Major Legal Judgements (2023-2024) - 4 | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

April 2024

Ravishankar Tandon v. State of Chhatisgarh

• Date of Judgment: 10th April 2024 
• Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta 

Case Background:

• On December 2, 2011, Ramavtar (PW-1) filed a missing person report for his son Dharmendra Satnami (the deceased) at Police Station Kunda. 
• During the investigation, the accused confessed to strangling the deceased and disposing of his body in a pond. 
• The police recovered the body based on their statements. 

Allegations:

• Dinesh Chandrakar (Accused No. 3) allegedly hired Ravishankar Tandon (Accused No. 1) and Satyendra Kumar Patre (Accused No. 4) to murder the deceased for Rs. 90,000. 
• They conspired with Umend Prasad Dhritalhare (Accused No. 2) to kill the deceased and dispose of his body. 

Trial Court Verdict:

• Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were convicted under Sections 302 read with 34, 120B, and 201 of the IPC. 
• Accused No. 4 was convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120B of the IPC. 

High Court Decision:

• The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all the appellants. 
• The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the body was discovered solely based on the accused's statements. 
• Witnesses had prior knowledge of the death and location before the statements were made. 
• The prosecution did not establish any incriminating circumstances against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 
• The chain of circumstances did not support the guilt of the appellants. 

Relevant Provision:

• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Allows proof of information received from an accused regarding a discovered fact, even if it amounts to a confession. 

Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan v. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki

• Date of Judgment: 09.04.2024 
• Bench Strength:. Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Anuradha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia 

Case Background:

• Thiyyer Kunnath Meethal Chandu (Chandu) filed a partition suit in 1985 claiming 8/20 shares in a property against defendants who were successors of Sankaran. 
• Chandu and Sankaran were uterine brothers, with Chandu being the son of Chiruthey and Neelakandan, and Sankaran being the son of Chiruthey and Madhavan. 
• The suit property originally belonged to Madhavan and his mother Nangeli, who mortgaged it in 1900. 
• In 1910, three deeds were executed regarding the property, leading to disputes over ownership. 

Trial Court Decision:

• The Trial Court ruled in favor of Chandu, supporting his claim for partition. 
• It determined that Chiruthey had acquired title over the property through various transactions, which subsequently devolved to Chandu. 

First Appellate Court Decision:

• The First Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court's decision. 
• It argued that Chiruthey lost her rights to Madhavan's property upon her remarriage, citing the Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856. 

High Court Decision:

• The High Court reinstated the Trial Court's ruling, agreeing with Chandu's claims. 
• It validated the 1910 deeds and Chiruthey's rights to execute them. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court ruled that Chiruthey forfeited her rights to the suit property upon her second marriage to Neelakandan, according to the Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856. 
• It acknowledged the legitimacy of the lease deed (Exhibit A-20) but emphasized that Chiruthey could not convey rights she did not possess. 
• The Court clarified that if a person lacks right, title, or interest in a property, any conveyance by them is invalid, regardless of existing deeds. 
• Chiruthey's status post-1910 was established as a lessee under Exhibit A-1, with no evidence of the lease extending beyond twelve years. 
• The Court determined that the suit property did not devolve to Chandu, who was born to Chiruthey and Neelakandan. 
• The Supreme Court annulled the High Court's decision, upholding the First Appellate Court's ruling and dismissing Chandu's partition suit. 

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, states that a widow's rights in her deceased husband's property cease upon her remarriage, as if she had died. 
• This includes rights by maintenance, inheritance, or limited interest conferred by will, without the power to alienate. 
• The deceased husband's next heirs or other entitled persons succeed to the property on the widow's death. 

Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya v. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau

• Date of Judgment: 09.04.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Anuradha Bose and Justice Augustine George Masih 

Case Background:

• Mrs. Krishna Chaube, an Intelligence Officer, received secret information about Abdul Hamid Chandmiya (Accused No. 04) suspected of carrying narcotic substances in an auto rickshaw. 
• The information was recorded and reported to her superior. When Accused No. 04 appeared in the auto rickshaw, the raiding party attempted to stop it, but it sped away. 
• The abandoned auto rickshaw was later found, and a search revealed charas weighing 1.450 Kilograms and a driving license. 
• The investigation led to the house of Accused No. 04, where Smt. Najmunisha (Accused No. 01) was present. 
• Accused No. 01 had been convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000. 
• The High Court of Gujarat modified her sentence, enhancing the fine to Rs. 1,00,000 and changing the default sentence from one year to three months. 
• Accused No. 04, the husband of Accused No. 01, was also convicted under the NDPS Act and sentenced to thirteen years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. 
• His appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Gujarat. 
• The Supreme Court heard criminal appeals from both Accused No. 01 and Accused No. 04, challenging the High Court's judgment. 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court and Trial Court judgments. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court emphasized the jurisprudence of the NDPS Act, which empowers the state for search and seizure to protect social security, but is limited by fundamental rights and statutory provisions. 
• It clarified that Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination, is not violated by search and seizure powers under the NDPS Act. 
• The Court ruled that such powers do not infringe on fundamental rights, ensuring a balance between state authority and individual rights. 

Relevant Provision:

Article 20 of the Constitution of India: Protection in respect of conviction for offences— 

• No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. 
• No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. 
• No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd v. Afreen Fatima Zaidi and Anr.

• Date of Judgment: 22.04.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar 

Case Summary:

• The appellant, a famous film producer, made a movie called 'Fan' in 2016. 
• Before the movie's release, the appellant shared a promotional trailer that included a song video, both on TV and online. 
• The complainant, a teacher from Aurangabad, saw this trailer and decided to watch the movie with her family because of the song. 
• However, when she watched the film, the song was missing, even though it was widely used in the promotion. 
• Feeling misled, she filed a consumer complaint seeking Rs. 60,550 in damages. 
• The District Consumer Redressal Forum rejected her complaint, stating there was no consumer-service provider relationship. 
• The complainant appealed to the State Commission, which awarded her Rs. 10,000 for mental distress and Rs. 5,000 in costs. 
• The case escalated to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which ruled that including the song in the promo when it wasn't in the movie was deceptive and constituted unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
• The appellant challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, which ultimately sided with the appellant and overturned the NCDRC's ruling. 

Supreme Court's Findings:

• A promotional trailer is a one-sided invitation meant to persuade viewers to buy a ticket for the movie, which is a separate transaction and contract. 
• The trailer itself does not constitute an offer and does not aim to create a contractual relationship. 
• Since the trailer is not an offer, it cannot become a promise. 
• Services involving the presentation of art allow the service provider freedom and discretion, and there was no unfair trade practice or breach of an enforceable contractual promise. 

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pertains to unfair trade practices. 
• After the 2019 amendment, unfair trade practices are covered under Section 2(47). 

March 2024

Naeem v. State of Uttar Pradesh

• Date of Judgment: 05. 03. 2024 
• Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta 

Case Overview:

• Incident Date: 01st December 2016 
• Victim: Shahin Parveen (deceased), a widow living with her children, brother-in-law (accused), and his wife. 
• Accused pressured the victim into immoral trafficking and prostitution. 
• When she refused, her brother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, assisted by his wife and her brother. 

Initial Police Report:

• Victim admitted to Katghar Police Station, Moradabad with severe burns (80% deep thermal and facial). 
• Written report based on victim's complaint led to FIR under Section 307 IPC. 
• Victim's dying declaration recorded on the same day. 
• Victim later transferred to Safdarjung Hospital, where she died, and the case was upgraded to Section 302 IPC. 

Trial Court and High Court:

• Trial court convicted the accused under sections 302 and 34 IPC. 
• Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction. 

Supreme Court Appeal:

• Supreme Court reviewed the dying declaration, finding it reliable. 
• Victim's statement implicated her brother-in-law as the main perpetrator. 
• Other two accused were only said to have assisted. 
• Court upheld conviction of the main accused but granted benefit of doubt to the other two. 

