1. Supreme Court Upholds Finality of Arbitral Awards, Rejects Modification Power
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts cannot modify arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The decision came in the case of Union of India v. Larsen Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Co., where the High Court reduced the interest on an award from 18% to 9%. The Supreme Court reinstated the original rate, emphasising the limited scope for court intervention and underscoring the importance of finality in arbitration. The Union has been directed to pay the awarded amount within eight weeks.
2. Plea in Supreme Court Seeks Timely Restoration of Jammu and Kashmir's Statehood
Teacher Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshid Ahmad Malik have filed a fresh plea in the Supreme Court demanding the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir's statehood within two months. The petitioners argue that the Centre's delay in fulfilling its promise during the 2019 abrogation of Article 370 violates federalism, a core constitutional principle. They highlight that recent peaceful Assembly elections show no security concerns, emphasising the need for timely statehood restoration as previously assured by the government.
3. Calcutta HC Orders Inclusion of POCSO Charges in Jaynagar Child Murder Case
The Calcutta High Court directed police to include charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in the investigation of the alleged rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl in Jaynagar, South 24 Parganas. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh instructed that the case records be transferred to a special POCSO court in Baruipur, and the accused be presented for further investigation. The post-mortem is to be conducted at AIIMS, Kalyani, following the victim's family's request. West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee called for capital punishment within three months for the accused.
4. Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Ex-Chhattisgarh CM's Deputy Secretary in Coal Levy Case
The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Saumya Chaurasia, former deputy secretary to ex-Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel, in a money-laundering case related to an alleged coal levy scam. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that Chaurasia had been in custody for over a year and nine months without charges being framed. The court directed that she should not be reinstated in service and must cooperate with the trial process. The Enforcement Directorate had opposed the bail, citing her influence as a civil servant.
5. Supreme Court Supports Woman Sarpanch, Condemns Bias Against Women in Public Offices
The Supreme Court upheld the rights of Manisha Ravindra Panpatil, a woman sarpanch from Vichkheda panchayat in Maharashtra, to continue in her role after facing gender bias and disqualification attempts. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan highlighted the deep-seated prejudice against women leaders in rural areas, stating that her detractors could not accept a woman making decisions on their behalf. The court criticised the government's mechanical handling of her disqualification and emphasised that removing an elected representative, especially a woman, should not be taken lightly. The Supreme Court overturned a previous Bombay High Court decision, allowing Panpatil to serve until her term ends.
6. Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) Rejects Supreme Court Order on Women's Reservation in Executive Committee
Despite a Supreme Court order on September 26, 2024, directing the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) to reserve posts for women in its Executive Committee (EC), the DHCBA has refused to adopt the resolution. During a General Body meeting on October 7, 2024, led by President Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur and Secretary Sandeep Sharma, the resolution for women’s reservation was met with strong opposition from male members. Protesting women lawyers were reportedly overshadowed, and the Secretary declared that the association opposes any form of seat reservation. This defiance contradicts the Supreme Court’s mandate, which called for at least three women among the 10 EC members.
7. Supreme Court Overturns Kerala HC's Disciplinary Orders Against Lakshadweep Judicial Officer, Citing Oversight of Key Records
The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's orders for disciplinary proceedings against a Sub-Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate in Lakshadweep, stating that the High Court failed to consider relevant case records, rendering the proceedings legally invalid. The Court emphasised that disciplinary actions must not be based on orders that lack comprehensive record reviews and directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to expedite the hearing of related petitions.
8. Allahabad High Court Rules Police Lacks Authority to Investigate Offences Under PCPNDT Act
The Allahabad High Court has held that police are not authorised to investigate or file FIRs for violations of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). The Court emphasised that the PCPNDT Act is a self-contained statute that outlines specific procedures for investigation, search, and seizure, which must be carried out by designated "appropriate authorities." This ruling came in response to a plea by a doctor accused of illegally determining the sex of a fetus, leading the Court to quash the criminal proceedings against him, affirming that only authorised personnel can file complaints under this special law.
9. Allahabad High Court Addresses Age Misrepresentation in POCSO Cases
The Allahabad High Court has criticised the practice of inaccurately depicting victims as minors in POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) cases, labelling it an abuse of the court process. Justice Ajay Bhanot mandated that police must promptly obtain medical reports to determine a victim's age, noting that discrepancies can harm the rights of the accused. The court emphasised the need for accurate age assessments and directed training for doctors involved to ensure adherence to established medical protocols in such sensitive matters.
10. Bombay High Court Rejects Plea for One Nation One Ration Card Scheme in Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the implementation of the One Nation One Ration Card scheme in Maharashtra, citing discrepancies in income limits between the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota and the Food Security Act. The petition highlighted that a family with an annual income of ?8 lakh qualifies for EWS benefits yet does not meet the much lower income ceilings under the Food Security Act. The court advised the petitioners to pursue the matter in the Supreme Court, scheduling the next hearing for October 23.
