100 Important Supreme Court Judgments

Of 2021 [Part 1]
As 2021 draws to a close, LiveLaw brings to you a round-up of the major
judgments of the Supreme Court of this year.
This year, in view of the huge number of significant judgments, the round-up is
done in two parts. This parts covers 52 major decisions from January to June
2021. The second part will cover the significant judgments delivered during the
second half of 2021.

January 2021
1. Supreme Court Upholds Centre's Plan For The Central Vista Project by 2:1
Majority, Justice Khanna Dissents
[Case: Rajeev Suri v. DDA & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 1; Order dated January 5,
2021]
The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government's plan for construction of the
Central Vista project and the government's proposal to construct a new
Parliament in Lutyen's Delhi. A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh
Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna pronounced the judgement, with Justices
Khanwilkar and Maheshwari forming the majority, and with Justice Khanna
pronouncing a separate judgement.
"We cannot be called upon to govern. For, we have no wherewithal or prowess and
expertise in that regard," remarked the Judges in majority. Justice Khanna on the
other hand expressed dissent on the aspects of public participation on
interpretation of the statutory provisions, failure to take prior approval of the
Heritage Conservation Committee and the order passed by the Expert Appraisal
Committee.

2. Whether Non-Payment Of Stamp Duty On Commercial Contract Will Invalidate

Arbitration Agreement? Supreme Court Refers Issue To Constitution Bench
[Case : N.N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PVT. LTD VS. INDO UNIQUE FLAME LTD;
CITATION: LL 2021 SC 13; Order dated January 13, 2021]
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has observed that non-payment of
stamp duty on the commercial contract will not invalidate the arbitration
agreement.
Disagreeing with two earlier judgments in this regard, the bench
comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira
Banerjee referred the following question to the Constitution Bench.
"Whether the statutory bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
applicable to instruments chargeable to Stamp Duty under Section 3 read with
the Schedule to the Act, would also render the arbitration agreement contained in
such an instrument, which is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, as being
non-existent, unenforceable, or invalid, pending payment of stamp duty on the
substantive contract / instrument ? "
The bench also observed that the ground that allegations of fraud are not
arbitrable is a wholly archaic view, which has become obsolete, and deserves to
be discarded.

3. Incorporation Of One-sided And Unreasonable Clauses In Apartment Buyer's

Agreement Constitutes An 'Unfair Trade Practice': Supreme Court
[Case: Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna; Citation: LL 2021 SC
14A; Order dated January 11, 2021]
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira
Banerjee held that the incorporation of one-sided and unreasonable clauses in
the Apartment Buyer's Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under
Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. It also observed that the
Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided
contractual terms contained in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement.
The Court held thus while disposing an appeal filed by a Developer against an
order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing it
to refund of the amounts deposited by the Apartment Buyers on account of the
inordinate delay in completing the construction and obtaining the Occupation
Certificate.

4. Is Appointment Of Arbitrator By Ineligible Person Valid?Supreme Court

Refers Issue To Larger Bench
[Case Title: Union of India v. M/S Tantia Constructions Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021 SC
22]
Order dated January 11, 2021
A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph doubted
the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification
vs.M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company  and referred to larger
bench the issue whether the appointment of an arbitrator by a person, who is
disqualified to be an arbitrator as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, is valid.

5. Supreme Court Upholds Sections 3, 4 & 10 Of IBC Amendment Act 2020

[Case: Manish Kumar v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 25] Order dated
January 19, 2021
A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph upheld
the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4 and 10 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act 2020, in effect upholding the threshold limit
on homebuyers.
The Court rejected the petitioners' contentions that such conditions on
homebuyers amounted to hostile discrimination violating the equality principle
under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that a homebuyer, though
treated as an unsecured creditor as per the judgment in Pioneer case, stands on
a different footing from other creditors
.
6. Benefit Of Probation (PO Act) Is Not Excluded By Mandatory Minimum
Sentences Prescribed For IPC Offences: Supreme Court
[Case: Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 27] Order dated
January 19, 2021
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed
that the benefit of probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is not
excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for
offences under IPC.
In the facts of the case, the Court observed that Section 4 of the Act could come
to the aid of the accused as the offence committed, of which they have been
found guilty, is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The court also
added that since they were under 21 years of age on the date of the offence and
not on the date of conviction, Section 6 would not come to their aid.

7. Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions Challenging Aadhaar Verdict,

Justice Chandrachud Dissents
[Case: Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.); Citation: LL 2021
SC 30]
Order dated January 11, 2021
The Supreme Court, by 4:1 majority, has dismissed a batch of review petitions
challenging the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Aadhaar case
[Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v Union of India]. While Justices AM Khanwilkar,
Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and BR Gavai observed that no case for review
of judgment, Justice DY Chandrachud expressed his dissent.
The review petitions were not heard in open court, but 'by circulation'. According
to majority, a change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate
or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. On the other
hand, Justice Chandrachud opined that the review petitions should be kept
pending until the larger bench decides the questions referred to it in Rojer
Mathew.
8."Whether 'Advocate On Record' Includes Sole Proprietary Firm?" Supreme
Court Leaves The Question To SC Rule Making Authority
[Case Title: In Re: Advocate On Record Includes A Proprietary Firm
Etc.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 37]
Order dated January 20, 2021
In the context of the 2013 Supreme Court Rules, a bench of Justices SK Kaul,
Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy left it to the Rule making authorities to
examine whether they would like to expand the registration of Advocates on
Record to permit persons to carry on the profession in the style and name of a
sole proprietorship firm.
The Court was considering a suo motu writ petition on whether "Advocate on
Record includes a proprietary firm". "Whether an AOR can have his entry in the
AOR register in the form of his style of carrying on his profession: Instead of just
"Name" as "Name", Sole Proprietor, Law Chambers of "Name"?", was the question
framed. "The (Supreme Court) Rules being sacrosanct, we would not like to
interfere with the same in the present proceeding", said the bench.
February 2021

9. Violation Of Fundamental Right To Speedy Trial Is A Ground For

Constitutional Court To Grant Bail In UAPA Cases: Supreme Court
[Case: Union of India v. KA Najeeb; Citation: LL 2021 SC 56]
A bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose held
that Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional
Courts to grant bail on ground of violation of Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial.
It held, "Whereas at commencement of proceedings, Courts are expected to
appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such
provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed
within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has
exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence."
The court observed this while dismissing the appeal filed by NIA against an order
of the Kerala High Court granting bail to the accused in palm chopping of
Thodupuzha Newman College professor TJ Joseph in 2011.

10.SC Judgment Which Excluded Persons With Over 50% Visual/Hearing

Impairment From Judicial Service No Longer Binding Precedent: Supreme Court
[Case: Vikash Kumar v. UPSC; Citation: LL 2021 SC 76]
A bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv
Khanna observed that the decision in V Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil
Nadu would "not be a binding precedent", after the coming into force of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. The Bench in the same judgment
also held that facility of scribe can be provided for persons with disabilities other
than those having benchmark disabilities.
In Surendra Mohan, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that
stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as
a condition to be eligible for the post of a judicial officer is a legitimate
restriction. In the present case, the Supreme Court said, "The principle of
reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the State and
private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to
facilitate their full and effective participation in society."

11."Right To Protest Cannot Be Any Time And Everywhere": Supreme Court

Dismisses Review Petition Against 'Shaheen Bagh' Judgment
[Case: Kaniz Fatima v. Commissioner of Police; Citation: LL 2021 SC 83]
A three judge bench consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha
Bose and Krishna Murari dismissed the review petition filed against the Shaheen
Bagh Judgment in which it is held that the demonstrations expressing dissent
have to be in designated places alone. Dismissing the review petition, the bench
held that the right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere.
"We have considered the earlier judicial pronouncements and recorded our opinion
that the Constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent
but with an obligation to have certain duties. The right to protest cannot be
anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous protests but in case of
prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of public place
affecting rights of others,"  the Court said.

