Supreme Court Judgments 2023

[ Just Ctrl F “Case name/no.” to locate the case you are searching for. Click on Case no. | date to access pdf of judgment.]

Saurav Das vs Union of India | Section 173, 200, 207 CrPC | Charge Sheet Not Public Document | Evidence Act | WP(C) 1126 of 2022 | 20 Jan 2023 | The Investigating Agency is required to furnish the copies of the report along with the relevant documents to be relied upon by the prosecution to the accused and to none others | If the relief as prayed in the present petition is allowed and all the chargesheets and relevant documents produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public domain or on the websites of the State Governments it will be contrary to the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and it may as such violate the rights of the accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency | Chargesheet/documents along with the chargesheet cannot be said to be public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act | Copies of the chargesheet and the relevant documents along with the charge-sheet do not fall within Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd vs State of Odisha | Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 | Person Interested | Compensation | Royalty | CA 220 OF 2023 | 20 Jan 2023 | Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51 | State Government can be said to be the ‘person interested’ in getting the compensation | The amount of royalty cannot be mixed with the compensation/loss caused to the State Government due to loss of land and surface land rent as the State Government is entitled for the adequate compensation.

19 January 2023

Gajanand Sharma vs Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti | Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act | CA 100-101 OF 2023 | 19 Jan 2023 | Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar | Even in case of termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution after holding departmental enquiry/proceedings prior approval of the Director of Education has to be obtained as per first proviso to Section 18.

Union of India vs Const Sunil Kumar | Disciplinary Proceedings | CRPF | Judicial Review | Strikingly Disproportionate Punishment | CA 219 OF 2023 | 19 Jan 2023 | Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49 | In exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate | Only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution | Even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority | The misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF – Whether a member of the force has committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per Sections 9 and 10 would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or insubordination.|

18 January 2023

17 January 2023

Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs Union of India | Family Pension | Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 | Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act | Adopted Son | SLP (C) 21876 of 2017 | 17 Jan 2023 | Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 | A son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after the death of the government servant, cannot be included within the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

Jabir vs State of Uttarakhand | Murder Accused Acquitted | Last Seen Circumstance | Circumstantial Evidence | CrA 972 OF 2013 | 17 Jan 2023 | Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41 | The “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva | Wikipedia Not Completely Dependable | Central Excise Tariff Act -Classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines – Portability | CA 5373 OF 2019 | 17 January 2023 | Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43 | While we expressly acknowledge the utility of these platforms which provide free access to knowledge across the globe, but we must also sound a note of caution against using such sources for legal dispute resolution – These sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowdsourced and usergenerated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information – The courts and adjudicating authorities should rather make an endeavor to persuade the counsels to place reliance on more reliable and authentic sources

16 January 2023

State vs T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy | Section 167(2) , 437(5) 439 (2) Cr.P.C. | Default Bail Cancellation | CrA 37 OF 2023 | 16 Jan 2023 | Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar |2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37 | In a case where an accused is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and thereafter on filing of the chargesheet, a strong case is made out and on special reasons being made out from the chargesheet that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime and considering the grounds set out in Sections 437(5) and Section 439(2), his bail can be cancelled on merits and the Courts are not precluded from considering the application for cancelation of the bail on merits. However, mere filing of the chargesheet is not enough, but as observed and held hereinabove, on the basis of the chargesheet, a strong case is to be made out that the accused has committed non-bailable crime and he deserves to be in custody.

Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs Union Of India | Public Employment | Suppression of Material Facts | SLP(C) 10499 OF 2022 | 16 Jan 2023 | Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi | Need of verification of character and antecedents of the person to be appointed in the government services – Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471.

Union of India vs Rajib Khan | Educational Qualification | Nursing Assistants and Staff Nurses | Equal pay for equal work | CA 172 of 2023 | 16 Jan 2023 | Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar | Nature of work may be more or less the same but the scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. Inequality of men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ to them. The case of Nursing Assistants cannot be compared with that of the Staff Nurses as both carry different educational qualification.

Bimla Tiwari vs State of Bihar | Sections 437 to 439 CrPC | Anticipatory and Regular Bail | Money Recovery Proceedings | SLP(Crl) 834-835 OF 2023 | 16 Jan 2023 | Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47 | Process of criminal law, particularly in matters of grant of bail, is not akin to money recovery proceedings but what has been noticed in the present case carries the peculiarities of its own. The process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail. The question as to whether pre-arrest bail, or for that matter regular bail, in a given case is to be granted or not is required to be examined and the discretion is required to be exercised by the Court with reference to the material on record and the parameters governing bail considerations. In a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the accused has made payment of the money involved or offers to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment. We would further emphasize that, ordinarily, there is no justification in adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person apprehending arrest ought to make payment. Recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings.

13 January 2023

10 January 2023

Boby vs State of Kerala | Section 27 Evidence Act | Last Seen Theory | Circumstantial Evidence | Murder Accused Acquitted | CrA 1439 OF 2009 | 12 Jan 2023 | Justices B R Gavai and M M Sundresh | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50 | Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires that the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to the said fact. The information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery | Two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are that (1) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence and (2) he must also be in police custody. The Court held that the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence | The law expects the IO to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

10 January 2023

9 January 2023

6 January 2023

5 January 2023

4 January 2023

3 January 2023

Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd vs Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd. | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6 | CA 6693 of 2022 | 3 Jan 2023 | CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli

Guddan @ Roop Narayan vs State Of Rajasthan | Suspension of Sentence | Bail | Excessive Conditions | CrA 120 OF 2023 | 3 Jan 2023 | Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45 | This Court, time and time again has held that jail is the exception and grant of bail is the rule, and in such a scenario, the conditions imposed on bail must not be unreasonable – The conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamounts to refusal of bail. In the present case, however, the excessive conditions herein have precisely become that, an antithesis to the grant of bail.. Any other accused in a similar circumstance at this point would not be in custody, however, the present Appellant, because of the conditions imposed, has not been able to leave the languish of jail. Can the Appellant, for not being able to comply with the excessive requirements, be detained in custody endlessly? To keep the Appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice itself.

2 January 2023

Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India | WP(C) 906 OF 2016 | 2 January 2023 | Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and Justice B V Nagarathna | Validity of Demonetisation | Section 26(2) RBI Act – ‘Any means ‘All’ – Recommendation means consultation | RBI’s Power under Section 4(2) of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 | [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1 | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1