Clat PG 2024 - Clatpoint 365 (Vol.1)

CLAT POINT 365
FOR CLAT PG 2024
Yearly Compendium for Latest Important

Judgements
JANUARY 2023 - JUDGMENT SUMMARY
Name of the case- Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1
Bench- Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna
Date- 02-01-23
Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Section 26 in The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
3. The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
Cases referred-
1. Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. And another v. State of UP, court held that reasoning and motive behind a law are sufficient
enough to declare it valid.
2. Orissa Cement Ltd. V. State of Orissa, Court held that declaration of invalidity of a provision, and determination of the
relief to be granted as a consequence of such invalidity, are two distinct things. That in respect of the relief to be granted
as a consequence of declaration of invalidity, the Court has discretion which could be exercised to grant, mould or restrict
the relief.
3. I.C. Golak Nath & Others v. State of Punjab, this Court declared that it is open to the Court, to find and declare the law,
but restrict the operation of such law to the future.
4. Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah vs RBI, court declared High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act to be valid.
Issue: Was demonetisation valid or not?
Ratio Decidendi- The court held that under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act, the Central Government can exercise its power for
all series of bank notes. And just because of the fact that on the earlier two occasions, it was done through the plenary
legislation, it does not mean that such power would not be available to Central Government under section 26(2).
The fact that power has to be exercised on the recommendation of the Central Board is itself a safeguard hence section 26(2)
of the RBI Act does not provide for excessive delegation.
The notification also satisfies the test of proportionality and, therefore, it cannot be struck down on the said ground. The
period provided for the exchange of the notes cannot be said to be unreasonable. The Reserve Bank of India does not possess
independent power under section 4(2) of the 2017 Act to accept the demonetized notes beyond the period specified in
notifications issued under section 4(1) of the 2017 Act.
Judgment- The Supreme Court Constitution Bench upheld by 4:1 majority the decision taken by the Union Government six
years ago to demonetise the currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1000 denominations. The majority held that Centre’s
notification dated November 8, 2016 is valid and satisfies the test of proportionality. Justice BV Nagarathna in her dissenting
view held that though demonetization was well-intentioned and well thought of, it has to be declared unlawful on legal
grounds (and not on the basis of objects).
Name of the case- Prem Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2
Bench- Dinesh Maheshwari, Sudhanshu Dhulia
Date- 02-01-23

1. Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. Section 329 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Section 84 in The Indian Penal Code
Cases referred-
1. State of Gujarat v. Manjuben, it was held that looking to the background factors concerning mental capacity of the
appellant appearing in evidence, it is the duty of the Trial Court to examine if he was of unsound mind and consequently
incapable of making his defence.
2. Ajay Ram Pandit v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that a police personnel having prior knowledge of accused’s mental
incapacity is a strong point of defence.
3. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, it was held that a court should not harm a litigant.
4. Eric Dolby v. State of Delaware, it was held that accused has the right to raise the plea of insanity even when the counsel
forgets to do so.
Issue- Who has the onus of proof in cases where defence of mental incapacity is taken.
Ratio Decidendi- The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following
propositions: (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the
requisite mens rea, and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial.
(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down
by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence oral,
documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil
proceedings. (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the
offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind
of the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the
court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was
not discharged.”
Judgment- Rejecting his plea of mental incapacity, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of killing his
two sons. “Where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused
was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence”, the bench observed. The court found that he was
neither suffering from any medically determined mental illness nor could be said to be a person under a legal disability of
unsound mind.
Name of the case- Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Date- 03-01-23
Bench- Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B.V.
Nagarathna

1. Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949
2. Article 19(1)(a) in The Constitution Of India 1949
3. Article 19(2) in The Constitution Of India 1949
Cases referred-
1. Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar, in this case court treated misconduct of public servants or officers and consequent
infringement of Constitutional rights as ground for grant of compensation.
2. Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India, it was held by the court that reasonable restrictions are permitted only to the
extent of benefit to some.
3. Ram Jethmalani vs. Union of India, it was held by the court that there is an inherent danger in making exceptions to
fundamental principles and rights on the fly. Those exceptions, bit by bit, would then eviscerate the content of the main
right itself.
4. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry, it was held by the court that freedom of speech and expression in a
spirited democracy is a highly treasured value.
Issue- Can restrictions that are not available under article 19(2) be imposed on freedom of speech and expression?
Ratio Decidendi- Our constitution has ensured that every citizen is entitled to their basic rights and freedom in the form of
fundamental rights and has also laid down certain restrictions on the freedom of the citizens to exercise their right so that a
balance is maintained. The freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is already subjected to restrictions by
Article 19(2). Making efforts to strengthen these restrictions by other fundamental rights like Article 21 is slowly chipping
away the right to free speech that is guaranteed to all citizens. In a constitutional democracy like India, a judge’s role is to
defend the rights of the citizens and not authorize more restrictions on civil liberties. The restrictions under Article 19(2) with
grounds of decency, morality and contempt of Court are wide enough to account for a speech or Statement made towards a
rape victim. The usage of words like constitutional sensitivity is highly unnecessary. Today the restriction to free speech is on
the basis of dignity read under Article 21, tomorrow there can be something else that the judges will consider to limit the
freedom of the citizens
Judgment- The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has held that additional restrictions, not found in Article 19(2), cannot be
imposed on the exercise of right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of Ministers, MPs and MLAs. It held that the grounds
mentioned in Article 19(2) for restricting free speech are exhaustive. The Court by 4:1 majority added that statements made
by Minister, even if traceable to any affairs of state or protecting the govt, cannot be attributed vicariously to the govt even
applying the principle of collective responsibility. In her dissenting opinion, Justice B.V. Nagarathna agreed that greater
restriction cannot be imposed on free speech, in addition to grounds under Article 19(2). However, she observed that in case
a Minister makes disparaging statements in his “official capacity”, then such statements can be vicariously attributed to the
government.
Name of the case- KC Cinema v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38
Date- 03-01-23
Bench- Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PV Narsimha

1. Article 19, The Indian Constitution, 1959
Cases referred-
1. Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. V. Brojonath Ganguly, this Court held that whether parties can be said to have
unequal bargaining power and whether a bargain is unfair or unreasonable must be decided on the facts and
circumstances of each case.
Issue- Do cinema hall owners have the right to not allow outside food to be taken into theatres?
Ratio Decidendi- The condition of entry is

Imposed as a direct result of the exercise of the right of cinema owners to carry on a business or trade under Article 19(1)(g)
of the Constitution. The commercial logic of prohibiting movie goers from carrying their own food to the cinema hall is to
stimulate and boost a vital aspect of the business – the sale of food and beverages. If business owners are not permitted to
determine the various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt.
While movie goers may have no choice but to sign on the proverbial dotted line (and thereby not carry any food of their own
into the theatre) in order to enter the cinema hall and watch a movie of their choice, this does not by itself render the
condition of entry unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable.
Judgment- Supreme Court stated that a cinema hall owner could prohibit movie-goers from carrying their own food and
beverages inside cinema halls. However, the bench clarified that all Cinema Halls must provide hygienic drinking water for all
movie goers free of cost in theatres. Further, it noted when an infant or a child accompanies a parent, reasonable amount of
food for them can be carried in theatres. The court also disapproved mandate for uniform pricing of cinema tickets.
Name of the case- Deepak Gaba vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3
Bench- Sanjiv Khanna, M.M. Sundresh
Date- 02-01-23

1. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
3. The Indian Penal Code
Cases referred-
1. Mohd. Ibrahim and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, court observed that for the offence of cheating, there should
not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should also have dishonestly adduced the
person deceived to deliver any property to a person; or to make, alter, or destroy, wholly or in part, a valuable security,
or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
2. Thermax Limited and Others v. K.M. Johny, the court held that courts should be watchful of the difference between civil
and criminal wrongs, though there can be situations where the allegations may constitute both civil and criminal wrongs.
4. Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, court held that when the violation of law alleged is clearly debatable
and doubtful, either on account of paucity and lack of clarity of facts, or on application of law to the facts, the Magistrate.
5. Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Others, it was held by the court that the
inherent powers of the court can and should be exercised in such circumstances that when the allegations in the
complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient wrong for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued.
Issue- Does the Magistrate has a duty to examine the complaint before summoning the accused?
Ratio Decidendi- When the violation of law alleged is clearly debatable and doubtful, either on account of paucity and lack
of clarity of facts, or on application of law to the facts, the Magistrate must ensure clarification of the ambiguities. Summoning
without appreciation of the legal provisions and their application to the facts may result in an innocent being summoned to
stand the prosecution/trial. Initiation of prosecution and summoning of the accused to stand trial, apart from monetary loss,
sacrifice of time, and effort to prepare a defence, also causes humiliation and disrepute in the society. It results in anxiety of
uncertain times.
Judgment- The Supreme Court observed that a summoning order under Section 204 CrPC should not be passed lightly or as
a matter of course. In this case, the complainant had Invoked Sections 405, 420, 471, and 120B of the IPC against the accused.
However, the Magistrate directed summons to be issued only under Section 406 of the IPC, and not under Sections 420, 471
or 120B of the IPC.
Name of the case- Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd vs Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd. 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 6
Bench- Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli
Date- 03-01-23

Cases referred-
1. Jespar I. Slong vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors, the apex court held that the State does not stand on the same footing as a
private person who is free to enter into a contract with any person he likes. The State, in exercise of its various functions,
is governed by the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution which excludes arbitrariness in State action and requires the
State to act fairly and reasonably.
2. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd vs Western Coal Fields Ltd. And Ors, court observed that purchase preference creates a
monopoly.
3. The State Of Tamil Nadu Food vs National South Indian River Corporation, court held that arbitrariness on behalf of the
state government can not sustain in a democratic country.
Issue- What process of awarding government contracts must be used by the state governments?
Ratio Decidendi- The law is well settled that contracts by the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies must be
normally granted through public auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons and the notification of the
public auction or inviting tenders should be advertised in well-known dailies having wide circulation in the locality with all
relevant details such as date, time and place of auction, subject-matter of auction, technical specifications, estimated cost,
earnest money deposit, etc. The award of government contracts through public auction/public tender is to ensure
transparency in the public procurement, to maximise economy and efficiency in government procurement, to promote
healthy competition among the tenderers, to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers, and to eliminate
irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by the authorities concerned. This is required by Article 14 of the
Constitution.
Judgment- Observing that the State does not have absolute discretion while spending public money, the Supreme Court
reiterated that government contracts must be ordinarily awarded through tender process. As the process of inviting tenders
ensures a level playing field for competing entities, the departure from the tender route “must not be unreasonable or
discriminatory”, the Court said.
Name of the case- IFB Agro Industries Ltd. Vs SICGIL India Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8
Bench- Hon’Ble The Justice, S. Abdul Nazeer, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date- 03-01-23

1. Section 111A in The Companies Act, 1956
2. The Companies Act, 1956
3. The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
4. Section 59 in The Companies Act, 1956
5. Section 15Y in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
Cases referred-
1. Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. V. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, court held that held that the
rectificatory jurisdiction under Section 59 of the 2013 Act is summary in nature and not intended to be exercised where
there are contested facts and disputed questions.
2. Mannalal Khetan & Ors. V. Kedar Nath Khetan & Ors, court held that a person can approach the court as an appellant for
rectification of the register.
3. Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund & Another, court held that a person can approach the court as an appellant for
rectification of the register.
Issue- Scope of jurisdiction of NCLT vis-à-vis SEBI
Ratio Decidendi- When Constitutional Courts are called upon to interpret provisions affecting the exercise of powers and
jurisdictions of these regulatory bodies, it is the duty of such Courts to ensure that transactions falling within the province of
the regulators are necessarily subjected to their scrutiny and regulation. This will ensure that the regulatory body, charged
with the duty to protect the consumers has real time control over the sector, thus, realizing the purpose of their constitution.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that National Company Law Tribunal under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013, cannot
exercise a parallel jurisdiction with Securities and Exchange Board of India for addressing violations of the Regulations framed
under the SEBI Act. The court held that rectificatory jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, is
summary in nature. It is not not intended to be exercised where there are contested facts and disputed questions, the bench
observedName of the case- Sabarmati Gas Limited vs Shah Alloys Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9
Bench- M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
Date- 04-01-23

1. Section 22 in The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
2. Section 9 in The Limitation Act, 1963
3. The Limitation Act, 1963
4. Section 9 in The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
Cases referred-
1. Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd, court held that a provision must be construed in a manner which would give effect
to its purpose and to cure the mischief in the light of which it was enacted.
2. Kailash Nath Agarwal and Ors. V. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. And Anr, court held that the
words “proceedings” and again “suit” had to be construed differently as carrying different meanings, since, they had
been raised to denote different things.
3. In State of Punjab v. The Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd, court held that the test for determining whether the
Government is bound by a statute is whether it is expressly named in the provision which it is contended binds it, or
whether it “is manifest that from the terms of the statute, that it was the intention of the legislature that it shall be
bound”, and that the intention to bind would be clearly made out if the beneficent purpose of the statute would be
wholly frustrated unless the Government were bound.”
Issue- Can a delay in filing CIRP report be condoned?
Ratio Decidendi- The Limitation Act what is legally available to such a party is to assign the same as a sufficient cause for
condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In such eventuality, in accordance with the factual position
obtained in any particular case viz., the period of delay and the period covered by suspension of right under Section 22 (1),
SICA etc., the question of condonation of delay has to be considered lest it will result in injustice as the party was statutorily
prevented from initiating action against the industrial company concerned.
Judgment- The Supreme Court observed that delay in initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is condonable
on sufficient grounds. The bench noted that the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and
9 of IBC. It be so, the position is that the period of limitation is three years from the right to apply accrues but the delay is
condonable on sufficient grounds, the bench said.
Name of the case- Rohan Dhungat vs State of Goa and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10
Date- 05-01-23
1. Section 55 in The Prisons Act, 1894
2. The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
3. The General Clauses Act, 1897
Cases referred-
1. Sunil Fulchand Shah vs Union Of India And Ors, court held that the period of detention would not stand automatically
extended by any period of parole granted to the detenu unless the order of parole or rules or instructions specifically
indicates as a term and condition of parole, to the contrary.
2. Avtar Singh vs State Of Haryana, court held that even on parole the prisoners shall be deemed to be in custody and
therefore, the said period is to be included for the purpose of actual imprisonment is concerned, the aforesaid has no
substance.
Issue- Can parole time be counted as actual imprisonment time?
Ration Decidendi- It is observed and held that the period of detention would not stand automatically extended by any period
of parole granted to the detenu unless the order of parole or rules or instructions specifically indicates as a term and condition
of parole, to the contrary. In the present case the term ‘imprisonment’ is not included in the computation of term of parole.
Rule 335 specifically provides that parole is to be counted as remission of sentence. Once the period of parole is to be counted
as remission of sentence, the period of parole is also required to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering
14 years of actual imprisonment.
Judgment- Supreme Court held that the Parole period has to be excluded from the period of sentence under the Goa Prison
Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years of imprisonment for premature release. The bench held that if the parole period is
included as part of the sentence period, then any prisoner who is influential enough may get parole several times.
Name of the case- Trivendra Singh Rawat Versus Umesh Kumar Sharma And Ors ( SLP (Crl) No. 5329-5331/2020 Ii-B)
Bench- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar

Date- 05-01-23

1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Cases referred-
1. Vineet Narain & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr, court held that the court can transfer the matter to CBI or any other special
agency only when it is satisfied that the accused is a very powerful and influential person or the State Authorities like
high police officials are involved in the offence and the investigation has not been proceeded with in proper direction or
the investigation had been conducted in a biased manner.
2. Disha vs State Of Gujarat & Ors, court held that the court can transfer the matter to CBI or any other special agency only
when it is satisfied that the accused is a very powerful and influential person or the State Authorities like high police
officials are involved in the offence and the investigation has not been proceeded with in proper direction or the
investigation had been conducted in a biased manner.
3. Union Of India & Ors vs Sushil Kumar Modi & Ors, court held that the court can transfer the matter to CBI or any other
special agency only when it is satisfied that the accused is a very powerful and influential person or the State Authorities
like high police officials are involved in the offence and the investigation has not been proceeded with in proper direction
or the investigation had been conducted in a biased manner.
4. R.S. Sodhi,Advocate vs State Of U.P, court held that the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and
exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in
the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having “a fair, honest
and complete investigation”, and particularly, when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working
of the State agencies.
Issue- Whether a CBI investigation can be ordered against a person even without hearing his side in the proceedings before
the court?
Ratio Decidendi- No judicial order can ever be passed by any court without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard
to the person likely to be affected by such order and particularly when such order results in drastic consequences of affecting
one’s own reputation. In our view, the impugned order of the High Court directing enquiry and investigation into allegations
in respect of which not even any complaint/information has been lodged with the police is violative of principles of natural
justice.
Judgment- The Supreme Court of India set aside a Uttarakhand High Court order which had directed the Central Bureau of
Investigation to investigate the corruption allegations against former Chief Minister of Uttarakhand Trivendra Singh Rawat.
The bench noted that the former CM was not a party before the High Court and that the High Court did not hear him before
passing the directions on the CBI investigation. This, the Court said, violates the principles of natural justice.
Name of the case- Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 22
Bench- CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha
Date- 09-01-23

