1. Special Leave Petition Against HC Order Rejecting Review Petition Cannot Be Entertained When Main Judgment is Not Challenged: States SC
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah and R Subhash Reddy observed that a special leave petition challenging the order of High Court rejecting the review petition cannot be entertained when the main judgement in the writ petition is not challenged. The observation was made in the case titled as TK David v. Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
2. Bhartiya Kisan Party Files Petition Against Three Farmer’s Act; states “Parliament Cannot Legislate on State Subject”
The Bhartiya Kisan Party has filed a petition before the Apex Court challenging the constitutional validity of the new Farmer’s Act on the grounds that the legislation violates the basic features of the Constitution of India. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that ‘agriculture’ is a State subject under List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Parliament does not have power to make laws on this subject.
3. SC Asks Centre to Submit Details Concerning Criminal Cases Pending Against Legislators
A Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice NV Ramana asked the Centre to submit details on criminal cases pending against legislators across the country. It was stated that “The matters which are pending and hanging on the head of the people, you must take final call…”
4. Gujarat HC Holds Yatin Oza Guilty of Contempt of Court
A Bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising of Justices Sonia Gokani and NV Anjaria held Advocate Yatin Oza guilty of contempt of Court. The verdict was pronounced in the suo moto contempt case initiated by the High Court after the Advocate, who is also the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Associations, made public allegations of maladministration of justice within the High Court. The Court noted that Yatin Oza had targeted the HC Registry on frivolous grounds and unverified facts, and had questioned the very credibility of the Administration of the High Court.
5. Bombay HC Grants Bail to Actor Rhea Chakraborthy in NDPS Case
The High Court of Bombay granted bail to actor Rhea Chakraborthy in the case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau on the allegation that she had facilitated the procurement of drugs for the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The Bench of Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that she is not guilty of any offence punishable under Sections 19, 24, or 27A or any other offence involving commercial quantity. The Court also observed that there was no reason for the Special Court to order denial of bail on the basis that she might destroy evidence. However, the court rejected the argument made by the actor’s lawyers that offences involving small quantities of contraband are bailable. The court observed that all NDPS offences are non-bailable, irrespective of contraband quantity.
6. Conditions for Grant of Bail Should Balance Public Interest in the Enforcement of Criminal Justice with the Rights of Accused: States SC
The Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee observed that the conditions which a court imposes for the grant of bail have to balance the public interest in the enforcement of criminal justice with the rights of the accused. The Court also observed that the discretion of the court has to be guided by the requirement to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, intimidate the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The observations were made in the appeal titled as Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra.
7. Mere Inclusion of Candidate in a Selection List Does Not Confer Upon Them a Vested Right to Appointment: SC
The Apex Court, in the case, titled as Commissioner of Police and Anr. v. Umesh Kumar, reiterated that mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment. This observation was previously made in the case of Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh.
8. SC Quashes Life Sentence in a 4-Decade-old Murder Case; states Accused Was a Juvenile at the Time of Occurrence
A Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna set aside the life imprisonment sentence of a person accused in a murder case that occurred in 1981 noting that he was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. Accordingly, the court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to pass orders regarding detention and custody under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The decision was made in the case of Satya Deo @ Bhoorey v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
9. NRI Quota Not Compulsory in Medical Admission: SC
The Supreme Court, in the case titled as Nilay Gupta v. Chairman, NEET PG Medical and Dental Admission/Counselling Board 2020, held that it is not compulsory for private medical colleges to provide for 15% NRI Quota and that the Colleges have the discretion to abolish it.
10. Related Witnesses’ Testimony, if Found Truthful, can be the Basis of Conviction: SC
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy observed that testimony of the related witness if found truthful, can be the basis of conviction. The court also observed that past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony. This observation was made by the Apex Court in the case of Karulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh.