Latest Supreme Court Judgments

Latest Post

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707651


Before :- Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 13029 of 1985. D/d. 17.11.2017.

M.C. Mehta - Petitioners
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents

For the Petitioners :- Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate (A.C.), Ms. Aparajita Singh, (A.C.), A.D.N. Rao, (A.C.), Siddhartha Chowdhury, (A.C.), Petitioner-In-Person.
For the Respondents :- A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, S. Wasim A. Qadri, D.L. Chidanand, Ritesh Kumar, Zaid Ali, Saeed Qadri, S.S. Rebello, Ms. Nivedita Nair, Abhisehk Bharadwaj, Jai Dehadrai, Ms. Divya Prakash Pandey, Ajit Yadav, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Pallavi Chopra, G.S. Makker, Ajit Yadav, Advocates.
For the CPCB :- Vijay Panjwani, Advocate
For the U.P. :- Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, Ms. Rachna Gupta, Siddhant S. Malik, Advocates.
For the Haryana :- Anil Grover, AAG, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Satish Kumar, Ajay Bansal, Gaurav Yadav, Sanjay Kr. Visen, Samir Ali Khan, Advocates.
For the Rajasthan :- S.S. Shamshery, AAG, Amit Sharma, Ankit Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocates.
For the NCT :- Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Neha Sangwan, B.K. Prasad, M/s. S. Narain, Advocates.
For the Mercedes Benz :- Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv., Akshat Hansaria, Amit K. Mishra, Pavan Bhushan, Ritesh Bajaj, Advocates.


Report Nos. 72 and 76
On 13.11.2017, we had reserved orders on various applications filed for recall of the order dated 24.10.2017 regarding the ban on use of furnace oil and pet coke in the States of U.P., Haryana and Rajasthan.
2. Today, the learned ASG has placed before us a decision taken by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change of the Government of India on 15.11.2017 requiring the Central Pollution Control Board to issue a direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 to the States of U.P., Haryana and Rajasthan prohibiting any industry, operation or processes using pet coke and furnace oil as fuel with immediate effect until further orders. It is clarified by the learned ASG that this is with respect to entire State and not only NCR region.

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707650


Before:- Madan B. Lokur, Prafulla C. Pant and Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2009 of 2017. D/d. 16.8.2017.

Rakesh Kumar Paul - Petitioner
State of Assam - Respondents

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2176 of 2017.
For the Petitioner :- Wajeeh Shafiq, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Debojit Borkakati, Advocate.

Cases Referred :

Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161.
Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh, 2006(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 677 : (2006) 6 SCC 277.
Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, 1996(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 505 : (1996) 1 SCC 718.
Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCC 308.
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 1994(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 156 : (1994) 4 SCC 602.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98.
Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 376.
Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907.
Khatri v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627.
Kiran Chander Asri v. State of Haryana, 2015(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 421 : 2015(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 652 : (2016) 1 SCC 578.
Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 1 SCC 503.
Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, 1996(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 510 : (1996) 1 SCC 722.
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, 2012(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 417 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 544 : (2012) 9 SCC 1.
Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 175 : 2013(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 631 : 2013 (7) SCC 466.
Paramjit Kaur (Mrs.) v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 282 : (1996) 7 SCC 20.
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
Prakash Singh v. Union of India, 2006(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 439 : (2006) 8 SCC 1.
Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (NCT) of Delhi), 2001(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 754 : (2001) 5 SCC 34.
Rajoo @ Ramakant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 1005 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 225 : (2012) 8 SCC 553.
Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2007) 4 SCC 318.
Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay, 1994(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 684 : (1994) 5 SCC 410.
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96.
Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1986(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 437 : (1986) 2 SCC 401.
Sunil Batra II v. Home Secretary, Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488.
Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, 2001(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 452 : (2001) 5 SCC 453.
Union of India v. Nirala Yadav, 2014(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 534 : 2014(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 265 : (2014) 9 SCC 457.


Madan B. Lokur, J. - In Measure for Measure the Duke complains (in the given situation): "And liberty plucks justice by the nose".[8]The truth is that personal liberty cannot be compromised at the altar of what the State might perceive as justice - justice for one might be perceived as injustice for another. We are therefore unable to agree with learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is not entitled to his liberty through what is commonly referred to as `default bail' or that the justice of the case should persuade us to decide otherwise.

