1.

Tribunal Decision Can Be Scrutinized Only By A Jurisdictional High Court

In this case, a bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar held
that the an order passed by a Tribunal can only be challenged before the High Court
within whose territorial limits the CAT bench is located. There is also a criticism
among legal circles against this decision on the ground that it ignores the principles
under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title : Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

2. 'Merit's Definition Cannot Be Reduced To Performance In Competitive

Exams' : Supreme Court Upholds OBC Reservation In NEET-AIQ
A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna allowed
27% OBC quota in NEET-AIQ. The judgment is relevant for its discussion of the
principles relating to reservation under Articles 15(4) and 15(5) of the Constitution.
"Merit cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive
examination which only provides formal equality of opportunity", Justice
Chandrachud observed in the judgment
Case Title : Neil Aurelio Nunes and others versus Union of India and others|2022
LiveLaw (SC) 73

3. Suo Motu orders regarding limitation extension

The Court passed several orders in relation to extension of limitation allowed for the
COVID pandemic and lockdown periods. On January 10, 2022, taking note of the
surge in COVID cases, the Supreme Court ordered the extension of limitation period
for filing of cases and applications in courts and tribunals and excluded the period
from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 from limitation(In Re Cognizance For Extension Of
Limitation 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31).
In Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt.
Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 26, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV
Nagarathna clarified that the period of limitation which could have been condoned
by a Court or a Tribunal is also excluded from the limitation period up to 07.10.2021
in view of the orders passed suo motu by the Top Court to extend limitation period in
the wake of COVID-19.
In Prakash Corporates vs Dee Vee Projects Limited 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162, a
bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath held that suo motu
extension of limitation is applicable to the time for filing written statement in
commercial suits.
In Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne vs Pyrotek India Private Limited | 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 520, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held
that the suo motu extension of limitation period is applicable to Commercial Courts
Act.
4. PM Security Lapse : Supreme Court Appoints Former SC Judge Justice Indu
Malhotra As Enquiry Committee Head
A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli
constituted a committee headed by former judge Justice Indu Malhotra to enquire into
the security lapse which took place during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi
to Punjab in January 2022. Noting that there was a "war of words" and "blame game"
between the Union Government and the Punjab Government, the Court said that an
independent enquiry was needed. The committee filed its report later finding lapses
on the part of the Punjab police. The Court forwarded the report to the Union and the
State for further action.
Case Title : Lawyers Voice Vs State of Punjab | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 43

5. Hindu daughter's succession

In an important ruling under the Hindu Succession Act, the Court held that a
daughter is capable of inheriting the self-acquired property or share received in the
partition of a coparcenary property of her Hindu father dying intestate. The Court also
held that inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless and intestate, goes back
to the source. The decision given by a bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer and
Krishna Murari is notable for its interpretation of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession
Act 1956.
Case Title : Arunachala Gounder (Dead) Vs Ponnusamy 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71

6. Supreme Court expands scope of definition of 'vulnerable witnesses', issues

directions
A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant expanded the
definition of "vulnerable witnesses" to include victims of sexual assault (regardless of
gender), mentally ill witnesses, persons with disabilities, etc. Earlier, the definition
only covered child witnesses. The Court also issued directions to the High Courts to
frame scheme for safe deposition by vulnerable witnesses. The Court later passed a
direction to extend the directions to civil cases and family cases, apart from criminal
cases.
Case Title : Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80 and Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra
and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 380

7. Quashes Maharashtra Assembly's Resolution To Suspend 12 BJP MLAs

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT
Ravikumar quashed the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's resolution of July 5,
2021, which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for alleged disorderly
behaviour in the house. The Court held that the resolution to suspend the MLAs
beyond the session is "unconstitutional", "illegal" and "beyond the powers of the
assembly". It held that such suspension could be limited only to the ongoing session,
which was the Monsoon Session of 2021. Such a long suspension will result in the
constituency going unrepresented, the Court noted.
Case : Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly &
Anr| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91

8. Reservation in Promotions : Supreme Court issues directions

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.Gavai
issued elaborate directions relating to implementing reservation for SC/ST in
promotions. The Court held that the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data
regarding representation. The collection cannot be with respect to the entire
class/class/group, but it should be relatable to Grade/Category of post to which
promotion is sought. Cadre should be the unit for collecting quantifiable data. It
would be meaningless if the collection of data is with respect to the entire service. The
Court also said that it cannot lay down any yardstick to determine backwardness.
Case : Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Other Connected Matters |
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

9. On whether registering authority can ascertain if the power of attorney is

valid- conflicting judgments
In an interesting decision which can impact several sale transactions across the
country, the Supreme Court observed that the production of the original power of
attorney is not necessary, if the document is presented for registration by the power of
attorney holder who executed the document on the strength of it.
The bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha further observed that
the registration authorities are not required to enquire if the Power of Attorney is valid.
Case : Amar Nath vs Gian Chand| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98
Another bench has however distinguished this judgment in another case to hold that
Registering Authority under the Registration Act 1908, while registering a sale deed
executed by a Power of Attorney holder, is bound to verify if the Power of Attorney
empowers the agent to sell the property(Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd
versus SP Velayutham and others 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445)

10. Legislature Cannot Protect Actions Taken Under An Unconstitutional Law

By Enacting A Saving Clause: Supreme Court
The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that
legislature cannot infuse life into a legislation, which it itself recognised as
unconstitutional, by enacting a saving clause.
Case : The State of Manipur & Ors. v. Surjakumar Okram & Ors| 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 113
11. Examine Private Witnesses First; Try To Complete Their Chief & Cross-
Examination On Same Day
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh issued
important directions regarding the examination of witnesses so as to ensure time-
bound completion of trial.
Case : Rajesh Yadav vs State of UP| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

12. Directs MP HC To Reinstate Woman District Judge Who Raised Sexual

Harassment Complaint Against HC Judge
In this significant decision, a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR
Gavai directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to allow the reinstation of a woman
judge, resigned woman Additional District Judge, who had raised sexual harassment
allegations against a then sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Court held that her resignation, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be
"construed as voluntary" and therefore quashed the decision of the High Court to
accept her resignation.
Case : Ms. X vs Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh | 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 150

13. Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act Not Retrospective; Not

Applicable To FIRs Before 2018 Amendment: Supreme Court
A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari provided this
important clarification regarding the retrospective application of the 2018 amendment
to the PC Act, which can impact several pending cases.
Case : State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

14. Condition To Pre-Deposit 50% Amount To Challenge NCDRC Order Not

Applicable To Complaints Filed Before Consumer Protection Act 2019
A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian provided
this clarification regarding the applicability of the pre-deposit provision in the 2019
Act to pending appeals.
Case : ECGC Limited Vs Mokul Shriram EPC JV | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 168

15. RERA Prevails Over SARFAESI ; Homebuyers Can Move RERA Authority
Against Bank's Recovery Actions
The judgment delivered by a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna gives
an interesting analysis of the interplay between RERA and SARFAESI.
Case : Union Bank Of India vs Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority|
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

16. 'Limits Women's Choice Of Avocation Under The Guise Of

Protection' :Supreme Court Quashes Gender Cap In Orchestra Bars
The Supreme Court quashed a restriction, which was imposed purportedly to protect
women, whereby the number of women who can perform in orchestra bars in
Maharashtra was limited.
"Practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and
paternalism have no place in our society", observed the bench of Justices KM Joseph
and S Ravindra Bhat.
Case : Hotel Priya A Proprietorship Vs State Of Maharashtra | 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 186

17. Gifting Freebies To Doctors Prohibited By Law ; Pharma Companies Cannot

Claim It As Deduction U/Sec 37(1) Income Tax Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that 'pharmaceutical companies' gifting freebies to doctors is
prohibited by law and they cannot claim it as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the
Income Tax Act.
These freebies are technically not 'free' – the cost of supplying such freebies is usually
factored into the drug, driving prices up, thus creating a perpetual publicly injurious
cycle, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and S.Ravindra Bhat
remarked.
Case : Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Tax Payer Unit - II | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

18. Mere Hurting Of Sensibilities Not Defamation; CBFC Certificate Prima

Facie Shows Film Not Defamatory
While refusing to stall the release of the movie "Gangubai Kathiawadi", the Supreme
Court observed that one can't allege defamation merely on the ground of hurt
sensibilities. The Court further observed that CBFC certification raises a presumption
that the film is not defamatory.
Case : Shri Babuji Rawji Shah vs S.Hussain Zaidi and others | 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 213

