Weekly Legal Updates main objective is to update the legal knowledge of law students, lawyers, academicians and other professionals. If we do not update our legal knowledge regularly, our knowledge become redundant.
Don’t be selective, disclose full bond details: Supreme Court to SBI
Supreme Court on Monday directed chairman of State Bank of India to disclose to Election Commission by Thursday 5pm all the information in its possession relating to issuance and redemption of electoral bonds (EBS), from April 12, 2019 to Feb 15, 2024, their unique alphanumeric numbers and serial numbers included. It asked EC to “forthwith upload the data” on receipt from SBI.
“In order to fully effectuate the court’s Feb 15 judgment and March 11 order, and to avoid any controversy in future, SBI chairman shall file an affidavit on or before 5pm on Thursday indicating that SBI has disclosed all details of the EBs which were in its possession and custody and that no details have been withheld from disclosure,” SC said.
Declining to entertain objections from top industry associations Assocham, FICCI and CII which apprehended that disclosure of invisible alphanumeric numbers embossed on the EBs could be misused by activist lawyers to file motivated PILs to hound industries and industrialists, a bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra upbraided SBI for belying the trust SC had put in the top public sector bank for a complete disclosure on EBs in compliance with its Feb 15 judgment and March 11 directions.
On March 11, SC had squarely rejected SBI’s plea for a nearly four-month extension of the March 6 deadline set in the Feb 15 judgment, to furnish all EB details to EC and had given it 30 hours to do so. “We banked on SBI to be candid and fair to the court. Why has SBI not disclosed all the details? SBI’s attitude appears to be, ‘you tell us to disclose a particular detail and we'll disclose it’. That’s not fair process,” the bench said.
“This is an SC judgment. As chairman of SBI, you are duty-bound to comply with the judgment and disclose every part of the information in the bank's custody as directed by SC. There cannot be any confusion as SBI has access to the best legal advice,” the bench said and put sharp questions to senior advocate Harish Salve as he sought to explain why a misunderstanding occurred.
The criticism came with a tongue-in-cheek “hope you are not arguing for the political parties” remark. However, Salve, the bank’s counsel, managed to salvage matters by explaining that the delay on SBI’s part was due to a genuine confusion. He stated categorically that SBI was ready to make a clean breast of the entire gamut of EBrelated information in its custody.
Salve said, “In the judgment, SC dealt with diverse aspects and felt some degree of confidentiality to be maintained as is inbuilt in electoral trusts. Whatever was directed in the order was furnished by SBI to EC, including date of purchase of EBs, donors’ identities, and denominations as well as recipient political parties, dates of redemptions and the denominations. If the numbers are to be given, we will give, there is no problem.”
For petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, advocate Prashant Bhushan said while smaller parties have disclosed the names of EB donors, all major political parties have blanked the information out. He said the court should direct them to furnish this data to EC forthwith.
Bhushan also said SBI has given data only from April 19, 2019, onwards about purchase and redemption of EBs by donors and political parties, respectively, whereas the bonds had been in place prior to that and information about the bonds purchased and redeemed before April 19 also needed to be disclosed.
SC rejected both pleas and said the five-judge bench, while delivering the judgment on Feb 15, had consciously taken a decision to fix the cut-off date as April 19, 2019, as on that day, SC had passed the first interim order directing political parties to make disclosure about donations received through EBs. “Changing the cut-off date, after the pronouncement of judgment, would be akin to reviewing our own decision, which we will not do in these proceedings,” the bench said.
On request of SBI counsel Sanjay Kapur, the bench dispensed with the presence of SBI’s chief general manager and deputy general manager, who were in the court fearing initiation of contempt proceedings by the court.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 19 March 2024)
Supreme Court agrees to list PIL against practice of parties promising freebies during polls
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on Thursday challenging the practice of political parties promising freebies during elections.
The bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, acknowledged the importance of the matter and scheduled it for discussion on Thursday.
The PIL, filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay and represented by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, stresses the need for a complete ban on populist tactics aimed at influencing voters. It argues that such practices violate the Constitution and disrupt the fairness of the electoral process. The plea urges the court to recognise that offering irrational freebies funded by the public before elections can unduly sway voters and undermine the integrity of democracy.
The petitioner highlights the concerning trend of using freebies as a means to garner electoral support, equating it to bribing voters at the expense of public funds. The plea emphasises the necessity of curbing this unethical practice to uphold democratic principles and maintain the sanctity of elections. It calls on the Election Commission to introduce a new condition in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, prohibiting parties from promising or distributing irrational freebies prior to elections.
