1. CAQM in no hurry to identify causes of Delhi’s worsening air pollution: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Commission for Air Quality Management for its lack of urgency in addressing Delhi’s worsening air pollution crisis. Observing that the Commission appeared to be dragging its feet, the Court directed CAQM to stop delaying the process and to identify the specific causes contributing to poor air quality in the National Capital Region within two weeks.
2. A judge cannot be dismissed from service for mere failure to cite a legal provision while granting bail: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of a senior Madhya Pradesh judicial officer, holding that disciplinary action against a judge cannot be based solely on judicial orders passed in bail matters. The Court clarified that mere failure to cite a specific legal provision while granting bail does not amount to misconduct and that such action is unjustified in the absence of any material indicating corruption, bias or extraneous considerations.
3. Wealthy persons challenge laws when booked: The Supreme Court, on money laundering accused, challenging the PMLA
The Supreme Court observed that persons with financial resources often tend to challenge the constitutional validity of laws once they are booked under them. Making the remark while hearing a plea by lawyer Gautam Khaitan in a money laundering case linked to the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal, the Court told him to face trial like any other citizen instead of questioning the statute at that stage.
4. Bar on attending rallies, distributing posters: Bail conditions set by the Supreme Court on 5 Delhi Riots accused
While granting bail to five accused in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case, the Supreme Court imposed stringent conditions, including a prohibition on attending rallies, public meetings or protests. The Court also restrained the accused from circulating posters, banners or making social media posts related to the case, emphasising the need to balance personal liberty with public order.
5. Limitation Act not applicable to Tribunals unless expressly provided in law: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to courts and not to tribunals by default. The Court clarified that quasi-judicial bodies, such as tribunals, can condone delay only if the statute governing them expressly confers that power, reiterating that limitation provisions cannot be applied by implication.
6. Received letters from across the country on issues with private universities: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court noted that it had received representations from across the country raising concerns over the governance and regulation of private universities. Observing that the matter involves significant public interest, the Court acknowledged the widespread dissatisfaction with regulatory mechanisms in higher education institutions.
7. Can't Lok Sabha continue Justice Yashwant Varma's impeachment even if Rajya Sabha rejects the motion? Supreme Court asks
The Supreme Court questioned whether impeachment proceedings against Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma in the Lok Sabha can continue if a similar motion is rejected by the Rajya Sabha. The Court raised doubts over the prevailing interpretation while hearing Justice Varma’s challenge to the constitution of a committee under the Judges Act.
8. Supreme Court flags 23-year delay in dowry death case; asks HCs to prioritise stayed trials
The Supreme Court recently expressed concern over a 23-year delay in the commencement of trial in a dowry death case and held that criminal proceedings cannot remain stalled indefinitely due to interim orders. Directing all High Courts to prioritise such matters, the Court emphasised that prolonged stays defeat the ends of justice.
9. Stray dogs case should not end up like Aravalli case, engage domain experts: AM Singhvi to the Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi urged the Supreme Court to involve domain experts in dealing with the stray dog issue, warning against issuing irreversible interim directions. Referring to the Court’s Aravalli mining ruling, he cautioned that decisions taken without expert input could have unintended long-term consequences.
10. States cannot back out of promised incentives after industries invest money: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that State governments cannot withdraw industrial incentives after companies have made investments relying on policy assurances. Invoking the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, the Court ruled that the State is bound to honour commitments that induce investment decisions.