12. Supreme Court Closes Suo Moto Case Taken To Probe "Larger Conspiracy"
Behind Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Ex-CJI Gogoi
[Case: In Re: Matter Of Great Public Importance Touching Upon The
Independence Of Judiciary; Citation: LL 2021 SC 95]
A bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, AS Bopanna and V.
Ramasubramanian closed the suo moto proceedings which were instituted to
examine if there was a "larger conspiracy" behind the allegations of sexual
harassment against the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.
The bench observed that enquiry panel headed by former SC judge Justice AK
Patnaik has submitted a report opining that a conspiracy behind the sexual
harassment allegations cannot be "ruled out". The report also surmised that
certain tough stances taken by ex-CJI Gogoi during his tenure could have
triggered the allegations. The report also referred to an Intelligence Bureau input
that several persons were unhappy with Justice Gogoi for driving the Assam-NRC
process.
March 2021
13 . Whether Day Of Remand Is To Be Included For Considering A Claim For
Default Bail? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench
[Case: Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 118]
Whether the day of remand is to be included or excluded, for considering a claim
for default bail? The Supreme Court referred this issue to a larger bench.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy noticed
that, in State of MP v. Rustom & Ors.1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 221 , Ravi Prakash Singh
v. State of Bihar (2015) 8 SCC 340 and M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer,
Director of Revenue Intelligence, it was held that the date of remand is to be
excluded for computing the permitted period for completion of investigation. On
the other hand, the judgments in Chaganti Satyanarayan v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (1986) 3 SCC 141 , CBI v. Anupam J Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141 , State v.
Mohd. Ashraft Bhat (1996) 1 SCC 432, State of Maharashtra v. Bharati Chandmal
Varma (2002) 2 SCC 121, and Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of
Maharashtra (2011) 10 SCC 445, have held that the date of remand must be
included for computing the available period for investigation for determining
entitlement to default bail.

14. Moratorium Under Section 14 IBC Covers Section 138 NI Act Proceedings
Against Corporate Debtor For Cheque Dishonour : Supreme Court
Case: P Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021 SC
120]
The Supreme Court held that the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) covers criminal proceedings for
dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
against the corporate debtor.
"We hold that a Section 138/141 NI Act proceeding against a corporate debtor is
covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC", Justice RF Nariman said reading out the
operative portion of the judgment.
A Bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph also
observed that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act to set aside an award is covered by moratorium under Section 14 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Section 34 proceeding is a proceeding against the corporate debtor in a court of
law pertaining to a challenge to an arbitral award and would be covered just as
an appellate proceeding in a decree from a suit would be covered
15. Amounts Paid By Indian Companies To Use Foreign Software Not
'Royalty';Not Income Taxable In India; No TDS Liability : Supreme Court
[Case: Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Private Ltd vs The
Commissioner of Income Tax; Citation: LL 2021 SC 124]
Settling an important issue in the income tax law, a bench comprising Justices R
F Nariman, Hemant Gupta and BR Gavai held that the amounts paid by Indian
companies for the use of softwares developed by foreign companies do not
amount to 'royalty' and that such payment do not give rise to income which is
taxable in India. Therefore, there is no liability for Indian companies to deduct tax
at source with respect to purchase of software from foreign companies.

16. Limitation Period For Filing 'Section 34' Petition Commences From Date Of
Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Arbitral Award By Parties: Supreme Court
[Case: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt.
Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 126]
A bench comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed that the
period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the
award was made available to the parties

17. OBC Reservation Cannot Exceed 50%: Supreme Court Reads Down Section
12(2)(c) Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act
[Case: Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State Of Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021 SC
132]
The Supreme Court read down Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 which provides reservation of 27 per
cent of seats in the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis.
"Reservation in favour of OBCs in the concerned local bodies can be notified to the
extent that it does not exceed aggregate 50 per cent of the total seats reserved in
favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together," the bench comprising Justices AM
Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed.

18. Sole Proprietorship Will Fall Under International Commercial Arbitration If

Proprietor Is Foreign Resident: Supreme Court
[Case: Amway India v. Ravindranath Rao & Anr.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 133]
A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai held that a sole
proprietorship will fall under international commercial arbitration if the proprietor
is a habitual resident of a foreign country, notwithstanding the fact that the
proprietary concern is carrying out business in India.
The Bench set aside an order of the Delhi High Court appointing an arbitrator in
the case Amway India v. Ravindranath Rao, holding that the High Court had no
jurisdiction as the dispute was an international commercial arbitration within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

19. All Consumer Complaints Filed Before CPA 2019 Should Be Heard By Fora
As Per Pecuniary Jurisdiction Under CPA 1986: Supreme Court
[Case: Neena Aneja & Ors. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021 SC
164]
The Supreme Court held that consumer complaints filed before the coming into
effect of the Consumer Protection Act 2019(CPA 2019) should continue in the
fora in which they were filed as per the pecuniary jurisdiction under the previous
Consumer Protection Act of 1986(CPA 1986).
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah set aside the
directions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the
previously instituted cases as per the 1986 Act should be transferred to the
respective fora as per the new pecuniary limits under the 2019 Act.