The PIL asserts that the distribution of private goods or services using public funds before elections violates various articles of the Constitution, including Article 14. Currently, there are eight national political parties and 56 state-level recognized parties, with approximately 2,800 unregistered political parties in the country. The upcoming general elections for the 18th Lok Sabha will commence on April 19 and conclude on June 1, with vote counting scheduled for June 4.
The nomination process for the initial phase, covering 102 parliamentary constituencies across 21 states and Union territories, began on Wednesday with the issuance of notifications. The PIL's plea reflects growing concerns over the influence of freebies on the electoral process and seeks judicial intervention to safeguard the integrity of democratic values during elections.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 20 March 2024)
No stay on CAA Rules, Supreme Court tells Govt to respond to pleas
WHILE IT refused to stay the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act Rules notified earlier this month, the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre, asking it to respond to petitions challenging the Rules.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud also issued notices to the Centre on petitions challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
“Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submits that four weeks time may be granted to file response to the applications for stay at this stage. The request of four weeks time is opposed on the ground that in the meantime, if citizenship were to be granted, that process would become irreversible. Bearing in mind all the facts and circumstances, we direct that the proceedings be listed on April 9,” the bench, which included Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said.
The bench asked the Centre to file its reply by April 2, after which the petitioners would have to respond by April 8.
Appearing for the Centre, Mehta said there were 236 petitions challenging the Act, and 20 applications challenging the Rules. He urged the court to grant him time to reply.
Mehta also sought to clarify that the CAA “does not take away the citizenship of any person”. “No new person is also being given (citizenship) and only those (who) entered before 2014 are being considered,” he said.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who appeared for a petitioner, urged the court to issue directions barring grant of citizenship until final adjudication of the matter, or to specify in the order that any citizenship granted under the Rules would be subject to the outcome of the petitions. “The point is citizenship once granted cannot be terminated under the law. Under orders of the court, it’s a different matter,” she said.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), also a petitioner, echoed the request.
“This notification has been issued after four years and three months. The Rules were not notified earlier. Under the law, notification has to be issued within six months. They have to go back to Parliament every three months. Since 2020, they have been going to Parliament every three months… Now, the problem is if any process for citizenship starts and somebody gets citizenship, it will be impossible to reverse it for several reasons. And these petitions will become infructuous. Therefore, that process should not start. If they have waited… till now, they can wait till the court hears it. Hear the matter… but why should the process start because, both under international law and otherwise, once you grant citizenship, you cannot take it back,” said Sibal, adding that there was no urgency.
“We have got several challenges that are pending in these petitions… there are serious issues of constitutional law,” he said.
The court, however, declined to pass any order on their request. “They don’t even have the infrastructure in place — the district empowered committee, the central empowered committee, nothing is in place,” the CJI said.
“But we can’t go on that,” said Jaising, and repeated her plea.
Sibal, however, said they would approach the court again if there was any development. “Yes, we are there,” the court responded.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the Balochistan Hindu Panchayat, said if citizenship was granted to a persecuted Hindu from Balochistan who entered India before December 2014, “how would it affect anybody else’s rights?”
“They will get the right to vote. That’s how it affects,” countered Jaising. Sibal, however, did not seem to favour the argument.
Sticking to her stand, Jaising said the SG should make a statement that in the meantime, no citizenship would be granted under the new Rules.
Declining the request, Mehta said: “I’m not making any statement”.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, raised the issue of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), and said the applications of non-Muslims excluded by the NRC would now be processed under the CAA. “That’s the prejudice caused,” Pasha said.
Mehta, however, sought to delink the two issues. “This attempt was made outside the court a few years back — misleading people that this is NRC, you are going to be ousted etc. NRC is not an issue before your Lordships. Only grant of citizenship under CAA is,” he asserted.
The court said it would take a prima facie view only after hearing all sides.
Some of the petitioners also referred to the court’s earlier direction to segregate matters pertaining to Assam and other Northeast states from the other petitions. The bench agreed to do this.
The Centre paved the way for implementation of the CAA with the notification of the relevant rules on March 11 this year, four years after the contentious law was passed by Parliament, easing the process of granting citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who came to India before December 31, 2014.
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 20 March 2024)
Supreme Court puts on hold Centre's notification on setting up 'fact-check unit'
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud set aside the March 11 order of the Bombay high court which had refused to grant interim stay on setting up the FCU under the amended IT Rules to identify fake and false content on social media about the Union government.
