The Supreme Court fortnightly: 15 important judgments from October 1 to 15, 2023

In this fortnightly series, Bar & Bench brings you 15 important judgments and orders passed by the Supreme Court of India.Below are our picks for the first two weeks of October 2023..1. ED must supply grounds of arrest to PMLA accused in writing; should not be vindictive: Supreme CourtCase Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and OthersA Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PV Sanjay Kumar ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must supply in writing the grounds of arrest to persons accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).The Court took strong exception to the conduct of the ED in its probe against and arrest of M3M India directors Basant Bansal and Pankaj Bansal. It further stated that the central agency acted arbitrarily while exercising its powers in the matter.The Court stressed that every action of ED is expected to be transparent, above board and conforming to pristine standards of fair play in action and that the agency is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct. It said that the accused has a constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the grounds of arrest.It also held that mere reading of the grounds of arrest would not be an adequate compliance with the mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the PMLA..2. Company can be prosecuted if it did not disown authorized agent’s defamatory statements: Supreme Court Case Title: M/S Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GmbH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and AnotherA Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Dipankar Gupta held that a company can be prosecuted for defamatory statements made by its authorized agent or Power of Attorney holder if it has not cautioned the agent against doing so or has not disowned such statements.The Court added that there was no reason to nip a defamation case in the bud on the specious ground that an authorized agent is always supposed to act lawfully.It said that a magistrate, while deciding whether to issue process, can also prevent a frivolous complaint from triggering an unnecessary trial..3. Supreme Court objects to Rajasthan High Court mentioning caste of accused in title of judgmentCase Title: State of Rajasthan v. GautamA Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said that the caste or religion of an accused person has no relevance when a court is deciding his case and the same should never be mentioned in the title of the judgment.The Court took exception to the Rajasthan High Court and a trial court mentioning the caste of the accused in the cause title of the judgment in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act)..4. Supreme Court all-woman bench gives split verdict in medical termination of pregnancy caseCase Title: X v. Union of India and OthersA Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and BV Nagarathna delivered a split verdict in a case concerning the medical termination of pregnancy of a married woman who was in the 26th week of pregnancy.The matter involved a married couple who had conceived a third time. The pregnancy had crossed the legally permissible limit of 24 weeks for abortions under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act).The Bench passed a split verdict, with Justice Kohli not being in favour of termination of the pregnancy. Justice Nagarathna opined that the view of the mother should be respected over claims of viability of the foetus..5. No judge shall decline request for video conference hearing; publish VC links in causelists: Supreme Court to High CourtsCase Title: Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High CourtA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took a stern view of High Courts discontinuing virtual hearing facilities after the COVID-19 pandemic.The Court observed that no judge shall decline requests made by lawyers or litigants for a hearing through video conference and that every High Court must make available such facilities.The Court, therefore, directed State governments to provide the necessary infrastructure for it within two months. It added that WiFi should be also made available free of charge to advocates and litigants..6. 2021 order extending limitation during COVID also applies to delay period condonable by courts: Supreme CourtCase Title: Aditya Khaitan and Others v. IL and FS Financial Services LimitedA Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan clarified that a 2021 suo motu order passed by the Court during the COVID-19 pandemic not only extended the period of limitation for filing cases, replies, etc. but was also applicable to the delay condonable by courts in such matters..7. Acquittal in criminal case does not imply closure of disciplinary proceedings: Supreme CourtCase Title: State Bank of India and Others v. P ZadengaA Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol held that an employee's acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically mean that they are entitled to be discharged from disciplinary proceedings initiated over the same incident.It noted that the nature of criminal cases is distinct from departmental proceedings..8. Accused has no right to produce any material at the time of framing of charge: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh RaoA Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar held that at the stage of framing charges, the accused does not have the right to produce any material or documents to contest the case.The Court further emphasized that at the charge stage, the trial court should base its decision solely on the chargesheet provided by the prosecution, presuming the material to be true for the purpose of determining the existence of a prima facie case..9. Only that person who was responsible for conduct of company's affairs at the time of cheque dishonour is liable: Supreme CourtCase Title: Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics LimitedA Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar clarified the principles relating to liability of a director of a company for the dishonour of a cheque issued by the company.Referring to Section 141(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the Court said, "only that person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.".10. Advocates cannot claim right of legal representation under Industrial Disputes Act: Supreme Court answers referenceCase Title: Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited and Others v. Suresh Maruti Chougule and OthersA three-judge Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia affirmed that an advocate cannot claim the right of legal representation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.The Court agreed with the view expressed in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs. Their Workmen (1977). The issue that arose before the Bench was whether the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act dealing with the aspects of representation by either of the parties through a specific lawyer and limitation thereon, needs to be re-looked.In Paradip Port Trust, the Supreme Court had clarified the application of this provision and held that legal practitioners who were officers of companies or corporations and not actively practicing as advocates could still represent the entities in legal matters..11. Will cannot be presumed to be valid merely because it is registered: Supreme CourtCase Title: Dhani Ram (died) through LRs. and others v. Shiv SinghA Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar held that mere registration would not sanctify a document.The Court had held that valid execution of a Will in this case had not been proved despite its registration. It found that the essential legal requirements, under Sections 68 (Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested) and 71 (Proof when attesting witness denies the execution) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 (Execution of unprivileged Wills) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had not been established to prove the execution of the Will in question..12. Courts should be sensitive in cases of crimes against women, ensure criminals do not escape on technicalities: Supreme CourtCase Title: Balvir Singh v. State of UttarakhandA Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Prashant Mishra underscored the importance of sensitivity in such cases to ensure that justice prevails and wrongdoers are held accountable. In doing so, the Court upheld the conviction of a husband in a case related to the murder of his wife and domestic cruelty against her.The Court also reiterated the crucial