Supreme Court reopens after summer vacation; important judgments in the pipeline

As the Supreme Court of India reopens after a month-and-a-half long summer recess, several crucial judgments are in the pipeline..The Court closed for summer holidays on May 20 and reopened on Monday, July 8. .Below are some of the important judgments the top will deliver in the coming weeks..Legality of Arvind Kejriwal's arrestThe Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Arvind Kejriwal's petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The judgment will be delivered by the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.The Delhi chief minister was arrested on March 21 in a money-laundering case in which the apex court placed him on interim bail from May 10 to June 1 for campaigning in the Lok Sabha elections. It ordered him to surrender on June 2 and go back to jail. The matter relates to alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and execution of the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22, which has now been scrapped..The thrust of the petition by Kejriwal was that Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not complied with since "reasons to arrest" him were not sufficient or in consonance with the evidence obtained. Section 19 of PMLA allows the central agency to arrest a person if it has "reasons to believe" that he is guilty of the offence of money laundering.Senior Advocate AM Singhvi had argued that there was no iota of material in the grounds of arrest. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, today argued that the material being cited by ED now to defend Kejriwal's arrest was not present during his arrest."Every material in ground of arrest predates July, August 2023. All this evidence was in Sisodia case... so what was new in Arvind Kejriwal case ... evidence is all prior to August 2023," Singhvi said.He also pointed out the delay in arresting Kejriwal though the probe into the case began more than 1.5 years ago."Over 1.5 years, they conducted the investigation. No action against Kejriwal. There was no necessity to arrest based on material that was there with ED in July-August 2023," Singhvi argued. .Delhi LG’s power to nominate aldermen to MCD.A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala will deliver its verdict on plea by the Delhi government challenging the Delhi Lieutenant Governor's (LG) power to nominate ten aldermen to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).The bench while reserving judgment in May last year had orally remarked that LG, with the power to nominate members to the MCD, can effectively destabilise the democratically-elected MCD.The petition by the Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi government has sought the quashing of order dated January 3 and 4 of 2023 whereby the LG nominated 10 persons as members of the MCD.Lieutenant Governor has “illegally” appointed 10 nominated members to the MCD on his own initiative and not on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the plea stated.The plea added that is the first time since Article 239AA of the Constitution came into effect in 1991 that such a nomination has been made by the Lieutenant Governor completely by-passing the elected government, thereby arrogating to an unelected office a power that belongs to the duly elected government, it was contended by the Delhi government..Validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act.A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra will shortly deliver its verdict in the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act concerns grant of citizenship to immigrants who are covered by the Assam Accord.As per Section 6A, people who entered India between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 and have been living in Assam, will be allowed to register themselves as citizens. The outcome of this case will have a major bearing on the National Register of Citizens (NRC) list.The Court had earlier noted that the provision was introduced partly to remedy the atrocities committed on the population of East Bengal in the aftermath of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.Therefore, it cannot be likened to an amnesty scheme for illegal immigrants in general, the bench had orally observed. The CJI had observed that the validity of the Section cannot be determined by political developments that arose after its enactment.The petitioners had argued that protection of culture of an area cannot be elevated to the extent of denying nationality to others, as the citizenry then moves from civic nationalism to cultural nationalism..Validity of the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University.A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by CJI Chandrachud will deliver verdict in the batch of petitions to examine the correctness of the 1968 verdict by a five-judge bench that took away the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).The top court will decide whether AMU enjoys minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Article 30 of the Constitution provides that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.AMU was held to be a Central University by the Supreme Court in the 1968 case of S Azeez Basha vs Union of India. In the said case, the Court also held that minority status under Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution cannot be conferred on a Central University.However, the minority status of the institute was later reinstated by the parliament by bringing in an amendment to the AMU Act of 1920. The amendment was brought about in the year 1981.This was challenged before the Allahabad High Court which in 2006 set aside the amendment as being unconstitutional, leading to the instant appeals by AMU before the Supreme Court.Notably, in 2016, the Central government withdrew its appeal in the matter and argued in support of 1968 judgment. .Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for AMU, argued that AMU never surrendered its minority rights, as argued by the Central government."If in 1950 I was an institution established by a minority, then there is no question of surrendering everything. Secular structure cannot be discarded at all. Why do you want to take this university over, which is anathema to the constitutional values," the university contended..Patanjali misleading ads caseThe apex court will deliver its judgment in contempt proceedings against yoga guru Baba Ramdev, his close associate Acharya Balkrishna and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, the company they co-founded, for defying a court undertaking to not publish misleading advertisements of their herbal products in violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah while reserving the judgment was informed by Senior advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Patanjali, that the original newspaper cuttings of the public apologies issued by the trio have been filed in court..The Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority also stated that they had suspend the manufacturing of 14 Patanjali products.The Court had initiated contempt proceedings on February 27 for violating an undertaking given by Patanjali to the Court in November 2023 that they would refrain from advertising “cures” in violation of the 1954 Act. On November 21, 2023, the top court had directed the company to not make any “casual statements” to the print or electronic media about the efficacy of their medicinal products. However, this was not adhered to by the duo leading to contempt of court proceedings against them..West Bengal suit alleging Centre's misuse of CBI .A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta will decide on the maintainability of the suit filed by the State of West Bengal against the Central government over the latter's alleged misuse of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).The suit filed by the Trinamool Congress government has said that the State had withdrawn general consent for the CBI to investigate cases in West Bengal. Therefore, it has been contended that the CBI can no longer proceed with probes in West Bengal.When the CBI is allowed to enter a State for investigation, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) generally follows suit and the same has huge implications for Indian polity, the State has contended..The present case arose following the results of the State Legislative Assembly elections in West Bengal in May 2021.After the elections, many persons who had to flee their houses due to the violence approached the High Court claiming that they were not being allowed to return home by the workers of the ruling TMC. The High Court directed a CBI probe, and the State approached the top court assailing the same in a suit..Can private property be termed as material resources of community? .A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will deliver judgment on whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution and thus taken over by state authorities to subserve the "common good".The verdict will be pronounced by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih..The case reached the nine-judge bench in view of the two conflicting views taken by the top court in 1978, in cases which dealt with the nationalisation of road transport services.The nine-judge Bench will also settle the position on Article 31C of the Indian Constitution, which protects laws enacted to secure the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) laid down in Part IV of the Constitution. .State’s power to regulate industrial alcohol.A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is slated to deliver judgment on whether the Central government can have exclusive control over industrial alcohol without giving States even the opportunity to regulate its inflow and clandestine conversion to potable liquor for human consumption, posing a grave threat to public health.The Constitution Bench is to settle a tussle between the Union and States over power to levy tax, manufacture, produce alcohol.The Centre has claimed that industrial alcohol is an “industry” controlled by the Union government in public interest under a parliamentary law. Such an industry is covered by Entry 52 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the ConstitutionHowever, States like Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh have raised alarm about industrial alcohol being used to make intoxicating liquor. In such cases, States cannot remain mute spectators and wait for tragedy to strike, it has been contended..Is royalty paid by mining operators a tax?.A nine-judge constitution bench will deliver its verdict on whether royalty paid to the Central government by mining operators constitutes a tax. The matter is the oldest pending 9-judge bench case before the apex court.It also involves the issue of whether State governments are denuded of powers to tax and regulate mines and minerals in view of the enactment of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act (Mines Act).In February 1995, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had in State of Madhya Pradesh v Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd upheld Section 9 of the Mines Act and reiterated the 1989 decision.In January 2004, a five-judge bench in State of West Bengal v Kesoram Industries Ltd by a 3:2 majority held that the 1989 bench had made a typo and only meant to say that cess on royalty is a tax and not royalty itself.In March 2011, a three-judge bench held that there was a “prima facie” conflict between the decisions in India Cements and Kesoram Industries, leading to the instant reference.The Central government has argued that States cannot levy taxes on mineral-bearing lands, and the royalties levied by the former eventually go to the latter only..Sub-classification of SC/STsA seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court led by CJI DY Chandrachud will deliver its verdict on the legality of sub-classifying reserved category groups, viz. the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes..The Court is dealing with a case concerning the validity of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which involved the sub-classification of reserved category communities.This law was struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, leading to an appeal by the Punjab government before the top court.The matter was eventually referred to a seven-judge bench of the top court in 2020.The seven-judge bench was called to hear the case after a five-judge bench disagreed with the decision rendered in the EV Chinnaiah case which had deemed sub-categorisation of castes as unconstitutional.During hearings, CJI had noted that the inclusion or exclusion of communities should not be reduced to appeasement politics."If there are a host of backward classes, can the State pick out only two, for example? Those who are excluded can always challenge under Article 14 but the State can rebut by saying we are looking at the extent of backwardness. But while conferring benefits you cannot exclude, else it will become a dangerous trend of appeasement. The idea is not for popular politics to play out in this. We will have to tailor it by laying down criteria," the CJI had remarked..Central government not against reservation; supports sub-classification of reserved classes: SG Tushar Mehta to Supreme Court