4. The Representation of the People Act, 1950
5. THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT, 1850
Cases referred-
1. Advocates-on-Record Association and Another vs. Union of India, in this case a nine-Judge Bench laid down guidelines
and norms for the appointment and transfer of Judges which are being rigidly followed in the matter of appointments of
High Court and Supreme Court Judges and transfer of High Court Judges.
2. Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare and Others, it was held that that the Election Commission acts in
a quasi-judicial capacity under Section 29A.
3. Prakash Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others, after studying various committee reports on police reforms, laid
down certain directions in the nature of police reforms to be operative until the new Police Act is to be framed.
Issue- Does a state government has power to make committee on Uniform Civil Code?
Ratio Decidendi- Article 162 of the Constitution indicates that the executive power of a State extends to matters with respect
to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws. 3 In view of the provisions of Entry 5 of the Concurrent List of
the Seventh Schedule, the constitution of a Committee per se cannot be challenged as ultra vires.
Judgment- Supreme Court bench refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the decision of States of
Uttarakhand and Gujarat to constitute committees to introduce and implement Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and stated clearly
that state governments have the power to do the same.
Name of the case- Smriti Debbarma (D) vs Prabha Ranjan Debbarma 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19
Date- 04-01-23

Cases referred-
1. Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh, court held that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would
fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
2. Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors, court held that burden on proving the fact rests with party
who substantially asserts in the affirmative and not on the party which is denying it.
3. Poona Ram vs Moti Ram (D) Th. Lrs., Court held that The defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect
and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of
ownership or entitlement to possession.
Issue- Does non fulfillment of title by defendant gives the plaintiff a right to get a degree of possession?
Ratio Decidendi- The defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the plaintiff has established a better title and rights over the
Scheduled property. A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the
ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner. A decree of possession
cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendants have not been able to fully establish their right,
title and interest in the Scheduled property. The defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their
possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement
to possession.
Judgment- The Supreme Court observed that a decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff merely
because defendants were not able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the property.
Name of the case- Residents Welfare Association & Anr. V. The Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24
Bench- B.R. Gavai, M.M. Sundresh
Date- 10-01-23

1. Section 3 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
4. The Registration Act, 1908
5. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Cases referred-
1. Chander Parkash Malhotra v. Ved Parkash Malhotra and Others, court held that it is a settled law that in case of a conflict
between a special provision and a general provision, the special provision prevails over the general provision and the
general provision applies only to such cases which are not covered by the special provision.
2. Kochkunju Nair v. Koshy Alexander and Others, court held that all co-owners have equal rights and coordinate interest in
the property, though their shares may be either fixed or indeterminate.
3. FR. K.C. Alexander v. State of Kerala, court held that ownership of a building is different from ownership of a land.
Issue- Does development has higher value over the protection of heritage?
Ratio Decidendi- Chandigarh is today known throughout the world for being one of the best planned urban environment. In
large part, it is due to the high proportion of open space, social facilities, civic amenities and infrastructure per living unit.
The introduction of apartment rules, by itself does not have any provision to add these essential services and facilities within
the existing built-up environment. It will only add residential density while ignoring other urban infrastructure thereby being
detrimental to the city environment and will only lead to the long term decline of the city. Chandigarh has a heritage value
and it is important to preserve and maintain the integrity of the original concepts and planning postulates of Sun, Space and
Verdure.
Judgment- The Supreme Court slammed the rampant practice prevalent in Chandigarh city of converting single residential
units into apartments, in view of the heritage status of India’s first planned city as well as the principle of sustainability.
Name of the case- Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28
Bench- M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
Date- 13-01-23

1. Section 10 in The Income- Tax Act, 1995
2. The Income- Tax Act, 1995
3 Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949
4. The Finance Act, 1996
5. Article 371F in The Constitution Of India 1949
Cases referred-
1. Anuj Garg and Ors. Vs. Hotel Association of India and Ors, court held that exclusion from the benefits of a provision, on
the ground of gender alone, would be liable to be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. G. Sekar vs. Geetha, Court observed that, in terms of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, the female heirs,
subject to the statutory rule operating in that field, are required to be treated equally to the male heirs.
3. In Air India vs. Nergesh Meerza, Court found the termination of service of a woman employee on her first pregnancy to
be shocking as it was an open insult to “Indian womanhood” and hence, the said action was extremely detestable and
abhorrent to the notions of a civilised society and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issue- Does marrying outside the caste precludes a women from tax exemptions?
Ratio Decidendi- Pursuant to the merger of Sikkim with India by virtue of which, Sikkim has become one of the States of India
and all Sikkim Subjects and all Sikkimese domiciled in the territory of Sikkim have become Indian citizens, there cannot be a
discrimination vis-à-vis Sikkimese women marrying a non-Sikkimese individual, whether an Indian citizen or a foreigner, that
too, on or after 1 st April, 2008. Such discrimination, is therefore, in violation of the guarantee of equality provided under
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as it is on the basis of sex and race. Hence, the proviso to clause (26AAA) of
Section 10 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is a stark example of an unconstitutional sex-based discrimination and is liable to be struck
down.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that excluding Sikkimese woman merely because she marries a non-Sikkimese after
01.04.2008 from exemption provision under Section 10(26AAA) Income Tax Act is is totally discriminatory and thus
unconstitutional.
Name of the case- Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30
Bench- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice S Abdul Nazeer
Date- 04-01-23

Cases referred-
1. T. Takano v Securities and Exchange Board of India, court held that a quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the
material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication
2. Natwar Singh v Director of Enforcement, court held that an ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain
material would not exempt it of its liability to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action that
Is taken by the authority.
3. Krishna Chandra Tandon v Union of India, court held that the actual test is whether the material that is required to be
disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication. If it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure.
Issue- Can an order be passed on basis of any material of which the defendant had no knowledge.
Ratio Decidendi- A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of
adjudication; and an ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it of its liability to
disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action that is taken by the authority. In all reasonable
probability, such material would have influenced the decision reached by the authority. The impact of non-
Disclosure on the reliability of the verdict must also be determined vis-à-vis, the overall fairness of the proceeding. While
determining the reliability of the verdict and punishment, the court must also look into the possible uses of the undisclosed
information for purposes ancillary to the outcome, but that which might have impacted the verdict.
Judgment- The Supreme Court reiterated, that an adjudicatory body, cannot base its decision on any material unless the
person against whom it is sought to be utilised has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it.
Name of the case- Jaswant Singh & Ors. Versus The State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 33
Bench- Vikram Nath, Hon’Ble Ms. Trivedi
Date- 13-01-23

1. The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Section 433A in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Cases referred-
1. Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India, Court observed that the opinion of the presiding judge shines a light on the nature of
the crime that has been committed, the record of the convict, their background and other relevant factors. Crucially, the
Court observed that the opinion of the presiding judge would enable the government to take the ‘right’ decision as to
whether or not the sentence should be remitted.
2. Union of India vs. Sriharan @ Murugan, court held that The purpose of the procedural safeguard under Section 432 (2)
of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken
into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission. It is possible then that the procedure
under Section 432 (2) would become a mere formality.
Issue- Clarification regarding opinion upon a decision under section 432 of Crpc
Ratio Decidendi- The opinion is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 432 (2) of the CrPC which require that the presiding
judge’s opinion must be accompanied by reasons. Halsbury’s Laws of India (Administrative Law) notes that the requirement
to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant reasons. Mechanical reasons are not considered
adequate. The following extract is useful for our consideration: “Adequacy of reasons Sufficiency of reasons, in a particular
case, depends on the facts of each case. It is not necessary for the authority to write out a judgement as a court of law does.
However, at least, an outline of process of reasoning must be given. It may satisfy the requirement of giving reasons if relevant
reasons have been given for the order, though the authority has not set out all the reasons or some of the reasons which had
been argued before the court have not been expressly considered by the authority. A mere repetition of the statutory
language in the order will not make the order a reasoned one. Mechanical and stereotype reasons are not regarded as
adequate. A speaking order is one that speaks of the mind of the adjudicatory body which passed the order. A reason such
as ’the entire examination of the year 1982 is cancelled’, cannot be regarded as adequate because the statement does explain
as to why the examination has been cancelled; it only lays down the punishment without stating the causes therefor.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that while giving opinion regarding grant of remission under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. the
Presiding Judge needs to give reasons with regard to the factors to be taken into consideration as laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India.
Name of the case- State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37
Bench- Justice MR Shah, Justice CT Ravikumar
Date- 16-01-23

1. Section 167(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure
Cases referred-
1. Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, court held that on the special grounds being made out that the accused
has committed very serious offences; committed nonbailable crimes and he deserves to be in custody, even in a case
where the accused is released on default bailu nder Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., his bail can be cancelled.
2. Abdul Basit Alias Raju and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Anr., Court held that the bail granted under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C. can be cancelled on ana pplication by the prosecuting agency.
3. Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Court observed that if the accused is released on bail
because of the default in completion of the investigation, then, no sooner the chargesheet is filed, the order grantingb
ail to such accused cannot be cancelled.
4. Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam, court observed that in case the accused is released on default bail, it does not
prohibit or otherwise prevent the arrest or re-arrest of the accused on cogent grounds in respect of the subject charge
and upon arrest or re-arrest, the accused is entitled to petition for grant of regular bail which application should be
considered on its own merit.
Issue- Can a default bail be cancelled on the basis of merits of the case?
Ratio Decidendi- compulsive bail order made by a court under Section 167(2) of the Code being one not on merit, when
required to be cancelled after the filing of the challan, would not involve any review of a decision made on merit. Such bail is
cancellable if the court has reason to entertain the belief that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it
is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody. The occasion to grant or refuse bail on merit becomes available to the
court after the filing of the challan because earlier thereto merit of bail could not figure at the time of the grant of compulsive
bail. The goal of the court in any event is to strike a judicial balance depending on the exigencies of the situation keeping in
view amongst others the claims of personal liberty and the larger interests of the State. It cannot be overlooked that a bail
order under Section 167(2) of the Code could even be managed through a convenient investigating officer, however heinous
be the crime. The court would have to grant bail under the mandate of law, debarred as it is to see to the merits of the case
at that stage. To say that thenceforth the court is for ever shut to see to the merits of the case, though it otherwise has power
to cancel bail, is to deprive it of its elementary function to administer justice and weigh the claims on merit inter se. I would
rather loathe for such an interpretation as that would frustrate justice, and would on the other hand let the court have the
power to cancel bail, for once examining the merits of the case in such a situation.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has held that there is no bar in cancelling default bail on merits after the presentation of
chargesheet. The question that arose in the case was whether default bail can be cancelled after presentation of chargesheet,
when it was granted for not filing it within 90 days as per the CrPC.
Name of the case- Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40
Bench- V. Ramasubramanian, B.V. Nagarathna
Date- 17-01-23

1. Section 12 in The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
4. THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970
Cases referred-
1. Smt. Vijayalakshmamma & Anr vs B. T. Shankar, court held that the effect of adoption by a widow would be that the child
so adopted would be deemed to be the child of her deceased husband also.
2. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, court held that it has been clearly mentioned that “relating to” has been
held to be equivalent to or synonymous with as to “concerning with” and “pertaining to”. The expression “pertaining to”
is an expression of expansion and not of contraction.”
3. Poonamal vs. Union of India, court observed that family pension was devised as a means to help the dependents of the
deceased government servant tide over the crisis and to extend to them some succour.
Issue- Family pension rights of child adopted after death of government employee.
Ratio Decidendi- The definition of ‘family’ is narrowly worded under the CCS (Pension) Rules, in the specific context of the
entitlement to ‘family pension’ and in relation to the government servant. Therefore, the word “adoption” in Rule
54(14)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, in the context of grant of family pension, must be restricted to an adoption made by
a government servant during his/her lifetime and must not be extended to a case of adoption made by a surviving spouse of
the government servant after his/her death. This is because the object of the provision is to lend succour to a son till he
attains the age of twenty-five years and unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter; similarly to the adopted son or
unmarried adopted daughter when such an adoption had been made by the government servant during his/her lifetime.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after
the death of the government servant, cannot be included within the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 to claim family pension.
Name of the case- Jabir vs State of Uttarakhand 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Bench- Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha
Date- 17-01-23

2. Section 156(3) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Cases referred-
1. Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs State Of Gujarat, court held that in circumstantial evidence-based cases, each
incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances proved
must form a chain of events from which the irresistible conclusion of the accused’s guilt can be safely drawn.
2. Hanumant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, court observed that the Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances
in the chain of events have been established clearly, and such a completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a
reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.
3. Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, court held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established.
Issue- Can last seen rule be made the sole basis of conviction?
Ratio Decidendi- It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused
was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together.
Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the
accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would
not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.
Judgment- The court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance, the Supreme Court
observed while setting aside concurrent conviction of murder accused. The bench observed that the “last seen” doctrine has
limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of
murder, is narrow.
Name of the case- Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar Versus Union Of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44
Bench- Ajay Rastogi, Hon’Ble Ms. Trivedi
Date- 16-01-23

Cases referred-
1. B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors, court held that that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual
receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the
eye of the Court.
2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran vs Anil Kanwariya, court held that each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the
public employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who
are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to
society’s security.
Issue- Hiding of pending criminal matters to join a disciplined force.
Ratio Decidendi- The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to
arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is
found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness
or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
Judgment- Observing that entering the service of a disciplined force like CISF by suppressing criminal cases is a “gross
misconduct”, the Supreme Court approved the dismissal of a personnel. The bench held that the power of judicial review
exercised by a Court or a Tribunal against the orders of a departmental enquiry committee is only limited to ensuring “that
the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct
in the eye of the Court.”
Name of the case- Guddan @ Roop Narayan vs State Of Rajasthan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45
Bench- Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian
Datey 03-01-23

1. Section 438, The Code of Criminal Procedure
Cases referred-
1. Munish Bhasin and Others Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), court observed that it is well settled that while
exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court
would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the court having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail
under Section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition ata ll.
2. Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused personw ill stand
his trial when called upon.
3. Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi, court observed that the conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that
their existence itself tantamounts to refusal of bail.
Issue- What type of conditions cannot be imposed while awarding bail?
Ratio Decidendi- It is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither
the High Court nor the Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that
the court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while
enlarging an accused on bail under Section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant
condition at all.
Judgment- The Supreme Court reiterated that excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail/suspension of
sentence.The conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamounts to refusal of bail, the bench of
Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian observed while setting aside conditions imposed by Rajasthan High Court
for suspension of sentence.
Name of the case- Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu (D) vs Maruthachalam (D) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46
Bench- B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath
Date- 18-01-23

1. Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
3. Section 118(a) in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Cases referred-
1. Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar, court observed that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court could not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent findings of fact.
2. Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, Court held that merely by denial or merely by creation of doubt, the accused
cannot be said to have rebutted the presumption as envisaged under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. This Court held that
unless cogent evidence was led on behalf of the accused in defence of his case, the presumption under Section 139 of
the N.I. Act could not be rebutted.
Issue- Are Income Tax returns sufficient to show financial incapacity under Negotiable Instruments Act?
Ratio Decidendi- Considering the fact that there has been an admitted business relationship between the parties, we are of
the opinion that the defence raised by the appellants does not inspire confidence or meet the standard of “preponderance
of probability”. In the absence of any other relevant material, it appears to us that the High Court did not err in discarding
the appellants’ defence and upholding the onus imposed upon them in terms of Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA.
Judgment- The Supreme Court observed that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is that of preponderance of probabilities. Based on the arguments and analysis presented by both
the Appellant and Respondent, the Court allowed the present appeal. The Court modified the decrees of the High Court and
restricted them to the amount already deposited by the Appellant in both the proceedings with interest accrued thereon.
The Respondents in both the Civil Appeals were also entitled to withdraw 50% of the amount each from the amount
deposited in this Court with interest accrued up to date.
Name of the case- Saurav Das vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52
Bench- Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar
Date- 20-01-23

