Major Legal Judgements (2023) | Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT PDF Download

1. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023

Date of Judgement/Order: 11.12.2023

• Bench Strength: Judges
• Composition of Bench: Chief Justice of India (CJI) D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B. R. Gavai, and Surya Kant

Case Background: Article 370 of the Constitution of India provided special governance arrangements for Jammu and Kashmir. In 2019, the President issued Constitutional Orders 272 and 273, applying the entire Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir and abrogating Article 370 during a Proclamation under Article 356. Simultaneously, Parliament enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, splitting the state into two Union territories. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of these actions, leading to a Supreme Court review.

Supreme Court Verdict: The Constitution Bench upheld the abrogation of Article 370, clarifying that it represented asymmetric federalism, not sovereignty. The court emphasized that Article 370 was a transitional provision without permanent status. Its abrogation did not disrupt the federal structure, ensuring citizens in Jammu and Kashmir have the same rights as those in other parts of India. The court also noted that Article 370(3) facilitated the end of the temporary arrangement, reinforcing the Constitution's applicability and the state's integration into India.

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019: On August 5, 2019, Parliament passed the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Bill, leading to the bifurcation of the state into Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and effectively abrogating Article 370, which granted the region special status. The Act, effective from October 31, 2019, consists of 103 clauses, extends 106 central laws to the Union Territories, repeals 153 state laws, and abolishes the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council. It also grants the Central government powers to issue various executive orders concerning both Union Territories.

2. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023

Supreme Court Ruling on Appointment of Election Commissioners

Date of Judgment: March 2, 2023 

• Bench: Five-judge Constitution bench, including Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar. 

Relevant Articles: Article 32 and Article 324 of the Constitution of India 

Background: The Supreme Court was hearing petitions under Article 32 regarding the appointment process of Election Commissioners. Petitioners sought a transparent and independent system for these appointments, referencing various reports on electoral reforms. 

Key Observations: The Court emphasized the need for an independent Election Commission, stating that the means used to achieve political ends must be fair, especially in a democracy. 

Verdict: The Court ruled that Election Commissioners should be appointed by the President of India based on the advice of a committee consisting of: 

• The Prime Minister 
• The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha or the leader of the largest opposition party 
• The Chief Justice of India 

This practice will be followed until Parliament enacts legislation on the matter. 

3. Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023

Date of Judgement/Order: 01.12.2023

• Bench Strength: Judges
• Composition of Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Case Background:

• The widow of the deceased borrowed money from Sandeep Bansal, with allegations of threats and assault from Sandeep's son regarding repayment.
• Sandeep allegedly took cheques from the widow, one of which was dishonored, leading to legal notice and stress for the deceased.
• The deceased, under distress, committed suicide, and a note was found, prompting legal proceedings against the accused.
• The High Court allowed the case to proceed, but the accused appealed, arguing lack of close instigation before the suicide.

Supreme Court Ruling:

• The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that for abetment under IPC Section 107, there must be clear instigation by the accused with the intent to push the deceased to suicide.
• The court found no close temporal link between the accused's actions and the suicide, leading to the appeal’s approval.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 107: Abetment of a thing. Involves instigating, conspiring, or aiding the commission of an act.
• Section 306: Abetment of suicide. Punishes those who abet suicide with imprisonment and fines.

4. Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023

Keywords: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Supreme Court 

• Date of Judgement/Order. 27.09.2023 
• Bench Strength. 3 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 

Facts of the Case:

• The appellant married the deceased in 1987. 
• The prosecution alleged that the appellant harassed the deceased due to insufficient dowry. 
• To meet the appellant's demands, the deceased's parents initially paid him in cash and later gave him a scooter and gold ornaments in 1990. 
• Despite these payments, the dowry demands continued. 
• The deceased eventually was burnt and taken to the hospital with 91% burns. 
• When she regained consciousness, she accused the appellant of burning her. 
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed based on her statement, leading to charges against the appellant and his family. 
• The Sessions judge convicted the appellant under Section 304-B but acquitted him under Section 302 IPC. 
• The High Court upheld the conviction but the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, highlighting the importance of a trustworthy and reliable dying declaration for criminal convictions. 