20. Default Bail: State Cannot Take Advantage Of Filing One Charge Sheet First
And Seeking Time To File Supplementary Charge-sheets To Extend The Time
Limit U/S 167(2)
[Case: Fakhrey Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 165]
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash
Reddy observed that the time period for investigation specified under Section
167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be extended by seeking to file
supplementary charge sheet qua UAPA offences.
The Court while granting default bail to Fakhrey Alam, a person accused under
Section 18 of the UAPA Act, reiterated that default bail under first proviso of
Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental right and not merely a statutory
right.

21. "Insurer Should Deposit Award In Bank Account Maintained By MACT By

RTGS/NEFT': SC Issues Directions For Uniform Procedure In Granting Motor
Accident Compensation
[Case: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of
India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 166]
A bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and R Subhash Reddy issued a slew of
directions regarding process of disbursement of compensation as well as
expediting the matter before the MACTs across the country. According to these
directions, jurisdictional police station has to submit an Accident Information
Report about the accident to the tribunal and insurer within first 48 hours either
over email or a dedicated website. They shall also submit a detailed accident
report to them within three months.

22. Courts Should Avoid Patriarchal & Stereotypical Notions About Women:
Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Dealing With Sexual Crimes
Case: Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 168]
While setting aside the "rakhi-for-bail" order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,
the Supreme Court issued a set of guidelines to be followed by Courts while
dealing with sexual crimes.
The Supreme Court suggested that gender sensitization training should be
imparted to Judges and public prosecutors.
The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat also
observed that each High Court should formulate a module on judicial sensitivity
to sexual offences, to be tested in the Judicial Services Examination. It also
directed the Bar Council of India to take steps to include such courses as part of
LLB and AIBE syllabus.

23. SC Overrules 'NV International' Verdict Which Held Delay Beyond 120 Days
For Arbitration Appeal Under Section 37 Can't Be Condoned
[Case: Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors
Pvt Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 170]
A two-judge bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and S Ravindra
Bhat overruled its 2019 verdict in the case M/s NV International vs State of
Assam which had strictly held that a delay of more than 120 days in filing of
appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be
condoned.
The Top Court has now held that delay beyond 90, 60 or 30 days for filing
appeals under Section 37, depending on the forum, can be condoned. But the
Court added a rider that such condonation of delay should be an exception and
not the norm, having regard to the objective of the Arbitration Act for expeditious
settlement of claims.

24. Supreme Court Bars Charging Compound Interest Or Penal Interest On Any
Borrower During Loan Moratorium; Refuses Moratorium Extension
[Case: Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association(Regd) v. Union of
India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 175]
A Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah directed
that there should be no charging of compound interest, interest on interest or
penal interest on the instalments which were due during the loan moratorium
period from March 1 to August 31 last year on any borrower, irrespective of the
loan amount. If such interest has already been collected, it should be either
refunded to the borrower or adjusted towards the next instalments.
It observed that there is no rationale in the Centre's policy to limit the benefit of
waiver of compound interest only to certain loan categories less than Rs Two
Crores. Last year, the Centre had taken a decision to allow waiver of interest on
interest in eight specified categories for loans up to Rupees 2 crores.
The Court observed that there is no justification shown to restrict the relief of not
charging interest on interest with respect to the loans up to Rs. 2 crores only and
that too restricted to the aforesaid categories.

25. 'Structures Of Our Society Created By Males For Males': Supreme Court
Holds Army's Evaluation Criteria To Grant Permanent Commission For Women
Officers Arbitrary
[Case: Lt. Col Nitisha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 181]
A Division Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR
Shah declared that the evaluation criteria adopted by the Indian Army to consider
the grant of permanent commission for women officers to be "arbitrary and
irrational". The Court directed the Army to reconsider the pleas of women Short
Service Commission officers for grant of PC within two months in accordance
with the fresh directions issued by the Court.
The top court held that the evaluation criteria adopted by the Army to benchmark
the women officers with the lowest credentials of their male counter-parts and to
freeze their ACR evaluation at the 5th or 10th years of their services to be
"arbitrary and irrational", causing women officers "systemic discrimination".

