1. Cancer Medicine Sold at Ten Times the Price: Supreme Court Flags Uncapped MRP
The Supreme Court raised serious concerns over the absence of effective price controls for life-saving medicines. The Court noted a major difference between the Price to the retailer and the Maximum Retail Price of cancer medicines, including a medicine bought for around ?2,700 but sold for nearly ?27,000. It observed that such large price differences could result in patients being charged excessively and could also affect taxpayer-funded health schemes. The Court described the practice as a form of “broad daylight dacoity” of patients and highlighted the need for stronger mechanisms to regulate medicine prices.
2. Private Universities Cannot Be Run for Profit: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court directed the Central government, States and Union Territories to collect detailed information from private universities and colleges about their finances, admissions, fee structures, use of surplus funds, staff recruitment and grievance-redressal systems. The direction came while the Court considered concerns regarding the functioning and financial practices of private educational institutions. The Court emphasised the need for greater transparency and accountability in the way these institutions operate and use their funds. The information sought is intended to help examine whether private universities are following the legal requirements governing their administration and finances.
3. Police Officers Must Face Inquiry for Failing to Give Written Grounds of Arrest
The Supreme Court held that when an accused is released because police failed to provide written grounds of arrest and the police later seek to re-arrest the person, the investigation must be transferred to another officer. The Court also directed that a departmental inquiry should be initiated against the officers responsible for failing to provide the grounds of arrest. The ruling emphasises the importance of following procedural safeguards during arrest and ensuring accountability when police authorities fail to comply with these requirements. It also seeks to prevent the same officers from continuing an investigation affected by such a violation.
4. NCLT and NCLAT Need Better Infrastructure: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court expressed concern over inadequate infrastructure and a shortage of members at National Company Law Tribunal benches across the country. The Court described the NCLT and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal as important institutions for the functioning of the government and economy and said they should have basic facilities. The observations came while hearing a plea by the NCLT Bar Association regarding member shortages, half-day sittings and infrastructure problems. The Court highlighted that proper facilities and sufficient members are necessary for these tribunals to function effectively and handle cases without unnecessary delays.
5. Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Stepdaughter Murder Case
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of repeatedly raping and murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter. While upholding his conviction, the Court directed that he remain in prison for the rest of his natural life without remission. This means that although the death penalty was removed, the sentence requires the convict to remain imprisoned for the remainder of his life. The case involved serious offences against the child, and the Court maintained the conviction while modifying the punishment from death to imprisonment for the convict’s natural life.
6. Supreme Court Issues Guidelines to Prevent Misuse of POCSO in Custody Cases
The Supreme Court laid down nationwide safeguards to prevent the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in matrimonial and child-custody disputes. The Court recognised concerns regarding allegations under the Act being raised during custody battles and issued guidelines to ensure that such cases are handled carefully. The safeguards aim to protect children while also ensuring that the criminal law is not misused in family disputes. The Court’s directions provide a framework for courts and authorities handling POCSO allegations that arise in matrimonial and custody proceedings.
7. Election Commissioner Appointment Law Issue Referred to Larger Bench
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma referred to a larger bench the issue of whether Parliament was justified in excluding a neutral member from the selection panel for appointing Election Commissioners. The matter concerns the constitutional question of Parliament’s power under Article 324(2) of the Constitution to determine the appointment mechanism. Justice Sharma observed that the issue involved a substantial question of law that a two-judge bench could not decide. The larger bench will therefore consider whether the composition of the selection panel under the existing law raises constitutional concerns.
8. Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Patna High Court Ruling
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a Patna High Court ruling concerning allegations of sexual assault. The High Court had held that removing a woman’s salwar and pressing her chest was not sufficient to establish the offence of attempt to rape, although the conduct could amount to outraging the woman’s modesty. The Supreme Court described certain observations in the judgment as “offending observations” and decided to examine the matter on its own motion. The proceedings will consider the legal reasoning and observations made by the High Court in relation to the offence of attempt to rape.
9. Supreme Court Seeks Insurance Data on Persons with Disabilities
The Supreme Court asked the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India to provide data on life insurance policies issued to persons with autism, cerebral palsy and Asperger’s syndrome. The Court sought the information to examine whether existing measures had resulted in actual access to life insurance for persons with these conditions. IRDAI was given time to place the relevant details before the Court. The proceedings focus on whether insurance coverage is practically available to persons with disabilities and whether the measures already introduced by authorities have translated into meaningful access to insurance policies.
10. Supreme Court Asks BCI to Consider Removing Upper Age Limit for Five-Year LL.B.
The Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of India to consider withdrawing the upper age limit prescribed for admission to five-year integrated LL.B. courses. The Court said it would examine a legal challenge to the BCI’s power to prescribe such an age restriction if the BCI decided not to withdraw it. The matter therefore concerns both the validity of the age limit and the BCI's authority to impose such a restriction on admission to five-year law programmes. The Court did not decide the validity of the age limit at this stage.