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32: This section relates to the admissibility of statements made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death or circumstances leading to it. Such statements are relevant regardless of whether the person was under the expectation of death at the time of making them. 

5. M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors., 2023

Supreme Court on Arbitration Agreement and Stamp Duty

• Date:25.04.2023
• Bench:Justices K.M. Joseph, Aniruddha Bose, C.T. Ravikumar, Ajay Rastogi, and Hrishikesh Roy

Background:

• A sub-contract between the petitioner and respondent included an arbitration clause. 
• Disputes led the respondent to invoke a Bank Guarantee from the petitioner. 
• The Commercial Court was approached regarding the invocation, and the respondent sought to refer disputes to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
• The Commercial Court's rejection of the application prompted a revision petition to the Bombay High Court, which upheld the application’s maintainability. 
• The matter escalated to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Ruling

Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar:

• An arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is subject to stamp duty. 
• If the agreement is not stamped or insufficiently stamped, it cannot be acted upon as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act, unless it is impounded and the requisite duty is paid. 

Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Hrishikesh Roy:

• The non-stamping or insufficient stamping of the substantive instrument does not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable. 
• Stamp deficiency is a curable defect and does not make the arbitration agreement void. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Defines an arbitration agreement and its forms, emphasizing that it must be in writing. 
• Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Grants judicial authority the power to refer parties to arbitration when an arbitration agreement exists. 

6. Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023

• Date of Judgement/Order - 01.11.2023
• Bench Strength - Judges
• Composition of Bench - Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Case In Brief

• The appellant is the one who was originally defendant in a lawsuit about owning and mesne profits from a property. 
• The respondent instituted the original suit claiming the right to the property based on a Power of Attorney, an agreement to sell, an affidavit, and a will in their favor.
• The person who is now appealing (the appellant) had been on the property because he received it as a gift from their brother.
• They contested the lawsuit on various grounds, but the court ruled in favor of the person who started the original lawsuit (the respondent), granting them possession of the property and any profits made from it.
• The appellant disagreed with this decision and took the case to the High Court of Delhi, but the High Court upheld the earlier ruling.
• The appellant brought an appeal to the Supreme Court, against the order of the HC. 

Verdict

• SC observed no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney.

• The Court further states that even if these documents were registered, it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).

• The Court, while allowing the appeal, noted that the law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document.

Relevant Provision

• Section 54 of TPA - Sale
• Sale Defined - Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
• Sale How Made- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
• In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
• Contract for Sale—. contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.

7. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra

Supreme Court Ruling on Section 313 of CrPC in Criminal Case

• Date of Judgment: March 3, 2023 
• Bench: Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta 

Background:

• A murder occurred in 2013, with three others sustaining stab injuries. 
• The mother of the deceased filed a report, leading to charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. 
• The post-mortem indicated a stab injury to the neck as the cause of death. 
• After investigation, charges were framed against the accused. 
• The Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of murder and attempted murder. 
• This decision was upheld by the High Court, prompting the current appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court's Observations:

• The Court emphasized the importance of the accused's written statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. 
• It noted that the written statement should be considered in light of the prosecution evidence. 
• The Court referenced previous cases to highlight the relevance of the accused's statements in determining the truth. 
• The statements made by the accused under Section 313, although not under oath, are important for assessing the prosecution's case. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court found the accused guilty under Section 304 of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). 
• Considering the time already served (9 years) and the accused's age (late sixties), the Court ordered his release. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 313 of the CrPC: Empowers the court to examine the accused during trials to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against them. 
• Section 302 of the IPC: Pertains to punishment for murder. 
• Section 307 of the IPC: Deals with attempt to murder. 

8. Gagan Baba v. Samit Mandal

Overview

• The Supreme Court, on July 4, 2023, addressed the concerning trend of misusing criminal law to target financial institutions and lenders in civil disputes. The Court emphasized the need to protect the integrity of economic health in the country. 