26. Call For Justice Not Hate Speech": Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against
Journalist Patricia Mukhim
[Case: Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 182]
A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara and S. Ravindra Bhat quashed a FIR
registered against Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim over a Facebook post
on violence against non-tribal people in Meghalaya. The Court noted that the
Facebook post was directed against the apathy shown by the Chief Minister of
Meghalaya, the Director General of Police and the Dorbar Shnong of the area in
not taking any action against the culprits who attacked the non-tribals
youngsters.
The Court allowed the appeal filed by Mukhim challenging the Meghalaya High
Court order which had dismissed her plea to quash the FIR.

27. Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Anonymous Electoral Bonds

[Case: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India & Ors.; Citation: LL
2021 SC 183]
The Supreme Court refused to stay the release of the fresh set of electoral bonds
from April 1 for the assembly polls in West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Assam
and Puducherry.
The Court dismissed the application filed by NGO Association for Democratic
Reforms seeking stay of the bonds.
Since the bonds were allowed to be released in 2018, 2019 and 2020 without
interruption, and sufficient safeguards are there, there is no justification to stay
the electoral bonds at present, held a bench comprising CJI SA Bobde, Justice
AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian,

28. Supreme Court Allows Tata Sons Appeal Against NCLAT Order To Reinstate
Cyrus Mistry As Chairman
[Case: Tata Sons Ltd v. Cyrus Mistry & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 184]
In a big win for Tata Sons Ltd, the Supreme Court bench headed by CJI SA
Bobde allowed its appeal against the order of the National Company Law
Tribunal, which had ordered to reinstate the ousted Chairman Cyrus Mistry.
The Court held that the actions of Tata Sons board against Mistry did not amount
to oppression of minority shareholders or mismanagement. The bench also said
that it was open for Tatas and Mistry to work out their separation terms.
On December 18, 2019, The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal restored
Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Group. Allowing Mistry's appeal,
the Appellate Tribunal had set aside the judgment of Mumbai bench of National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that had upheld the appointment of N
Chandrasekharan as Chairman in his place. The said NCLAT order was stayed by
the Apex Court in January 2020 whereas the judgment was reserved on 17th
December 2020.

April 2021
29. 'Right Not To Be Deported' Is Ancillary To A Fundamental Right Available
Only To Indian Citizens: Supreme Court In Rohingyas Case
[Case: Mohammad Salimullah v. Union Of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 202]
While rejecting a plea to stop the deportation of Rohingya refugees detained in
Jammu, a bench comprising of then CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V.
Ramasubramanian observed that the right not to be deported is ancillary to the
fundamental right to reside or settle in any part of India guaranteed under Article
19(1)(e) of the Constitution.
It thus dismissed an interlocutory application filed seeking (i) the release of the
detained Rohingya refugees; and (ii) a direction to the Union of India not to
deport them. The Court however clarified that the Rohingyas in Jammu shall not
be deported unless the procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed.

30. High Courts Shall Not Pass Order Of 'Not To Arrest' Or 'No Coercive Steps'
While Dismissing/Disposing Petition U/s 482 CrPC: Supreme Court
[Case: M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 211]
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna held
that a High Court, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under
Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, shall not
pass order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the
investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC.
It observed that when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and
the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should
restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps
to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 CrPC before the competent court.
32. Balance Sheets Entries Can Amount To Acknowledgement Of Debt U/s 18
Limitation Act: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Full Bench Ruling
[Case: Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal
Jaiswal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 215]
A bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy held
that entries in balance sheets can amount to acknowledgement of debt for the
purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. It referred
to an old Calcutta High Court decision in Bengal Silk Mills Co. v. Ismail Golam
Hossain Ariff, AIR 1962 Cal 115, the bench observed.

