Important judgments in August 2021 Part 2 – Indian Judiciary

Table of Contents

Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel

Supreme Court
CORUM
Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah
OBSERVATION
Supreme court said that Judges ought to speak through their judgments and orders and not by issuing oral directions which does not form a part of the judicial record.
The text of a written order is what is binding and enforceable.
Such a procedure is open to grave abuse, would set a dangerous precedent
Element of judicial accountability is lost where oral regimes prevail.
Formulation of reasons in a judicial order provides the backbone of public confidence in the sanctity of the judicial process.

Supreme Court
CORUM
Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian
OBSERVATION
While quashing an externment order passed against a journalist, the bench observed that a person cannot be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country or to move freely throughout the country, on flimsy grounds.

Supreme Court
CORUM
Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah
OBSERVATION
The Supreme Court reiterated that, at Section 482 CrPC stage, a High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence to find out whether the accused is likely to be convicted or not.

Supreme Court
CORUM
Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose
OBSERVATION
The Supreme Court has observed that economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for identifying ‘creamy layer’.
Court held that persons from backward classes who occupied posts in higher services like IAS, IPS and All India Services had reached a higher level of social advancement and economic status and therefore, were not entitled to be treated as backward.
people with sufficient income who were in a position to provide employment to others should also be taken to have reached a higher social status and therefore, should be treated as outside the backward class.
Similarly, persons from backward classes who had higher agricultural holdings or were receiving income from properties, beyond a prescribed limit, do not deserve the benefit of reservation.
It is mandatory for identification and exclusion of ‘creamy layer’ to be on the basis of social, economic and other relevant factors, the State of Haryana has sought to determine ‘creamy layer’ from backward classes solely on the basis of economic criterion and has committed a grave error in doing so. On this ground alone, the notification dated 17.08.2016 requires to be set aside.

Supreme Court
CORUM
Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi
OBSERVATION
The Supreme Court has held that a person who is entitled to the benefit of reservation in either of the State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand will not be entitled to claim benefit of reservation simultaneously in both the successor States.

Supreme Court
CORUM
Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari
OBSERVATION
No sympathies can be shown to students who have entered through backdoor, the Supreme Court observed while dismissing review petitions filed by some medical students.
The bench observed that the medical admissions conducted through the private counselling is illegal.

Supreme Court
CORUM
Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy
OBSERVATION
Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made, the Supreme Court recently observed.
“We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.’, the court said.
The court had also issued the following guidelines:
An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, to have one friend/ relative to told that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.
The police officer shall inform the arrested person of this right.
An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest.
These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly. It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with.