Hi, Amritesh Kumar Tripathi Logout

BOOKMARKS TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES COLUMNS INTERVIEWS ENVIRONMENT

RTI KNOW THE LAW VIDEOS SPONSORED ROUND UPS PODCAST LAW EXAMS

JOB UPDATES BOOK REVIEWS EVENTS CORNER LAW FIRMS SC JUDGMENTS लाइव लॉ हिंदी LAW SCHOOLS IBC

 Search... 
Home / Top Stories / 100 Important Supreme...

TOP STORIES

100 Important Supreme Court

Judgments Of 2022 [Part 3]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 26 Dec 2022 9:32 AM
As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important

Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much awaited article by our

dear readers.

The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to

the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for

practising lawyers and.

A disclaimer is added here that the judgments included in the list are not

necessarily good or the best judgments; some of them are controversial and

regarding some others, there are strong counter-views. Yet, these judgments

are worthy of being noted and discussed upon, considering their general

importance and impact on litigation and general socio-political arena. Hence,

the inclusion in this list. The judgments are arranged in the chronological

order. The reports about the judgments are hyperlinked at the case

description.

Also Read - 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part 2]

The list of 100 judgments will be published in three parts and this is the

third part containing 33 judgments. First part[1-33] can be read here.

Second part [34-66] can be read here.

67. When There Are Contradictory Dying Declarations, Which One To

Accept? Supreme Court Answers "Difficult Question"

In a case of conflicting dying declarations, the Supreme Court relied on the

one recorded after a medical examination with regard to the fitness of the
deceased.

Also Read - 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part 1]

The Court explained the "difficult question" before it as follows :

"In the present case, we are faced with two dying declarations, which are

totally inconsistent and contradictory to each other. Both are recorded by

Judicial Magistrates. A difficult question that we have to answer is which one

of the dying declarations is to be believed".

The bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice PS Narasimha opined

that the court was required to examine as to whether a dying declaration was

true and reliable; as to whether it had been recorded by a person at a time

when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration

and; whether it had been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting.

Also Read - 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022- Part 3-

[VIDEO]

Case : MAKHAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF HARYANA | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677

68. Pre-Institution Mediation Under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act Is

Mandatory; Suits Filed Violating This Liable To Be Rejected

In a judgment having far reaching impact in commercial litigations, a bench

comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy declared that Section

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre- institution

mediation, is mandatory and suits which are filed violating this mandate are
liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of

Civil Procedure.

Also Read - Section 300 CrPC Bars The Trial of a Person Not Only For The

Same Offence But Also For Any Other Offence On The Same Facts:

Supreme Court

The Court has however made this declaration effective from August 22,

2022.

Case : M/s Patil Automation Private Limited and others versus Rakheja

Engineers Private Ltd| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

69. Section 3(2) Of Benami Transactions Prohibition Act Declared As

Unconstitutional

A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli

declared that Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988

as unconstitutional on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary.

Section 3(2) prescribes the punishment for entering into benami transaction.

The Court further held that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment

Act 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively. The Court held that the 2016

amendment cannot be held as merely procedural.

"Unduly Harsh" : Why Supreme Court Lifted Blanket Ban On Benami

Transactions?

PMLA Judgment Allowing ED To Take Possession Of Property Before Trial In

Exceptional Cases Leaves Scope For Arbitrariness : Supreme Court

Case : Union of India vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

70. 'Don't Confuse Or Confound Readers" : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines

On Writing Simple & Lucid Judgments

Observing that the purpose of a judgment is not to "confuse or confound the

readers", the Supreme Court has urged the Courts and Tribunals to "provide

an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact" in their verdicts.

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna made this

crucial observation while dealing with a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh

High Court which was found to be "incomprehensible".

Case : State Bank of India vs Ajay Kumar Sood | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710

71. Family May Take Form Of Unmarried Or Queer Relationships, Atypical

Families Also Entitled To Protection Of Law : Supreme Court

In a notable order, the Supreme Court has made certain significant

observations which expand the traditional meaning of family.

"Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried

partnerships or queer relationships", the Court observed, while holding that

atypical family units are also entitled to the equal protection of law.

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna made these

observations in a judgment delivered on August 16(but which was uploaded

a few days ago), while granting the relief of maternity leave to a Central

Government employee regardless of the fact that she had availed child care

leave for the children of her husband from his earlier marriage.
Case : Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal | 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 718

72. Arbitrators Cannot Unilaterally Fix Their Fee As It Violates Party

Autonomy

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that arbitrators do not have

the power to unilaterally fix their fees without the consent of the parties.

The Court further held that the fee scale prescribed under the 4th schedule of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not mandatory.

Also From the judgment

Arbitrators Entitled To Charge Separate Fee For Claim & Counter Claim In

Arbitration Proceedings : Supreme Court

'Hold Preliminary Hearings To Fix Arbitrator's Fee' : Supreme Court Issues

Directives To Govern Fees Of Arbitrators

Arbitrators Fee Cap Is Rs 30 Lakhs, Ceiling Limit Applicable To Individual

Arbitrators, Not Tribunal As A Whole : Supreme Court

Case details

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Afcons Gunanusa JV | 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 723

73. 'Remission To Be Considered Without Application Once Convict Is

Eligible' : Supreme Court Isses Slew Of Directions To UP Govt On Premature

Release
In a batch of petitions challenging the 2021 amendment carried out by the

Uttar Pradesh Government in the Standing Policy Regarding Premature

Release of Life Convicts, 2018, the Supreme Court passed directions

regarding premature release. The decision of the Apex Court would have an

impact on the consideration of the remission plea of about 512 convicts who

are undergoing life imprisonment.

Case : Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v. State of U.P. And Anr | 2022 LiveLaw (SC)

754

74. "Once Buried, A Body Should Not Be Disturbed" : Supreme Court

Suggests Enactment Of Law On Exhumation

The Supreme Court has suggested that the Union Government should

consider enacting an appropriate legislation on exhumation.

"The right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution is

not only available to a living man but also to his body after his death..His

family members also have a right to perform the last rites in accordance with

the religious traditions., the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB

Pardiwala observed.

Case : Mohammed Latif Magrey vs Union Territory Of Jammu and Kashmir |

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 756

75. No Separate Domicile For States ; State Reorganization Cannot Take

Away Fundamental Right Of Indian Citizens To Reside & Settle In Any Part

Of Country: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that there is only one domicile i.e. domicile of

the country and there is no separate domicile for a State.

The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed

that State Reorganization laws cannot take away from citizens, the right to

reside and settle in any part of the country.

Case : State of Telangana vs B. Subba Rayadu | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767

76. Supreme Court Allows Amendment Of BCCI Constitution; Cooling Off

Period Only After Two Consecutive Terms At BCCI Or State Association For

Respective Levels

The Supreme Court allowed the amendments proposed to the Constitution of

the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) to relax the mandatory cooling

off period requirement.

Now, the cooling off period of 3 years will apply only if a person serves two

consecutive terms at the BCCI or the State Association. Also, the cooling off

period requirement will apply at that particular level, i.e. either at the State

Association or BCCI. In other words, the cooling off period requirement will

not bar one from seeking election to the BCCI immediately after serving two

consecutive terms at the State level.

Case : BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 770

77. Larger Bench Judgment Will Prevail Regardless Of Number Of Judges In

Majority : Supreme Court Constitution Bench

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that a judgment delivered

by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges

constituting the majority. To illustrate, the judgment of a 7-judge bench

delivered with 4:3 majority will prevail over a unanimous 5-judge bench.

A 5-judge bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya

Kant, M. M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia gave this ruling while answering

the second issue in the case Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT

of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 778.