"We are of the considered view that questions before the HC deal with core questions on Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution," the bench said.
"We are of the view that notification dated March 20, 2024, after rejection of application of interim relief, needs to be stayed. The challenge to the validity of 3(1)(b)(5) involves serious constitutional question and the impact of the rule on free speech and expression would need to be analysed by the high court," the bench, also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said.
The ministry of electronics and information technology had notified the Press Information Bureau's Fact Check Unit as the designated body to flag misinformation about Central government departments to social media platforms.
Under the IT Rules of 2021, social media platforms could lose the legal liability protections they enjoy for content posted by users, if they choose to keep notified misinformation available online.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 21 March 2024)
SC denies bail to BRS leader K Kavitha in Delhi excise scam case
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant bail to BRS leader K Kavitha, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi excise policy scam case. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh, and Bela M Trivedi directed Kavitha to approach the trial court.
Supreme Court said that it has to follow a uniform policy for all and it cannot allow people to approach the apex court directly for bail just because they are political persons or can afford to move the Supreme Court directly.
"The petition challenging the provisions will come up with the pending matters," the bench told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Kavitha.
Further, Sibal said that people are being arrested on the basis of an approver's statement. In response, the apex court said it is not going into the merit of the case at the moment.
Kavitha, a Telangana legislative council member and daughter of former CM K Chandrashekar Rao, was arrested on March 15 and remanded to the ED's custody till March 23 in the case.
Courtesy:- The Times of India, 22 March 2024)
Patanjali tenders unconditional apology for ad after Supreme Court issues notice
Patanjali Ayurved has tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court in response to a notice asking it to show cause why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated for allegedly flouting an undertaking given to the top court on November 21, 2023.
Hearing a plea by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) accusing the company of allegedly violating provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and making statements critical of allopathy, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had on March 19 sought the personal presence of company Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev before it.
The court was upset about an advertisement issued by the company on December 4, 2023, after it had assured the court on November 21, 2023, that it would not make any “casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine”.
In the affidavit filed in response to the notice, Acharya Balkrishna said he “regrets that the advertisement in question which was meant to contain only general statements inadvertently included the offending sentences”.
“The same was bona-fide and added in routine course by the media department of the…Company”, he said adding “the personnel of the media department of the…Company were not cognizant of the order dated 21.11.2023.”
“The Deponent on behalf of Respondent No. 5 (Patanjali Ayurved) submits an unqualified apology before this Hon’ble Court for the breach of the statement recorded in Para 3 of the order dated 21.11.2023,” the affidavit said. Balkrishna also sought to assure the court that he “will ensure that such advertisements are not issued in the future”.
The affidavit added, “By way of clarification, not as a defense, the Deponent begs to submit that its intention is only to exhort the citizens of this country to lead a healthier life by consuming products of the Respondent No. 5 including products for lifestyle ailments through the use age old literature and materials supplementing and backed by ayurvedic research.”
Notably, the affidavit also said that “the Schedule J of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 read with Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1955 is in an archaic state and the last changes were introduced in 1996…” by the Centre.
It said that the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, “was passed when scientific evidence in Ayurveda research were lacking. Respondent No. 5 Company now possess evidence-based scientific data with clinical research conducted in Ayurveda, which would demonstrate the advances made through scientific research in the context of diseases mentioned in the said schedule”.
Acharya Balkrishna said his “only quest is for a better and healthier life for each and every citizen and to reduce the burden on the countries healthcare infrastructure by providing holistic, evidence based solutions for lifestyle related medical complications through the usage of age old traditional approach of Ayurveda and Yoga”.
“In fact, the idea was to promote the ayurvedic products which are based on age old literature/material backed by scientific research,” the affidavit added.
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 22 March 2024)
Supreme Court reverses trial court order against Bloomberg in Zee defamation case
The Supreme Court on Friday set aside a trial court's order directing international media group Bloomberg to take down an allegedly defamatory news article against Zee Entertainment.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by Bloomberg against the March 14 order of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed its appeal against the trail court order.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said the error committed by the trial judge had been perpetuated by the high court.
"The error committed by the trial judge had been perpetuated by the high court. Merely recording that a prima-facie case exists for a grant of injunction, the balance of convenience lies in Zee's favour and that an irreparable injury would be caused would not amount to application of mind in the case," the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said while granting liberty to Zee to approach the trial court afresh with its prayer seeking injunction.