3. The Right To Information Act, 2005
Cases referred-
1. Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, court held that copy of FIR is to be uploaded on the website within 24
hours of its registering.
Issue- Should chargesheet be uploaded on the internet for the knowledge of general public?
Ration Decidendi- On conjoint reading of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and Section 207 Cr.P.C. the Investigating Agency is required to
furnish the copies of the report along with the relevant documents to be relied upon by the prosecution to the accused and
to none others. Therefore, if the relief as prayed in the present petition is allowed and all the chargesheets and relevant
documents produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public domain or on the websites of the State Governments
it will be contrary to the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and it may as such violate the rights of the accused as well
as the victim and/or even the investigating agency. Putting the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the
chargesheets along with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the State Governments.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that police and investigating agencies like CBI, ED etc., cannot be directed to upload the
chargesheets filed in cases in a public platform for easy access by the general public.
Name of the case- Boby vs State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Bench- B.R. Gavai, M.M. Sundresh
Date- 12-01-23

Cases referred-
1. Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, court held that in a case of murder in which the evidence that is available is only
circumstantial in nature then in that event the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is required to
be drawn by the prosecution must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances so
established should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but they also must entirely be incompatible with
the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.
2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, court held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established.
3. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, court held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”.
4. State of U.P. v. Satish, court held that in the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the
deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.
Issue- Can discovery made under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act be admitted without the statement of the accused?
Ratio Decidendi- It is fallacious to treat the “fact discovered” within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact
discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the
information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is
not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that “I will
produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many
years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and
if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the
statement the words be added “with which I stabbed A.”, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the
discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.
Judgment- The Supreme Court observed that the recovery cannot be relied on under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the
absence of record of the statement of accused.
Name of the case- Baharul Islam and Ors. V. Indian Medical Association and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57
Bench- Krishna Murari, B.V. Nagarathna
Date- 24-01-23

1. Assam Rifles Act, 2006
2. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
3. The Central Excise Act, 1944
4. The State Bank of India Act, 1955
5. Section 15 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Cases referred-
1. Dr. Mukhtiar Chand vs. State of Punjab, court held that any new course including the relevant diploma course can only
be opened after prior permission of the Central Government.
2. Dr. A. K. Sabhapathy vs. State of Kerala, court held that medical practitioners cannot practice allopathic medicine unless
they have completed any of the recognised courses under the IMC Act.
3. Gujarat University vs. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, it was held held that a State Legislation can be unconstitutional
even if there is no contrary Union Legislation.
4. R. Chitralekha vs. State of Mysore, it was held that it is only when the State Legislation makes it impossible or difficult
for the Parliament to legislate under Entry 66 of List I, and only if the impact of the State Law is so heavy or devastating
on Entry 66 of List I, so as to wipe out or appreciably abridge the Central field of legislation, can it be struck down but
not otherwise.
Issue- Can Diploma Holders Treat Specified Diseases and Perform Minor Procedures?
Ratio Decidendi- Any variation between the standards of qualification required for medical practitioners who render services
in rural areas qua the medical practitioners rendering services in urban or metropolitan areas must prescribe to constitutional
values of substantive equality and non-discrimination. We may hasten to add that deciding the particular qualifications for
medical practitioners practising in disparate areas and in disparate fields, providing different levels of primary, secondary or
tertiary medical services, is within the mandate of expert and statutory authorities entrusted with the said mandate by the
Parliament.
Judgment- The Supreme Court struck down the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 which permitted diploma
holders in Medicine and Rural Health Care to treat certain common diseases, perform minor procedures, and prescribe certain
drugs. The Court ruled that prescription of standards for higher education, authorities to recognise or de-recognise
institutions etc. are areas over which exclusive legislative competence lies with parliament and not State.
Name of the case- Prasad Pradhan vs State of Chhattisgarh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59
Bench- S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
Date- 24-01-23

Issue- Can long standing dispute be a valid ground to exception of grave and sudden provocation.
Ratio Decidendi- While there were pre-existing disputes of some vintage, between the appellants and the deceased, there is
nothing to show that they had been aggravated. It is also, likewise, not clear whether the deceased said anything to the
appellants which triggered their ire, leading to loss of self-control as to result in “grave and sudden provocation”. In any case,
if there were something, the appellants ought to have brought the relevant material or evidence on record, as what facts did
exist, was within their peculiar knowledge. The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man,
belonging to the same class of society as the Accused, placed in the situation in whichh the Accused was placed would be so
provoked as to lose his self-control.
Judgment- The Supreme Court observed that a long-standing preexisting dispute will not attract the exception of “grave and
sudden” provocation under Section 300 of Indian Penal Code.
Name of the case- Munna Lal vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60
Bench- Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta
Date- 24-01-23

Cases referred-
1. Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, court held that the evidence of a chance witness requires cautious and close scrutiny,
that his presence at the place of occurrence must be adequately established, and that deposition of a chance witness, whose
presence at the place of occurrence remains doubtful, should be discarded
Issue- Can a accused be given benefit of doubt even if he has been convicted for murder by lower court?
Ratio Decidendi- Although, mere defects in the investigative process by itself cannot constitute ground for acquittal, it is the
legal obligation of the Court to examine carefully in each case the prosecution evidence de hors the lapses committed by the
Investigating Officer to find out whether the evidence brought on record is at all reliable and whether such lapses affect the
object of finding out the truth. Being conscious of the above position in law and to avoid erosion of the faith and confidence
of the people in the administration of criminal justice, this Court has examined the evidence led by the prosecution
threadbare and refrained from giving primacy to the negligence of the Investigating Officer as well as to the omission or
lapses resulting from the perfunctory investigation undertaken by him. The endeavour of this Court has been to reach the
root of the matter by analysing and assessing the evidence on record and to ascertain whether the appellants were duly
found to be guilty as well as to ensure that the guilty does not escape the rigours of law. The disturbing features in the process
of investigation, since noticed, have not weighed in the Court’s mind to give the benefit of doubt to the appellants.
Judgment- In a judgment delivered on 24 January 2023, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in a 1985 Murder Case by
giving them benefit of doubt observed that in case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and
that the oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be reliable and trustworthy, could lead to a conviction.
Name of the case- Elumalai @Venkatesan And Anr. V. M. Kamala And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65
Bench- K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, C.T. Ravikumar
Date- 25-01-23

1. Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
3. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
4. Section 8(a) in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Cases referred-
1. Gulam Abbas v. Haji Kayyam Ali, court held that the effect of the estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming
through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel.
Issue- Can sons claims right in the property which was relinquished by their fathers?
Ratio Decidendi- The converse is also true: a renunciation by an expectant heir in the lifetime of his ancestor is not valid, or
enforceable against him after the vesting of the inheritance.” This is a correct statement, so far as it goes, of the law, because
a bare renunciation of expectation to inherit cannot bind the expectant heir’s conduct in future. But, if the expectant heir
goes further and receives consideration and so conducts himself as to mislead an owner into not making dispositions of his
property inter vivos the expectant heir could be debarred from setting up his right when it does unquestionably vest in him.
In other words, the principle of estoppel remains untouched by this statement.”
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that the effect of estoppel from laying a claim on property cannot be warded off by
persons claiming through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel. A Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph
and Hrishikesh Roy observed that when a son relinquishes their right to the self-acquired property of the father; and the
conduct is accompanied by receipt of a consideration the principle of estoppel will apply qua the son and his successors.
Name of the case- Naim Ahamed vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66
Date- 30-01-23

6. Section 277, The Code o Criminal Procedure
Cases referred-
1. Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar, court held that that a promise to marry without anything more will not give rise to
“misconception of fact” within the meaning of Section 90.
2. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, court held that there is a clear distinction between
rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually
wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust,
as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception.
3. In Uday vs. State of Karnataka, court held that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person
with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under
a misconception of fact
4. In Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, court observed that consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided,
obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in
a balance, the good and evil on each side.
Issue- Can every sexual intercourse before breach of marriage promise be considered as rape?
Ratio Decidendi- There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully
examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false
promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a
distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise
with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may
be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not
solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could
not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such
cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, It is a
clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence
under Section 376 IPC.”
Judgment- The Supreme Court observed that it would be a folly to treat every breach of promise to marry as a false promise
and to prosecute a person for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. The Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellant-
accused of the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and set aside the judgments and orders passed by
the lower courts. The Court also directed the appellant to pay compensation to the prosecutrix, which he had accepted and
paid. The Court held that the prosecutrix was mature and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of her actions
And that the accused was not guilty of rape.
Name of the case- Naim Ahamed vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66
Date- 30-01-23

6. Section 277, The Code o Criminal Procedure
Cases referred-
1. Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar, court held that that a promise to marry without anything more will not give rise to
“misconception of fact” within the meaning of Section 90.
2. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, court held that there is a clear distinction between
rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually
wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust,
as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception.
3. In Uday vs. State of Karnataka, court held that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person
with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under
a misconception of fact
4. In Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, court observed that consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided,
obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in
a balance, the good and evil on each side.
Issue- Language for recording of witness testimony in the trial courts.
Ratio Decidendi- The evidence of the witness has to be recorded in the language of the court or in the language of the witness
as may be practicable and then get it translated in the language of the court for forming part of the record. However, recording
of evidence of the witness in the translated form in English language only, though the witness gives evidence in the language
of the court, or in his/her own vernacular language, is not permissible. As such, the text and tenor of the evidence and the
demeanor of a witness in the court could be appreciated in the best manner only when the evidence is recorded in the
language of the witness. Even otherwise, when a question arises as to what exactly the witness had stated in his/her
evidence, it is the original deposition of the witness which has to be taken into account and not the translated memorandum
in English prepared by the Presiding Judge. It is therefore directed that all courts while recording the evidence of the
witnesses, shall duly comply with the provisions of Section 277 of Cr.PC.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has disapproved of the practice of trial judges recording the deposition of a witness only in
the English language form as translated by the judge, when the witness testifies in a different language. The evidence of the
witness has to be recorded in the language of the court or in the language of the witness as may be practicable and then get
it translated in the language of the court for forming part of the record.
Name of the case- Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Versus State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67
Date- 30-01-23

4. The Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951
Cases referred-
1. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors, court observed that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing
abuse of the process of any court or 1 (2013) 11 SCC 673 otherwise to secure ends of justice.
2. In Kapil Aggarwal and Ors. V. Sanjay Sharma and Ors, Court held that Section 482 is designed to achieve the purpose of
ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment.
3. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, it was held that the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing
and the self-restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint
4. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra and Others, court held that The power of quashing should
be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application
for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of
the death penalty.)
Issue- What are the essential ingredients in order constitute a case as a criminal one.
Ratio Decidendi- The respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the appellants herein in respect of the
aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are
nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the
respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue. In such circumstance when the respondent had already
resorted to the available civil remedy and it is pending, the High Court would have quashed the criminal proceedings to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but for the concealment.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482
CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a “cloak of criminal offence” to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature.
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C did not satisfy
the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute
on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application.
FEBRUARY 2023 JUDGMENT SUMMARY
Name of the Case: BV Seshiah v. State of Telangana and Another 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75
Date: 01-02-23
Bench: Krishna Murari, B.V. Nagarathna
Act: Negotiable Instruments Acts, 1881
Relevant Provisions: Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Cases referred: M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta
Issue: Can a conviction under Section 138 NI Act overriding agreement between parties to compound offence be
overturned?
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that when such a step (of compounding) has been taken by the parties, and the law
very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its
will.
Judgement: The Telangana High Court had confirmed the conviction of the appellant in a cheque dishonor case
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby, overriding the agreement between the parties to
compound the offence. The Supreme Court, however, set aside the High Court decision.
Name of the case: M/S Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and
Others. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70
Date: 01-02-23
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
Relevant Acts & Provisions:
1. Article 226 of The Indian Constitution
2. Section 33 of The Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005
3. Section 34 of The Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005
4. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Cases referred:
1. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Nooh
2. Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others
3. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited
4. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd
5. Union of India vs. State of Haryana
6. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa
7. Transelektra Domestic Products Pvt. Ltd., and others vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Porur Assessment Circle Madras
and others
Issues: Whether availability of an alternative remedy is a absolute bar on maintainability of Article 226 petition?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court was of the view that the availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an
absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition and that the rule which requires a party to pursue the
alternative remedy provided by a statute is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion rather than a rule of law.
Judgement: The bench laid down that the mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision would
not by itself oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and render a writ petition not maintainable.
Name of the case- Joseph Shine vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117
Date- 01-02-23
Bench- Justices K M Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C T Ravikumar

1. Indian Penal Code
2. Section 497, Indian Penal Code
3. The Indian Constitution
Issue- Whether a member of armed forces can be held liable under struck down section 497 of IPC?
Ration Decidendi- The judgment of this court was concerned only with validity of S. 497 IPC and S. 198(2) CrPC. In
this case, this Court had no occasion to consider the effect of the provisions of the Armed Forces Acts. As we
notice, it is not as if this court approved of adultery. This Court had found adultery may be a modern problem.
This Court also held that will continue to be a ground for dissolution of marriage…In view of the fact that the
scheme of the acts in the context of Article 33 did not fall for consideration before this court, we must observe
and clarify that the judgement of this court was not at all concerned with the effect and provisions of the Armed
Forced acts. This court was neither called upon nor has it ventured to pronounce on effect of S. 45 and S. 63 of
the Army Act as also the corresponding provisions of the other Acts(Navy Act, Air Force Act).
Judgment- The bench observed in the order that the 2018 judgment in the case Joseph Shine vs Union of India
was not at all concerned with the provisions of the armed forced Acts. The bench further noted that as per Article
33 of the Constitution, the legislations governing armed forces can provide exemptions from the applicability of
fundamental rights.
Name of the case- Talat Sanvi v. State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 83
Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka
Date- 01-02-23

1. Section 357 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Cases referred –
1. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr, in this case the court held that compensation and bail are two different
aspects of criminal trial and can not be clubbed together.
2. Dharmesh v. State of Gujarat, in this case the court held that compensation can only be awarded under section
357 only after the conclusion of a trial
Issue- Interim compensation as a condition for bail.
Ratio Decidendi- The High Court’s direction to the accused for deposit of compensation for the legal heirs of the
deceased (victim), as a condition for the bail cannot be sustained and, thus, logically set aside. The Court opined
that the objective is clear that in cases of offences against body, compensation to the victim should be
methodology for redemption. Similarly, to prevent unnecessary harassment, compensation has been provided
where meaningless criminal proceedings had been started. Such a compensation can hardly be determined at the
stage of grant of bail.
Judgment- Victim compensation is simultaneous with the final view taken in respect of the alleged offence, i.e.,
whether it was so committed or not and, thus, there is no question of any imposition pre-finality of the matter
pre-trial”, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka observed.
Name of the case- Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96
Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari
Date- 10-02-23