Background of the Case

• The petitioner highlighted a growing trend where malafide criminal proceedings are initiated against financial institutions and lenders. 
• It was argued that officers, representatives, and managers of such institutions are being coerced into halting recovery proceedings of enforceable debts or are being forced into settlement agreements. 
• The petitioner pointed out that FIRs are being filed to bypass the statutory regime of SARFAESI, misrepresenting civil financial disputes as criminal matters to intimidate and abuse the criminal process. 

Supreme Court's Observations

• The Supreme Court found the trend of misrepresenting civil financial disputes as criminal issues to be highly disturbing. 
• Citing the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), the Court noted that using criminal law to bypass statutory remedies against financial institutions poses a threat to the economic health of the nation. 

Relevant Legal Provision

• The Supreme Court referred to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers High Courts to quash FIRs in certain circumstances. This section allows High Courts to prevent abuse of the court process and secure the ends of justice. 
• Section 482 - Saving of inherent powers of HC — This section ensures that the inherent powers of the High Court are not limited by the Code, allowing the Court to make necessary orders to give effect to the Code, prevent abuse of the process, or secure justice. 

9. Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors

Case Summary: Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute

Background

• The Uttar Pradesh State Government issued a notification to acquire land for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
• The appellants' land was among those acquired, with possession taken between August 1993 and May 1994. 

Market Value Determination

• The Special Land Acquisition Officer set the market value at different rates per square yard. 
• Aggrieved, the appellants sought higher compensation based on nearby land values. 

Legal Proceedings

• The District Judge awarded a market value of Rs. 400 per square yard with deductions. 
• The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority appealed, with the appellants cross-appealing for higher compensation. 
• The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision. 
• The appellants' review for better consideration of their cross-objections was dismissed, leading to the current appeal. 

Supreme Court Verdict

• The Supreme Court, led by Justices Krishna Murari and Bela M. Trivedi, ruled in favor of the appellants. 
• It emphasized the High Court's duty to consider the appellants' cross-objections. 
• The case was remanded for fresh evaluation of the cross-objections, referencing a similar past case. 

Legal Provision Involved

• The relevant legal provision is from the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, specifically Order 41 Rule 22, which allows respondents to raise cross-objections in appeals. This rule enables respondents to challenge findings against them in the lower court as if they had filed a separate appeal, provided they do so within a specified timeframe. 

10. Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr.

• In 2019, Rahul Gandhi, a Congress leader and former MP, made a controversial remark during a political rally in Kolar, Karnataka, suggesting a link between the Modi surname and corruption. 
• This led to a legal battle initiated by Purnesh Modi, a BJP MLA, under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

Legal Proceedings

• In March 2023, a trial court in Surat convicted Gandhi and sentenced him to two years in prison, the maximum penalty for defamation. 
• The Chief Judicial Magistrate later suspended the sentence but not the conviction, leading to Gandhi's disqualification from the Lok Sabha under Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
• Gandhi appealed the conviction in the Sessions Court, which granted him bail but did not stay the conviction. 
• His subsequent petition to the Gujarat High Court was dismissed, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court's Decision

• On August 4, 2023, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stayed Gandhi's conviction, temporarily halting his disqualification as a Member of Parliament. 
• The Court acknowledged that Gandhi's remarks were not in "good taste" and emphasized the need for public figures to exercise caution in their statements. 

Legal Context

The case involved key provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly Sections 499 and 500, which deal with defamation and its penalties. 

• Section 499 outlines the criteria for defamation, including the intent to harm someone's reputation through false statements. 
• Section 500 prescribes the punishment for defamation, which can include simple imprisonment for up to two years, fines, or both. 
• The Representation of the People Act, 1950, specifically Section 8(3), was also relevant, as it pertains to the disqualification of individuals convicted of certain offenses from holding public office. 
• Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution of India further supports this disqualification process.