89(5) of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, by restricting the refund
only to input goods, had acted ultra vires Section 54(3) of the CGST Act. It
approved a Madras High Court judgment which upheld the Rule.
81.NCLAT Has No Jurisdiction To Condone Delay Exceeding 15 Days

From Period Of 30 Days, Contemplated U/s 61(2) IBC
[Case: National Spot Exchange Limited v. Anil Kohli; Citation: LL 2021

SC 453]
The Supreme Court observed that the National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal (NCLAT) has no jurisdiction to condone the delay exceeding 15
days from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2) of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
82. Moratorium Ordered U/Sec.14 IBC Does Not Apply To Proceedings In

Respect Of Directors/Management Of Corporate Debtor
[Case: Anjali Rathi v. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd; Citation:
LL 2021 SC 462]
The Supreme Court has observed that the moratorium ordered under
Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not apply in respect
of the directors/management of the Corporate Debtor. It applies only in
relation to the Corporate Debtor and against its directors/management,
proceedings could continue, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud,
Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli observed.
83. Summoning And Detaining A Person Without There Being Any

Crime Registered Against Him Illegal
[Case: M.A Khaliq v. Ashok Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 472]

The Supreme Court observed that summoning and detaining a person
without there being any crime registered against him would be violative of
basic principles. The directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2014) 8 SCC 273, would be applicable even if no crime was registered, the
bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi
observed.
84 . Supreme Court Recalls Suo Motu Extension Of Limitation With

Effect From October 2; Period From 15.03.2020 To 02.10.2021 Stands
Excluded From Computing Limitation
[Case: In Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation; Citation: LL 2021

SC 498]
The Supreme Court has recalled the suo motu order of April 27, 2021, which
had extended with effect from March 14, 2021 the limitation period for
filing of cases in view of the COVID second wave. The Court said that the
suo motu extension of limitation period will stand withdrawn with effect
from October 2, 2021. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV
Ramana, Justices L Nageswara Rao and Surya Kant made these
observations in the suo motu case In Re Cognizance For Extension of
Limitation.
85.Office Bearers Of Bar Association Are To Be Elected By Advocates

Regularly Practicing In That Court; Outsiders Cannot Be Permitted To
Take Part
[Case: Amit Sachan & Anr v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh ; Citation: LL
2021 SC 507]
The Supreme Court has observed that office-bearers of the Bar Association
are to be elected by genuine voters and advocates genuinely/regularly
practising in the High Court/Court concerned. Outsiders not regularly
practicing in that court cannot be permitted to hijack the system by
permitting them to take part in the election process of electing members of
the Bar Association, the Court added.
86. Right To Apply For Bail Is An Individual Right Implicit In Articles 14,
19 & 21
[Case: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. State of Rajasthan and

Another; Citation: LL 2021 SC 523]
Disapproving the blanket orders passed by a single judge of the Rajasthan

High Court to not list applications for bail and suspension of sentence as
urgent matters during the lockdown, the Supreme Court has observed that
the right to apply for bail is an individual right implicit in Articles 14, 19
and 21 of the Constitution. The Court has observed that such blanket bans
would suspend Fundamental Rights of individuals and block access for
seekers of liberty to apply for bail. A Bench comprising Justices L
Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose made the observations while
delivering the judgement in special leave petitions filed against orders of
the Rajasthan High Court which directed the Registry to not to list bails,
appeals, applications for suspension of sentence in appeals and revisions in
the category of extreme urgent matters.
87. Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC's Total Ban Of Firecrackers
In West Bengal; State To Ensure No Import Of Banned Firecrackers
[Case: Goutom Roy and Anr v. State of West Bengal; Citation: LL 2021 SC
629]
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court which
imposed a complete ban on the use of firecrackers in the State of West
Bengal. "...we are convinced that Calcutta High Court should have called
upon parties to give explanation before passing such an extreme order", the
Court observed in the order. The Court observed that the High Court ought
to have given opportunities to the authorities to place on record if any
mechanism was in place to ensure that only "green crackers", as permitted
by the Supreme Court, are being used. While setting aside the High Court's
order, the Supreme Court also gave liberty to any party to approach the
High Court with adequate materials. "There cannot be a complete ban of
firecrackers. Strengthen the mechanism to stop misuse", orally observed the
bench during the course of the hearing.
88. Advocate Losing A Case After Arguing Is Not 'Deficiency Of Service'
For Filing Consumer Complaint
[Case: Nandlal Lohariya v. Jagdish Chand Purohit; Citation: LL 2021 SC