1. Section 24 in THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
2. Section 24(1) in THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
3. Section 49(1)(ag) in THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
4. Section 7 in THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
5. THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
Cases referred-
1. V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, in this case the supreme court struck down the 1995 Bar Council Rules.
2. Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice & Ors. V. Bar Council of India & Anr, in this case, the court struck down the
endeavour of the Bar Council of India to put an age cap on the entry into the profession. The Bar Council of India
had prescribed that any person who had completed the age of 45 years on the date on which he submitted his
application would not be entitled to be enrolled as an advocate.
3. Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, in this case the Bar Council of India was held to be
empowered to take all such steps as it considered necessary to filter students at the entry stage to the law course
at the entry point of the profession, e.g. by providing an examination or a training course before enrolment as an
advocate.
Issue- Validity of All India Bar Exam.
Ratio Decidendi- The object of Parliament enacting the said Act was to consolidate the law relating to legal
practitioners. The prominent role of the Bar Council of India, the apex body, is apparent from the functions
prescribed for the Bar Council of India under Section 7 of the said Act. Clause (h) of Sub-Section (1), provides for
promotion of legal education and for laying down standards of such education in consultation with Universities in
India and State Bar Councils. Sub-Clause (m) is in the nature of a residuary clause, having the widest amplitude to
do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions. These provisions do not entrust the Bar
Council of India with direct control of legal education, as primarily legal education is within the province of the
universities. Yet, the Bar Council of India, being the apex professional body of the advocates, is concerned with
the standards of legal profession and the equipment of those who seek entry into that profession.
Judgment- Supreme Court Constitution Bench upholds the validity of All India Bar Examination. Recongizes the
right of Bar Council of India to prescribe such a condition for practice – Overrules decision in V. Sudeer v. Bar
Council of India, (1999) 3 SCC 176, in which the top court had held that no condition, other than those enumerated
in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, could be imposed on a person wishing to practise law-Court however clarifies
that the setting aside of the judgment in V. Sudeer is in no manner an imprimatur to mandating the requirement
of pre-enrolment training.
Name of the case- Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105
Bench- K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna
Date- 13-02-23

1. The Constitution Of India 1949
2. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
5. Section 37 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Referred cases-
1. Delhi Transport Corpn. V. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, in this case the court held that the sovereign’s constitutional
authority to choose those with whom it will contract for goods and services is in effect a power to withhold the
benefits to be derived from economic dealings with the government.
Issue- Open spaces rules in developed plots
Ratio Decidendi- Reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school etc. in a layout plan is normally a
public purpose as it is inherent in such reservation that it shall be used by the public in general. The effect of such
reservation is that the owner ceases to be a legal owner of the land in dispute and he holds the land for the benefit
of the society or the public in general. It may result in creating an obligation in nature of trust and may preclude
the owner from transferring or selling his interest in it. It may be true as held by the High Court that the interest
which is left in the owner is a residuary interest which may be nothing more than a right to hold this land in trust
for the specific purpose specified by the coloniser in the sanctioned layout plan. But the question is, does it entitle
the Corporation to claim that the land so specified should be transferred to the authority free of cost. That is not
made out from any provision in the Act or on any principle of law.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has upheld a rule which mandated that builders should reserve open spaces in the
plots developed by them. The rule in question was Rule 19 of the Development Control Rules for the Chennai
Metropolitan Area. The Rule mandated that 10% of the area of any developmental plan having area 10,000 sq.
meter or more should be reserved as open space for communal and recreational use and that such open space
area must be transferred to the local authority free of cost through a registered gift deed. So, the Chennai
Metropolitan Development Authority would be empowered to maintain the open space area.
Name of the case- Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125
Bench- Dinesh Maheshwari, Sanjay Kumar
Date- 21-02-23

4. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
5. The Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2002
Cases referred-
1. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, in this case a 3-Judges Bench of this Court
observed that the return of the cheque by the drawee bank would alone constitute commission of the offence
under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and would indicate the place where the offence is committed.
Issue- Can a cheque related case be transferred from one high court to another?
Ratio Decidendi- This Court took note of the fact that the offences therein, under Section 138 of the Act of 1881,
had arisen out of one single transaction and found it appropriate and in the interest of justice that all such cases
should be tried in one Court. We, therefore, hold that, notwithstanding the non obstante clause in Section 142(1)
of the Act of 1881, the power of this Court to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in
relation to offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, if it is found expedient for the ends of justice.
Judgment – The Supreme Court observed that it has power under Section 406 CrPC to transfer cheque cases from
one state to another. Notwithstanding the nonobstante clause in Section 142(1) of the NI Act, the power of this
Court to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences under Section 138
of the Act of 1881, if it is found expedient for the ends of justice, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and
Sanjay Kumar observed.
Name of the case- Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 73
Bench- A.S. Bopanna, Hon’Ble Ms. Kohli
Date- 03-02-23

2. Section 7B(1) in the Citizenship Act, 1955
4. The Citizenship Act, 1955
Referred cases-
1. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, court held that subordinate legislation does
not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature.
2. K. Thimmappa Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, court held that when a law is challenged to be
discriminatory essentially on the ground that it denies equal treatment or protection, the question for
determination by the Court is not whether it has resulted in inequality but whether there is some differentia
which bears a just and reasonable relation to the object of Legislation.
Issue- Applicability of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) rule, retrospective or prospective?
Ratio Decidendi- The object with which the Act, 1955 was amended so as to provide the benefit to Overseas
Citizen of India and in that context when rights were given to the OCI cardholders through the notifications issued
from time to time, based on which the OCI cardholders had adopted to the same and had done things so as to
position themselves for the future, the right which had accrued in such process could not have been taken away
in the present manner, which would act as a ‘retroactive’ notification. Therefore, though the notification ex-facie
does not specify retrospective operation, since it retroactively destroys the rights which were available, it is to be
ensured that such of those beneficiaries of the right should not be affected by such notification. Though the rule
against retrospective construction is not applicable to statutes merely because a part of the requisite for its action
is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing, in the instant case the rights were conferred under the notification
and such rights are being affected by subsequent notification, which is detrimental and the same should be
avoided to that extent and be allowed to operate without such retroactivity.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that the notification issued by the Central Government in 2021 – which took
away the rights of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) category students to apply for general seats and confined their
right only to Non-Resident Indians (NRI) category seats- will apply only prospectively from the date of the
notification, which is March 4, 2021. The notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on March 4, 2021
stated that OCI students can only apply to NRI seats or supernumerary seats for all India entrance tests like NEET,
JEE(Mains) and JEE (Advanced) and barred them from applying to seats exclusively reserved for Indian citizens.
Name of the case- Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146
Bench- 28-02-23

5. The State Of Nagaland Act, 1962
Referred cases-
1. Amarendra Pratap Singh vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, court held that a general law cannot defeat the provisions of a
special law to the extent to which they are in conflict.
Issue- Scope of power of High Court under section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi- It is time all concerned realize that a High Court ~ howsoever big or small, old or new ~ is as much
a Constitutional Court as this Court is and enjoys wide ranging powers vested in it by law. No doubt, the power
under section 25 is a special power, but the common High Courts of the country ought not to read section 24 of
the CPC in a manner as if the power of the Supreme Court under section 25 to order an inter-State transfer is
available to be exclusively exercised by it in all cases of inter-State transfer, thereby denuding the common High
Courts of the country of their jurisdiction by mere reference to involvement of an inter-State transfer and without
anything more being looked at.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that the power under section 24 of the CPC can be exercised by the High Court
even for inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, if it is the common High Court for two or more
States under Article 231 of the Constitution and both the Civil Courts (transferor and transferee) are subordinate
to it. Section 25 CPC applies to inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding where both States have a
High Court in terms of Article 214 of the Constitution and not to a transfer where both States have a common High
Court under Article 231 thereof, the bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Dipankar Datta said.
Name of the case- Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112
Bench- Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh
Date- 13-02-23

1. Section 33, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
2. Order XX, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Issue- Scope of Appellate Court’s power to remand
Ratio Decidendi- An order of remand prolongs and delays the litigation and hence, should not be passed unless
the appellate court finds that a re-trial is required, or the evidence on record is not sufficient to dispose of the
matter for reasons like lack of adequate opportunity of leading evidence to a party, where there had been no real
trial of the dispute or there is no complete or effectual adjudication of the proceedings, and the party complaining
has suffered material prejudice on that account. Where evidence has already been adduced and a decision can be
rendered on appreciation of such evidence, an order of remand should not be passed remitting the matter to the
lower court, even if the lower court has omitted to frame issue(s) and/or has failed to determine any question of
fact, which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is essential. The first appellate court, if required, can also direct
the trial court to record evidence and finding on a particular aspect/issue in terms of Rule 25 to Order XLI, which
then can be taken on record for deciding the case by the appellate court.
Judgment- Allowing the appeal against this order, the Apex Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M
Sundresh observed that High Court overlooked the provisions of Rule 23, 23A, 24 and 25 of Order XLI of the Code.
In this case, the Patna High Court passed an order of remand observing that the judgment of the trial court was
not written as per the mandate of Section 33 and Rule 4(2) and 5 of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
the discussion and reasoning on certain aspects was not detailed and elaborate.
Name of the case- Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78
Bench- Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar
Date- 02-02-23
Referred cases-
1. Bodi Reddy v. Appu Goundan, court held that no man should be compelled to sell his property against his will at
a valuation and no person should be encouraged to do a wrongful act or commit a trespass relying on the length
of his purse and his ability to pay damages for it.
Issue- Can denial of relief of recovery of possession be treated as violation?
Ratio Decidendi- To say that a small strip of building site could thus be appropriated by a trespasser would be to
admit a rule of law which can be applied limitlessly. In cases of trespass, the Court should ordinarily grant an
injunction directing the defendant to remove the encroachment and restore possession of the vacant site to the
plaintiff. Neither serious inconvenience to the defendant—trespasser nor the absence of serious injury to the
plaintiff is a ground for depriving the latter for his legal right to the property.
Judgment- In a case where the owner of the land filed suit for recovery of possession of his land from the
encroacher and once he establishes his title, merely because some structures are erected by the opposite party
ignoring the objection, that too without any bona fide belief, denying the relief of recovery of possession would
tantamount to allowing a trespasser/encroacher to purchase another man’s property against that man’s will,
court observed.
Name of the case- C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130
Bench- Ajay Rastogi, Bela M Trivedi
Date- 23-02-23

1. Article 217(2)(a) in The Constitution Of India 1949
Issue- Whether ad hoc judges can be appointed to higher judicial services?
Ratio Decidendi- The claim of seniority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment, rules as per
which the appointments are made and when appointments are made, were such appointments to the cadre posts
or not etc. When the appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in the A.P. Judicial Service, appellants
cannot claim seniority based on their ad hoc appointments to preside over Fast Track Courts. We are of the view
that the ratio decided in the said judgments relied on by the appellants would not render any assistance in support
of their case.
Judgment- The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by nine judicial officers from Andhra Pradesh seeking
to direct the Andhra Pradesh High Court to consider them for elevation as HC judges. A bench comprising Justices
Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi refused to accept the petitioners’ claim. The bench noted that the petitioners had
earlier filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in 2019 aggrieved with the seniority list. In that writ petition, it
was decided that the petitioners’ service as ad-hoc judges can only be counted for pensionary and other retiral
benefits and not for seniority.
Name of the case- Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115
Bench- Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy
Date- 17-02-23

2. The Registration Act, 1908
Referred cases-
1. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, it was held that an entity is a state if it is financially,
functionally and administratively dominated by, and is under the control of, the Government.
Issue- Whether Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science [IACS] is a state under Article 12 of The Indian
Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi- The question in each case would be — whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established,
the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government.
Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a
State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or
otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State.”
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science [IACS] is a “State”
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and
Hrishikesh Roy set aside a Calcutta High Court judgment that had held otherwise while dismissing a writ petition
filed against IACS.
Name of the case- Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98
Bench- Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal
Date-13-02-23

1. The Delimitation Act, 2002
2. Section 10 in the Delimitation Act, 2002
Cases referred-
1. Issue- Validity of delimitation of stae of Jammu and Kashmir
Ratio Decidendi- A vague attempt was made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners to submit
that the exercise which is undertaken for the newly created Union territory of J & K was not undertaken on the
basis of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 and Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. In both the
Acts, there is no provision which is pari materia with clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of Section 62 of the J&K
Reorganisation Act which amended the provisions of the Delimitation Act 2002 in its applicability to the newly
formed Union Territories by substituting the year 2001 with 2011. Thus, there is absolutely no merit in any of the
contentions raised by the petitioners.
Judgment- The Supreme Court, dismissed a petition which challenged the delimitation exercise carried out for
redrawing the Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. A
Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka passed the order in a plea, inter alia, challenging the
delimitation exercise undertaken in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to the recent
notifications. Justice Oka, reading out the operative portion of the judgment, said that the judgment has clarified
that the dismissal of the petition should not be construed as giving imprimatur to the decisions taken in relation
to Article 370 as the said issue is pending before a Constitution Bench. Senior Advocate, Mr. Ravi Shankar
Jandhyala, representing the petitioners had contended that the delimitation exercise was in violation of the
scheme of the Constitution of India, especially Article 170(3), which had frozen delimitation till the first census
after 2026. He had argued that the delimitation exercise was being carried out in the teeth of constitutional and
statutory provisions. He had further submitted that after the delimitation order was passed in the year 2008, no
further delimitation exercise could have been undertaken. The Senior Counsel had emphasised that post 2008, all
delimitation related exercise can be carried out only by the Election Commission and not a Delimitation
Commission.
Name of the case- Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97
Bench- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, A.S. Oka, Vikram Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari
Date- 10-02-23

2. Article 26(b) in The Constitution Of India 1949
4. 4 Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Issue- Legality of the right of excommunication.
Ratio Decidendi- The Constitution Bench in the case of Navtej Singh Johar emphasized that the principle of
transforming Constitutionalism also places upon the judicial arm a duty to ensure that a sense of transformation
is ushered consistently in the society by interpreting and enforcing the Constitutional as well as other provisions
of law. Constitutional law has developed a great deal during the last few decades. The interpretation of various
provisions of the Constitution made by this Court decades back has undergone a drastic change. For example, the
narrow interpretation given to Article 21 in the ‘A.K. Gopalan’ era is no longer valid. The concept of freedom has
undergone changes. In the 21st Century, society looks completely different from what it looked in the last century.
We see a change in the socio-cultural ethos of society. Thus, the interpretation of law must keep pace with
changing needs of society.
Judgment- A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court referred the question of the validity of the practice of
excommunication prevalent among the Dawoodi Bohras, to a nine-Judge Bench constituted to review the ‘first
Sabarimala judgement’. The Dawoodi Bohras form a sect of Shia Muslims, whose supreme leader is empowered
to excommunicate or expel recalcitrant members, thereby, denying them access to the community mosque or
burial grounds, as well as other facilities. In October, the top court had reserved its decision on whether to refer
the issue to the larger bench, after hearing a petition pending from 1986 challenging the validity of this practice
of social boycotting.
Name of the case- Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93
Bench- Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai
Date- 10-02-23

Referred cases-
1. Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and Others, court held that appointment of a judge is an executive
function of the President of India.
2. M. Manohar Reddy and Another v. Union of India and Others, court held that the consultative process
envisaged under Article 217(1) is to limit the judicial review, restricting it to the specified area, that is,
eligibility, and not suitability.
Issue- Can appointment of judges be a subject of judicial review?
Ratio Decidendi- The primacy of the judiciary in the matter of appointments and its determinative nature in
transfers introduces the judicial element in the process, and is itself a sufficient justification for the absence of the
need for further judicial review of those decisions, which is ordinarily needed as a check against possible executive
excess or arbitrariness. Plurality of judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, as indicated,
is another inbuilt check against the likelihood of arbitrariness or bias, even subconsciously, of any individual. The
judicial element being predominant in the case of appointments, and decisive in transfers, as indicated, the need
for further judicial review, as in other executive actions, is eliminated. The reduction of the area of discretion to
the minimum, the element of plurality of judges in formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, effective
consultation in writing, and prevailing norms to regulate the area of discretion are sufficient checks against
arbitrariness.
Judgment- While pronouncing reasons for dismissing the petitions assailing the appointment of Justice
Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri as an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court rejected
the argument that the facts were not known to the Collegium when they recommended her name for elevation.
Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice B.R. Gavai dismissed two petitions filed by advocates from
the Madras High Court challenging the appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri as an additional judge of the Madras
High Court. Based on articles and statements of Justice Gowri, the petitioners contended that she is unfit to be a
judge as her statements amount to hate-speech against religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians.
Name of the case- Gas Authority of India Ltd. V. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88
Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, Manoj Misra
Date- 08-02-23