Reacting on the apex court order, Bloomberg News spokesperson said, "We are very encouraged by today's decision from the Supreme Court of India, and we continue to stand by this story."
Justice Shalinder Kaur of the high court had said there was no ground to interfere with the ex-parte interim order passed by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) on the lawsuit by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited over the article published on February 21, and ordered Bloomberg to comply with the direction in three days.
On March 1, the ADJ had directed Bloomberg to take down the allegedly defamatory article within a week, saying Zee had established a "prima facie case for passing ad-interim ex-parte orders of injunction".
The ADJ had said the balance of convenience is in Zee's favour and irreparable loss and injury might be caused to the company if the injunction was not granted.
The appellant contended before the high court that the lawsuit was intended to intimidate and silence their right to free and fair speech.
It was also claimed that the ADJ did not give the portal an opportunity to place before it several other articles published prior in time and was denied a right to establish their case.
(Courtesy:- The Hindustan Times, 22 March 2024)
ED is required to furnish grounds of arrest in writing: SC
The Supreme Court dismissed the Centre’s plea seeking review of its October 3, 2023 judgment directing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to furnish grounds of arrest in writing to the accused at the time of arrest.
“We have carefully gone through the review petitions and the connected papers. We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration. The review petitions are dismissed accordingly,” a bench of Justices A S Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar said in its March 20, 2024 order.
In its October 2023 judgment, the bench, while stating that ED is “not expected to be vindictive in its conduct” and has to act fairly and in a transparent manner, had ordered “it will be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception”.
The judgment came on a plea by Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal, Directors of M3M real estate group, who had challenged an order of the Punjab and Haryana HC which declined to set aside their arrest by the ED under the PMLA.
The money laundering case in which Basant and Pankaj Bansal were arrested pertained to an FIR filed by the anti-corruption bureau of the Haryana Police in April last year.
Noting that grounds of arrest were only read to the accused and had not been given to them in writing, the bench said it “reeks of arbitrariness”. Expressing its disapproval, the bench said the “chronology of events speaks volumes and reflects rather poorly, if not negatively, on the ED’s style of functioning”.
Holding their arrest illegal, the bench said the investigating officer reading out the reasons for arrest to the accused does not fulfill the mandate of Article 22 (1) of Constitution and Section 19 (1) of the PMLA.
The bench said, “Being a premier investigating agency… every action of the ED in the course of such exercise is expected to be transparent, above board and conforming to the pristine standards of fair play in action. The ED, mantled with far-reaching powers under the stringent Act of 2002, is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct and must be seen to be acting with utmost probity and with the highest degree of dispassion and fairness.”
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 23 March 2024)
Supreme Court: No green nod exemption for infrastructure projects' digging
As a result of the judgment, any digging for extracting earth and soil for laying roads, pipelines or similar activities for infrastructure projects would require publication of notice inviting objections from the public to the digging, followed by a public hearing and a decision by the competent authority that is liable to be challenged before a jurisdictional green tribunal.
Faulting issuance of the notification exempting linear projects from EC requirement without inviting objections from the public, the bench said, “We fail to understand the undue haste shown by central govt in issuing the impugned notification during the nationwide lockdown. Therefore, the inclusion of item 6 of the substituted Appendix-IX (exempting ‘extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc’) will have to be held illegal.”
It said the object of an earlier notification mandating EC certificate for projects was to minimise the damage to the environment and when an exception is sought to be carved out, it must be specific. The bench said in the notification exempting ‘extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects, such as roads, pipelines, etc’ has no specification about the quantum of ordinary earth, which can be extracted based on the exemption.
“There is no specification of the area which can be used to extract ordinary earth. It is also not provided what quantity of ordinary earth, which is required to implement the linear projects, is exempted. Importantly, ‘linear projects’ have not been defined. Without the definition, it is difficult to imagine which projects will be termed linear projects. The term is very vague. The process to be adopted for excavation has not been set out. Thus, the exemption is completely unguided and blanket, which is, per se, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,” it said.
“There is no provision for setting up an authority which will decide whether a particular linear project is covered by the notification… we have no hesitation in striking down item 6 of the substituted Appendix-IX forming part of the impugned notification dated March 28, 2020 and item 6 of the amended impugned notification dated August 30, 2023,” the bench said.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 23 March 2024)
*Disclaimer: – Always check with the original copy of judgment from the Court website.