636]
The Supreme Court has observed that an advocate losing a case cannot be
said to be deficiency in service on his/her part. "In every litigation, either of
the party is bound to lose and in such a situation either of the party who will
lose in the litigation may approach the consumer fora for compensation
alleging deficiency in service, which is not permissible at all", the bench
comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while
dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
89. Compensation / Penalty Cannot Be Restricted To Value Of Illegally-

Mined Mineral; Cost Of Restoration Of Environment Also To Be
Considered
[Case: Bajri Lease LoI Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan;

The Supreme Court has observed that the compensation/penalty to be paid

by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to the value
of illegally-mined mineral. The cost of restoration of the environment, as
well as the cost of ecological services, should be part of the compensation,
the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and BR
Gavai observed. The polluter, according to the court, is liable to pay the cost
to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged
ecology.
90. Supreme Court Upholds Application Of RERA To Real Estate

Projects Ongoing At Act's Commencement
[Case: Newtech Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP;

The Supreme Court has upheld the retroactive application of the Real
Estate(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the real estate projects
which were ongoing at the commencement of the Act. The bench
comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi, and Aniruddha Bose
observed that the RERA Act does not apply to the projects already
completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted at the
commencement of the Act. The Court rejected the contentions raised by
Promoters/Developers that the first proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act is
violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Taking note of the statutory provisions especially Section 3 of the RERA, the
court observed that all "ongoing projects" that commence prior to the Act
and in respect to which completion certificate has not been issued are
covered under the Act. It said: "It manifests that the legislative intent is to
make the Act applicable not only to the projects which were yet to commence
after the Act became operational but also to bring under its fold the ongoing
projects and to protect from its inception the inter se rights of the
stakeholders, including allottees/home buyers, promoters and real estate
agents while imposing certain duties and responsibilities on each of them and
to regulate, administer and supervise the unregulated real estate sector
within the fold of the real estate authority."
Also Read: Condition Of Pre-Deposit For Filing Appeal U/Sec 43(5) RERA
Not Discriminatory Against Promoters
Also Read: RERA - Regulatory Authority Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To

Direct Refund To Allottee; Adjudicating Officer Has Power To
Determine Compensation
Also Read: RERA Authority Can Delegate Single Member To Decide

Homebuyers' Complaint Under Section 31
Also Read: Sec 40 RERA - Homebuyers Entitled To Recover Amount

Invested Along With Interest As Land Revenue Arrears From Builder
91. Preliminary Enquiry By CBI In Corruption Cases Not Mandatory;

Accused Cannot Demand It As Of Right
[Case : Central Bureau of Investigation vs Thommandru Hannah
Vijayalakshmi; Citation : LL 2021 SC 551]
The Supreme Court has held that preliminary enquiry by Central Bureau of
Investigation in cases of corruption is not mandatory.
"In case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a

"source information" discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can
directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry,
where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of
a cognizable offence", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath
and BV Nagarathna observed.
"An FIR will not stand vitiated because a Preliminary Enquiry has not been
conducted", the Court stated in the judgment.
92. Section 482 CrPC - High Court Must Furnish Reasons For Issuing
Interlocutory Direction At Interim Stage
[Case : Jitul Jentilal Kotecha vs State of Gujarat; Citation : LL 2021 SC

642]
The Supreme Court has observed that while issuing an interlocutory

direction at an interim stage while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court must furnish reasons.
"Even at the interim stage, the High Court must demonstrate an application
of mind and furnish reasons for issuing any interlocutory direction, which is
capable of being tested before this Court in an appropriate case", a bench
comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed.
The bench referred to the dictum laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure

Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra LL 2021 SC 211 in this regard.