33.'Amend Section 138 NI Act To Allow One Trial For Multiple Cases From
Single Transaction' : Supreme Court Issues Directions For Expeditious Trial Of
Cheque Cases
[Case: In Re Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I Act; Citation: LL
2021 SC 217]
A constitution bench of the Supreme Court issued a set of directions to expedite
the trial of cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
34. High Courts Are In A Crisis Situation': Supreme Court Lays Down Time Line
For Appointment Of High Court Judges
[Case: PLR Projects Ltd v. Mahanadi Coalfields Pvt Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 223]
Expressing grave concerns at the mounting vacancies of High Court judges, a
bench comprising of then CJI SA Bobde, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya
Kant emphasized that the Central Government should proceed to make
appointments immediately  after the Supreme Court Collegium has cleared the
names.
If the Government has any reservation over the Collegium recommendations, it
should send back the names with specific reasons for reservations. Once the
Supreme Court Collegium reiterates the names, the Centre should make the
appointment within 3-4 weeks of such reiteration

35. Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Adopt Draft Rules Of Criminal Practice
Within 6 Months
[Case: In Re To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and
Deficiencies in Criminal Trial v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC
224]
A bench comprising of then CJI SA Bobde, Justices L Nageswara Rao and S
Ravindra Bhat directed the High Courts to adopt the draft rules of criminal
practice, which has been prepared by amici curiae Senior Advocates R Basant,
Sidharth Luthra and Advocate K Paremshwar, within a period of 6 months

36. 'Ad-Hoc Judges Not An Alternative To Regular Appointments': Supreme

Court Passes Guidelines On Appointment Of Ad-Hoc Judges In HCs Under
Article 224A
[Case: Lok Prahari v. Union of India & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 225]
A bench comprising of then CJI SA Bobde, Justices Sanjay Kishan
Kaul and Surya Kant passed a slew of guidelines regarding the appointment of
ad-hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A of the Constitution, to tackle the
problem of mounting case arrears in High Courts.

37.Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act Will Attract As Long As Caste Identity Is One Of
The Grounds For The Occurrence Of Offence: SC Doubts Earlier Judgments
[Case: Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 231]
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah doubted the earlier
judgments which interpreted Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, to mean that the offence
should have been committed "only on the ground that the victim was a member
of the Scheduled Caste".
It observed that this provision will attract as long as caste identity is one of the
grounds for the occurrence of the offence. To deny the protection of Section 3
(2) (v) on the premise that the crime was not committed against an SC & ST
person solely on the ground of their caste identity is to deny how social
inequalities function in a cumulative fashion, the court said.

38. Supreme Court Directs High Courts To Reconsider And Update Rules

Relating To Execution Of Decrees
[Case: Rahul S Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi; Citation: LL 2021 SC 232]
A bench comprising former CJI SA Bobde, Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S.
Ravindra Bhat directed the High Courts to reconsider and update all the Rules
relating to Execution of Decrees, made under exercise of its powers under Article
227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of CPC, within one year.

May 2021
39. State Regulation Of Profiteering By Schools Does Not Violate Managements'
Fundamental Rights Under Article 19(1)(g) : Supreme Court
[Case: Indian School, Jodhpur v. State Of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 240]
The Supreme Court has held that State's regulation of profiteering by education
institutions cannot be held to be violating the managements' fundamental right
to trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari held so
while upholding the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation
of Fee) Act, 2016.

40. "Encroachment Of State Legislature Upon The Domain Of Parliament":

Supreme Court Strikes Down West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act
[Case: Forum for People's Collective Efforts v. State of West Bengal; Citation: LL
2021 SC 241]
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah struck down the West Bengal
Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017, holding it to be unconstitutional in view of
the 2017 Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act which is the central
legislation on the identical subject-matter. However, with a view to prevent any
chaos in the real estate industry in the state, the Court in exercise of its powers
under Article 142, clarified that all sanctions and registrations previously granted
under the HIRA prior to the date of this judgment shall continue to prevail

41. Supreme Court Strikes Down Maratha Quota; Says No Exceptional

Circumstance To Grant Reservation In Excess Of 50% Ceiling Limit
[Case: Dr Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister; Citation: LL 2021 SC 243]
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Ashok
Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra
Bhat has struck down the Maratha quota in excess of 50% ceiling limit as
unconstitutional. The Court unanimously held that there were no exceptional
circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50%
ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class. The Court has held
by 3:2 majority that the 102nd Constitution Amendment has abrogated the power
of states to identify "Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs)".
The majority judgment held that after the introduction of Articles 338B and 342A
to the Constitution "the final say in regard to inclusion or exclusion (or
modification of lists) of SEBCs is firstly with the President, and thereafter, in case
of modification or exclusion from the lists initially published, with the Parliament".
The Court also held that alteration of the content of state legislative power in an
oblique and peripheral manner would not constitute a violation of the concept of
federalism or basic structure of the Constitution.

