Tag: Supremecourtsaid

A. GOSWAMI  VS UOI: SC upheld Press Rights, stayed FIRs except one while restraining coercive action, allowed three weeks for Bail-24/04/2020

Save and except for FIR No 238 of 2020 dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City, Maharashtra, all further proceedings arising out of and emanating from the remaining FIRs and complaints listed out at Annexure P-2 of the petition shall remain stayed, until further orders; For a period of three weeks, the petitioner shall be protected against any coercive steps arising out of and in relation to the above FIR arising out of the telecast which took place on 21 April 2020;

Only 50% Job Reservation is Permissible: SC said in CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO VS STATE OF A.P – 22/04/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Providing 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribes in scheduled areas offends the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Governor is not conferred power to make any law in derogation to Part III or other provisions of the Constitution of India in the exercise of his power under Clause I, Para 5 of Schedule V. It was also held that G.O.Ms. No.3 is discriminatory as the same adversely affects not only the open category candidates but also other Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and backward classes. It also opined that the reservation under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50%.

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.

SC quashed reassessment Notice demanded Rs 405.09 cr by IT from NDTV but allowed to send a fresh Notice U/S 147 of IT ACT

“We accordingly allow the appeal by holding that the notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons to believe on the part of the assessing officer to reopen the assessment but since the revenue has failed to show non­disclosure of facts the notice having been issued after a period of 4 years is required to be quashed. Having held so, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on whether on facts of this case the revenue could take benefit of the second proviso or not. Therefore, the revenue may issue fresh notice taking benefit of the second proviso if otherwise permissible under law.”

SC issued notice to States Prison Depts, to show cause why directions should not be issued for dealing Corona virus crisis

We consider it appropriate to direct that notices be issued to the Chief Secretaries/Administrators, Home Secretaries, Directors General of all the Prisons and Department of Social Welfare of all the States and the Union Territories, to show cause why directions should not be issued for dealing with the present health crisis arising out of Corona virus (COVID 19) in the country, and further to suggest immediate measures which should be adopted for the medical assistance to the prisioners in all jails and the juveniles lodged in the Remand Homes and for protection of their health and welfare.

Political parties must publish on party websites and other media about candidates with criminal background: SC

It shall be mandatory for political parties [at the Central and State election level] to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases (including the nature of the offences, and relevant particulars such as whether charges have been framed, the concerned Court, the case number etc.) who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.

Despite not providing for anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act, however Court can quash FIRs for want of Prima facie case: SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.

SC can`t direct Govt to provide reservation and States are not bound to make reservation for ST and SC in matters of promotions.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Versus The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. February 07, 2020-The Supreme Court by a non-reportable judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1226 of 2020 has held that states are not bound to provide reservation in appointments and there is no fundamental right to claim quota in promotions.”In view of the law laid down by this court, there is no doubt that the state government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions,” a bench of justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta said. The Controversy in the above Appeals pertains to the reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions in the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department, Government of Uttarakhand.