Justice BV Nagarathna: Igniting Hope for the First Ever Woman Chief Justice of India

“Our country India, or Bharat, is not just a piece in history or geography. It is a nation of over a billion people with over a billion dreams. I have often wondered what binds us together despite the innumerable diversities. It is my firm conviction that one of the binding factors is the Indian Constitution — a legal system committed to rule of law and an organized hierarchy of courts with a Supreme Court at the apex.”

— Justice B V Nagarathna¹

Early Life and Education²

Justice Bangalore Venkataramiah Nagarathna was born on 30-10-1962, and is currently serving in the Supreme Court of India. She is the daughter of the late Chief Justice of India, Justice E. S. Venkataramiah.

She attended the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan in New Delhi for her formal education. She graduated from Jesus and Mary College, University of Delhi, with a B.A. in history in 1984. Later, she went on to the Campus Law Center, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, where she obtained a law degree in 1987.

Did You know? Justice E.S. Venkataramiah, Justice Nagarathna’s father, served as India’s 19th Chief Justice. He was appointed on 19-06-1989, and he served until retirement on December 17-12- 1989.

Career Trajectory ³

Justice Nagarathna became a member of the Karnataka Bar Council in 28-10- 1987, and worked as a constitutional and commercial lawyer in Bangalore, including insurance law, service law, administrative and public law, law pertaining to land and rent laws, family law, conveyancing & drafting of contracts and agreements, arbitration and conciliation until being chosen in February 18, 2008, to serve as an additional judge on the Karnataka High Court.

Justice Nagarathna was appointed as Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 18-02-2008. On 17-02- 2010, she was elevated to serve as a Permanent Judge. Several commentators noted that Justice Nagarathna’s potential nomination to the Supreme Court of India in May 2020 would put her in the race to become the first female Chief Justice of the Indian Supreme Court. She was appointed to the Supreme Court of India on 26-08-2021 and took the oath of office on 31-08- 2021.

Did You Know? On 25-09-2027, Justice Nagarathna is expected to become India’s 54th Chief Justice and will hold the post for 36 days.

Notable Judgments by Justice B V Nagarathna⁴ Karnataka High Court

During Justice BV Nagarathna’s tenure as a Judge in Karnataka High Court from 18-02-2008 till 30-08-2021, she maintained a wide and impressive track record of disposing many cases-

• At Principal Bench of the High Court in Bengaluru, Justice Nagarathna disposed of a total number of 37,531, which included 19247 cases disposed of by her alone.

• At Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court, Justice Nagarathna disposed of a total number of 4,557 cases, including 3,382 cases disposed of by her.

• At Kalburgi Bench of the High Court, Justice Nagarathna disposed of overall 988 cases which also includes 391 cases disposed of by her.

Did You Know? During her 13-year stint as Judge of Karnataka High Court, Justice B.V. Nagarathna herself disposed of as many as 23, 020 cases!

[Preventive Detention] Karnataka HC | Non-consideration of representation at the earliest opportunity could lead to release of detenu; Guidelines/Directions issued

A Division Bench of B V Nagarathna and Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar, JJ. held that it is settled law that an order of preventive detention is made on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The Act also provides for revocation or modification of the order of detention. Such a power could be exercised suo motu by the State. It is a power coupled with the duty when it is exercised on the detenu under Section 14 of the Act is a right of the detenu and a corresponding duty is cast on the State Government, then administrative delay cannot imperil the said right. Inordinate delay in considering the said representation could lead to release of the detenu. Even though Section 14 does not prescribe any time limit for consideration of the said representation, the same must be considered at the earliest point of time.

[Rizwan Pasha v. Commissioner of Police⁵]

“There can be illegitimate parents, but no illegitimate children.” Karnataka HC analyses whether a ‘son’ born out of void marriage be considered for compassionate appointment

A Division Bench of B.V Nagarathna and Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar, JJ. allowed the petition and remarked: “no child is born in this world without a father and a mother. A child has no role to play in his/her birth.” Read More..

[K Santhosha v. Karnataka Power Transmission, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12989]

Kar HC | Can the statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC be evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act? Whether the accused is entitled to bail in case the mandate under Section 35 of the POCSO Act has not been completed?

A Division Bench of B. V. Nagarathna and M.G. Uma JJ. held that the accused does not have a right to seek bail for the reason that the mandate under Section 35 of the POCSO Act has not been completed. Read more..

[Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12300]

[MV Act] Karnataka HC│ Necessary permits for running the business of bike taxis as transport vehicles: Can’t decide on this an emerging concept before application of mind by State on all aspects

A Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and J.M. Khazi disposed of the appeal and laid the observations herein under Read More..

[Ani Technologies v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 11972]

Karnataka High Court | Koladamatt not entitled to registration of occupancy rights over disputed land

A Division Bench comprising of B.V. Nagarathna and Jyoti Mulimani, JJ. reversed a 1993 order, holding that all titles, rights and interests of the Koladamatt over the land in question had been extinguished by a government notification which vested the land in the State Government following the Mutt’s failure to make an application to get registered as an applicant. Read More..