42. 'Citizens Have Right To Know What Transpires In Judicial Proceedings':

Supreme Court Upholds Media's Freedom To Report Court Hearings
[Case: Election Commission of India v. MR Vijaya Bhaskar; Citation: LL 2021 SC
244]
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah upheld the freedom
of media to report the oral observations and discussions made by judges and
lawyers during a court proceeding. It held that freedom of speech and expression
under Article 19(1)(a) extends to reporting judicial proceedings as well. "The
concept of an open court requires that information relating to a court proceeding
must be available in the public domain. Citizens have a right to know about what
transpires in the course of judicial proceedings", it observed.
The bench was delivering its judgment in a petition filed by the Election
Commission of India seeking to restrain media from reporting oral remarks made
by judges, after the Madras High Court orally said that the ECI "should probably
be booked for murder" for being "singularly responsible for COVID second wave"
by allowing election rallies.

43. Supreme Court Constitutes National Task Force To Formulate Methodology

For Scientific Allocation Of Medical Oxygen To States, UTs
[Case: Union of India v. Rakesh Malhotra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 250]
A division bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR
Shah constituted a 12-member National Task Force to formulate a methodology
for scientific allocation of liquid medical oxygen to all the States and Union
Territories in order to deal with the dearth of oxygen supply amid the second
Covid wave. The Task Force which will be at liberty to draw upon the human
resources of the Union Government for consultation and information and may
also constitute one or more sub-groups on specialised areas or regions for
assisting it, before finalising its recommendations.
The Court constituted the task force after noting deficiencies in the Centre's
formula for oxygen allocation, which is based on hospital-beds in a state. The
Court had earlier flagged that this formula required a re-look as it did not take
into account individuals who may not have secured hospital admission, but are in
need of oxygen support.

44. IBC - Approval Of Resolution Plan Does Not By Itself Discharge Liabilities Of

Personal Guarantor Of Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court
[Case: Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India; Citation: LL
2021 SC 257]
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat held that
the approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a personal
guarantor of a corporate debtor. The release or discharge of a principal borrower
from the debt owed by it to its creditor, by an involuntary process, i.e. by
operation of law, or due to liquidation or insolvency proceeding, does not absolve
the surety/guarantor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independent
contract, the Court observed in the judgment in which it upheld the provisions of
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which applies to personal guarantors of
corporate debtors.
It referred to recent judgments in State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan,
Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel (I) Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, and
observed that the sanction of a resolution plan and finality imparted to it by
Section 31 does not per se operate as a discharge of the guarantor's liability. It
said that an involuntary act of the principal debtor leading to loss of security,
would not absolve a guarantor of its liability.

45. Phrase "Soon Before" Section 304B IPC Cannot Mean 'Immediately Before':
Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Trial In Dowry Death Cases
[Case: Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 262]
A Bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the
phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code
cannot be construed to mean 'immediately before'. The prosecution must
establish existence of "proximate and live link" between the dowry death and
cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives. It also
observed that Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in
categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental.
The bench observed thus while dismissing the appeal filed by accused who were
convicted under Section 304B IPC. Section 304B (1) provides that 'dowry death'
is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and
it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with
demand for dowry.

46. Centre's Policy Of Paid Vaccination For 18-44 Years Prima Facie Arbitrary &
Irrational : Supreme Court
[Case: Re Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During
Pandemic; Citation: LL 2021 SC 263]
The Supreme Court has made a prima facie observation that the Centre's
vaccination policy, which does not provide free vaccination for those in the age-
group of 18 to 44 years, as "arbitrary and irrational" and asked the Centre to
revisit the same.

June 2021
47. 'Name Is An Intrinsic Element Of Identity': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines
For Recording Corrections & Changes In CBSE Certificates
[Case: Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E; Citation: LL 2021 SC 264]
A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna
Murari issued guidelines for the Central Board of Secondary Education to
process the applications for correction or change in the certificates issued by it.
The Court also directed CBSE to take immediate steps to amend its Byelaws so
as to incorporate these guidelines for recording correction or change in the
certificates already issued or to be issued by it.