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707649


Before :- Vikramajit Sen and C. Nagappan, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1966 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31615 of 2014). D/d. 17.2.2015.

Roxann Sharma - Petitioner
Arun Sharma - Respondent

With Civil Appeal No. 1967 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP ) No. 32581 of 2014).
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate, Ms. Jubli Momalia, Mr. Saravjeet Kumar Thakur and Mr. Satya Mitra, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh, Mr. Rakesh Chaurasia for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., Advocates.


Vikramajit Sen, J. - Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
2. Civil Appeal of 2015 arising out of SLP(C) No.31615 of 2014 assails the Judgment dated 2nd August, 2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.79 of 2014, which in turn questioned the Order dated 31.1.2014 passed by the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, Goa (hereafter also referred to as the Civil Judge) in Matrimonial Petition No. 15/2013/II filed on 18.5.2013 before us, by the Respondent, Shri Arun Sharma (hereafter referred to as `Father') under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. In this petition the Father has prayed inter alia that (a) the custody of the minor child, Thalbir Sharma be retained by him and that (b) by way of temporary injunction, the Appellant before us (hereinafter referred to as the Mother) be restrained from taking forcible possession of the minor child Thalbir from the custody of the Applicant. These proceedings were initiated and are pending in Goa at the instance of the father; at that time when all three persons were residents of Goa. After a detailed discussion of facts, as well as of law, the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division Margao, Goa ordered that "pending final disposal of the petition on merits, the respondent, Roxann Sharma is granted interim custody of minor child Thalbir Sharma. The applicant shall have visitation rights to the child. He shall inform about his visit to the child in advance to the respondent upon which she shall allow applicant to visit the child".

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707646


Before:- R. Banumathi and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 5369 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 34653 of 2016). D/d. 19.4.2017.

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury - Appellant
Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Rajan K. Chourasia, Advocate.
For the Respondents :- Mrs Sarla Chandra, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ms. Mehaak Jaggi, Advocates.

R. Banumathi, J. - Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in RVW No.85 of 2016 in C.O. No.4228 of 2012, reviewing an order dated 02.02.2015 passed earlier in an application filed under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby enhancing the amount of maintenance from L 16,000/- per month to L 23,000/- per month.

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707645


Before:- Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 972 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5751 of 2016). D/d. 3.7.2017.

Nithya Anand Raghavan - Appellant
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents

For the Appellants :- Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Ms. Arpita Rai, Ranjay N., Vaibhav Vats, Ms. Saumya Maheshwari, Ms. Tenya Prasad, Ms. Udita Singh, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- B. Krishna Prasad, S.S. Jauhar, Advocates.


A.M. Khanwilkar, J. - Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order (for short "the Impugned Judgment") passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 8th July, 2016 in a writ petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production of the minor daughter Nethra, allegedly illegally removed by the mother-appellant on 2nd July, 2015 from the custody of the father-respondent no.2 (writ petitioner) from the United Kingdom (UK), being Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 247 of 2016.

 GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707644


Before :- Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 382 of 2013. D/d. 11.10.2017.

Independent Thought - Petitioner
Union of India and Anr. - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate.
For the Respondents :- B. Krishna Prasad, Gaurav Agrawal, Anindita Pujari, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocates.

Madan B. Lokur, J. - The issue before us is limited but one of considerable public importance - whether sexual intercourse between a man and his wife being a girl between 15 and 18 years of age is rape? Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) answers this in the negative, but in our opinion sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape regardless of whether she is married or not. The exception carved out in the IPC creates an unnecessary and artificial distinction between a married girl child and an unmarried girl child and has no rational nexus with any unclear objective sought to be achieved. The artificial distinction is arbitrary and discriminatory and is definitely not in the best interest of the girl child. The artificial distinction is contrary to the philosophy and ethos of Article 15(3) of the Constitution as well as contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution and our commitments in international conventions. It is also contrary to the philosophy behind some statutes, the bodily integrity of the girl child and her reproductive choice. What is equally dreadful, the artificial distinction turns a blind eye to trafficking of the girl child and surely each one of us must discourage trafficking which is such a horrible social evil.

Puneet Batish Advocate

{facebook#} {twitter#} {google-plus#} {pinterest#} {youtube#}

Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget