Page 25 - Supreme Court

Minister's statement cannot be attributed 'vicariously' to govt, says SC

A statement made by a minister cannot be attributed vicariously to the government even when applying the principle of collective responsibility, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S A Nazeer said no additional restrictions against free speech can be imposed except those mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. "Statement made by a minister even if traceable to any affairs of state or protecting the government cannot be attributed vicariously to the government even applying the principle of collective responsibility. "Fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) can be exercised even against other instrumentalities other than the state," the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, said. Justice B V Nagarathna, who was also part of the bench, wrote a separate judgement and said freedom of speech and expression is a much needed right so that citizens are well informed and educated on ...

All conversions can't be illegal: SC on HC order on MP anti-conversion law

Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its decision in November 2022, had restrained the state government from prosecuting "adult citizens if they solemnise marriage on their own volition"

SC to hear on January 9 plea seeking SIT probe into Bihar hooch tragedy

The Supreme Court said on Tuesday a petition seeking an independent probe by a special investigation team (SIT) into the last month's hooch tragedy in Bihar which claimed many lives will be heard on January 9. The plea about the tragedy in Saran district, where at least 30 people lost their lives after consuming illicit liquor, has also sought a direction to the state government to adequately compensate the victim families. The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha. "It will come up next Monday," the bench told advocate Pawan Prakash Pathak who mentioned the matter. Bihar's Nitish Kumar government imposed a complete prohibition in April 2016 and has rejected the demand for compensation to the families of those who died after consuming spurious liquor. The petition, filed in the apex court by Bihar-based Aryavarta Mahasabha Foundation, has arrayed the Centre and the state of Bihar as respondents.

Suspended Jharkhand IAS officer gets interim bail in money laundering case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim bail to suspended Jharkhand cadre IAS officer Pooja Singhal in a money laundering case to look after her ailing daughter. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka also directed the Enforcement Directorate to respond in three weeks to Singhal's main bail plea. Appearing for the anti-money laundering probe agency, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju said the plea was incorrect and devoid of merits. I will be the last person to oppose such pleas, the law officer said. The top court, which has now listed the suspended IAS officer's plea for hearing on February 6, has imposed some conditions, including that she will not visit Ranchi unless a court case is listed for hearing in the city. Singhal has been in custody since May 11 after raids were conducted at properties linked to her. The ED has accused Singhal, a former state mines department secretary, of money laundering and said its team seized more than Rs 36 crore

Are we ready for the political compromises a digital currency may warrant?

It took 300 years for trust in currency to become total and unquestioned, and now digital currency brings with it some new challenges for it

Top Headlines: India ups windfall tax on crude, 6.5% growth likely in FY24

Business Standard brings you the top headlines at this hour

TMS Ep338: Demonetisation verdict, free food grain, markets, living wage

What does the SC's demonetisation verdict mean? Will free food grain scheme affect Centre's fiscal planning? Will India Inc see a turnaround in Q3FY23 results? What is a living wage? All answers here

What does the SC's demonetisation verdict mean

Six years after the govt demonetised 86% of cash in circulation, the Supreme Court on Monday nixed petitions challenging the move and upheld its legality. So what did the court say in its verdict?

SC upholds 2016 decision on demonetisation by 4:1 majority verdict

Dissenting judge Nagarathna says 2016 note ban legally flawed

Welcome Supreme Court judgement on demonetisation: FM Nirmala Sitharaman

Finance Minister Niramala Sitharaman on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court judgement upholding the decision of the Modi government to demonetise high value currency notes in November 2016. On November 8, 2016 Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced demonetisation of old Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 banknotes and one of the key objectives of the unprecedented decision was to promote digital payments and curb black money flows. "Welcome the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement today on Demonetization. A five-judge Constitution Bench (via a 4-1 majority) has upheld the Demonetization after carefully examining the issue & has dismissed several petitions challenging the decision," Sitharaman said in a series of tweets. "There were consultations between the Centre & RBI for a period of 6 months. There is a reasonable nexus to bring such a measure & it satisfies the test of proportionality. Decision-making process cannot be faulted merely because the proposal emanated from the Centre," she

The real debate

Demonetisation matter had limited relevance

Centre empowered to demonetise 'all' series of bank notes under RBI Act: SC

The Supreme Court said on Monday the Centre is empowered to demonetise 'all' series of bank notes under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S A Nazeer, which upheld the Centre's 2016 demonetisation of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 currency notes by a 4:1 majority verdict, said a statute must be construed having regard to the legislative intent. "The power available to the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act cannot be restricted to mean that it can be exercised only for one' or some' series of bank notes and not for all' series of bank notes. "The power can be exercised for all series of bank notes. Merely because on two earlier occasions, the demonetisation exercise was by plenary legislation, it cannot be held that such a power would not be available to the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act," the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, ...

SC refuses to hear plea seeking SOP for Indians travelling to abroad

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea of a man, who was earlier detained illegally in the UAE over mistaken identity, seeking framing of guidelines to ensure the safety of Indians in foreign countries. Refusing to lay down standard operating procedures (SOP) for Indians' safety in offshore nations, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha, however, acknowledged the ordeal of detention faced by Noida-based businessman Praveen Kumar. Kumar was detained at the Abu Dhabi airport as his face allegedly matched with a wanted criminal in a face recognition software on October 11 last year and had to remain in illegal detention for almost four days. How can we ask the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to frame the standard operating procedures (SOP)? We have Indian embassies for such purposes... a person will be governed by the law of a particular country, the bench said. We cannot direct the MEA to frame guidelines. Thousands of Indians

SC verdict upholds demonetisation process: A timeline of note ban case

The Supreme Court in a 4:1 majority verdict on Monday upheld the government's 2016 decision to demonetise Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 denomination notes and said the decision-making process was not flawed. Following is a timeline of events in the case: November 8, 2016: Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses nation and announces demonetisation of high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000. November 9, 2016: Plea filed in Supreme Court challenging decision. December 16, 2016: Bench headed by then chief justice T S Thakur refers question of validity of the decision and other questions to a larger bench of five judges for authoritative pronouncement. August 11, 2017: Unusual deposits of Rs 1.7 lakh crore during demonetisation, says RBI paper. In nominal terms, excess deposits accrued to the banking system due to demonetisation estimated in the range of Rs 2.8-4.3 lakh crore, it says. July 23, 2017: Massive searches, seizures and surveys by Income Tax department over the last three year

To say demonetisation was upheld is misleading: Congress on SC verdict

Congress while reacting to the SC judgement on demonetisation said the court only pronounced its verdict on whether Section 26(2) of the RBI Act, 1934 was correctly applied or not

Slap on the wrist of govt: P Chidambaram on SC's demonetisation verdict

Former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram on Monday said the majority verdict by the Supreme Court has steered clear of the question whether the objectives of the demonetisation exercise were achieved at all. The 'minority' judgement pointed out the 'illegality' and the 'irregularities' in the demonetisation, Chidambaram said on Monday soon after the apex court made its verdict. "Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared the law, we are obliged to accept it. However, it is necessary to point out that the majority has not upheld the wisdom of the decision; nor has the majority concluded that the stated objectives were achieved," the senior Congress leader said in a tweet. "In fact the majority has steered clear of the question whether the objectives were achieved at all," he said. "We are happy that the minority judgement has pointed out the illegality and the irregularities in the demonetisation. It may be only a slap on the wrist of the government, but a welcome slap on the ..

SC to hear UP's plea on HC order on local body polls' notification on Jan 4

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on January 4 the Uttar Pradesh government's appeal challenging an Allahabad High Court order quashing its draft notification on urban local body elections and directing it to hold the polls without reservation for other backward classes. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha took note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, saying the matter needed an urgent hearing. "We will take it the day after tomorrow," the bench said. The state government in its appeal against the December 27 order has said the high court cannot quash the December 5 draft notification which provides for reservation of seats in the urban body polls for other backward classes (OBCs) apart from those for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and women. The appeal, filed through advocate on record Ruchira Goel, said OBCs are a constitutionally protected section and the high court erred in

SC upholds demonetisation, says test of proportionality satisfied

Action cannot be struck down on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality, says Supreme Court

SC to pronounce verdict on pleas against demonetisation on Monday

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its judgment on Monday on a batch of pleas challenging the government's 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 denominations. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S A Nazeer, who will retire on January 4, is likely to pronounce its verdict on the matter on January 2, when the top court will reopen after its winter break. According to Monday's cause list of the top court, there will be two separate judgements in the matter, which will be pronounced by Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna. It is not clear whether the two judgements will be concurring or dissenting. Besides Justices Nazeer, Gavai and Nagarathna, the other members of the five-judge bench are Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian. The top court had, on December 7, directed the Centre and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to put on record the relevant records relating to the government's 2016 decision and reserved its verdict. It hea

Portal of filing online appearance slips in SC to be activated from Jan 2

In a bid to facilitate the procedure of marking appearances of advocates, the Supreme Court has developed an online module which will be activated from January 2. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, had on December 16, announced that from New Year, lawyers would not be required to file appearance slips manually, but would log into 'Advocate Appearance Portal' to mark their presence. Presently, advocates write their names along with details like the case and its serial number on a prescribed paper form, to mark their presence in a hearing to ensure that their names get reflected in the court orders or judgements. A notice, uploaded on the apex court's website, regarding activation of portal of filing online appearance slips said that the Advocates-on-Record (AoR) may mark the appearances of lawyers appearing in the court through the link provided on the top court website and on its official mobile application. "The said facility shall be available for the duration spanning from