19. Section 207 CrPC - Accused Can Be Given Copy Of Protected Witness's
Statement With Identity Redacted
A bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh held that even for
protected witnesses declared so under Section 173(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 read with
Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ("UAPA"), the accused
can exercise their right under Sections 207 and 161 of the Cr.P.C to obtain copies of
their redacted statements which would ensure that the identity of the witness not
disclosed.
Case : Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir|
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 216

20. Appointment Of Vice Chancellor Of A University Even Under A State

Legislation Cannot Be Contrary To UGC Regulations
A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that appointment of a Vice
Chancellor of a University, even under a State legislation, cannot be contrary to the
provisions of the UGC Regulations. The Apex Court noted that in cases where the
State legislature is repugnant to the Central legislation, Central legislation is to prevail
as per Article 254 as 'education' is an item in the Concurrent List of the Seventh
Schedule.
Case : Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat And Ors.| 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
242
This view was followed in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. &
Ors 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871 and Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari vs Ravindra
Jugran | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940. In State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das
| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83, the re-appointment of the VC of Calcutta University was set
aside on the ground that the State 'usurped' the powers of the Governor by making the
re-appointment without following the procedure under the law.

21. State's Transfer Policy Must Give Consideration To Importance Of

Protecting Employees' Family Life
In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the concept of right to family life and
observed that the State's transfer policy must give due consideration to the importance
of protecting family life.
"The State's interference in the rights of privacy, dignity, and family life of persons
must be proportional", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Vikram Nath
observed while asking the Union Government to revisit its transfer policy for tax
department.
Case : SK Naushad Rahman and others vs Union of India| 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
266

22. District Judge Selection - 35 Years Minimum Age Limit Prescribed By High
Courts Not Against Article 233 Of Constitution
Upholding the minimum age requirement of 35 years for applying for the Delhi
Higher Judicial Services Examination, the Supreme Court on Monday held that the
prescription of a minimum age limit for the selection of District Judges is not contrary
to the Constitution.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli held that
Article 233(2) of Constitution only prescribes a minimum eligibility that an advocate
should have at least 7 years practice for selection as a District Judge and that this does
not preclude the stipulation of a minimum age requirement.
Case : High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma | 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 286

23. No Legal Mandate That Same Rank Pensioners Must Be Given Same
Pension": Supreme Court Upholds Centre's OROP Policy In Defence Forces
The Supreme Court upheld the manner in which the Central Government introduced
the "One Rank One Pension"/ ("OROP") scheme in defence forces as per its
notification dated November 7, 2015.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath refused to
accept the challenge made by the association "Indian Ex-Service Movement" against
the 2015 notification issued by the Centre.
Case : Indian Ex Servicemen Movement Vs. Union Of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
289

24. Insurance Policy Condition Barring Filing Of Claim After Specified Time
Period Void Contrary To Section 28 Contract Act
In a judgment having wide ramifications in the insurance law sector, a bench
comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that that a
condition in the insurance policy which bars the filing of the claim after the specified
time period is contrary to Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and thus void.
Case : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Sanjesh and Anr| 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 303

25. 2021 TN Act Giving Vanniyars Internal Reservation In OBC Quota

Unconstitutional
A bench comprising Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai held the 2021 Tamil Nadu Act
that provided 10.5% reservation in educational institutions and government jobs for
the Vanniyar community out of the 20% reservation available to the Most Backward
Classes to be unconstitutional.
The Court upheld the Madras High Court order quashing Tamil Nadu law ("2021
Act"), the Court held that the State had the legislative competence to make sub-
classifications among the backward classes.
'Population Percentage Can't Be Sole Basis For Internal Reservation' : Detailed
Analysis Of Supreme Court Judgment In Vanniyar Quota Case
Case : Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal |Citation : 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 333

26. Upholds Foreign Contribution Regulation (Amendment) Act 2020

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT
Ravikumar upheld the 2020 amendments made to the Foreign Contribution
(Regulation) Act 2010, which introduced restrictions in the handling of foreign
contributions by organizations in India.
While the petitioners challenged the amendments as arbitrary and stringent and
making the functioning of NGOs extremely difficult, the Central Government said
that the changes in the law were necessary to prevent malpractices and diversion of
funds by NGOs.
Case : Noel Harper vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