Issue- Can writ jurisdiction be applied in case of a private contract?
Ratio Decidendi- It is not disputed that GAIL is a Public Sector Undertaking and thus qualifies under the definition
of ‘State’ as per Article 12 of the Constitution. At the time of entering into contract, GAIL was enjoying a
monopolistic position with respect to the supply of natural gas in the country. IPCL, having incurred a significant
expense in setting up the appropriate infrastructure, had no choice but to enter into agreement with GAIL. Thus,
there was a clear public element involved in the dealings between the parties. Further, writ jurisdiction can be
exercised when the State, even in its contractual dealings, fails to exercise a degree of fairness or practices any
discrimination. It cannot be said that merely because an alternative remedy was available, the Court should opt
out of exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the parties to a civil remedy.
Judgment- Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka, held that if the
State in its contractual dealings fails to exercise a degree of fairness or practices any discrimination, writ
jurisdiction can be exercised against it. The Court refused to accept that the charges had to be paid even though
IPCL was not using the pipelines laid down by GAIL merely because GAIL had laid down the pipe for all users
generally. The Apex Court upheld the order of the High Court. Considering there was delay in approaching the
High Court, the Apex Court directed that the refund would be restricted to a period of three years prior to the
date of filing of the writ petition. GAIL was directed to refund within a period of two months, failing which, an
interest of 8% p.a. would be charged.
Name of the case- Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92
Bench- S Ravindra Bhatt, Dipankar Datta
Date-09-02-23

1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
2. Section 23 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Issue- Flat owners right to claim amenities promised to him before purchase
Ratio Decidendi- Now-a-days, flat owners seldom purchase flats with liquid cash. Flats are purchased on the basis
of finances being advanced by banks and other financial institutions. Once a flat is booked and the prospective
flat owner enters into an agreement for loan, instalments fall due to be paid to clear the debt irrespective of
whether the flat is ready for being delivered possession. The usual delays that are associated with construction
activities result in undue anxiety, stress, and harassment for which many a prospective flat owner, it is common
knowledge, even without the project/flat being wholly complete is left with no other option but to take
possession.
Judgment- Flat owners don’t forfeit the right to claim amenities promised by builder by taking possession of
apartments. A bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta criticised the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission for refusing the claim of compensation raised by the aggrieved flat-owners on the
ground that they had taken possession. “We have failed to comprehend as to what the NCDRC meant when it
observed that the appellants “ought to have known what they were purchasing”, the bench observed in the
judgment.
Name of the case- Rajkumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 144
Bench- DY Chandrachud, BS Pardiwala, P S Narsimha
Date- 06-02-23

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Section 432, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Referred cases-
1. State of Haryana Vs Jagdish, it was held by the court that the case of a convict for premature release is
governed by the applicable policy on the date of conviction.
2. State of Haryana Vs Raj Kumar, it was held by the court that the case of a convict for premature release is
governed by the applicable policy on the date of conviction.
Issue- Equal policy to be applied in case of premature release of convicts.
Ratio Decidendi- it is not open to the State to adopt an arbitrary yardstick for picking up cases for premature
release. It must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that
each case for premature release has to be decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the
conviction subject to a more beneficial regime being provided in terms of a subsequent policy determination. The
provisions of the law must be applied equally to all persons. Moreover, those provisions have to be applied
efficiently and transparently so as to obviate the grievance that the policy is being applied unevenly to similarly
circumstanced persons. An arbitrary method adopted by the State is liable to grave abuse and is liable to lead to
a situation where persons lacking resources, education and awareness suffer the most.
Judgment- In the matter concerning remission of convicts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court bench
comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala noted that the arbitrary
application of different yardsticks for similarly placed convicts would give rise to a situation where the persons
lacking resources would suffer the most. State of Uttar Pradesh, having formulated a Statute, Rules and a Standing
Policy for deciding cases of premature release, is bound by its own formulations of law. Once there are legal
provisions which hold the field, it Is not open for the State to adopt an arbitrary yardstick to pick up cases of
premature release and must be in conformity with its policies and bearing in mind that there is a fundamental
principle of law that remission is as per the policy which existed during conviction and liberalisation is to be
implemented as amended later, court held.
Name of the case- Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 136
Date- 24-02-23

1. The Information Technology Act, 2000
2. Section 173(8) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Issue- Right to further investigation even after framing of charges.
Ratio Decidendi- There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate,
particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section
173(8) CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal
case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised
suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should
or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on
the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to
inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are
more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding.
Judgment- The victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial”, observed the Supreme Court
while ordering further investigation in a case for abduction and attack against NCP MLA Jitendra Awhad. Mere
filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation /
re-investigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant, the Court added. A bench comprising Justices MR
Shah and CT Ravikumar, after referring to various precedents which hold that prayer for CBI investigation can be
allowed only in “rare and exceptional” circumstances, agreed with the High Court’s view that CBI investigation is
not warranted in the present case.
Name of the case- Juhru v. Karim 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 128

Bench- Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari
Date- 21-02-23

Cases referred-
1. Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, it was held that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised only
on the basis of the evidence adduced before the court during a trial.
2. Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The State of Punjab, it was held by the court that the power bestowed on the Court
is to the effect that in the course of an inquiry into, or trial of an offence, based on the evidence tendered
before the Court, if it appears to the Court that such evidence points to any person other than the accused
who are being tried before the Court to have committed any offence and such accused has been excluded in
the charge sheet or in the process of trial till such time could still be summoned and tried together with the
accused for the offence which appears to have been committed by such persons summoned as additional
accused.
Issue- Scope of power under section 319 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi- Power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence
of more than a prima facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional accused. We may hasten to add that
with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that
ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court
must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material
is, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing
trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has observed that procedural safeguards can be put in place to prevent the
frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A
Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, while deciding a Criminal Appeal challenging
the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had allowed an application seeking to summon an additional
accused, jotted down the following procedural safeguards to ensure that the provision is not misused-
A) Summoning of a person at the threshold of the trial may be discouraged;
b) Trial Court must evaluate the evidence against the person sought to be summoned;
c) Trial Court must adjudge whether the material carries some weightage and value as has been testified against
those who are facing trial;
d) In absence of any credible evidence, the provision is not to be invoked.
Name of the case- Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69
Bench- Krishna Murari, Sudhanshu Dhulia
Date- 01-02-23

1. The Court-fees Act, 1870
2. Section 4 in the Court-fees Act, 1870
Referred cases-
1. S. Wajid Ali v. Mt. Isar Bano Urf Isar Fatima & Ors, it was held that a court has to exercise its discretion for allowing
a deficiency of court fees to be made good but once it was done, a document was to be deemed to have been
presented and received on the date when it was originally filed, and not on the date when the defects were cured.
Issue- Is non-availability of funds is a valid excuse for condonation of delay?
Ratio Decidendi- What we have here is a pure civil matter. An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period,
prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the
court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day.
It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of
each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation
for the delay. In the present case, this delay has not been explained to the satisfaction of the court. The only
reason assigned by the appellant for the delay of 254 days in filing the First Appeal was that he was not having
sufficient funds to pay the court fee! This was not found to be a sufficient reason for the condonation of delay as
the appellant was an affluent businessman and a hotelier. In any case, even it is presumed for the sake of argument
that the appellant was short of funds, at the relevant point of time and was not able to pay court fee, nothing
barred him from filing the appeal as there is provision under the law for filing a defective appeal, i.e., an appeal
which is deficient as far as court fee is concerned, provided the court fee is paid within the time given by the
Court.
Judgment- The Supreme Court observed that being short of sufficient funds to pay court fee is not a reason to
condone delay in filing appeal. In such a scenario, an appeal can be filed in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter
the defects can be removed by paying deficit court fees. In this case, the High Court dismissed the delay
condonation applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone a delay of 254
days to file First Appeal,on the ground that the reasons assigned for the condonation were not sufficient reasons
for condonation of the delay. The only reason assigned for the delay was that he was not having sufficient funds
to pay the court fee.
Name of the case- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 122
Bench- V. Ramasubramanian, B.V. Nagarathna
Date- 20-02-23
3. Section 114(h) in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Referred cases-
1. Sharda vs. Dharmpal, it was held that if despite an order passed by the court, a person refuses to submit himself
to such medical examination, a strong case for drawing an adverse inference would be made out.
2. Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy, it was held that DNA testing is the most legitimate and scientifically perfect
means, which the husband could use, to establish his assertion of infidelity. This should simultaneously be taken
as the most authentic, rightful and correct means also with the wife, for her to rebut the assertions made by the
respondent husband, and to establish that she had not been unfaithful, adulterous or disloyal.
Issue- Whether DNA test infringes the right to privacy?
Ratio Decidendi- Merely because something is permissible under the law cannot be directed as a matter of course
to be performed particularly when a direction to that effect would be invasive to the physical autonomy of a
person. The consequence thereof would not be confined to the question as to whether such an order would result
in testimonial compulsion, but encompasses right to privacy as well. Such direction would violate the privacy right
of the persons subjected to such tests and could be prejudicial to the future of the two children who were also
sought to be brought within the ambit of the Trial Court’s direction.”
Judgment- The Supreme Court observed that DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage
may be directed only when there is sufficient prima-facie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112
of the Evidence Act. “Children have the right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously before a Court of
Law. This is an essential attribute of the right to privacy”, the bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and B V
Nagarathna observed. The court also observed that it is not prudent to draw an adverse inference under Section
114 of the Evidence Act, in every case where a parent refuses to subject the child to a DNA test.
Name of the case- Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129
Date- 22-02-23

Issue- Scope of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work.
Ratio Decidendi- It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more
or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with
the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions
would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the
seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional
avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay
differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service.
The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the
Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain
pay structure and grade in a particular service.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has observed that Pay Commissions may be justified in recommending different
pay scales for seemingly similar posts and if the State accepts such differentiation based on a reasonable
classification, then the Courts will not interfere. The doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract
doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value.
The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the
Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the
expert bodies like the Pay Commissions.
Name of the case- Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78
Bench- Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar
Date- 02-02-23
Referred Cases-
1. Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee, it was held that four salient conditions are to be satisfied before
invoking the rule of estoppel. Firstly, one party should make a factual representation to the other party.
Secondly, the other party should accept and rely upon the aforesaid factual representation. Thirdly, having
relied on the aforesaid factual representation, the second party should alter his position. Fourthly, the instant
altering a position, should be such, that it would be iniquitous to require him to revert back to the original
position.
2. Abdul Kader v. Upendra, it was held therein that in the case of acquiescence the representations are to be
inferred from silence, but mere silence, mere inaction could not be construed to be a representation and in
order to be a representation It must be inaction or silence in circumstances which require a duty to speak and
therefore, amounting to fraud or deception.
Issue- Can encroachment be termed as an actual transfer?
Ratio Decidendi- To say the building erected in such circumstances should not be directed to be removed and only
damages could be awarded would, in my opinion, be ineffective, to sanction a condemnation of the plaintiff’s
property and an appropriation of it for the defendant’s use. To confine the relief to compensation in such a case
is tantamount to allowing a trespasser to purchase another man’s property against that man’s will. No man should
be compelled to sell his property against his will at a valuation and no person should be encouraged to do a
wrongful act or commit a trespass relying on the length of his purse and his ability to pay damages for it.
Judgment- The Supreme Court observed that an encroacher cannot be termed as a ‘transferee’ to seek benefit of
Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. Where the owner of the land filed suit for recovery of possession of his
land from the encroacher and once he establishes his title, merely because some structures are erected by the
opposite party ignoring the objection, that too without any bona fide belief, denying the relief of recovery of
possession would tantamount to allowing a trespasser/encroacher to purchase another man’s property against
that man’s will, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and C T Ravikumar said.
Name of the case- Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110
Bench- Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath
Date- 15-02-23

1. Arms Act
5. Section 25 in Arms Act
Issue- Evidentiary value of a sole witness for the purpose of conviction

Ratio Decidendi- Non-examination of the statement under section 164 CrPC also has no relevance or bearing to
the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below. It was for theInvestigating Officer to have got the
statement under section 164 CrPC recorded. If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any
bearing on the testimony of PW-1 and the other material evidence led during trial. It is not the quantity of the
witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters.
Judgment- The Supreme Court said that it is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which
matters. The apex court made the observation while upholding the conviction and life term awarded to three
convicts for murdering four members of a family in Uttar Pradesh in 2007. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai
and Vikram Nath was hearing a batch of appeals, including those filed by the four convicts, challenging the
February 2012 judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had affirmed their conviction In the case. The High
Court had affirmed the conviction, however, it had commuted the death sentence to life sentence for all the
convicts.
Name of the case- National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Chief Electoral Officer 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 90
Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, Manoj Misra
Date- 08-02-23

1. Section 182 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Referred Cases-
1. Lilawanti Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors, court held that after the expiry of a given policy, no direction could
be given for payment of insurance amount.
2. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi & Anr, court held that on account of the employer’s failure,
as an agent, to remit the premium amount, the insurance company, as the principal, will still have the liability
to make payment of the insured amount.
Issue- Insurance Companies’ liability in cases of death by unnatural cause.
Ratio Decidendi- On a plain reading itself, leave aside the question of strict interpretation of the clauses, it is quite
apparent that the admissibility of the claim is in the event of death. The second part of the same sentence begins
with “only”. Thus, even in the event of a death, it is only in the scenario where the consequent situation arises,
i.e., it has to be solely and directly from an accident caused by external violence. Here the death is by sun stroke.
There was no semblance of any violence being the cause of death. The last aspect which reads as “any other
visible means” would be an expression to be read in the context of ejusdem generis with the external violent
death and cannot be read in isolation itself.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has held that the death occurring due to sun-stroke during election duty will not
come within the scope of the clause “death only resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external
violent and any other visible means” in the insurance policy. Allowing the insurer’s appeal, a bench comprising
Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka held that death due to sun-stroke did not fall within the scope of the policy agreement.
The Court held that a plain and strict reading of an insurance policy is the guiding principle to interpret an
insurance policy. Reliance was placed on the 2019 precedent Alka Shukla vs Life Insurance Corporation Ltd, which
explained what will be an “accidental death” in the context of an insurance policy.
Name of the case- Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146
Date- 28-02-23

5. The State Of Nagaland Act, 1962
Issue- Interpretation of statutes in the sense as to apply their correct meaning.
Ratio Decidendi- A narrow interpretation of section 25 imposing a bar for entertainment of an application under
section 24 for transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding by a common High Court like the Gauhati High Court
inter-se the four States in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction could place a heavy burden and might pose an
insurmountable obstacle for litigants of the far-flung areas of the North-East, if they were made to approach this
Court for such transfer on the specious ground that the Civil Court to which the same is proposed to be transferred
is in a State other than the State in which the suit has been instituted. An interpretation of the law that seeks to
address the mischief, that is consistent with the Constitution and promotes constitutional objectives and that
which responds to the needs of the nation must be adopted. If “access to justice” has to be real, it becomes the
moral responsibility of the Supreme Court, the supreme guardians/protectors of the rights of people guaranteed
by the Constitution and the laws, not to construe the substantive part in section 25 of the Code in a pedantic
manner to bring about a situation that would thwart the initiative of making “access to justice” real.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that the power under section 24 of the CPC can be exercised by the High Court
even for inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, if it is the common High Court for two or more
States under Article 231 of the Constitution and both the civil Courts (transferor and transferee) are subordinate
to it. Section 25 CPC applies to inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding where both States have a
High Court in terms of Article 214 of the Constitution and not to a transfer where both States have a common High
Court under Article 231 thereof, the bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Dipankar Datta said.
Name of the case- Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129
Date- 22-02-23
Issue- Power of judicial review vis-à-vis financial matters (equal pay for equal work).
Ratio Decidendi- It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more
or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with
the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions
would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the
seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional
avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay
differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service.
The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the
Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain
pay structure and grade in a particular service.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has observed that Pay Commissions may be justified in recommending different
pay scales for seemingly similar posts and if the State accepts such differentiation based on a reasonable
classification, then the Courts will not interfere. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” will not strictly apply
in such cases.
Name of the case- Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123
Bench- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Date- 20-02-23