78. For "Insider Trading", Mere Possession Of Sensitive Information Not

Enough; Actual Profit Motive Essential : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that merely because a person was in

possession of unpublished price sensitive information at the time go trading

in securities, it cannot be held that the transaction becomes the mischief of

"insider trading", unless it is established that there was an intention to take

advantage of the information.

A distress sale of shares will not become "insider trading" merely because

the person was in possession of unpublished price sensitive information.

Case : Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan | 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 787

79. Convicts Who've Completed 10 Years Of Sentence, Whose Appeals

Won't Be Heard Soon, Should Be Released On Bail Unless There Are Other

Reasons : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India opined that all persons who have completed 10

years of sentence, and whose appeals will not be heard in the near future,

should be enlarged on bail, unless there are other reasons to deny them bail.

A division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka

was considering a batch of petitions of life convicts in jail whose appeals are

pending before various High Courts.

Case : Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 788

80. Supreme Court Doubts 2015 Judgment Which Directed RBI To Disclose

Defaulters List; Says It Might Affect Customers' Privacy

The Supreme Court expressed prima facie doubts about its 2015 judgment in

the case Reserve Bank of India v Jayantilal N. Mistry which had held that the

Reserve Bank of India was obliged to disclose defaulters list, inspection

reports, annual statements etc., related to banks under the Right to

Information Act.

A two-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar prima

facie observed that the Jayantilal Mistry case did not take into consideration

the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy. The

bench also noted that privacy has been declared to be a fundamental right

under Article 21 in a subsequent judgment delivered by a 9-judge bench in

2017 in the Puttaswamy case.

Holding so, the bench held as maintainable the writ petitions filed by various

banks challenging the directions issued by the RBI seeking information from
the banks relating to inspection reports, risk assessment reports and annual

financial inspection reports.

Case : HDFC Bank Ltd versus Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811

81. NCLT Has Discretion To Not Admit Financial Creditor's CIRP Application

Even If Corporate Debtor Is In Default : Supreme Court

In a judgment having wide ramifications in the IBC litigation, the Supreme

Court held that it is not mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to admit an

application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process even if a debt

existed and the Corporate debtor is in default.

The court observed that, ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would

have to exercise its discretion to admit and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of

the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate

Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit

the petition.

"Ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its

discretion to admit an application under Section 7 of the IBC of the IBC and

initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default

on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are

good reasons not to admit the petition.. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT)

has to consider the grounds made out by the Corporate Debtor against

admission, on its own merits", the impugned judgment had observed.

However, such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or

capriciously, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK

Maheshwari cautioned.

Later, the bench dismissed a petition seeking review of the judgment. While

dismissing the review petition, the bench stated that the observations were

made in the factual context of the case.

Case : Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs Axis Bank Limited | 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 587

82. No Offence Under Section 138 NI Act If Cheque Is Presented For Full

Amount Without Endorsing Part Payment Made By Borrower

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that no offence

for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act is made out if the cheque is presented for the full amount without

endorsing the part-payment made by the borrower after the issuance of the

cheque.

The Court held that the sum reflected on the cheque will not be the "legally

enforceable debt" as per Section 138 NI Act, when it has been presented for

encashment without endorsing the part-payment. Part-payments must be

endorsed on the cheque as per Section 56 of the NI Act. If such endorsement

is made, the cheque can be presented for the balance amount, and the

offence under Section 138 NI Act will be attracted if such a cheque with

endorsement of the part-payment gets dishonoured, explained the Court.

Part-Payment Made After Cheque Is Drawn Must Be Endorsed On Cheque As

Per Section 56 NI Act : Supreme Court

Case : Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel versus Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and

others | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830

83. Supreme Court delivers split verdict in hijab case

The Supreme Court passed a split verdict on a batch of appeals challenging

restriction on Muslim girl students wearing Hijab in educational institutions

in Karnataka.

Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the 26 appeals filed against the judgment

of the Karnataka High Court which held that hijab was not an essential

practice of Islam and allowed the ban on wearing headscarf in educational

institutions in the State.

