Judgments passed by Indian Supreme Court in the month of January – 2021

For the month of January 2021 1Case NumberW.P.(C) No.-000026 / 202019-01-2021 Petitioner NameMANISH KUMARRespondent NameUNION OF INDIAPetitioner's AdvocateVAIBHAV MANU SRIVASTAVABenchHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGIJudgment ByHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH2Case NumberR.P.(C)…

Judgments passed by Indian Supreme Court in the year of 2020

S.No. 1Diary Number12 / 2019Case NumberCrl.A. No.-000353-000353 / 202002-03-2020 (English)Petitioner NameSATISHKUMAR NYALCHAND SHAHRespondent NameTHE STATE OF GUJARATPetitioner's AdvocateSUMITA RAYRespondent's AdvocateBenchHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAHJudgment ByHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAHS.No. 2Diary Number14 / 2018Case NumberC.A. No.-002528-002529 /…

Macaulay suggested enhancing the power of Supreme Court in India

Supreme Court has never been so mischievous as during the first ten years of its power, or so respectable as it has lately been. Everybody who knows anything of its early history knows, that, during a considerable time, it was the terror of Bengal, the scourge of the native population, the screen of European delinquents, a convenient tool of the Government for all purposes of evil, an insurmountable obstacle to the Government in all undertakings for the public good

Whether an applicant is competent to move HC with a review petition in case of SLP rejected by a Non-speaking Order

A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared.

Without exploring alternative SC canceled Jagannath Rath Jatra 2020: Black day in Hindu History

The Virtual(Computer programmed) Court headed by CJI, SA Bobde along with Justice Dinesh Maheswari and Justice A.S Bopanna while listening to a PIL filed by a Hindu hater NGO, Odisha Vikash Parishad passed a blanket injunction on Puri annual Rath Jatra taking a plea of COVID pandemic. The matter shall be listed after 4 weeks from today. 

SC GUIDELINES FOR COURT FUNCTIONING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING DURING COVID-19

2020.04.06-SUO MOTU WRIT (CIVIL) NO.5/2020- Supreme Court held that the term ‘evidence’ includes electronic evidence and that video conferencing may be used to record evidence. It observed that developments in technology have opened up the possibility of virtual courts which are similar to physical courts. Taking cognizance of the measures adopted by this court and by the High Courts and District Courts, it is necessary for this court to issue directions by taking recourse to the jurisdiction conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution.

THE SUPREME COURT RULES 1966

In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution, and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Supreme Court hereby makes, with the approval of the President, the following rules

The Supreme Court in Calcutta

Party disputes on the Supreme Council were not the only destabilizing legacy of Lord North's Regulating Act of 1773. The act also created a new royal court of justice in Calcutta, ‘the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal’, and the early history of the court was marked by bitter struggles between the judges and the Company government. Disputes over the jurisdiction of the court generated major debates about the scope of English law in India, the constitutional definition of the Company government, and the nature of Indian legal tradition and practice. In the process, the Company's claims to govern according to the ancient constitution of the country were subjected to new levels of scrutiny-Sovereignty, custom and natural law: the Calcutta Supreme Court, 1774–1781 [Robert Travers, Cornell University, New York]