3. 3 Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
4. Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Referred Cases-
1. Nagpur Improvement Trust and another vs. Vithal Rao and others, it was held that the authority, while
acquiring land, cannot distinguish between types of owners, as the object of achieving land for public
purposes is met with, irrespective of the type of owner whose land is being acquired.
2. State of Madras v. V.G. Row, court observed that the Court must keep in mind the “nature of the right alleged
to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil
sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time.
Issue- Different compensation for land acquisition on the basis of ownership.
Ratio Decidendi- The establishment of Greater Noida, as discussed above, was done for a noble purpose, i.e., to
accommodate in the city all those who came travelling from every corner of the country in search of a better life.
While doing so however, as can be seen in the present case, some residents whose land was subject to acquisition
in the pursuit of the said aim, were faced with discrimination. In such circumstance, it becomes the duty of this
Court to dispense justice, and rectify the harm caused to those at the receiving end of the discrimination.
Judgment- The Supreme Court stuck down the classification made by the Greater NOIDA Authority between
Pushtaini and Gair-Pushtaini Landholders for the purpose of granting compensation upon acquisition. While
striking down the classification, the Bench comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat held
that the Land Acquisition Act does not envisage any differential compensation on the basis of such classification.
The mischief rendered by the classification can be severed and the remaining part of the executive actions that
seek to grant compensation for the purpose of rehabilitation would remain valid in law. The ex-gratia payment
and increased base amount shall be given to all landowners in the concerned area. Any claim to differentiate
between classes of person to be backed by empirical data. Even if classification has a rational nexus to the
objective of notification, it must be legitimised by the parent statute.
Name of the case- Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69
Bench- Krishna Murari, Sudhanshu Dhulia
Date- 01-02-23
1. The Court-fees Act, 1870
Issue- Transfer of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist outside the state of Himachal Pradesh
Ratio Decidendi- The whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings.
Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a nonagriculturist, and this is with a purpose. The purpose is
to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural
land for non-agricultural purposes. A person who is not an agriculturist can only purchase land in Himachal
Pradesh with the permission of the State Government. The Government is expected to examine from a case to
case basis whether such permission can be given or not. In the present case, it thought it best, not to grant such
a permission. However, the purpose of the transfer remains the same, which is a non-agricultural activity. By
merely assigning rights to an agriculturist, who will be using the land for a purpose other than agriculture, would
defeat the purpose of this Act.
Judgment- Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a nonagriculturist, and this is with a purpose, the
Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered yesterday. The bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Sudhanshu
Dhulia noted that the purpose is to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the
rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.
Name of the case- Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86
Bench- V. Ramasubramanian, Pankaj Mithal.
Date- 07-02-23

1. The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
3. Section 44(1) in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
4. Section 3 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
5. Section 4 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
Cases referred-
1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the top court had held that the trial of the offence of money-
laundering would proceed before the regional special court and, in the event that the scheduled offence is triable
by a special court under a special enactment elsewhere, both the trials need to proceed independently, but in the
area where the offence of money-laundering has allegedly been committed.
Issue- Place of trial in cases of money laundering.
Ratio Decidendi- a person may first, acquire proceeds of crime in one place, second, keep the same in his
possession in another place, third, conceal the same in a third place, and fourth, use the same in a fourth place.
The area in which each one of these places is located, will be the area in which the offence of money laundering
has been committed. To put it differently, the area in which the place of acquisition of the proceeds of crime is
located or the place of keeping it in possession is located or the place in which it is concealed is located or the
place in which it is used is located, will be the area in which the offence has been committed. In addition, the
definition of the words ‘proceeds of crime’ focuses on ‘deriving or obtaining a property’ as a result of criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence. Therefore, the area in which the property is derived or obtained or even
held or concealed will be the area in which the offence of money laundering is committed.
Judgment- The Supreme Court stated that the offence of money laundering is constituted by various activities,
namely, concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting as untainted property, or claiming as untainted
property. So, the the offence can be tried at the places where any of these acts have taken place have. The Court
held so while rejecting the argument of journalist Rana Ayyub that the offence of money laundering can be tried
only at the place where the alleged proceeds of crime are deposited. A Bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian
and J.B. Pardiwala was deciding the petition field by Ayyub challenging the jurisdiction of the Special PMLA Court
at Ghaziabad to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint lodged by the Directorate of Enforcement for
allegedly misappropriating funds collected for relief work.
Name of the case- Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120
Date- 17-02-23

Referred Cases-
1. Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi), court held that if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an
explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased. In other words, he must furnish an
explanation that appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such an explanation
on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged.
Issue- Burden of proof in cases of last seen theory applicability.
Ratio Decidendi- The burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that
fact is upon him. Of course, Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove
the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is also equally settled legal position that if the accused does not throw any
light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence
Act, such failure on the part of the accused may be used against the accused as it may provide an additional link
in the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him. In the case based on circumstantial evidence,
furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of
“last seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him.
Judgment- Upholding the conviction of an accused in a murder case, the Court explained that once the prosecution
has shown that the victim was last seen together along with the accused, then the accused has to give
explanations. “Once the theory of “last seen together” was established by the prosecution, the accused was
expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of the
deceased”, observed a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi.
Name of the case- Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137
Date- 20-02-23

Referred cases-
1. Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, it was held that the criteria for selection cannot be changed during
the course of selection.
Issue- Favouritism to a particular group in exams violating article 14 rights
Ratio Decidendi- The decision to reduce the cut-off marks is not based upon an objective criteria, namely, the
suitability of the candidate to the post, but for extraneous reason, i.e., to accommodate otherwise ineligible
candidates. In other words, earlier cut-off marks were fixed on a conscious consideration of the marks required
to be eligible for the post, which could not be reduced, unless there is a sound reason that the reduced marks also
would be sufficient to be suitable for that post.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has disapproved of a departmental selection committee’s decision to reduce the
qualifying marks after the publication of results to facilitate the appointment of a special category of candidates
comprising women, persons with disabilities, and former members of the armed forces, to the post of ‘Supervisor
Instructor, Class-III’ in various industrial training institutes across the state of Gujarat. Reducing the cut-off marks
after the publication of results only for the purpose of providing employment to a particular category, when the
others have already acquired some right would be an affront to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court
held.
MARCH 2023 JUDGMENT SUMMARY
Name of the case- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. V. VBR Menon ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185)
Bench- A.S. Bopanna, J.B. Pardiwala
Date- 14-03-23
1. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
2. Section 5 in The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
3. THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
4. Section 3(3) in The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
5. Section 26 in The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Referred Cases-
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, it was held that the NGT has been given wide
discretionary powers to secure the ends of justice. This power is coupled with the duty to be exercised for
achieving the objectives. The intention understandably being to preserve and protect the environment and
the matters connected thereto.
Issue- Vapour recovery system mechanism mandatory for petrol pumps.
Ratio Decidendi- The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 was enacted to provide for strict liability for
damages arising out of any accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for the establishment
of a National Environment Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising from such accident, with
a view to giving relief and compensation for damages to persons, property and the environment. However, the
National Environment Tribunal, which had a very limited mandate, was not established. The National Environment
Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was enacted to establish the National Environment Appellate Authority to hear
appeals with respect to restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries,
operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The National Environment Appellate Authority has a limited workload
because of the narrow scope of its jurisdiction.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has directed that all the retail petroleum outlets located in cities having population
of more than 10 lakh and having turn over of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the Vapour Recovery
System(VRS) mechanism. This should be done within the fresh time line prescribed in the circular issued by the
Central Pollution Control Board on June 4, 2021. A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala
affirmed the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal, Chennai Bench regarding installation of VRS in retail
petroleum outlets across the country.
Name of the case- Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242)
Bench- B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
Date- 16-03-23

2. Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
Referred cases-
1. Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, it was held that it is our duty to make sure that miscarriage of justice is avoided
at all costs and the benefit of doubt, if any, given to the accused.
2. Gireesan Nair & Others v. State of Kerala, it was held that where the accused has been shown to the witness
or even his photograph has been shown by the investigating officer prior to a TIP, holding an identification
parade in such facts and circumstances remains inconsequential.
Issue- Evidentiary value of TIP if the accused was known to the victim
Ratio Decidendi- Identification parades are not primarily meant for the court. They are meant for investigation
purposes. The object of conducting a test identification parade is twofold. First is to enable the witnesses to satisfy
themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the
commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom
the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. So the officer conducting the test identification
parade should ensure that the said object of the parade is achieved. If he permits dilution of the modality to be
followed in a parade, he should see to it that such relaxation would not impair the purpose for which the parade
is held.
Judgment- The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted for the offence of murder. A bench
comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol set aside the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the trial court
and the High Court. “We reiterate that the entire necessity for holding an investigation parade can arise only when
the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that
witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of
other persons without any aid or any other source”, the bench observed.
Name of the case- Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197)
Date- 14-03-23

Issue- Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession
Ratio Decidendi- As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak
piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that
the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value
of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct,
normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit
faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover,
the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is
made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated
by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.
Judgment- Highlighting the evidentiary value and the circumstances under which extra-judicial confessions can be
accepted, the Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted of double murders under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code. At the outset, the Court noted that the extra-judicial confession, though a weak piece
of evidence, can be sustained provided its voluntary. The evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession also
depends on the person to whom it is made, it added.
Name of the case- Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs State of West Bengal ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171)
Bench- Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karo
Date- 03-03-23

Referred Cases-
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, court held that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
2. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, court held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”.
Issue- Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession
Ratio Decidendi- It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has
been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility
becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of
caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any
reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based
on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence.
Judgment- Reiterating that it is a weak piece of evidence, the Supreme Court of India recently observed that the
credibility of an extra-judicial confession decreases when the surrounding circumstances are doubtful. A Bench of
Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol said that Courts would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration
before placing any reliance upon an extra-judicial confession.
Name of the case- Kashibai v. State of Karnataka ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149)
Bench- Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi
Date- 01-03-23

2. Section 113A in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
Referred cases-
1. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, court held that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts
and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the
cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide.
2. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, court held that there should be intention to provoke,
incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the
others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self- respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down
any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts
and circumstances.
Issue- Presumption under section 113-A for the offence of suicide
Ratio Decidendi- We are of the view that the mere fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a period
of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act would not automatically
apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it
is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the presumption as defined
under Section 498-A IPC, may attract, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide has
been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The term “the Court may presume, having regard
to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband” would indicate
that the presumption is discretionary.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that the mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient
for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of
Section 306 IPC(abetment to suicide). In this case, the accused (husband, mother in law and father in law) were
convicted under Section 498A and Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. This conviction was upheld by the High
Court.
Name of the case- Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203)
Date- 17-03-23

Referred cases-
1. Dwarka Nath Mondul v. Beni Madhab Banerjee, it was held that a fresh complaint can be entertained where
there is manifest error, or manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order or when fresh evidence is
forthcoming.
Issue- Judicial Activism vis-à-vis limits of the courts as per the Indian Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi- In our opinion, the jurisprudential enthusiasm and wisdom for doing the substantial justice has
to be applied by the courts within the permissible limits. The belief of self-righteousness or smugness of the High
Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review should not overawe the other authorities discharging their
statutory functions. We may not have to remind the High Courts that judicial restraint is a virtue, and the
predilections of individual judges, howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter
disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law. Unwarranted judicial
activism may cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities but also in the mind of the
litigants.
Judgment- In a set back to Cardinal George Alencherry, the Major Archbishop of Syro-Malabar Church, the
Supreme Court on Friday refused to quash the criminal cases against him over alleged irregularities in the sale of
properties belonging to Ernakulam-Angamalay Archdiocese. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed
by George Alencherry against the judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in August 2021 which refused to
quash the criminal proceedings against him over the land scam.
Name of the case- Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159)
Bench- Justice KM Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Date- 27-03-23

1. The Children Act, 1960
3. Section 9(2) in The Children Act, 1960
4. Section 7 in The Children Act, 1960
Issue- Juvenile accused subjected to death penalty is to be released free or not
Ratio Decidendi- Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and the 2007 Rules has nothing to do
with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion, etc. There may be situations
where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first
attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be
correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct
such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those
documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are
found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the committee need to go for
medical report for age determination.
Judgment- The Supreme Court released a death row convict upon finding that even though he was a juvenile at
the time of the commission of the offence he was tried as an adult and was sentenced to death. Noting that under
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2015 Act), one cannot be subjected to death
penalty and the maximum punishment is three years sentence, a Bench comprising Justice KM Joseph, Justice
Aniruddha Bose and Justice Hrishikesh Roy passed orders to release Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary forthwith,
after he has been in detention for over 28 years.
Name of the case- Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159)
Bench- B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath
Date- 03-03-23

1. The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985
2. The Children Act, 1960
Issue- Death penalty awarded to a juvenile at the time of commission of a crime.
Ratio Decidendi- The sum and substance of the above discussion is that in one set of cases this Court has found
the juvenile guilty of the crime alleged to have been committed by him but he has gone virtually unpunished since
this Court quashed the sentence awarded to him. In another set of cases, this Court has taken the view, on the
facts of the case that the juvenile is adequately punished for the offence committed by him by serving out some
period in detention. In the third set of cases, this Court has remitted the entire case for consideration by the
jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board, both on the innocence or guilt of the juvenile as well as the sentence to be
awarded if the juvenile is found guilty. In the fourth set of cases, this Court has examined the case on merits and
after having found the juvenile guilty of the offence, remitted the matter to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice
Board on the award of sentence.
Judgment- The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence imposed on a convict for the rape and murder of a
minor girl after he was found to be a juvenile at the time of the offence. The convict had approached the Top Court
after the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court. While the appeal
was pending in the Supreme Court, he filed an application claiming juvenility. The Supreme Court then asked the
trial court to enquire about his claim of juvenility. The trial court reported that his date of birth was conclusively
proved to be 25.07.2002. This meant that on the date of the offence, 15.12.2017, he was 15 years old.
Name of the case- Guna Mahto vs State of Jharkhand ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 240)
Date- 16-03-23

Cases referred-
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Mahrashtra, it was held that the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
2. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
Issue- Conviction based on doubts and circumstances
Ratio Decidendi- It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case revolving around circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances
relied upon must point out only towards one hypothesis, that is, the guilt of the accused alone and none else. On
various occasions, this Court has stated essential conditions that must be fulfilled before conviction of an accused
can take place based on circumstantial evidence.
Judgment- The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was concurrently convicted by the trial court and
the High Court for the alleged murder of his wife thirty five years ago. “In our considered view, the courts below
have seriously erred in passing the order of conviction based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of
evidence, causing serious prejudice to the accused, also resulting into travesty of justice”, a bench comprising
Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol stated after finding serious deficiencies in the case built on circumstantial
evidence.
Name of the case- Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186)
Bench- B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
Date- 14-03-23
Relevant Acts & Provision-

Referred Cases-
1. Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, court held that the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by
the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important
circumstance.
2. Ramashish Ray v. Jagdish Singh, court held that previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can
provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
Issue- Non-explaination of injuries by the prosecution in a murder trial

Ratio Decidendi- First information report, in a case of this nature, provides for a valuable piece of evidence
although it may not be a substantial evidence. The reason for insisting on lodging of first information report
without undue delay is to obtain the earlier information in regard to the circumstances in which the crime had
been committed, the name of the accused, the parts played by them, the weapons which had been used as also
the names of eyewitnesses. Where the parties are at loggerheads and there had been instances which resulted in
death of one or the other, lodging of a first information report is always considered to be vital.” As held by this
Court, the FIR is a valuable piece of evidence, although it may not be substantial evidence. The immediate lodging
of an FIR removes suspicion with regard to over implication of number of persons, particularly when the case
involved a fight between two groups. When the parties are at loggerheads, the immediate lodging of the FIR
provides credence to the prosecution case.
Judgment- The Supreme Court reiterated that omission on the part of the prosecution to explain injuries on the
person of the accused assumes greater importance where the evidence consists of interested witnesses or where
the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. A Bench comprising Justice
BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol reversed conviction imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed
by the Chhattisgarh High Court primarily on the grounds that, the prosecution had not explained the injuries on
the person of the accused; the delay in filing the FIR; and evidence consisted of interested witnesses, especially it
being a case of pre-existing rivalry between the parties.
Name of the case- Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura ( 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152)
Date- 01-03-23

Referred cases-
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, it was held by the court that the circumstances taken
cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on
any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
2. Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc, court held that in a case of circumstantial
evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary
to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and
secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused.
Issue- Non-recovery of corpse in a murder trial
Ratio Decidendi- In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an important role to play. Motive may also have
a role to play even in a case of direct evidence but it carries much greater importance in a case of circumstantial
evidence than a case of direct evidence. It is an important link in the chain of circumstances. The principle of
corpus delicti has judgments on both sides stating that conviction can be recorded in the absence of the recovery
of the corpus and the other view that no conviction could be recorded in the absence of recovery of the corpus.
The later view is for the reason that if subsequently the corpus appears as alive, someone may have been
convicted and sentenced and suffered incarceration for no crime committed by him.
Judgment- The Supreme Court, reversed a conviction recorded by the Trial Court, affirmed by the Tripura High
Court on the ground that major links of the chain of circumstances had not been proved by the prosecution
evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence. A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram
Nath was of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where a case based on
circumstances evidence was not made out, it would be unjust to uphold the conviction. Considering the same,
the Bench noted that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. It acquitted the accused of all charges and
directed to release him.
Name of the case- Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155)
Bench- K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, C.T. Ravikumar
Date- 02-03-23