Expressing the divergence in his opinion, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside

the Karnataka High Court judgment and held that the entire concept of

essential religious practice was not essential to the dispute.

Read other reports about the verdict :

Permitting One Religious Community To Wear Their Symbols Would Be

Antithesis To Secularism: Justice Hemant Gupta In Hijab Ban Case

Asking Girls To Take Off Hijab At School Gate Is Invasion On Her Privacy &

Dignity, Denial Of Secular Education : Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Both Judges Of SC Bench Did Not Decide Whether Hijab Is An Essential

Religious Practice

Essential Religious Practices Of Followers Of Sikh Faith Cannot Be Made

Basis Of Wearing Of Hijab/Headscarf By Believers Of Islamic Faith : Justice

Hemant Gupta

Hijab Verdict : Judges Express Contrasting Views Regarding Fraternity &

Discipline

Case Title : Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka and others| 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 842

84. No Person Should Be Prosecuted Under Section 66A IT Act : Supreme

Court Issues Directions To Enforce Shreya Singhal Judgment

The Supreme Court directed that no one should be prosecuted under Section

66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which was struck down as

unconstitutional by the Court in 2015 in the Shreya Singhal Case.

The Court issued a slew of directions to the Director Generals of Police and

Home Secretaries of all States to ensure that reference to Section 66A is

removed from all pending cases. The Court also directed that the bareacts of

the IT Act published should adequately inform the readers that Section 66A

has been invalidated.

CASE TITLE: PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES Versus UNION OF INDIA|

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 846

85.Profit Oriented Educational Trusts Can't Claim Income Tax Exemption;

Education Must Be Sole Objective

The Supreme Court held that educational trust or societies, which seek

exemption under Section 10 (23C) of Income Tax Act, should solely be

concerned with education, or education related activities.

Where the objective of the institution appears to be profit-oriented, such

institutions would not be entitled to approval , the bench of CJI Uday Umesh

Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha observed.

The court overruled its earlier judgments which interpreted the expression

'solely' in Section 10(23C) as the 'dominant / predominant /primary/ main'

object. However, it clarified that the law declared in the present judgment

shall operate only prospectively.

Case : New Noble Educational Society vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

1 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 859

In another related judgment Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 865, the

Supreme Court held that entities created with the object of advancing

general public utility cannot seek exemption under the Income Tax Act 1961

under the head "charitable purposes" if they are engaging in any trade,

business, commerce or providing any service for any consideration.

Related reports from the judgment - Advancement Of General Public Utility

Won't Be "Charitable Purpose" For Income Tax Exemption If It Is Done As

Business

Statutory Authorities, Professional Bodies Like ICAI Entitled To Income Tax

Exemption If Amounts Charged By Them Are Nominal To Cover Costs :

Supreme Court

Cricket Associations Are Run On Business Lines, Their Claim For Income Tax

Exemption As "Charitable Purpose" Requires Scrutiny : Supreme Court

86. License To Use Software Is "Deemed Sale";Service Tax Not Leviable On

Ground That Updates Are Provided : Supreme Court In QuickHeal's Case

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the Commissioner of

Service Tax seeking to levy service tax to the tune of over Rs 56 crores on

Quick Heal Technologies Ltd for its sale of anti-virus software during the

period 2012-2014.

The Court held that the sale of software in CDs/DVDs is a sale of goods and

once sales tax has been paid on the sale consideration, service tax is not

leviable on the same transaction on the ground that updates are being

provided to the customer.

Case : Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi versus Quick Heal

Technologies Ltd |2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660

87. Take Suo Motu Action Against Hate Speech Crimes Without Waiting For

Complaint : Supreme Court

Observing that the "there cannot be fraternity unless different religious

communities are available to live in harmony", the Supreme Court on Friday

issued a set of interim directions in a plea to curb hate speeches in the

country.

A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy directed the

Governments of NCT of Delhi, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh to file a report

before the Court regarding the actions taken on the hate speech crimes

which happened within their jurisdiction.