[S. M. Kannappa Automobiles v. Koladamatt Mahasamsthana, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 964]

Karnataka High Court | Journalists & other media personnel are on the field to disseminate correct information just like police, doctors, nurses & government personnel carrying out essential duties

A Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Suraj Govindaraj, JJ., while addressing petition held that, “Role of journalists and media personnel cannot be underestimated nor undermined during this pandemic and just like the police doctors, nurses, and Government personnel and others carrying out essential duties, in the same way, the journalists and other media personnel are on the field to disseminate correct information.” Read More..

[Jacob George v. Secy., Department of Information and Broadcasting, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 541]

Few Notable Judgments of Karnataka High Court during COVID-19

[Coronavirus] Karnataka HC | State Govt. response sought on incident wherein doctors, nurses, ASHA workers assaulted; breach of social distancing guidelines, held in a marriage ceremony at a political leader’s house

A Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ., and B.V. Nagarathna, J., asked for the State Government’s response regarding the breach of social distancing norms at a political leader’s house, the incident of assault on doctors, nurses, and ASHA workers and action being taken on the complaints filed with respect to domestic violence. Read More..

[Mohammed Arif Jameel v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 442]

COVID-19 | Karnataka HC | State Govt. to file response in petition for protection, salary payment and statutory benefits to medical practitioners and ASHA workers

A Division Bench of Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, CJ and B.V. Nagarathna, J. while addressing the present petition asked the State Government to file response regarding two issues: failure to protect the registered medical practitioners, workers and ASHA workers and other accredited and non-accredited health workers. Provision of salary payment and statutory benefits to the medicare personnel and ASHA workers. Read More..

[Rajeev Ramesh Gothe v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 426]

Corona Virus | Karnataka HC | State Govt. to take cognizance on issues like provision of — Supply of hot meal to pregnant women, lactating mothers, malnutritioned children & needy people

A Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and B.V. Nagarathna, J. asked the State Government of Karnataka to take cognizance on various significant issues that have been raised in wake of the outbreak of Corona Virus. Bench while addressing the present petition, appealed the members of the Bar and citizens to not file more PILs with the issues being considered in the present petition. Read More..

[Mohammed Arif Jameel v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 391]

Karnataka HC | Court enunciates guidelines for disqualification of directors; demarcates boundaries, crossing which, it would be rendered bad in law

B.V. Nagarathna, J., disposed of the petitions seeking the provisions of Sections 164(2) and 167(1)(a) and the proviso to Section 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, to be held unconstitutional. Read More..

[Yashodhara Shroff v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 682]

COVID-19 | Karnataka HC | Release of information regarding people contracting COVID-19 at Nizamuddin religious ceremony a policy decision; Court declines to interfere

A Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and B.V. Nagarathna, J. while addressing a petition with regard to release of information of people who contracted COVID-19 at Nizamuddin, Delhi, stated that, It is a policy decision and Court cannot interfere in the same. Read More..

[Girish Bharadwaj v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 445]

Coronavirus | Karnataka HC | Decision to open supermarkets 24×7 is a policy decision; Nothing per se illegal in allowing BMTC buses to transport people connected with essential services

A Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and B.V. Nagarathna, J., while addressing a petition held that “..decision to keep open supermarkets 24×7 relates to purely a policy decision and nothing arbitrary in the said policy decision is found.” Read More..

[Sandhya U. Prabhu v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 441]

Did you Know? Justice Nagarathna happens to be the longest serving woman Judge in the State of Karnataka.⁶

In Supreme Court

What Justice Nagarathna held on States’ power to regulate ‘Industrial alcohol’ as lone dissenting voice in 8:1 verdict

In a significant ruling, the 9-Judge Bench of the Court with a ratio of 8:1, on 23-10-2024, had held that States have the legislative power to regulate ‘intoxicating liquor’.

The majority of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJ., Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, JJ., had held that Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is both an industry-based entry and a product-based entry. The words that follow the expression “that is to say” in the Entry are not exhaustive of its contents. It includes the regulation of everything from the raw materials to the consumption of ‘intoxicating liquor’. The majority also overruled 7-Judge Bench ruling in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1990) 1 SCC 109.

B.V. Nagarathna, J., was the sole dissenting voice on several aspects of the majority decision. She held that:

• Entry 8 — List II deals with “intoxicating liquors”. The misuse, diversion or abuse of “industrial alcohol” as “intoxicating liquors” can also be controlled and prevented under Entry 8— List II by the State Legislatures having regard to Article 47 of the Constitution. She clarified that the IDRA which has been enacted by the Parliament by virtue of Entry 52 — List I has taken control of “Fermentation Industries” as a scheduled industry. Such “Fermentation Industries” would exclude “intoxicating liquors”.

• Parliament can occupy the field of the entire industry by merely issuing a declaration under Entry 52 — List I and the State Legislature’s competence under Entry 24 — List II is denuded to the field of the entire industry and specifically to the extent of the field covered by the law of Parliament under Entry 52 — List I.

• Nagarathna, J., agreed with the majority conclusion that Parliament does not have the legislative competence to enact a law taking control of the industry of intoxicating liquor covered by Entry 8 of List II in exercise of the power under Article 246 read with Entry 52 of List I.

• The judgment in Synthetics (supra) need not be overruled in relation to Section 18G of the IDRA and it continues to be good law in the context of what is comprised in the expression “industrial alcohol” and “intoxicating liquors” except what has been clarified in Entry 8 — List II. Read more..

[State of UP v. Lalta Prasad Vaish, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3029]

Read Justice BV Nagarathna’s sole dissent in SC’s verdict on ‘royalty’ as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights

In a matter concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States on the taxation of mineral rights, the Nine Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih JJ. has held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna, gave a dissenting opinion, she held that:

• The concept of royalty is being considered from the perspective of Section 9 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and not from any other context. Thus, viewed from the statutory framework of the MMDR Act, 1957 passed by the Parliament on the strength of Entry 54 — List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and having regard to Section 2 of the said Act, royalty is in the nature of a ‘tax’ or an ‘exaction’.

• Section 9 of the MMDR Act, 1957 is a limitation within the meaning of Entry 50 — List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the States have no legislative competence to levy any other tax, impost or fee on the exercise of mineral rights. Entry 49 — List II is also not applicable to mineral bearing lands.

• India Cement Ltd. v. State of T.N., (1990) 1 SCC 12 has been correctly decided by a seven-judge Bench of this Court and that the majority judgment in State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201, is incorrect and therefore, ought to be overruled. Read more..

[Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1796]

‘Non-consideration of adverse effect on health of humans, animals, plants’: Justice Nagarathna on Centre’s approval for Genetically Modified mustard cultivation

In a batch of civil writ petitions assailing the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee’s (‘GEAC’) approval for environmental release of Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) mustard, the Division Bench of B.V Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, JJ. delivered split verdict in the matter Justice Nagarathna quashed the approval given by the GEAC and the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC’), Justice Karol upheld the same.

Justice Nagarathna held that the recommendations of GEAC dated 18-10-2022 as well as the decision taken by the respondent Union of India on 25-10-2022 approving environmental release of transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 on the application made by the applicant, CGMCP, University of Delhi (South Campus’) were vitiated and hence, liable to be quashed. Read more..

[Gene Campaign v Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1793]

‘Determined compensation in FSI/TDR form payable even without any representation or request’: SC grants relief to landowners for surrendering lands to Municipal Corporation

In a batch of civil appeals against judgments of the Bombay High Court wherein a batch of writ petitions of landowners for additional compensation for surrendering their land and developing amenities were dismissed on grounds of delay and laches, the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna* and N. Kotiswar Singh allowing the appellants’ appeals set aside the portions of the impugned decisions, holding that the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches. The Court also dismissed the three appeals filed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (‘respondent’). The Court also directed the respondent- Mumbai Municipal Corporation to consider the case of the appellants herein in light of the judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24 (“Godrej & Boyce I”) and release the balance FSI/TDR to them. Read more..

[Kukreja Construction Co. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2547]

Default borrowers, served with look out circular by MHA at the instance of Public Sector Banks, to seek permission from HC to travel abroad: Supreme Court

In a batch of special leaves to appeals by the Union/ petitioners against a decision of the Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195, wherein disposing of several petitions, Clause 8(b)(xv) of the 2010 amended Office Memoranda (equivalent to Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 consolidated OM) which includes the Chairmen, Managing Directors and Chief Executive Officers of all public sector banks as authorities who may request the issuance of a Look Out Circular (‘LOC’), was quashed, the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. said that while an interim stay is imposed on the impugned decision, the respondents/writ petitioners before the High Court shall seek permission from the High Court if they wish to travel abroad. Read more..

[Union of India v Viraj Chetan Shah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2136]

Supreme Court on Parliament’s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights

In a matter concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States on the taxation of mineral rights, the Nine Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih JJ. has held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna, gave a dissenting opinion. Read more..

[Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1796]

Supreme Court upholds Centre’s decision of demonetising Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes

In a petition against the demonetisation of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes in 2016, the Constitution Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R Gavai*, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, B.V. Nagarathna**, JJ. has upheld the Centre’s 2016 demonetisation scheme in a 4:1 majority and held that demonetisation was proportionate to the Union’s stated objectives and was implemented in a reasonable manner. While BR Gavai, J wrote the majority opinion for himself and S. Abdul Nazeer, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ, B.V. Nagarathna J. wrote the dissenting opinion for herself. Read More..

[Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1]

Ministers and the freedom to make ‘hurtful’ statements: Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench verdict & Justice Nagarathna’s partial dissent, explained

A Constitution Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, V Ramasubramanian & BV Nagarathna, JJ, has delivered verdict on the issue relating to freedom of speech of public functionaries and whether the right to life and personal liberty of citizens impedes the same and has ruled against imposing further restrictions on freedom of speech of Ministers. V Ramasubramanian, J delivered the verdict for himself and SA Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, JJ, however, BV Nagarathna, J, while agreeing with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the majority on certain questions referred, went on to lend a ‘different perspective’ on some issues by way of separate opinion. Read More..

[Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 6]

Disinvesting of Hindustan Zinc Ltd.; SC smells irregularities in bidding process, directs full-fledged CBI enquiry in the matter

The Division Bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud* and B V Nagarathna, JJ., partly allowed the petition challenging Union Government’s disinvestment of its shareholding in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (HZL). The Bench, though held that the government was within its powers to disinvest its shares, it was of the opinion that a full-fledged CBI enquiry was required regarding previous disinvestment by the government.

The Bench stated, “There is no bar on the constitutional power of this Court to direct the CBI to register a regular case, in spite of its decision to close a preliminary enquiry.” Read More..

[National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1086]

Family Planning | Know why the Supreme Court allowed termination of unplanned pregnancy at 26 weeks

In a petition filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India seeking directions against the authorities to allow medical termination of pregnancy under Sections 3(2)(b)(i), 3(3) and 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (‘MTP Act’) read with Rule 3B of MTP Rules, 2003 in any Government Hospital, the Division Bench of Hima Kohli and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. allowed the instant petition issuing directions for the couple and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (‘AIIMS’) to proceed with MTP procedure at the earliest. Read More..

[Poonam Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1333]

RPF Constable a railway servant; entitled to claim under Employees Compensation Act, 1923: Supreme Court

In an appeal against judgment and order passed by Gujarat High Court dismissing appeal under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (‘1923 Act’) against order passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. upheld the maintainability of claim of compensation of Railway Protection Special Force (‘RPF’) Constable disputed to be part of the Armed Forces of the Union. Read More..

[RPSF v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1218]

KSCARDB a co-operative society, entitled to benefit under Section 80P of Income Tax Act: Supreme Court

While considering whether the assessee, a co-operative society, was entitled to claim deduction of whole of its profits and gains of business attributable to banking business or providing credit facilities to its members who are all co-operative societies under Section 80-P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (1961 Act), the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. Traced various relevant provisions to hold that the assessee being a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank was entitled to the benefit of Section 80-P of 1961 Act. Read More..

[Kerala State Coop. Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, Trivandrum, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1164]

SC upholds validity of Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955; NHPC liable to pay tax on vehicles carrying employees and family gratis

In a batch of civil appeals assailing the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s orders, whereby the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (‘Act, 1955’) as amended from time to time by the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1997 (‘Amendment Act, 1997’) were upheld, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. Dismissed the appeals and upheld the validity of Act, 1955 as amended by Amendment Act, 1997. Read More..

[NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1137]

No absolute or unfettered discretion on the part of Liquidator to cancel auction which is otherwise valid: Supreme Court

In an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) against the order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) allowing the appeal of Punjab National Bank (‘PNB’)/financial creditor and upholding the decision of the Liquidator to cancel the auction sale, the division bench of BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ. held that it that though para 1(11A) has been inserted in Schedule I to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. (‘Regulations’) w.e.f. 30-9-20221, it only recognizes the need and necessity for giving reasons in the event of rejecting the highest bid. It is an acknowledgment of the fundamental principle. Thus, intimation of the reasons for rejection of the highest bid would also be the requirement prior to 30-09-2021. Thus, it set aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and restored the order of the Tribunal. Read More..

[Eva Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd v. Punjab National Bank, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1138]

Supreme Court lays down Principles for exercise of legislative power of abrogating a law declared invalid by Court

While a batch of civil appeals assailing the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s orders, whereby the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (‘Act, 1955’) as amended from time to time by the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1997 (‘Amendment Act, 1997’) were upheld, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. discussed the law around legislative power to abrogation and laid down certain inexhaustive principles to be followed in exercise of legislative devise of abrogation. Read More..

[NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1137]

No bar on seeking restoration of appeal if assessee is unsuccessful in availing benefit under Amnesty Scheme: Supreme Court

In an appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which has affirmed the order of the Single Judge, by which, the application filed by the appellant, seeking restoration of the statutory appeal before the appellate authority was rejected, the division bench of BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. while setting aside the orders of the High Court as well as the appellate authority, restored the appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Appeals. Further, it opined that the appellate forums would be obliged to consider the taxpayer’s challenge on merits where its amnesty application is rejected. Read More..