role that courts play in ensuring justice, especially in cases involving crimes against women..13. Supreme Court refuses to halt transfer of AFT member Justice DC Chaudhary but seeks Centre's response on divesting AFT from MOD controlCase Title: Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of IndiaA Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra declined to interfere with the transfer of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) judicial member Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary from Chandigarh to the Kolkata bench of the tribunal.However, the Court sought the Central government's response on the wider prayer to divest control over the AFT from the Union Ministry of Defence (MOD).This prayer was made by the AFT Bar Association at Chandigarh in view of concerns that the MOD has been interfering in the functioning of AFTs, thereby denting its independence..14. Section 50 NDPS Act not applicable to recovery from bag carried by a person: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal PradeshA Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala held that the conditions for personal search as specified in Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act are applicable only for the search of the physical body of the person and not for the search of any bag carried by the person..15. Article 142 cannot be invoked against statutory provision of SARFAESI Act : Supreme CourtCase Title: Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Private Limited and OthersA Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi held that the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, though wide in their amplitude, cannot be exercised to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case.The Court reiterated that when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. .1. Supreme Court orders enquiry to examine whether NCLAT bench defied top court's orderCase Title: Orbit Electricals Private Limited v. Deepak Kishan ChhabariaA three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra ordered National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan to inquire into allegations that a bench of the NCLAT defied the apex court's order.The Court passed the direction after it was informed that despite an order passed by the top court asking NCLAT to defer pronouncement of verdict, the NCLAT proceeded to pass an order in defiance of the apex court's direction..2. Autonomy of mother triumphs, but can child be put to death on judicial order? Supreme Court in abortion pleaCase Title: X v. Union of India and AnotherA Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra found itself torn on whether it should permit a married woman's plea to abort a 26-week pregnancy after a doctor indicated that the foetus could be born with a heartbeat if it is delivered at present.During the hearing, CJI Chandrachud said that the Court must balance the rights of the unborn child with the choice of the mother.Given the advanced stage of the pregnancy, he also questioned if the only course available was to put the unborn child "to death under a judicial order."Later, the Court had went on to reject a plea to abort a pregnancy that had crossed the threshold of 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) in view of a medical report that the foetus is viable..3. Maharashtra Speaker cannot defeat our orders: Supreme Court urges for quick decision on disqualification of rebel MLAsCase Title: Sunil Prabhu v. The Speaker, Maharashtra State Legislative AssemblyIn this case, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra pulled up the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for the delay in deciding on the disqualification proceedings against rebel Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) of the erstwhile Shiv Sena party.The Court said that the decision has to be taken well before the next elections and that the proceedings cannot go on till they become infructuous..4. Should judgment in Bangalore Water Supply case be reconsidered when it has survived 45 years? Supreme Court asksCase Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir SinghA Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked whether the Bangalore Water Supply judgment of 1978 should be reconsidered at all when it has held the field for 45 years.The Jai Bir Singh case is slated to be heard by a nine-bench Constitution bench of the Supreme Court.The key question in the Jai Bir Singh case is whether the definition of ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) should be read restrictively..5. Supreme Court seeks Centre's reply in plea against automatic termination of Indian citizenship upon acquiring another citizenshipCase Title: Tarunabh Khaitan v. Union of India and OthersA Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh sought the Central government's reply in a plea challenging the automatic termination of Indian citizenship upon acquiring the citizenship of another country.The Court issued notice on the plea filed by constitutional scholar and Public Law Chair at the London School of Economics Tarunabh Khaitan..6. Supreme Court slams Central government for approaching CJI with oral request to recall order of another benchNo intra-court appeals can be filed by bypassing any of the Supreme Court benches, a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Hima Kohli held.The Court made the observation while pulling up the Central government for approaching the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with an oral request to recall an earlier order passed by the two judges to allow the termination of a 26-week pregnancy.Taking exception to such conduct, Justice Nagarathna verbally remarked,"In the absence of any application being filed or pleadings, how can you seek that a three-judge bench hear an intra-court appeal? Without filing a recall application you moved the honourable Chief Justice of India? I certainly do not support this. Every bench here is the Supreme Court...There is a way to overturn a court order, not like this...".7. Supreme Court directs State Information Commissions under RTI Act to provide hybrid hearing facilitiesCase Title: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of IndiaA Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra directed all State Information Commissions (SICs) to establish a hybrid system to hear complaints and appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).It observed that access to justice is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and an essential component of the freedom of speech.The Court also emphasized that the use of technology is no longer a choice, but a necessity. It noted that the Central Information Commission (CIC) conducts its proceedings in a hybrid manner, which eases access for citizens..8. Supreme Court summons Jharkhand Chief Secretary, slams State for 'sleeping over' 20-year-old case on back wagesCase Title: Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karamchari Maha Sangh & Ors v. Union of IndiaA Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal directed the Jharkhand Chief Secretary to remain personally present in court after taking exception to the Jharkhand government not appointing counsel in a case concerning payment of back wages dating back 20 years."In such a sensitive matter, the State of Jharkhand has been sleeping over it and not even concerned with engaging a counsel in this matter. Let the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand to remain present before this Court..." the Court ordered..Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - September 16 to 30, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - September 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - August 16 to 31, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - August 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - July 16 to 31, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - July 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court during summer vacation - June 1 to 30, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - May 16 to 30, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - May 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - April 16 to 30, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - April 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - March 15 to 31, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - March 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - February 15 to 28, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - February 1 to 15, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - January 15 to 31, 2023 here.Read the Supreme Court fortnightly - January 1 to 15, 2023 here.