93. Mere Support To Terrorist Organization Without Intention To

Further Its Activities Does Not Attract Section 38/39 UAPA
[ Case :Thwaha Fasal vs. Union of India; Citation : LL 2021 SC 605]

In its judgment restoring the bail granted to Thwaha Fasal and Allan
Shuhaib, the Supreme Court observed that mere support given to a terrorist
organization or mere association with it, is not sufficient to attract offences
under Sections 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The association and the support have to be with intention of furthering the
activities of a terrorist organisation, the bench comprising Justices Ajay
Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
UAPA - If Chargesheet Does Not Reveal Prima Facie Case, Embargo For
Bail Under Sec 43D(5) Won't Apply : Supreme Court
94. UAPA- State Police Has Duty To Continue Investigation Of Schedule

Offence Till NIA Actually Takes It Over
[ Case:Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai vs State of Maharashtra; Citation : LL

2021 SC 576]
The Supreme Court has observed that the State police has a duty to
continue with the investigation of a scheduled offence under the NIA Act till
the National Investigating Agency actually takes it over.
The court added that mere renumbering of the case filed by the NIA did not
take away the power of the State police (ATS) to continue the investigation.
95. Pension Shall Be Determined On Rules Existing At The Time Of

Retirement
[ Case : Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair V. Cochin University Of Science And

Technology; Citation : LL 2021 SC 701]
The Supreme Court has observed that the pension payable to an employee
on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of
retirement. The Court also observed that the law did not allow the
employer to apply the rules differently in relation to persons who are
similarly situated.
96. Persons With Disabilities Should Not Be Asked to Remove Prosthetic

Limbs At Airport Security Checks
[Case : Jeeja Ghosh vs Union of India; Citation : LL 2021 SC 704]
In a petition filed to ensure convenient air travel for persons with

disabilities, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday observed that
differently abled persons with prosthetic limbs/calipers should not be asked
to remove the prosthetics at airport security checks so as to maintain
human dignity.
The Court also observed that lifting a person with disability during air
travel or security checkup is inhumane, and held that the same should not
be done without the person's consent.
97. States Should Not Deny Ex-Gratia For COVID Deaths On Ground
That Death Certificate Does Not Mention COVID As Cause Of Death
[ Case: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India; Citation : LL 2021 SC

536]

The Supreme Court ordered that no state should deny the ex-gratia
compensation of Rs 50,000 to the kin of persons who died of COVID on the
sole ground that the death certificate does not mention COVID as the cause
of death.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna passed the order

while approving the guidelines issued by the National Disaster
Management Authority for grant of compensation in COVID death cases.
The bench also said that the next kin of the deceased shall be paid an
amount of Rs 50,000 from the State Disaster Response Funds and it will be
over and above the amounts paid by centre and state under various
benevolent schemes.
Such amount will be disbursed within 30 days of submitting application

and cause of death being certified as of COVID19.
The court has also directed the publication of the details of the district level
authorities and grievance redressal committee in media.

98. NCDRC Can Direct Deposit Of Entire Or More Than 50% Of Amount
Determined By SCDRC For Stay
[Case : Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Ltd versus

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and others; Citation : LL 2021 SC 714]
In a significant judgment on the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the

Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission(NCDRC) can direct the deposit of the entire amount
or more than 50% of the amount determined by the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission for conditional stay.
The Court added that however to pass such an order, the NCDRC has to pass
a speaking order assigning cogent reasons.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna laid down this

dictum in a case involving the interpretation of Section 51 of the Consumer
Protection Act 2019, which prescribes pre-deposit for filing appeal before
the NCDRC
99. Applications To Condone Delay In Filing Version In Consumer Cases

Pending On 04.03.2020 Not Impacted By CB Judgment
[Case :Diamond Exports and another versus United India Insurance Co

Ltd and others; Citation : LL SC 736]
Settling a conflict between two division bench judgments, a 3-judge bench

of the Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that the applications to condone
the delay of more than 45 days in filing the version of the opposite party in
consumer cases, which were pending as of March 4, 2020, will not be
impacted by the ruling of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case New
India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage
Private Limited, which had held that Consumer Forum cannot condone
the delay of more than 45 days in filing the version of the opposite party.
100. Court Cannot Second Guess Infrastructural Needs Of Armed

Forces: SC Allows Widening Of 'Char Dham' Highway
[Case : Citizens for Green Doon vs Union of India; Citation : LL 2021 SC
737]
While allowing the Ministry of Defence's plea to allow the double lane
widening of the Char Dham highway due to strategic reasons, the Supreme
Court said that it cannot second-guess the infrastructural needs of the
Armed Forces.
This observation was made by the bench headed by Justice DY