[PM Paul v. State Tax Officer, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1141]

Executing Court cannot hold execution decree inexecutable, merely because decree-holder lost possession to an encroacher: Supreme Court

In appeals against judgment and orders dated 7-04-2916 and 4-11-2016 passed by the Delhi High Court affirming the order passed by Executing Court holding that the decree for possession of immoveable property was not executable against the judgment-debtor, Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, J. reiterated that the Executing Court could not hold execution decree as inexecutable merely for the reason that the decree-holder lost possession of decretal land to a third party or encroacher, and that it must adjudicate resistance to delivery of possession as per Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’). Read More..

[Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1065]

‘Courts cannot lose sight of serious accusations against an accused while granting bail’; SC sets aside cryptic and casual bail order

In a batch of civil appeals against the Order of Rajasthan High Court wherein bail was granted to the accused persons for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., found that the High Court not right in granting bail to the accused persons and viewed that the High Court had lost sight of the vital aspects of the case. Read More..

[Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 870]

Supreme Court decides taxability of interest income on Bank FDs of Clubs; Illuminates Ratio Decidendi

In a batch of Special Leave Petitions arising against Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Court pertaining to Secunderabad Club, Madras Gymkhana Club, Madras Cricket Club, The Coimbatore Cosmopolitan Club, Madras Club, Wellington Gymkhana Club and Coonoor Club, wherein, the High Courts have uniformly held that the interest earned on the bank deposits made by the clubs is liable to be taxed in the hands of the clubs, restricting the principle of mutuality, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. held that the decision in Bangalore Club v. CIT, (2013) 5 SCC 509 was to be construed as a precedent and therefore, income earned on fixed deposits by the said Clubs fell within the meaning of Section 2(24) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Read More..

[Secundrabad Club v. CIT, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1004]

Compassionate appointment not a vested right: Supreme Court explains when a candidate can be considered

In an appeal filed by the Bank of Baroda (‘Bank’) against judgment and decree passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein the Court has set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and has restored the judgment of the Trial Court, granting the respondent declaration and mandatory injunction vis-a-vis his appointment in the Bank on a compassionate basis, the division bench of BV Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, reiterated that the appointment of a candidate on compassionate basis does not create any vested right and that it is only when a candidate is covered under all clauses of the Scheme applicable at the relevant point of time that he/she could be considered for compassionate appointment. Read More..

[Bank of Baroda v. Baljit Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745]

‘Chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete to interfere with acquittal’; Supreme Court affirms acquittal in 25-year-old case

In an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 1-05-2012 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court setting aside the Trial Court judgment sentencing the respondent under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and thereby acquitting him, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. refused to interfere with the High Court’s view and dismissed the State’s appeal. Read More..

[State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 746]

Clarifications, Amendments, Explanations of any previous Law whether Prospective or Retrospective in Nature? Supreme Court answers

In an appeal filed by the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (‘appellant-University’) against the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein the appellant-University’s appeal was dismissed and Judgment of the Single Judge was confirmed, whereby the appellant was directed to grant two advance increments to respondents 1 and 2, the Division Bench of K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna* JJ., while affirming the impugned Judgments, also said that if a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted and that an explanation/clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision. Read More..

[Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Manu, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640]

‘Rural health practitioners are not medical practitioners’; Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 rightly struck down by Gauhati HC: Supreme Court

The bench of BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna*, JJ has held that the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 that permitted Diploma holders to practise ‘medicine’, i.e., allopathic medicine, in rural areas of Assam, is null and void and has been rightly struck down by the Gauhati High Court. The Court has, however, held that the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, which was enacted by the State of Assam with a view to remove the basis of the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court, to restore the position of the diploma holders in medicine and to give them continuity in service, is a valid piece of legislation. Read More..

[Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 79]

As all convicts in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case walk free, read why Supreme Court ordered their release

In an appeal relating to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, the division bench of B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. has said that the conduct of all the appellants is satisfactory, thus, directed that all the appellants be deemed to have served their respective sentences and to be set at liberty. Read More..

[R.P. Ravichandran v State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1675]

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: Doctrine of dominus litus for amendment of plaint

The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., explained the legal propositions governing Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint. Read More..

[Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, (2022) 8 SCC 145]

Make way for the outsiders: Compassionate Appointment cannot be extended to heirs of the retiring employees, holds Supreme Court

In a case where the Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika/ Municipal Corporation was giving appointment to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that such appointment is contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Read More..

[Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1154]

If a High Court converts itself into Executing Court it will be flooded with writ petitions to execute arbitral awards

While adjudicating an appeal relating to arbitration, the Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that by entertaining the petition under Article 226 for executing an arbitral award, the High Court had virtually converted itself into Executing Court. Read More..

[NHAI v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1070]

Financial crunch a valid ground to fix cut-off date for granting actual benefit of revision of pension/pay; Rule 3(3) of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 constitutional

The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the financial crunch/financial constraint due to additional financial burden is a valid ground to fix a cut-off date for the purpose of granting the actual benefit of revision of pension/pay. Read More..