Legal Provisions:

• Section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Statements about cause of death by a deceased person are relevant. 
• Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder includes death or life imprisonment and fines. 

Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & Ors. v. ZEE Entertainment Enterprises Limited

• Date of Judgment: 14th March 2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra 

Case Overview:

• On 21st February 2024, Bloomberg published an article titled "India Regulator Uncovers $241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee," discussing the Zee-Sony merger and an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). 
• Zee filed a defamation suit against Bloomberg and its journalist, claiming the article falsely presented speculations as facts regarding illegal fund diversion. 
• Zee sought a declaration and mandatory injunction, pressing for an ex-parte ad interim injunction against Bloomberg on the first day of the hearing. 
• On 1st March 2024, the Additional District Judge (ADJ) issued an ex-parte ad interim order directing the journalist and editor to take down the article within a week. 
• The ADJ's order was upheld by a single judge of the Delhi High Court on 14th March 2024, leading to the present appeal in the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court explained the three-fold test (prima-facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss) for granting interim relief, applicable to defamation suits. 
• The bench criticized the trial court's application of this test, emphasizing that it should not be applied mechanically. Detailed reasons and analysis are necessary when granting interim relief. 
• The Supreme Court overruled the trial judge's order, highlighting the need for considering additional factors in pre-trial injunctions. 
• The trial judge's order was deemed flawed due to mechanical application, lacking proper reasoning. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) outlines appealable orders, including those related to injunctions and temporary relief. 
• Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC detail circumstances under which temporary injunctions may be granted, including cases of property disputes and breaches of contract. 

Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand

• Date of Judgment: 12.03.2024 
• Bench Strength: 2 Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal 

Case in Brief:

• The accused applied for bail in a case involving serious charges, including murder (Section 302 of the IPC), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B of the IPC), and violations of the Arms Act. 
• The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail application, prompting the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, denying bail to the accused. 
• The Court noted that the trial was at its "fag end," indicating that it was nearing completion. 
• The Supreme Court directed the State of Jharkhand to review the chargesheet for legal compliance and ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) of Jharkhand to submit an action report within four weeks. 
• The Court identified non-compliance with Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the investigating officers in their submission of the chargesheet. 
• This non-compliance was highlighted as a significant legal issue. 
• The Supreme Court instructed police officers in all states to adhere strictly to its directives regarding the submission of police reports, emphasizing that non-compliance would be viewed seriously by the courts. 

Relevant Provision:

Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

• This section outlines the requirements for a police officer to submit a report to a Magistrate after completing an investigation. The report must include details such as the names of the parties involved, the nature of the information, potential witnesses, and information about the accused, including their arrest status. 

Sita Soren v. Union of India

• Date of Judgment: 04.03.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, Pamidighantam Sri Narsimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manoj Misra. 

Case in Brief: An election was held on 30th March 2012 to elect two members of the Rajya Sabha representing the State of Jharkhand which led to initiation this case. 

• The allegation against the appellant (voter) was that she accepted a bribe from an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favor. And she did not cast her vote in favor of the alleged bribe giver and instead cast her vote in favor of a candidate belonging to her own party. 

• The appellant moved the High Court to quash the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings instituted against her. 

• The appellant claimed protection under Article 194(2) of Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and relying on the judgment given in the case of P V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998). 

• The High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the appellant had not cast her vote in favor of the alleged bribe giver and thus, is not entitled to the protection under Article 194(2) of the COI> 

• An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court (SC). 

Verdict: On 20th September 2023, a 5 judge bench recorded prima facie reasons doubting the correctness of the decision in P V Narasimha case and referred the matter to a larger bench of 7 judges. 

• A 7 judge bench overruled the judgment of majority (P V Narasimha case) on the aspect that by virtue of Articles 105 and 194 of the COI a member of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery for casting a vote or speech in the house. 

• SC said that the judgment of the majority in P V Narasimha which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature who was allegedly engaged in bribery for casting vote or speaking has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy. There is a grave danger of this court allowing an error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered. 