Chandrachud while allowing an application filed by the Ministry of Defence
for the double-lane widening of roads that are part of the 899-km Char
Dham project in Uttarakhand. The court said it is impermissible to
interrogate the policy choice of the establishment which is entrusted by law
with the defence of the nation
The Court also appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice AK Sikri as
the head of the oversight committee to ensure that the double-laning of the
highway is in accordance with the recommendations made by the High
Powered Committee to address ecological concerns.
Also Read :
100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 1, 52 judgments]
100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 2, Judgments 53-75]
Reports of previous years :
Good & Bad : 65 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2020
Good & Bad : 50 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2019
The Good And Bad : Read 35 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of

2018
Read 25 Important Judgment Of Supreme Court Of India Delivered In

2017
Best Of 2016: Read 25 Significant Judgments Of Supreme Court of India

in 2016
Best of 2015; Read 25 Significant Judgments delivered by Supreme
Court of India this year
Reminiscing 2014: 15 judgments by the Apex Court that altered the

course
"Judicial Highlights of 2014 – the year that saw it all"
Best Judgments of Supreme Court in 2013
Next Story
Similar Posts
+ View more

₹ 599 +GST
X
subscribe now

100 Judgments 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 Judgments 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021

[Part 1, Judgments 1-52]

100 Important Supreme...

As 2021 draws to a close, LiveLaw brings to you a round-up of the major

Premium account gives you:

Special And Exclusive Stories First Available To Subscribers only

Copy Of Petitions (Subject to Consent From Concerned Lawyers)

Yearly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts

" We cannot be called upon to govern. For, we have no wherewithal or

Also Read: 'We Cannot Be Called Upon To Govern. For We Have No

2. Whether Non-Payment Of Stamp Duty On Commercial Contract Will

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has observed that non-payment

Disagreeing with two earlier judgments in this regard, the bench

"Whether the statutory bar contained in Section 35 of the

3. Incorporation Of One-sided And Unreasonable Clauses In Apartment

The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and

4. Is Appointment Of Arbitrator By Ineligible Person Valid?Supreme

[Case Title: Union of India v. M/S Tantia Constructions Ltd.; Citation: LL

Order dated January 11, 2021

A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph

5. Supreme Court Upholds Sections 3, 4 & 10 Of IBC Amendment Act

A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph

The Court rejected the petitioners' contentions that such conditions on

Also Read: Minimum Threshold For Homebuyers' Insolvency Process

Also Read: 'Malice' Is Not A Ground To Challenge A Law Made By

6. Benefit Of Probation (PO Act) Is Not Excluded By Mandatory

[Case: Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 27] Order

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy

[Case: Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.); Citation: LL

Order dated January 11, 2021

The Supreme Court, by 4:1 majority, has dismissed a batch of review

Also Read: Constitutional Error To Hold At This Stage That No Ground

8."Whether 'Advocate On Record' Includes Sole Proprietary Firm?"

[Case Title: In Re: Advocate On Record Includes A Proprietary Firm Etc.;

Order dated January 20, 2021

In the context of the 2013 Supreme Court Rules, a bench of Justices SK

9. Violation Of Fundamental Right To Speedy Trial Is A Ground For

[Case: Union of India v. KA Najeeb; Citation: LL 2021 SC 56]

A bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha

10.SC Judgment Which Excluded Persons With Over 50% Visual/Hearing

[Case: Vikash Kumar v. UPSC; Citation: LL 2021 SC 76]

A bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and

Also Read: Benchmark Disability Not A Precondition To Obtain A Scribe:

11."Right To Protest Cannot Be Any Time And Everywhere": Supreme

[Case: Kaniz Fatima v. Commissioner of Police; Citation: LL 2021 SC 83]

A three judge bench consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha

[Case: In Re: Matter Of Great Public Importance Touching Upon The

A bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, AS Bopanna and V.

13 . Whether Day Of Remand Is To Be Included For Considering A Claim

[Case: Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan; Citation: LL 2021 SC

Whether the day of remand is to be included or excluded, for considering a

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy

14. Moratorium Under Section 14 IBC Covers Section 138 NI Act

A Bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph

Section 34 proceeding is a proceeding against the corporate debtor in a

15. Amounts Paid By Indian Companies To Use Foreign Software Not

[Case: Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Private Ltd vs The

[Case: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/S Navigant

A bench comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed

[Case: Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State Of Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021

"Reservation in favour of OBCs in the concerned local bodies can be notified

18. Sole Proprietorship Will Fall Under International Commercial

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah set aside the

[Case: Fakhrey Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 165]