Importantly, the Court directed that these Governments should take suo

motu action against any hate speech crime, without waiting for any

complaint. Cases should be suo motu registered and the offenders should be

proceeded against in accordance with law. The action should be taken

regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the

directions would be viewed as contempt of court, the Court warned.

Bharat A Secular Nation, There Can't Be Fraternity If Different Communities

Can't Live In Harmony : Supreme Court

Case : Shaheen Abdullah versus Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 872

88. Supreme Court Upholds EWS Quota By 3:2 Majority; CJI Lalit & Justice

Bhat In Minority

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has by 3:2 majority upheld the

validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10%

reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public

employment.

While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the

103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting

judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit concurred

with the minority view of Justice Bhat.

Read Other Reports About The Judgment–

Bulk Of Poor Belongs To SC/ST/OBC Categories, Excluding Them From EWS

Quota Arbitrary & Discriminatory : Supreme Court's Minority View

Reservation Can't Continue Indefinitely, Should Be Revisited For "Casteless

Classless Society": Supreme Court Judges In EWS Quota Case

50% Ceiling Limit For Reservation Flexible: Supreme Court In EWS Quota

Case

Reservation Solely Based On Economic Criteria Does Not Violate Basic

Structure Of Constitution : Supreme Court In EWS Quota Case

"Basic Structure Not Violated" : Supreme Court Upholds Application Of EWS

Quota To Private Unaided Educational Institutions

[EWS Quota] Why Supreme Court's Minority Judgment Did Not Read Down

103rd Constitutional Amendment ?

Reservation An Exception To General Rule Of Equality; Enabling Provisions

Do Not Form Basic Feature Of Constitution: Supreme Court

SC/ST/OBC Exclusion From EWS Quota Logical, Necessary To Avoid Double

Benefits: Supreme Court

CASE TITLE: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters |

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

89. Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Disposing Cases Through Plea

Bargaining, Compounding Of Offences & Probation Of Offenders Act

A bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka issued the following

guidelines for disposal of criminal cases by resorting to the triple method of

plea bargaining, compounding of offences and under the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958.

Case - RE: POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 889

90. Supreme Court Bans Two-Finger Test; Says It's Based On Patriarchal

Mindset That Sexually Active Women Can't Be Raped

The Supreme Court prohibited "Two-Finger Test" in rape cases and warned

that persons conducting such tests will be held guilty of misconduct.

It is regrettable that "two-finger test" continues to be conducted even today, a

bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli lamented while

restoring the conviction in a rape case.

"This court has time and again deprecated the use of two finger test in cases

alleging rape and sexual assault. The so called test has no scientific basis. It

instead re-victimises and re-traumatises women. The two finger test must

not be conducted....The test is based on an incorrect assumption that a

sexually active woman cannot be raped. Nothing can be further from the

truth", the bench observed while pronouncing the judgment.

Case : State of Jharkhand vs Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai | 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 890

Also from the judgment - Dying Declaration Does Not Become Inadmissible

Merely Because Police Officer Recorded It : Supreme Court

91. State Failed To Maintain Law & Order During 1992-93 Bombay Riots;

Victims Must Be Compensated

Almost thirty years after the communal riots which rocked Bombay in 1992-

93 after the demolition of Babri Masjid, the Supreme Court issued a slew of
directions for payment of compensation to the families of victims and for

revival of criminal cases which are lying dormant.

A bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka observed that there was a

failure on the part of the State Government to maintain law and order and to

protect the rights of the people guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

Case : Shakeel Ahmed vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 910

92. Supreme Court Upholds Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme

2014; Extends Cut-Off Date For Option; Holds Condition For Additional

Contribution As Invalid

In a crucial judgment, the Supreme Court held the provisions of the

Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014 to be legal and valid.

However, so far as the present members of the fund are concerned, the Court

has read down certain provisions of the scheme.