Relevant Provisions:

Article 105 of the COI: Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof - 

• Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. 

• No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. 

• In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act 1978. 

• The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament. 

Article 194 (2) of COI: Powers, privileges, etc., of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof- 

• No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. 

February 2024

Rita Dwivedi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,

• Date of Judgement/Order. 12.02.2024 
• Bench Strength. 2 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar 

Case In Brief:

• The petitioner, one of three sisters, filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 
• The petitioner sought the production of respondent No. 9, 'Vibha Dwivedi', alleging that she had been illegally detained by the fourth respondent, 'Smt. Archana Sharma', and her husband, 'Sh. Sachinder Sharma', who had taken her to Canada. 
• The petitioner contended that the detention of respondent No. 9 was illegal and sought intervention from the court to secure her release. 
• The high court denied the petition, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court noted that there is no inherent legal right for an elder sister to exercise guardianship over her sister without a specific court order. 
• The court concluded that a Habeas Corpus petition was not the suitable legal remedy for the petitioner's issue. 
• The petitioner was advised to approach the appropriate court for guardianship over respondent No. 9 if the circumstances justified such action. 
• The court found no reason to overturn the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition. 

Legal Provision:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India: 

• Empowers High Courts to issue writs, including Habeas Corpus, for enforcing rights and other purposes. 
• High Courts can exercise this power regardless of the location of the government or authority involved. 
• Ensures procedural fairness in interim orders and maintains the Supreme Court's power under Article 32. 

Haalesh @ Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi v. State of Karnataka

• Date of Judgment/Order: 02.02.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mittal 

Case Overview:

• The case involves a property dispute between Shivanna (deceased) and his brother Ramanna (Accused No.9). 
• On September 25, 1999, the accused allegedly conspired to kill Shivanna and his family, resulting in Shivanna's death and injuries to his wife and daughter. 
• Eyewitness testimonies, primarily from Shivanna's wife and daughter, were crucial to the prosecution's case. 
• The prosecution presented evidence of unlawful assembly and shared intent to commit murder, leading to convictions under Section 302 in conjunction with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
• The High Court upheld these convictions, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to implicate all appellants under Section 302 IPC in conjunction with Section 149 IPC. 
• Despite challenges to the medical evidence by the defense, the court prioritized eyewitness accounts, confirming that a chopper was the only weapon used in the crime. 
• The court exercised appellate restraint, choosing not to intervene as the lower court findings were not deemed perverse. 
• Consequently, all three appeals were dismissed as lacking substance. 
• Bail for the appellants was revoked, and they were ordered to surrender immediately to serve their remaining sentences. 
• The court upheld the lower courts' judgments, finding no legal errors and basing decisions on available evidence and legal principles. 

Legal Provisions:

• Section 149 of IPC: Every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in furtherance of the common object. 
• Section 302 of IPC: Punishment for murder, which may include death, life imprisonment, and fines. 

Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

• Date of Judgement/Order: February 15, 2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra 

Case Background:

• Petitioners challenged the Electoral Bond Scheme and amendments in the Finance Act 2017 under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
• Amendments affected laws like the Reserve Bank of India Act, Representation of the People Act, Income Tax Act, and Companies Act. 

Amendments Overview:

• Reserve Bank of India Act: Finance Act 2017 allowed scheduled banks to issue electoral bonds. 
• Corporate Contributions: Companies Act 2013 enabled unlimited contributions to political parties, with changes in the Finance Act 2017. 
• Tax Exemption: Section 13A of the Income Tax Act exempted political parties' income from contributions, with auditing requirements. 

Incentives and Transparency:

• Tax Deductions: Sections 80GGB and 80GGC encouraged contributions through tax deductions. 
• Disclosure Changes: Finance Act 2017 allowed contributions via electoral bonds with reduced disclosure requirements. 

Concerns and Implementation:

• RBI Concerns: Risks of currency misuse and money laundering with electoral bonds. 
• ECI Criticism: Lack of transparency and need for corporate funding caps. 
• Implementation: Electoral Bond Scheme started in 2018 amid ongoing challenges. 

Court Verdict Highlights:

• Unconstitutionality: Electoral Bond Scheme and related amendments violate Article 19(1)(a) and are unconstitutional. 
• Article 14 Breach: Removal of corporate contribution caps is arbitrary and breaches Article 14. 
• Disclosure Mandate: Political parties must disclose donor details and bond amounts. 

Directive Issuance:

• Cessation of Electoral Bonds: Court ordered halt on issuance. 
• Disclosure Requirements: SBI to submit purchase details, political party recipients to be disclosed. 
• Publication by ECI: ECI to publish details of political party recipients. 
• Return of Unencashed Bonds: Unencashed bonds to be returned or refunded. 

Legal Provisions Invoked:

• Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws. 
• Article 19: Protection of rights regarding freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, and profession. 

Rajesh Viren Shah v. Redington (India) Limited

• Date of Judgement/Order: 14th February 2024 
• Bench Strength:. Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol 

Case Overview:

• The appellants were Directors in the Respondent Company and resigned from their positions on December 9, 2013, and March 12, 2014, respectively. 
• They were accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) concerning three cheques: 
• Cheque No. 002535 for Rs. 7,10,085/- 
• Cheque No. 002777 for Rs. 1,85,09,054/- 
• Cheque No. 002791 for Rs. 10,00,000/- 
• All cheques were dated March 22, 2014. 
• The cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The respondent served a statutory notice on April 11, 2014, and subsequently filed a complaint. 
• The appellants sought to quash the complaint in the High Court of Madras, but their request was denied. 
• The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision. 

Supreme Court's Decision:

• The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment and allowed the appellants' appeal. 
• The Court clarified that a director could only be held liable for a cheque dishonour after their retirement if it is proven that the company’s act was done with their consent, connivance, or attribution. 
• The Court referred to the proviso in Section 141 of the NI Act, which states that a person responsible for the company's affairs at the time of the offence is liable under Section 138, unless they can prove lack of knowledge or due diligence. 

Legal Provisions:

Section 138 of the NI Act:

• Deals with the dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds. 
• Specifies the conditions under which a person is deemed to have committed an offence, including the presentation of the cheque, notice to the drawer, and failure to make payment. 

Section 141 of the NI Act:

• Addresses offences by companies under Section 138. 
• Holds individuals in charge of and responsible for the company’s conduct at the time of the offence liable, along with the company. 
• Provides defences for individuals proving lack of knowledge or due diligence. 
• Establishes liability for directors, managers, or officers of the company if the offence is committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect. 

January 2024

Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors.

• Date of Judgement/Order. 12.01.2024 
• Bench Strength. 3 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar 

Case In Brief:

• The suit was related to a property gifted to the appellants by their great-grandmother. 
• In response to their suit, two of the three defendants did not file a written statement resulting to which the trial court pronounced judgment against them. 
• SC was dealing with the scenario where defendant fails to submit written statement. 

Verdict:

• Recording of Prima Facie Satisfaction: Interim relief in a civil suit should be preceded by a prima facie satisfaction regarding the suit's maintainability. 
• Grant of Interim Relief on Assumption: Courts should not grant interim relief based on assumptions without addressing the issue of maintainability. 
• Appropriate Order in Extraordinary Situations: Courts may issue interim orders in extraordinary situations to prevent irreparable harm or ensure proceedings are not rendered infructuous. 
• Failure to File Written Statement: Merely failing to file a written statement does not automatically entitle a defendant to a favorable judgment. 

Legal Provision:

• Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Deals with the procedure when a party fails to present a written statement as required by the court. 

Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey

Date of Judgement/Order: January 29, 2024

Bench Strength: Judges

Composition of Bench: Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta

Case Overview: The appellant, accused under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the complainant, filed an appeal against the prosecution. The appellant, owner of the 'Sunday Blast' newspaper, was alleged to have published a defamatory article without fact-checking. Although a complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate in 2017, a revision in 2018 overturned this decision. The appellant's subsequent plea to the High Court was rejected in 2020.