[State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1071]

Disinvesting of Hindustan Zinc Ltd.; SC smells irregularities in bidding process, directs full-fledged CBI enquiry in the matter

The Division Bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud* and B V Nagarathna, JJ., partly allowed the petition challenging Union Government’s disinvestment of its shareholding in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (HZL). The Bench, though held that the government was within its powers to disinvest its shares, it was of the opinion that a full-fledged CBI enquiry was required regarding previous disinvestment by the government. The Bench stated,

“There is no bar on the constitutional power of this Court to direct the CBI to register a regular case, in spite of its decision to close a preliminary enquiry.” Read More..

[National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1086]

Judgment Debtor’s right under Rule 60 of Second Schedule of Income Tax Act a valuable right to save his property; cannot be taken away on technical ground or bona fide mistake for which he is not at fault

The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the right available to the judgment debtor under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a valuable right and the last resort/opportunity to the judgment debtor to save his property and should not be affected on the technical ground and/or for the mistake and/or the bona fide mistake for which he was not at all responsible. Read More..

[RS Infra-Transmission Ltd v. Saurinindubhai Patel, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 854]

Ready Reckoner Price cannot be the basis for determining compensation for land acquisition: SC declares Bombay HC’s decision per incuriam

While reversing the impugned decision of the Bombay High Court, M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that the prices mentioned in the Ready Reckoner cannot be the basis for determining compensation for the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Read More..

[BSNL v. Nemichand Damodardas, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 815]

Twin conditions of furnishing declaration within time limit “mandatory” for exemption relief under Section 10B (8) of IT Act

The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has rejected the view taken by the Karnataka High Court and ITAT, Bangalore that the requirement of furnishing a declaration under Section 10-B(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) is mandatory, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is not mandatory but is directory. The Court held that the assessee shall not be entitled to the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act on noncompliance of the twin conditions as provided under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. Read More..

[CIT v. Wipro Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 831]

Pay on a par with last drawn pay on reemployment in Government Service? Not a matter of right, holds Supreme Court

In a case where the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ was posed with the question as to whether on re­employment in the government service, an employee who was serving in the Indian Army/in the Armed Forces shall be entitled to his pay scales at par with his last drawn pay, it has been held that a claim for the last drawn pay in the armed forces is not a matter of right. Read More..

[Union of India v. Anil Prasad, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 665]

Land Acquisition| Compensation under 2013 Act cannot be claimed if award under 1894 Act couldn’t be passed due to pendency of proceedings or interim stay

The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that in a case where on the date of commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 and they shall be entitled to the compensation only under the Act, 1894. Read More..

[Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 679]

Nature of offence under Section 63 of Copyright Act — Cognizable or Non-cognizable?

In a case where the Trial Court had held that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offence but the Delhi High Court took a contrary view, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has reversed the finding of the Delhi High Court and held that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offence. Read More..

[Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 668]

Insurance companies refusing claims on flimsy/technical grounds must stop! Don’t ask for documents that insured can’t produce

In a case where an Insurance Company had refused to settle an insurance claim on non-submission of the duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration of the stolen vehicle, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ., has held that while settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control. Read More..

[Gurmel Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 666]

Male Head Constable enters Mahila Barrack at 00:15 hours; is punishment of removal from service too harsh? SC tells what makes the punishment disproportionate

The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., affirmed impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court whereby the High Court had reversed the findings of the Single judge who had interfered with the order of disciplinary authority and remanded the matter for re-consideration. Read More..

[Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 478]

Right to residence under DV Act not restricted to actual residence; Domestic relationship not necessary to be subsisting at the time of filing of application

The bench of MR Shah and BV Nagarathna*, JJ has answered three important questions pertaining to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) and has expanded the scope of the Act by holding that, Even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex-parte or interim as well as a final order under the provisions of the D.V. Act. The expression ‘right to reside in the shared household’ would include not only actual residence but also constructive residence in the shared household. It is not necessary that at the time of filing of an application by an aggrieved person, the domestic relationship should be subsisting. Read More..

[Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 607]

It isn’t the purpose of grace marks to allow reserved category candidate to switch over to general category

The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., reversed the impugned order of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the High Court had directed Income Tax Department to grant grace marks to the applicant and treat him as a person belonging to general category. Read More..

[Union of India v. Mukesh Kumar Meena, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 525]

Insertion of meritorious OBC candidates into the general category list without disturbing the appointment of general category candidates? Supreme Court strikes balance

In a service matter where upon reshuffling and on insertion of two OBC candidates into general category select list, two general category candidates already appointed and working since long would have been expelled or removed, thereby unsettling the entire selection process, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to all the candidates involved. Read More..

[Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Sandeep Choudhary, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 524]

Even a single crime committed by a ‘Gang’ is sufficient to prosecute an accused under the Gangsters Act

In a case where it was argued before the Court that an accused cannot be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act, 1986 for a single offence/FIR/charge sheet with respect to any of the antisocial activities mentioned in Section 2(b), the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that even a single crime committed by a ‘Gang’ is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the ‘Gang’. Read More..

[Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514]

Producing false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct; Dismissal of service justified in such cases

In a case where an employee had produced a fake certificate for seeking employment, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct and dismissal of service is a justified punishment in such cases. Read More..

[Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 486]

Candidates can’t claim appointment to unfilled posts in absence of provision for waiting list

The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that as per Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for the post of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2012, a candidate does not have the right to claim any appointment to the post which remained unfilled in absence of provision for the waiting list. Read More..

[Vallampati Sathish Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 470]

Landowners cannot claim acquisition proceeding is lapsed u/s. 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation Act where stay was obtained by them vide interim orders

The Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., reversed the impugned judgment of Karnataka High Court holding that landowners who approach the acquisition proceedings and obtain interim orders in their favour cannot take benefit under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Read More..

[Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 342]

Appointment of Teachers| Can obtaining a degree in one branch of a subject be considered equivalent to obtaining degree in the subject as a whole?

In the case where the Court was posed with the question as to whether the degrees obtained by the respective petitioners in one branch of History can be said to be obtaining a degree in History, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that once the Expert Committee has opined that the degrees obtained by the candidates in one branch of History cannot be said to be obtaining the degree in History as a whole, the Court cannot go against such finding. Read More..

[Indresh Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 449]

Lapse of a long period in deciding appeal cannot be a ground to award disproportionate and inadequate punishment

The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate. Read More..

[State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 428]

“A prudent insurer has to gauge possible risks”; Insurer can’t repudiate mediclaim alleging pre-existing illness where policy was issued after considering necessary medical records

The Division Bench of Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna*, JJ., held that if on the consideration of the medical report, the insurance company gets satisfied about the medical condition of the proposer and that there was no risk of pre-existing illness, and on such satisfaction, it issues the policy, it cannot thereafter, contend that there was a possible pre-existing illness or sickness which has led to the claim made by the insured and for that reason repudiate the claim. Read More..

[Manmohan Nanda v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1181]

Allotment of Government Largesse| Discretionary quota inevitably leads to corruption, nepotism, favouritism. Time to do away with it

Noticing that the allotment of government largesse based on discretionary quota inevitably leads to corruption, nepotism and favouritism, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has suggested that discretionary quota should be done away with, and allotments of the public properties/plots must be through public auction by and large. Read More..

[State of Orissa v. Pratima Mohanty, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222]

No borrower can claim benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme as a right; Can’t encourage dishonest borrowers

In a major relief to Banks, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that no borrower can, as a matter of right, pray for grant of benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS Scheme) as,

“If it is held that the borrower can still, as a matter of right, pray for benefit under the OTS Scheme, in that case, it would be giving a premium to a dishonest borrower, who, despite the fact that he is able to make the payment and the fact that the bank is able to recover the entire loan amount even by selling the mortgaged/secured properties, either from the borrower and/or guarantor. This is because under the OTS Scheme a debtor has to pay a lesser amount than the actual amount due and payable under the loan account. Such cannot be the intention of the bank while offering OTS Scheme and that cannot be purpose of the Scheme which may encourage such a dishonesty.” Read More..

[Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited v. Meenal Agarwal, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1255]

Three death row convicts to walk free as SC finds them “not guilty” of murdering six family members

In a big relief for three death row convicts, the 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has acquitted all of them of charges of killing 6 members of their family after it was found that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Read More..

[Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1256]

Determination of Pension to be governed by the rule as it existed at the time of joining or the rule in force at the time of retirement?

The Division Bench of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna*, JJ., held that the action of selectively applying the proviso to Rule 25(a) in relation to one person, while not applying the said proviso in relation to similarly situated persons, is arbitrary and therefore illegal. The Bench stated, “We accept the settled position of law that the rule applicable in matters of determination of pension is that which exists at the time of retirement, we are unable to find any legal basis in the action of the respondent University of selectively allowing the benefit of Rule 25 (a).” Read More..

[G. Sadasivan Nair v. Cochin University of Science and Technology, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1155]

SC awards 30 years RI to man who killed 2 brothers & nephew; Finds imposition of death penalty on the day of conviction itself, wrong

In a case where the trial court had convicted the accused and imposed death penalty on the very same day, the 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has converted the death sentence to life imprisonment after noticing that the trial court as well as the High Court has only taken into consideration the crime but have not taken into consideration the criminal, his state of mind, his socioeconomic background etc. Read More..

[Bhagchandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1209]

Right to promotion is not considered to be a fundamental right but consideration for promotion has now been evolved as a fundamental right

The 3-Judges Bench comprising of D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., set aside the seniority list prepared by the Department of Minor Irrigation, U.P. on finding the list to be in contravention of statutory mandate. The Bench stated,

“The Appointing Authority ought to have prepared a combined merit list based upon the performance or the proficiency on the basis of the marks received in the selection test as prepared by the Commission; otherwise, it would amount to denial of the right of consideration for promotion to a more meritorious candidate as against a candidate having lesser merit.” Read More..

[Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1195]

Can ITAT recall an order while exercising powers under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act?

Explaining the scope of jurisdiction of ITAT, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the powers under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Read More..

[Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Telecom Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1170]

Contractual bar on interest doesn’t only bar the parities from claiming it but also the Arbitrator from awarding it

The Division Bench comprising of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that where it is specifically barred in the contract, the Arbitrator cannot award any interest pendente lite or future interest on the amounts due and payable to the contractor under the contract. Rejecting the claim of the respondent that the government having claimed interest itself could not oppose the same, the Bench stated,

“Even if the government would have been awarded interest, the same also was not permissible and could have been a subject matter of challenge. In short, there cannot be an estoppel against law.” Read More..

[Union of India v. Manraj Enterprises, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1081]

HC quashes proceedings based on “draft charge-sheet” yet to be placed before Magistrate! Clear abuse of S. 482 CrPC, holds SC

In a case where the Gujarat High Court had quashed criminal proceedings at the behest of persons who were not named in the FIR purely on the basis of their names appearing in the draft charge-sheet, the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has found it to be a “clear abuse” of High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court noticed that the High Court cannot place reliance on a “draft charge-sheet” which is yet to be placed before the Magistrate to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482. Read More..

[Jitul Jentilal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1045]

National Security Act| Delay in considering representation; non-communication of rejection strike at the heart of fundamental rights of detenu

In a case where the Government caused unreasonable delay in considering the representation and thereafter failed to communicate the rejection to a person detained under Section 3(2) of National Security Act 1980 (NSA), the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, Vikram Seth and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the procedural rights of the detenu emanating from Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the NSA were not sufficiently protected in the present case.

“The State Government cannot expect this Court to uphold its powers of subjective satisfaction to detain a person, while violating the procedural guarantees of the detenu that are fundamental to the laws of preventive detention enshrined in the Constitution.” Read More..

[Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1019]

Karnataka High Court calls person committing suicide a ‘weakling’! Don’t diminish the gravity of mental health issues, says SC

In a case where the Single Judge of Karnataka High Court had termed person committing suicide a ‘weakling’ and also made observations on how the behavior of the deceased before he committed suicide was not that of a person who is depressed and suffering from mental health issues, the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that such observations describing the manner in which a depressed person ought to have behaved deeply diminishes the gravity of mental health issues and that,

“The mental health of a person cannot be compressed into a one size fits all approach.” Read More..

[Mahendra KC v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1021]

Nomenclature of a Tax does not determine the nature of the levy or its true character

The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has upheld the validity of Sections 52 (1)(a), Section 55(b)(1) and Section 56 of the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 and has held that the levy under Section 52 falls squarely under the ambit of Entry 49 of List II as it is in the nature of a tax and not a fee. The Court also went on to hold that the levy which is imposed under Section 52 is a tax on lands and buildings within the meaning of Entry 49 of List II. Read More..

[Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 960]

IBC and Limitation| Words “order is made available to the aggrieved party” consciously omitted from Section 61(1)&(2): SC. Read why

Dealing with the question as to ) when will the clock for calculating the limitation period run for proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that Sections 61(1) and (2) of the IBC consciously omit the requirement of limitation being computed from when the “order is made available to the aggrieved party”, in contradistinction to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act.

“… the omission of the words “from the date on which the order is made available” for the purposes of computation of limitation in Section 61(2) of the IBC, is a consistent signal of the intention of the legislature to nudge the parties to be proactive and facilitate timely resolution.” Read More..

[V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 959]

‘Furlough not a legal right’: Supreme Court explains difference between Parole and furlough

The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has formulated “broad, general” principles governing rules for granting parole and furlough, holding that parole and furlough are distinct in nature and that although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough. Read More..

[State of Gujarat v. Narayana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 949]

Principles governing power of Courts to direct Retrial and Joint Trial, as laid down by Supreme Court

The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has lucidly laid down the principles governing the power of the Courts to direct re-trial, Joint Trial and Separate trial and has held retrial and joint trial can be ordered only in exceptional circumstances. Read More..

[Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 924]

Explained| Is Preliminary Enquiry mandatory in all corruption cases?

The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that a Preliminary Enquiry is not mandatory in all cases which involve allegations of corruption. The Court said that in case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a “source information”, discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Read More..

[CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 923]

Explained| Law on grant on bail in NDPS cases

The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has elaborately discussed the principles governing the grant of bail, especially in cases under the NDPS Act and has held that,

“… the test which the High Court and this Court are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed.” Read More..

[Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 782]

Did you know? Once Justice Nagarathna takes the top post, it will be the first father-daughter duo to be Chief Justices of India, besides being the first father-daughter duo to be Judges of the Supreme Court.⁷