27. Anganwadi Workers & Helpers Are Entitled To Payment Of Gratuity;

Anganwadi Centres Are "Establishments" Under 1972 Act
A significant verdict given by a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and AS
Oka extended the protection of Payment of Gratuity Act to anganwadi worker. The
Court held that Anganwadi workers are doing a full-time job and are performing
statutory functions under the National Food Security Act and the Right to Education
Act. The judgment also discussed the sufferings of anganwadi workers as they are
paid a paltry honorarium in return of their valuable services for ensuring education
and nutrition of young kids.
Case : Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya versus District Development Officer Dahod
and others | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408

28. BCI May Allow Persons With Other Jobs To Provisionally Enrol As
Advocates On Undertaking To Resign From Job Within 6 Months After
Clearing AIBE
The Supreme Court opened the doors for persons doing other jobs to practise as
advocates by accepting a suggestion made by Amicus Curiae that persons engaged in
other employments can be permitted to provisionally enrol with the concerned Bar
Council and to appear in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and that upon
clearing the AIBE, they can be given a period of 6 months to decide whether to join
legal profession or continue with the other job. The order passed by a bench
comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh is also significant for its
discussion on reforms needed for legal education and the AIBE.
Case : Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangonkar And Ors| 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 414
29. 'Backdoor Entries Anathema To Public Service' : Supreme Court Refuses To
Direct LIC To Absorb 11,000 Part Time Workers
Observing that a public employer cannot be asked to carry out a mass absorption of
over 11,000 workers without a recruitment process, the Supreme Court decided a
four-decade old dispute related to the regularization of part-time workers in the Life
Insurance Corporation(LIC).
"LIC as a statutory corporation is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. As a public employer, the recruitment process of the corporation must
meet the constitutional standard of a fair and open process. Allowing for back-door
entries into service is an anathema to public service", a bench comprising Justices DY
Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed.
Case : Ranbir Singh versus SK Roy, Chairman Life Insurance Corporation and
Another | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 417

30. Directs NMC To Frame Scheme For Foreign Medical Students Affected By
Pandemic To Undergo Clinical Training In India
Taking into account the plight of Indian medical students who could not complete the
clinical training of their foreign MBBS course due to Covid-19 pandemic, the
Supreme Court has issued certain directions to the National Medical Commission.
A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian directed the
NMC to frame a scheme as a one time measure within two months to allow students
who have not actually completed clinical training to undergo clinical training in India
in the medical colleges which may be identified by the NMC for a limited duration as
may be specified by it, on such charges which it determines.
Case : National Medical Commission vs Pooja Thandu Naresh | 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 426
Related to this is the decision in another case Aravinth R.A. vs Secretary To
Government Of India Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare where the Court
upheld the NMC regulations prescribing additional test qualifications for foreign
medical graduates.

31. Nobody Can Be Forced To Get Vaccinated; Vaccine Mandates Not

Proportionate
The Court held that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the right to
bodily integrity of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution include the right to
refuse vaccinate.
A bench comprising Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai also held that the vaccine
mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the context of
COVID-19 pandemic are "not proportionate". The Court held so as no substantial data
has been produced on record to show that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 virus
from the unvaccinated persons are higher than from vaccinated persons.
The Court also upheld the emergency authorization given by the Union Government
for Covid vaccines 'Covishield' and 'Covaxin' and also the approval for vaccines for
children. The Court further issued directions for publication of clinical trial data and
adverse events following immunisation.
Case : Jacob Puliyel vs Union Of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

32. Supreme Court Saves Over 90,000 Income Tax Reassessment Notices Issued
After 2021 Amendment By Deeming Them As Notices Under Section 148A
In a significant judgment having wide ranging impact on several pending tax cases
across the country, the Court saved several reassessment notices issued by the Income
Tax Department by not following the new procedure introduced after the Finance Act
2021 by deeming them as notices under Section 148A. A bench comprising Justices
MR Shah and BV Nagarathna issued this directions having pan-India effect to strike
a balance between the interests of the revenue and the assessees.
Case : Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444

33. Senior Advocate Designation Process : One Mark Each Should Be Awarded
For Each Year Of Practice From 10-20 Years
In relation to the criteria for senior advocate designation, the Supreme Court clarified
that the High Courts should allocate one mark each for each year of practice from 10
to 20 years, instead of allocating 10 marks flat for the counsel who has put in 10-20
years practice.
A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha issued
this clarification allowing a prayer in an application made by Senior Advocate Indira
Jaising.
Case : Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 451