4. The Representation of the People Act, 1950
5. THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT, 1850
Referred cases-
1. In Indian Aluminium Co. and others v. State of Kerala, court held that the adjudication of the rights of the
parties is the essential judicial function. Legislature has to lay down the norms of conduct or rules which will
govern the parties and the transactions and require the court to give effect to them.
Issue- Whether right to vote is a fundamental right or a constitutional right.
Ratio Decidendi- the right to vote was denied to women and those were socially oppressed. Our Constitution took
a visionary step by extending franchise to everyone. In that way, the right to vote enshrines the protection
guaranteed under Article 15 and 17…The right to take part in the conduct of public affairs as a voter is the core of
the democratic form of government, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. The right to vote is an expression
of the choice of the citizen, which is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The right to vote is a part of a
citizen’s life as it is their indispensable tool to shape their own destinies by choosing the government they want.
In that sense, it is a reflection of Article 21. Otherwise, they had stressed the importance of the right to vote and
universal adult franchise.Seventy-five years after Independence, we have the opportunity to realize their absolute
vision by recognizing what they could not due to socio-political circumstances of their time.
Judgment- The Supreme Court’s decision to reform the process of making appointments to the Election
Commission has once again sparked the debate surrounding the status of citizens’ right to vote. The Constitution
bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar was of the
view that right to vote is a Constitutional right. The four judges in majority however refrained from making a final
judicial declaration in this regard, citing the 2006 judgment in Kuldip Nayar vs Union Of India, where a bench of
coordinate strength had held that “there is no Constitutional Right”. In his concurring opinion however, Justice
Rastogi observed that right to vote is not merely a constitutional right, but a component of Part III of the
Constitution. He goes on to state that right to vote is not limited only to Article 326, but flows through Article 15,
17, 19, 21 of the Constitution.
Name of the case- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217
Bench- Hon’Ble The Justice, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date- 21-03-23

1. Section 65B in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. Section 65A in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Referred Cases-
1. Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar, court held that before imposing the extreme penalty of death sentence, the
Court should satisfy itself that death sentence is imperative, as otherwise the convict would be a threat to the
society, and that there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the convict, after giving the convict an
effective, meaningful, real opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence, by producing material.
Issue- Rarest of the rare doctrine and it’s applicability.
Ratio Decidendi- Death sentence cases are a distinct category of cases altogether. Quite apart from Article 134 of
the Constitution granting an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court in all death sentence cases, and apart
from death sentence being granted only in the rarest of rare cases, two factors have impressed us. The first is the
irreversibility of a death penalty. And the second is the fact that different judicially trained minds can arrive at
conclusions which, on the same facts, can be diametrically opposed to each other. Adverting first to the second
factor mentioned above, it is well known that the basic principle behind returning the verdict of death sentence
is that it has to be awarded in the rarest of rare cases. There may be aggravating as well as mitigating
circumstances which are to be examined by the Court. At the same time, it is not possible to lay down the
principles to determine as to which case would fall in the category of rarest of rare cases, justifying the death
sentence. It is not even easy to mention precisely the parameters or aggravating/ mitigating circumstances which
should be kept in mind while arriving at such a question. Though attempts are made by Judges in various cases to
state such circumstances, they remain illustrative only.
Judgment- The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, commuted the death sentence awarded for kidnapping and murder
of a 7 year old child to life imprisonment for not less than twenty years without remission of sentence. A Bench
comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha observed that though the crime was
grave and unpardonable, ‘the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires that the death sentence not be imposed only by
taking into account the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation in a criminal. The
Court noted that the scope of review is quite narrow and in case of criminal proceedings it cannot be exercised
except on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. It observed that the grounds raised by the petitioner
(Sundar) have already been dealt with by all the Courts. Moreover, the case of the prosecution is founded on
consistent interlinked evidence.
Name of the case- Royden Harold Buthello vs State of Chattisgarh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 154
Bench- A.S. Bopanna, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Date- 01-03-23

1. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
2. Section 22(b) in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Referred Cases-
1. State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Committee, it was held that though there is no inflexible guideline or a
straightjacket formula laid down, the power to transfer the investigation is an extraordinary power. It is to be
used very sparingly and in an exceptional circumstance where the Court on appreciating the facts and
circumstance arrives at the conclusion that there is no other option of securing a fair trial without the
intervention and investigation by the CBI or such other specialized investigating agency which has the
expertise.
Issue- Direction of investigation to CBI
Ratio Decidendi- Despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any
order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional
powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as
the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible
guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has
been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled
some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in
exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or
where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary
for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large
number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in
the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.
Judgment- The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the Court’s power to transfer cases to the Central Bureau
of Investigation or any other specialised agency is an extraordinary power and therefore, should be used sparingly.
A Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the transfer of a case should be made
to a specialised agency only if there’s no other option of securing a fair trial otherwise. The Bench was considering
an appeal of a person who was accused of alleged possession and sale of 9.2 grams of cocaine. He was challenging
two orders of the Chhattisgarh High Court which refused to transfer his case to the CBI and to quash the
proceedings initiated against him
Name of the case- State Bank of India vs Rajesh Agarwal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243
Bench- Hon’Ble The Justice, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala
Date- 27-03-23

2. BANKING REGULATION ACT,1949
3. The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
5. Article 19(1)(g) in The Constitution Of India 1949
Referred cases-
1. Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. V. Masood Ahmed Khan, it was held that the lender banks should provide an
opportunity to a borrower by furnishing a copy of the audit reports and allow the borrower a reasonable
opportunity to submit a representation before classifying the account as fraud.
Issue- Right of hearing even before registration of FIR
Ratio Decidendi- Principles of natural justice are not applicable at the stage of reporting a criminal offence, which
is a consistent position of law adopted by this Court. In Union of India v. W N Chadha, a two-judge bench of this
Court held that that providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused in every criminal case before taking any
action against them would “frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action as law demands,
defeat the ends of justice and make the provisions of law relating to the investigation lifeless, absurd, and self-
defeating.” Again, a two-judge bench of this Court in Anju Chaudhary v. State of UP has reiterated that the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not provide for right of hearing before the registration of an FIR. The rule of audi
alteram partem ought to be read in Clauses 8.9.4 and 8.9.5 of the Master Directions on Fraud. Consistent with the
principles of natural justice, the lender banks should provide an opportunity to a borrower by furnishing a copy
of the audit reports and allow the borrower a reasonable opportunity to submit a representation before
classifying the account as fraud. A reasoned order has to be issued on the objections addressed by the borrower
Judgment- The Supreme Court has held that an accused cannot claim to have a right of hearing before the
registration of an FIR and that the principles of natural justice are not applicable at the stage of reporting a criminal
offence. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli made this observation
while deciding the issue whether borrowers have the right to be heard before their accounts are classified as
fraudulent in terms of the RBI’s Master Directions on Frauds.
Name of the case- Pulen Phukan v. State of Assam 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 265
Bench- B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
Date- 28-03-23

Issue- Doubt raised on the investigation done by the police in a murder trial
Ratio Decidendi- The job of the prosecution is not to accept the complainant’s version as Gospel Truth and proceed
in that direction but the investigation must be made in a fair and transparent manner and must ascertain the
truth. The evidence collected during investigation should then be analysed by the Investigating Officer and
accordingly a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC should be submitted. Further, the duty of the Trial Court is
to carefully scrutinise the evidence, try to find out the truth on the basis of evidence led. Wherever necessary the
Trial Court may itself make further inquiry on its own with regard to facts and circumstances which may create
doubt in the minds of the Court during trial. If the investigation is unfair and tainted then it is the duty of the Trial
Court to get the clarifications on all the aspects which may surface or may be reflected by the evidence so that it
may arrive at a just and fair conclusion. If the Trial Court fails to exercise this power and discretion vested in it
then the judgment of the Trial Court may be said to be vitiated.
Judgment- The Supreme Court recently acquitted four persons who were convicted for a murder which happened
in 1989. After appreciating the evidence, the Court formed an opinion that the case might have been set up by
the police themselves after killing the deceased in the process of arrest. The Court was hearing an appeal
challenging a Gauhati High Court judgement, which confirmed a Trial Court judgement convicting 11 in a murder
case. Challenging this, four out of the 11 moved the Supreme Court.
Name of the case- State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158
Date- 01-03-23
1. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
2. Section 13(1)(b) in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
3. Section 13(2) in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
5. Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Referred cases-
1. Issue- Is corruption the cause of unequal distribution of wealth?
Ratio Decidendi- Though it is the preambular promise of the Constitution to secure social justice to the people
of India by striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth, it is yet a distant dream. If not the main, one of
the more prominent hurdles for achieving progress in this field is undoubtedly ‘corruption’. Corruption is a
malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life. It is not now limited to the spheres of
activities of governance; regrettably, responsible citizens say it has become a way of one’s life. Indeed, it is a
matter of disgrace for the entire community that not only on the one hand is there a steady decline in
steadfastly pursuing the lofty Ideals which the founding fathers of our Constitution had in mind, degradation
of moral values in society is rapidly on the rise on the other. Not much debate is required to trace the root of
corruption. ‘Greed’, regarded in Hinduism as one of the seven sins, has been overpowering in its impact.
Judgment- In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court of India recently lamented, that corruption was one of
the main reasons as to why the ‘preambular promise’ of the Constitution to achieve equal distribution of wealth
remains a distant dream. “Though it is the preambular promise of the Constitution to secure social justice to the
people of India by striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth, it is yet a distant dream. If not the main, one
of the more prominent hurdles for achieving progress in this field is undoubtedly ‘corruption’. Corruption is a
malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life”, a Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and
Dipankar Datta observed.
Name of the case- Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232
Date- 23-03-23

2. Section 13(1)(d) in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
4. Neeraj Dutta vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022
5. Section 13(2) in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Cases referred-
1. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), it was held that the demand and recovery both must be proved
to sustain conviction under the Act.
Issue- Bribery accused released after 30 years of FIR filed.
Ratio Decidendi- The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal
gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been
proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material
on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of
demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the
accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. In the event of complaint turns ‘hostile’, or has died
or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the
evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the
presumption can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order
of acquittal of the accused public servant.
Judgment- The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
for accepting a bribe of Rupees 300 in the year 2003. The convict, who was working as a cleaner, was accused to
taking bribe for supplying a copy of the death certificate to the complainant. The Supreme Court allowed his
appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A bench
comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal noted that the demand of illegal gratification was not proved
in the case. As per the recent judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta vs State 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 1029 the demand and recovery both must be proved to sustain conviction under the Act.
Name of the case- Secretary of Consumer Affairs vs Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161
Bench- M.R. Shah, Manoj Misra
Date- 03-03-23

1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Referred Cases-
1. Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala, court held that transgression of constitutional limitations and
intrusion into the judicial power by the legislature is violative of the principle of separation of powers, the
rule of law and of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issue- Appointment of practicing advocates as member of consumer courts.
Ratio Decidendi- The Commissions are quasi judicial authorities and the standards expected from the Tribunal
should be as nearly as possible to the appointment of Judges…There is a need to assess the skill, competency of
the candidates before they are empanelled. The Rule 2020 does not contemplate written examinations to assess
the merits of candidates. Till the amendments are made in order to do complete justice under article 142 we
direct that in future a person having Bachelor’s degree from a recognised university and who is a person of ability,
integrity standing and having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer
affairs, law, public affairs, administration etc. shall be treated as qualified for appointment as President and
member of State and District Commission. We also direct that for appointment the appointment shall be based
on the performance in 2 papers. Qualifying marks in the papers shall be 50% and there must be a viva for 50 marks
each.
Judgment- The Supreme Court held that persons having a Bachelors degree and having a professional experience
of at least 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration etc. should be treated as qualified for
appointment as President and members of State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums. This
means that lawyers with at least 10 years standing are eligible for appointment as President and members of State
and District Consumer Commissions. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur
Bench) to quash the provisions of Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, framed by Central Government u/s 101 of
Consumer Protection Act 2019, which prescribe a minimum professional experience of 20 years and 15 years for
adjudicating members to the State consumer commissions and District forums respectively and which did away
with the requirement of a written exam for appointment.
Name of the case- ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156
Bench- Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna
Date- 01-03-23

1. The Constitution of India, 1949
2. Article 14, The Constitution of Indian, 1949
Issue- Changing names of city in the name of secularism.
Ration Decidendi- The golden principle of fraternity which in enshrined in the preamble is of the greatest
importance and rightfully finds its place in the preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that the
maintenance of harmony among different sections alone will lead to a true notion of nationhood, bonding
sections together for the greater good of the nation and find fraternity. We are, therefore, of the view that the
reliefs which have been sought for should not be granted by the Court acting as the guardian of Fundamental
Rights under Article 32 bearing in mind the values which a court must keep uppermost in mind as the Preamble
gives us a clear light in this direction.
Judgment- A country cannot remain a prisoner of the past”, observed the Supreme Court while dismissing a PIL
seeking to rename historical cities which have been named after “foreign invaders”. “The history of any nation
cannot haunt the present and future generations to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of
the past”, a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna stated while affirming the secular nature of
the country. "India, that is Bharat, is a secular country”, the bench observed in the beginning of the order.
Name of the case- State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184
Date- 14-03-23

2. National Textile Corpn. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S Haribox Swalram & Ors on 5 April, 2004
5. Article 19(1)(g) in The Constitution Of India 1949
Issue- Test to determine jurisdiction of High Courts
Ratio Decidendi- While dealing with an objection as to lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition
on the ground that the cause of action has not arisen within its jurisdiction, a high court essentially has to arrive
at a conclusion on the basis of the averments made in the petition memo treating the contents as true and correct.
That is the fundamental principle. Bearing this in mind, we have looked into the petition memo of and searched
in vain to trace how at least part of the cause of action has been pleaded by the petitioning company to have
arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. This is a case where clause (2) of Article 226 has been
invoked by the High Court to clothe it with the jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ petitions. The
Constitutional mandate of clause (2) is that the ‘cause of action’, referred to therein, must at least arise in part
within the territories in relation to which the high court exercises jurisdiction when writ powers conferred by
clause (1) are proposed to be exercised, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the
residence of the person is not within those territories.
Judgment- In a notable judgment explaining the concept of ‘cause of action’ under Article 226(2) of the
Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held that only those facts, which are relevant to the grant of the relief,
will give rise to ‘cause of action’. Applying this principle, the Court held that a company cannot challenge a GST
notification issued by one state before a High Court located in another State only on the ground that it has office
there. The Court said that in the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such ‘cause of action’ is the
material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed. Such
pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted.
Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action
conferring jurisdiction on the court.
Name of the case- Icon Education Society vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202
Bench- Dinesh Maheshwari, Sanjay Kumar
Date- 17-03-23
1. Section 9(1) in The National Commission for Women Act, 1990
2. Section 9 in The National Commission for Women Act, 1990
3. Section 4 in The National Commission for Women Act, 1990
5. Section 4(1) in The National Commission for Women Act, 1990
Referred cases-
1. Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, in this case
the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman
Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for short, the Act of 2007’) was upheld.
2. P.A. Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, it was held that setting up a reasonable fee structure is also
a component of the right to establish and administer an institution, within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the
Constitution, and every institution is free to devise its own fee structure subject to the limitation that there
can be no profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged directly or indirectly or in any form.
Issue- Exemption to minority educational institutions established under article 30 of The Indian Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi- Setting up a reasonable fee structure is also a component of the right to establish and administer
an institution, within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and every institution is free to devise its
own fee structure subject to the limitation that there can be no profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged
directly or indirectly or in any form. It was further held that it is permissible to regulate admission and fee
structure for achieving that purpose”, the bench observed after discussing the precedents
Judgment- The Supreme Court has held that a minority educational institution cannot claim complete immunity
from the exercise undertaken by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee by claiming protection under
Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court was deciding the issue whether a minority educational
institution in the State of Madhya Pradesh is required to get the fees charged by it fixed by the Admission and Fee
Regulatory Committee under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka
Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for short, the Act of 2007’).
Name of the case- Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 241
Bench- Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Manoj Misra
Date- 24-03-23