48. Every Journalist Entitled To Protection Of Kedar Nath Judgment': Supreme

Court Quashes Sedition Case Against Journalist Vinod Dua
[Case: Vinod Dua v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 266]
A bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran while quashing the FIR against
senior journalist Vinod Dua for sedition observed, "Every Journalist will be entitled
to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh , as every prosecution under Sections
124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of
said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in
Kedar Nath Singh." In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar(1962), the
Supreme Court had read down Section 124A IPC and held that the application of
the provision should be limited to "acts involving intention or tendency to create
disorder, or disturbance of law and order; or incitement to violence".
49. Stop Illegal Adoption Of Children Orphaned By COVID; Public
Advertisements For Adoptions Unlawful: Supreme Court
[Case: In Re Contagion of COVID Virus In Children Protection
Homes; Citation: LL 2021 SC 268]
A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose in the suo
moto case initiated by the Court to deal with the problems of children affected by
COVID observed "No adoption of affected children should be permitted contrary to
the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015.Invitation to persons for adoption of orphans is
contrary to law as no adoption of a child can be permitted without the involvement
of CARA. Stringent action shall be taken by the State Governments/Union
Territories against agencies/individuals who are responsible for indulging in this
illegal activity." The Court also directed the State governments and Union
Territories to prevent any NGO from collecting funds in the names of the affected
children by disclosing their identity and inviting interested persons to adopt them.
Wide publicity should be given to the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 and the
prevailing schemes of the Union of India and the State Governments/Union
Territories which would benefit the affected children, the Court added.

50. Persons With Disabilities Have Right To Reservation In Promotions:

Supreme Court
[Case: State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph; Citation: LL 2021 SC 273]
A Division bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash
Reddy held that persons with physical disabilities have right to reservation in
promotions also. It held so while dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Kerala
against a judgment of the Kerala High Court (State of Kerala v. Leesamma
Joseph). Further, the Apex Court directed the Kerala Government to implement
reservation in promotion for disabled within 3 months.

51. States Must Implement 'One Nation, One Ration Card' Scheme By July 31;
Run Community Kitchens For Migrants
[Case: Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers ; Citation: LL 2021 SC
274]
A Division bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah directed that
all states must implement the "one nation, one ration card" scheme - which
enables migrant workers to avail ration benefits from any part of the country - by
July 31. It also passed a slew of other directions for the benefit and welfare of
migrant workers. The Central government was directed to develop a portal in
consultation with the National Informatics Centre (NIC) for registration of the
unorganized labourers/migrant workers. Accordingly, all States and Union
territories were ordered to complete the process of establishment of the portal
and registration under National Data Base for Unorganised Workers (NDUW
Project) by not later than July 31. Further, the Central Government, Department of
Food and Public Distribution (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public
Distribution) was also directed to allocate and distribute food grains as per the
demand of additional food-grains from the States for migrant labourers.
The Central Government was also ordered to undertake exercise under Section 9
of the National Food Security Act, 2013 to re-determine the total number of
persons to be covered under the Rural and Urban areas of the State. In order to
ensure that migrant labourers have access to food, the Bench also ordered the
Central and State governments to oversee the functioning of community
kitchens.

52.COVID Victims Entitled to Ex-Gratia Compensation; Supreme Court Directs

NDMA To Frame Guidelines Within 6 Weeks
[Case: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 277]
A Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah held that Section 12
of the Disaster Management Act casts a statutory obligation on the part of the
National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to recommend minimum relief
for the victims of a national disaster. Such minimum relief will also include 'ex-
gratia assistance' as per Section 12(iii) of the Act. Further, it observed, "No
country or state has unlimited resources. Dispensation of the same is based on a
number of circumstances and facts. Therefore, we don't think it is proper to direct
the Union to pay a particular amount. This is to be fixed by the government.
Ultimately, the priorities are also to be fixed by the government"
Accordingly, the Apex Court directed the NDMA to come up with guidelines for
giving ex-gratia compensation to the family members of persons who died due to
COVID 19. The Court also directed that simplified guidelines be framed for
issuance of death certificates/ official documents stating the exact cause of
death - that is death due to COVID.