Supreme Court's Decision:

• The Supreme Court (SC) quashed all proceedings against the appellant under Section 500 of the IPC, based on the principle of freedom of speech.
• The Court found the initial dismissal of the complaint to be justified, emphasizing that the publication was made in good faith and within constitutional rights.
• The lower court's decision was upheld, indicating no need for further intervention.

Legal Context:

Section 499 of IPC:

• Defines defamation as making or publishing any imputation intending to harm or knowing it will harm a person's reputation.
• Includes provisions for defaming deceased persons, companies, or associations.
• Clarifies that an imputation harms reputation if it lowers moral, intellectual character, caste, calling, or credit, or depicts the body in a disgraceful state.

Section 500 of IPC:

• Specifies punishment for defamation as simple imprisonment up to two years, fine, or both.

Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association

• Date of Judgement/Order: 24th January 2024
• Bench Strength: Judges
• Composition of Bench: Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna

Case Overview:

• The appeals and transferred cases originated from the Assam Act, enacted by the Assam Legislature on 18th September 2004.
• The Act aimed to establish a regulatory authority in Assam for registering Diploma holders in Medicine and Rural Health Care (DMRHC), regulating their practice in rural areas, and overseeing the establishment of medical institutions offering the Diploma course.
• In 2005, the Director of Medical Education, Assam, announced admissions for the Diploma in Medicine and Rural Health Care at the Jorhat Medical Institute.
• The Indian Medical Association, Assam State Branch, challenged the Assam Act and the advertisement in a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court.
• Despite the challenge, admissions continued.
• The High Court later declared the Assam Act unconstitutional, citing conflicts with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (IMC Act).
• Diploma holders appealed against this judgment.
• In response, the Assam Legislature passed the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, attempting to address the issues raised in the judgment.
• This new Act also faced legal challenges.

Supreme Court Verdict:

• Entry 25 of List III in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950, pertains to education and falls under the Concurrent List. Both Parliament and State Legislatures have legislative competence over this subject.
• Entry 25 is subordinate to Entry 66 of List I, the Union List, which deals with coordinating standards in higher education and research institutions.
• Laws under Entry 25 must comply with those under Entry 66.
• The Indian Medical Council (IMC) Act, 1956, enacted by Parliament, standardizes medical education nationwide. State laws concerning allopathic medicine must align with the IMC Act and its regulations.
• Any conflicting state law is invalid.
• The Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004, was declared void due to legislative overreach.
• The Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, was upheld as it complements the IMC Act without conflicting. This Act allows community health professionals to practice in rural areas, falling within the State Legislature's jurisdiction.
• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that while the Legislature cannot directly overrule a judicial decision, it can retrospectively remove the foundation of a judgment to make the decision ineffective, provided it does not violate other constitutional limitations.

Date of Judgement/Order – 03.01.2024

• Bench Strength –2 Judges
• Composition of Bench –Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma

Case In Brief:

• In this case, the appellants had abducted a Class 12th student.
• The abduction, as per the prosecution, was for ransom, and a dastardly attempt was also made by the accused to kill the victim, although the victim miraculously escaped, but not before sustaining grievous injuries, which eventually led to the amputation of his right leg.
• During the night, when the complainant was trying to ease himself, the two appellants attempted to kill him by throttling his neck by the clutch wire of the motorcycle. As a result, the complainant fell on the ground unconscious, and the appellants thinking that the complainant had died, poured petrol on his body and set him on fire.
• The complainant managed to escape and was taken to hospital.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellants for an offence under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which has also been upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court observed that the necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there.
• Therefore, the Court converted the findings of conviction under Section 364A to that of Section 364 IPC.

Legal Provisions:

Section 364 of IPC - Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.

• Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 364A of IPC - Kidnapping for ransom, etc.

• Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or 4 [any foreign State or international intergovernmental organisation or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.