Issue- Whether test of affinity is integral to the determination of caste status made by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee?
Ratio Decidendi- While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the
Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat
immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative
factor. However, with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities
tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the
tribe. Hence, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a
Scheduled Tribe.
Judgment- The Supreme Court, on Friday, answered the reference pertaining to the question – whether the affinity
test is integral to the determination of caste status made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Affinity test is used to
ascertain if the person follows the traditional cultural traits of the community. A Bench comprising Justice S.K.
Kaul, Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Manoj Misra held that affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste name
and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste/tribe name in every case.
Moreover, it observed that the occasion to conduct affinity test would arise only in those cases where the matter
has been referred to the Vigilance Cell by the Scrutiny Committee. However, it was also stated that when a case
is required to be referred, the Scrutiny Committee should record reasons as to why it is not satisfied with the
material provided by the applicant.
Name of the case- Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 204
Bench- Justice MR Shah, Justice BV Nagarathna
Date- 17-03-23

1. Section 24(2) in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
3. 3 Section 24 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Issue- Effect of a ruling based on a judgment which is now overruled.
Ratio Decidendi- Having held that the judgments/orders sought to be reviewed by the petitioners is impermissible
in law, the ground realities would also have to be now taken into consideration on account of the passage of time.
It is noted that Section 24 of the L.A. Act, 2013 is in the nature of a saving clause which is evident on a reading of
the same, including the proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the L.A. Act, 2013. The object is to save the
acquisition as far as possible. Possibly taking a cue from the proviso, this Court in the impugned judgments
reserved liberty to the petitioners herein to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh within one year in some of the
cases failing which the land was to be returned to the land owners if in possession of the review petitioners herein.
Thus, if no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period of one year by issuing a notification
under Section 11 of the L.A. 2013 Act and if the review petitioners herein are in possession of the land, the physical
possession thereof shall be returned to original land owners.
Judgment- A Division Bench of the Supreme Court took a divergent view on the scope of review, when the
judgment relied on in the impugned order and all subsequent judgment that followed it is eventually overruled
by a superior court. While Justice MR Shah allowed the review petitions, Justice BV Nagarathna opined that they
are not maintainable and are in the teeth of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure
(Application for review of judgment) which categorically states that a fact that the decision on a question of law
on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a
superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.
Name of the case- Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203
Date- 17-03-23

Referred cases-
1. Dwarka Nath Mondul v. Beni Madhab Banerjee, it was held that a fresh complaint can be entertained where
there is manifest error, or manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order or when fresh evidence is
forthcoming.
Issue- Right of alienation of the church asset and properties.
Ratio Decidendi- The jurisprudential enthusiasm and wisdom for doing the substantial justice has to be applied
by the courts within the permissible limits. The belief of self-righteousness or smugness of the High Court in
exercise of its powers of judicial review should not overawe the other authorities discharging their statutory
functions. We may not have to remind the High Courts that judicial restraint is a virtue, and the predilections of
individual judges, howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter disregard of the well-
recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law. Unwarranted judicial activism may cause
uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities but also in the mind of the litigants.
Judgment- The Supreme Court on Friday refused to quash the criminal cases against him over alleged irregularities
in the sale of properties belonging to Ernakulam-Angamalay Archdiocese. The court dismissed the special leave
petition (SLP) filed by George Alencherry against the judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in August 2021
which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against him over the land scam. At the same time, the Supreme
Court expressed displeasure towards the subsequent orders passed by the single bench of the High Court in
Alencherry’s petition (after refusing to quash the case against him).
Name of the case- UoI And Ors. V. M/s. Union Carbide Corporation And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200
Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari
Date- 09-03-23

2. Section 9 in The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing Of Claims) Act, 1985
3. Section 6 in The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing Of Claims) Act, 1985
Issue- Failure of central government to provided compensation to the Union Carbide gas tragedy victims.
Ratio Decidendi- The Union has filed the present curative petitions seeking to reopen the settlement after
opposing attempts by private parties to do so. The scenario arising in case of a shortage was clearly outlined in
the review judgment, i.e. the responsibility was placed on the Union of India, being a welfare State to make good
the deficiency and to take out the relevant insurance policies. Surprisingly, we are informed that no such insurance
policy was taken out. This is gross negligence on part of the Union of India and is a breach of the directions made
in the review judgment. The Union cannot be negligent on this aspect and then seek a prayer from this Court to
fix such liability on UCC. We are equally dissatisfied with the Union being unable to furnish any rationale for raking
up this issue more than two decades after the incident. Even assuming that the figures of affected persons turned
out to be larger than contemplated earlier, an excess amount of funds remained available to satisfy such claims.
Judgment- A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the curative petition filed by Central Government
seeking to reopen the settlement with the Union Carbide Corporation (now Dow Chemicals) to claim additional
compensation for victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984. It noted that settlement can be set aside only on the
ground of fraud, but no ground of fraud has been pleaded by the Union of India. However, the Court directed that
a sum of INR 50 crores lying with RBI ought to be utilized by the Union Government to satisfy pending claims, if
any. A Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice A.S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice
J.K. Maheshwari, which had reserved judgment on January 12, 2023, said that the Union’s curative petition has
no basis in legal principles. The Court noted that the Union Government had itself failed to take out insurance
policies as directed by the Apex Court
Name of the case- Ms.X vs State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205
Bench- Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli
Date- 19-03-23

Referred cases-
1. Jagjeet Singh And Others v. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu And Another, court held that a victim of the crime has
the right to be heard in the bail application of the accused.
Issue- Cancellation of bail in exceptional cases of offences being added in the FIR
Ratio Decidendi- Addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance where a Court can direct that the accused
be arrested and committed to custody even though an order of bail was earlier granted in his favour in respect of
the offences with which he was charged when his application for bail was considered and a favourable order was
passed. The recourse available to an accused in a situation where after grant of bail, further cognizable and non-
bailable offences are added to the FIR, is for him to surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newly
added offences. The investigating agency is also entitled to move the Court for seeking the custody of the accused
by invoking the provisions of 437(5)3 and 439(2)34 Cr.P.C., falling under Chapter XXXII of the Statute that deals
with provisions relating to bails and bonds.
Judgment- The Supreme Court has reiterated that subsequent addition of more serious offences to the FIR can be
a circumstance for a Court to cancel the bail granted by it. “Addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance
where a Court can direct that the accused be arrested and committed to custody even though an order of bail was
earlier granted in his favour in respect of the offences with which he was charged when his application for bail
was considered and a favourable order was passed”, a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli
observed while setting aside an order of the Bombay High Court which granted bail to a man in a ‘casting couch’
case.
Name of the case- Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233
Bench- Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Aravind Kumar
Date- 21-03-23
2. The Special Courts Act, 1979
Referred Cases-
1. Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. Through Director, it was held that not only is there a duty of the Court but also of
the public prosecutors to plead correct legal position before the Court as officers of the Court.
2. Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, it was held that the appellants are entitled to be released
on bail, in the event of the Court choosing to remand them to custody, when they appear in response to the
summoning order.
Issue- Non-compliance of bail procedure orders given by Supreme Court to lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi- The misuse of the criminal law is a matter of which the High Court and the lower courts in this
country must be alive. Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due
enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty
of courts across the spectrum the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court to ensure that the
criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both
ends of the spectrum the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need,
on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. Liberty across human eras
is as tenuous as tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media
and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty
when one of these components is found wanting.
Judgment- The Supreme Court was irked to note that even after 10 months of the judgment being passed, the
District judiciary is not complying with directions issued in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577, wherein it had laid down elaborate guidelines regarding arrest and bail. It observed that
the non-compliance would have a dual ramification – a) sending people to custody when not required to be sent;
b)creating further litigation, both of which the Court believed could not be countenanced. A displeased Apex
Court stated that if magistrates are passing orders in derogation of the law laid down in the said judgment, they
may be required to be sent to judicial academies for upgradation of their skills. The High Court having supervision
over the District judiciary was also advised to ensure that the law laid by the Supreme Court is followed.
Name of the case- Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249
Bench- Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Hrishikesh Roy.
Date- 27-03-23

2. The General Clauses Act, 1897
5. Section 9 in The General Clauses Act, 1897
Referred cases-
1. ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla, court held that the right to personal liberty is directly related to the
inalienable right towards human dignity and personhood. The concept of dignity is central to our
Constitutional law discourse. In fact, the Preamble itself, provides the guarantee of upholding ‘the dignity of
the individual.
Issue- Whether days of remand should be calculated for default bail application.
Ratio Decidendi- The leaning towards the accused’s right to personal liberty by reducing the 60 day period to
something more than 59 days, and a few hours, is based on the constitutional protection afforded to an accused
under Article 22(2) and Article 21. In this way, the Code’s application in dealing with an accused would be
consistent with the Inviolable right of personal liberty and dignity. The interpretation whereby personal liberty is
safeguarded and justice would not be compromised and in the grand scheme of things, the unjustified detention
of individuals is eschewed. As a court of law, once the legal stipulations of the Code are satisfied, we are duty
bound to apply the law and prevent unlawful detention and protect personal liberty.
Judgment- Answering a reference on a significant point of law, the Supreme Court has held that the day of remand
is to be included for considering for considering a claim for default bail. The remand period will be calculated from
the date when the Magistrate remanded the accused, held a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna
and Hrishikesh Roy. The bench observed that an interpretation which advances personal liberty should be
adopted.
Name of the case- Union of India And Ors. V. Parashotam Dass 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224
Bench- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar
Date- 21-03-23
2. Section 31 in the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007
4. Section 30 in the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007
Issue- Whether an appeal can be filed against an order of armed forces tribunal?
Ratio Decidendi- The power of judicial review is, however, confined not merely to deciding whether in making the
impugned laws the Central or State Legislatures have acted within the four corners of the legislative lists
earmarked for them; the courts also deal with the question as to whether the laws are made in conformity with
and not in violation of the other provisions of the Constitution… As long as some fundamental rights exist and are
a part of the Constitution, the power of judicial review has also to be exercised with a view to see that the
guarantees afforded by those rights are not contravened…. Judicial review has thus become an integral part of
our constitutional system and a power has been vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court to decide about
the constitutional validity of provisions of statutes. If the provisions of the statute are found to be violative of any
article of the Constitution, which is touchstone for the validity of all laws, the Supreme Court and the High Courts
are empowered to strike down the said provisions.
Judgment- The Supreme Court overruled its decision in Union of India And Ors. V. Major General Shri Kant Sharma
And Anr. Which barred the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases assailing
orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul, Justice AS Oka and Justice BV
Nagarathna noted the decision in Major General Shri Kant Sharma And Anr. Had indeed diluted provisions of
judicial review, which forms the basic structure of the Constitution. Moreover, it was held that the judgment in
Major General Shri Kant Sharma is in the teeth of the judgments in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Rojer
Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. And Ors., which held that per se there are no restrictions on the exercise of
power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Name of the case- Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 219
Bench- Krishna Murari, Sanjay Karol
Date- 21-03-23

Referred Cases-
1. Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, court held that the courts, while passing adverse remarks, must be
extremely careful and must resort to passing such remarks only if it is necessary to come to fair conclusion in
order to meet the ends of justice.
2. State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, court held that judges, must refrain from passing adverse remarks, as the
same can cause great mischief and might become an antithesis to the ends of achieving justice.
Issue- Limitation on passing of remarks during the Court proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi- Remarks passed in court, due to the live broadcasting of court proceedings, now have
ramifications that are far reaching, and as can be seen in the present case, can cause great injury to the reputation
of the parties involved. In such a circumstance, it is essential for the courts to be extremely cautious while passing
adverse remarks against the parties involved, and must do so with proper justification, in the right forum, and
only if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice. When the evidence is not fully analysed, and a presumption of
innocence is still operational in favour of the accused, the courts must then be extremely cautious in passing
adverse remarks against the accused. This becomes especially important in cases where the party against whom
the remarks are passed do not have a lis in the said proceedings, for such comments, especially if passed by
constitutional courts, can cause great injury to the reputation of the parties at the receiving end of such remarks.
This burden of caution on the courts has been held in a catena of judgments by this Court.
Judgment- The Supreme Court cautioned judges against passing adverse remarks in court, unless accompanied by
a proper justification, in the right forum, and necessary to meet the ends of justice. A bench of Justices Krishna
Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the appeals filed by Karnataka ADGP Seemant Kumar Singh,
former Bengaluru Urban Deputy Commissioner J Manjunath and the Karnataka ACB against certain oral remarks
made by High Court judge Justice HP Sandesh which created a sensation.
Name of the case- Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216
Bench- Hon’Ble The Justice, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date- 21-03-23

1. Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897
2. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Referred cases-
1. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd, the court in this case said that there is a need-based requirement to
conduct “judicial impact assessment” of all the Tribunals referable to the Finance Act, 2017 so as to analyse
the ramifications of the changes in the framework of tribunals as provided under the Finance Act, 2017.
Issue- Fundamental right of access to justice and its applicability.
Ratio Decidendi- Article 323-A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs because it is an
enabling provision which confers the Union Government with the power to establish an administrative tribunal
at its discretion (upon receiving a request from the relevant State Government in terms of the Administrative
Tribunals Act). The legal and factual context of the power to establish administrative tribunals, the purpose of this
power and the intention of the legislature establish that there is no duty to exercise the power conferred by the
Administrative Tribunals Act, such that the enabling provision becomes a mandatory provision. The Union
Government acted in valid exercise of its powers when it invoked Section 21 of the General Clauses Act read with
Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act to rescind the notification establishing the OAT because the
decision to establish the OAT was an administrative decision and not a quasi-judicial decision. Moreover, Section
21 of the General Clauses Act is not repugnant to the subject matter, context and effect of the Administrative
Tribunals Act and is in harmony with its scheme and object.
Judgment- Abolition of OAT does not violate right of access to justice as cases will be heard by High Court, court
said. The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under the Constitution
of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must house every forum of
adjudication created by statute or the Constitution, observed the bench. It is an undeniable fact that some courts
and forums will be located in some towns and cities and not others. Some or the other litigants will be required
to travel some distance to access a particular forum or court.
About Us:
CLAT POINT is a law entrance examination
preparation institute. We do not confide our services
only in the name of a coaching institute but our aim is
to help the youth who join us to achieve a momentum
that can help them embark on a journey in the field of
law and legal knowledge.
CLAT POINT is an initiative and the culmination of
efforts put in by it’s founder Manvendra Pratap Singh
who has an experience in teaching in fields as vast as
UPSC and CLAT. He is an NLU Dropout and Alumini
from Jamia Millia Islamia University Delhi .
With an online viewership of not less than a million
he is a prominent face in the teaching industry.
CLAT POINT aims at providing efficient services in
the examinations of CLAT UG , CLAT PG, NLSAT,
JUDICIARY, LAW OPTIONAL and other Law
Entrance Tests
or visit www.clatpoint.com 7011249333

Clat PG 2024 - Clatpoint 365 (Vol.1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Clat PG 2024 - Clatpoint 365 (Vol.1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLAT POINT 365

FOR CLAT PG 2024

Yearly Compendium for Latest Important

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue: Was demonetisation valid or not?

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Name of the case- Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Ratio Decidendi- The condition of entry is

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue- Scope of jurisdiction of NCLT vis-à-vis SEBI

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue- Can parole time be counted as actual imprisonment time?

Bench- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Name of the case- Jabir vs State of Uttarakhand 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue- Hiding of pending criminal matters to join a disciplined force.

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue- What type of conditions cannot be imposed while awarding bail?

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Name of the case- Boby vs State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue- Language for recording of witness testimony in the trial courts.

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

FEBRUARY 2023 JUDGMENT SUMMARY

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue- Interim compensation as a condition for bail.

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue- Validity of All India Bar Exam.

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue- Applicability of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) rule, retrospective or prospective?

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue- Can denial of relief of recovery of possession be treated as violation?

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Issue- Whether ad hoc judges can be appointed to higher judicial services?

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

Relevant Acts & Provisions-

1. Issue- Validity of delimitation of stae of Jammu and Kashmir

Relevant Acts & Provisions-