Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [April 3-8, 2023]

Union of India and OrsClick here[2] to

[Unclaimed Public Funds] The Supreme Court sought the Ministry of Finance's response in a plea by journalist Sucheta Dalal pertaining to unclaimed money of investors and depositors taken by various regulators and remaining inaccessible to rightful legal heirs. The petition submitted that unclaimed funds of the public that get transferred to Government owned funds on the ground that the same were not claimed by the legal heirs/nominees, should be made available to said legal heirs/ nominees by providing information of holders of inoperative/ dormant accounts on a centralized online database.Bench: CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices PardiwalaCase Title: Sucheta Dalal vs. Union of India and OrsClick here[3] to

[Unlawful hysterectomies] The Central Government on Wednesday placed before the Supreme Court an Action Plan to deal with the issue of unlawful and unnecessary hysterectomies.

This plan was filed in response to a PIL pertaining to the inadequacy of government healthcare programmes in the states of Rajasthan, Bihar and Chhattisgarh. We propose a strong and robust mechanism of monitoring and evaluation. There has to be reporting of the hysterectomies, causes especially for women below age of 40", ASG Bhati tol court.

Bench: CJI and Justice PardiwalaCase Title: Dr. Narendra Gupta vs Union of India and OrsClick here[4] to

[Same Sex Marriage] The Delhi Commission for the Protection Of Child Rights (DCPCR) has filed an intervention application in the petition seeking recognition for same-sex marriages under various statutory enactments such as the Special Marriage Act, the Foreign Marriage Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, and others. Referring to the questions raised by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in one of the hearings in the case, relating to the potential impact of the legalisation of same-sex marriages on issues around adoption rights, Court has been told that from a psychological point of view, multiple studies on same-sex parenting have demonstrated that same sex couples can be good parents, or not, in the same manner that heterosexual parents can be a good parent or not.

Case Title: Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborthy vs. Union of India & Anr. (a batch of petitions)Click here[5] to

[Challenge To Places Of Worship Act, 1991] The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered that a three-judge bench will be hearing the challenge made to the provisions of the Places of Worship Act 1991 in July.A CJI Chandrachud led bench was informed that counter by UoI had still not been filed. "Post this in July before a three-judge bench. Centre can file reply by then if it seeks to do so", ordered the Top Court.Bench: CJI and Justice PardiwalaCase Title: Ashwini Upadhyay vs.

Union of IndiaClick here[6] to

[Contai Municipal Election Vote Rigging] Supreme Court said that it would hear the challenge to Calcutta High Court's order directing Central Forensic Laboratory to audit CCTV cameras used during Contai (West Bengal) Municipality election to ascertain whether there were instances of violence and vote rigging on July 11. In May last year, a bench of Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant had stayed the said order [7]of Calcutta High Court and the proceeding in the PIL filed by BJP leader Somendu Adhikari in which he sought the court directions to set aside the election results. The bench remarked that the court entertaining a PIL of this nature will set a dangerous precedent as any party that is not in power can file a PIL for cancellation of election.Bench: CJI Chandrachud and Justice Pardiwala Case Title: West Bengal State Election Commission vs.

Soumendhu AdhikariClick here[8] to

[Guidelines for ED, CBI] The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by 14 opposition political parties[9] seeking pre-arrest and post-arrest guidelines for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) citing arbitrary arrest of opposition leaders. "We are not going to entertain this.. you can come back to us with individual cases, or a group of individuals. Supreme Court cannot lay down guidelines in an abstract way...", a CJI Chandrachud led bench said. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, had told the Court that there was a skewed application of CBI and ED jurisdictions which lead to a non-levelled and undemocratic playing field.Bench: CJI Chandrachud and Justice Pardiwala Case Title: Indian National Congress & Ors. vs.

Union of India & Ors.Click here[10] to

[MediaOne Ban] Supreme Court set aside the ban imposed on TV channel Media One which had been taken off air after the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had revoked its security clearance. Noting that some of the reports cited by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting were that minority favoring reports were telecasted, critiquing UAPA, NRC, CAA and criticism of judiciary and executive, the Supreme Court said that, "There is nothing to show terrorist links. National security claims cannot be made on the basis of thin air.

It is seen that none of the material is against national security or threatens public order."Bench: CJI Chandrachud led benchCase Title: Madhayamam Broadcasting vs. Union of IndiaClick here[11] to

[Injured Witness] The Supreme Court last week held that the evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the Court said, the presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.Bench: Justices Sudhashu Dhulia and JB PardiwalaCase Title: BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER vs.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAClick here[12] to

[NDPS Act] The Supreme Court has recently held that grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, would not be fettered by Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act').".., it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable", a division bench has held. While analyzing Section 37 of the NDPS Act which deals with offences being cognizable and non-bailable under the Act, the Division bench relied on the most recent decision of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation wherein prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act and the court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.Bench: Justices Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar DattaCase Title: MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAIN vs.

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)Click here[13] to