While allowing the appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund

Organization and the Union Government challenging the Kerala, Rajasthan

and Delhi High Court judgments which had quashed the Employee's Pension

(Amendment) Scheme, 2014, the bench comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justices S

Ravindra Bhat and Aniruddha Bose read down certain provisions of the

scheme.

Case : Employees Provident Fund Organization versus B Sunil Kumar and

connected cases| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912

EPF Pension Case : 2014 Amendment Not Whimsical, Classification Based

On Salary Reasonable - Reasons Cited By Supreme Court

93. Leave Travel Concession Is For Travel Within India; TDS To Be Deduced

From LTC If Foreign Visit Is Involved

The Supreme Court has observed that Leave Travel Concession (LTC) is not

for foreign travel and is meant for travel within India.

The moment employees undertake travel with a foreign leg, it is not a travel

within India and hence not covered under the provisions of Section 10(5) of

the Income Tax Act.

Case : State Bank of India vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax | 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 917

94. "Education Is Not Business ; Tuition Fee Shall Always Be Affordable" :

Supreme Court Quashes GO Enhancing Private Medical College Fees By 7

Times

"Education is not the business to earn profit. The tuition fee shall always be

affordable", the Supreme Court remarked while setting aside a Government

order issued by State of Andhra Pradesh that enhanced the tuition fee of

Private Medical Colleges by seven times, to Rs. 24 lakhs per annum.

Case : Narayana Medical College vs State of Andhra Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 929

95. Centre Withholding Names Reiterated By Collegium Unacceptable :

Supreme Court
A bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka passed a stern order

slamming the Centre for withholding approval for names reiterated by the

collegium for appointment as judges. While expressing disapproval of the

Centre's inaction, the Court stated that the collegium system has sufficient

checks and balances. The Court made these observations while considering

a contempt petition filed by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru against

the Centre not acting as per collegium reiterations.

In a subsequent order passed in the same case, the Court highlighted the

issue of advocates becoming reluctant to accept offer for judgeship due to

delay in appointments. The Court also reminded the Centre that the

Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges has been finalised by

the Collegium way back in 2017.

Case : The Advocates' Association Bengaluru v. Shri Barun Mitra, Secretary

(Justice) |2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

96. All Muslim Public Trusts Not Waqf: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court clarified that all Muslim public trusts will not amount to a

"waqf".

A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said that there

is a difference between 'waqf' and a public trust created by a Muslim. Hence,

the Court "cannot paint all Muslim public trusts with the same brush as treat

them as waqf".
Case : Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs vs Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla |

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1003

97. Section 319 CrPC Power Has To Be Exercised Before Pronouncement Of

Sentence In Case Of Conviction : Supreme Court Constitution Bench

The Constitution Bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S.

Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna held that the power

under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the

pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of

conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be

exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the

summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of

sentence in the case of conviction. The judgment also held that the trial court

has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in

respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to

the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the

involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence

recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning

order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion.

Power has to be exercised before the conclusion of the trial, which means

before the pronouncement of the judgment.

Case : Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab |2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Also read - Section 319 CrPC : 12 Guidelines Issued By Supreme Court's

Constitution Bench To Summon Additional Accused During Trial

98. Direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to

convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act

The Constitution bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S.

Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna held that direct

evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a

public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that such fact can

be proved through circumstantial evidence. Even if the direct evidence of the

complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, or the

complainant turning a hostile witness, there can be conviction of the public

servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved

through inferential evidence based on circumstances. Presumption of fact

with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way

of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.

Case Title: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

99. Scheduled Tribe Women Not Entitled To Any 'Right Of Survivorship'

Under Hindu Succession Act: Supreme Court Urges Centre To Bring Suitable

Amendment

The Supreme Court held that a female member of the scheduled tribe is not

entitled to any right of survivorship under the provisions of Hindu Succession

Act.

The bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari urged the Central

Government to consider whether it is necessary to bring a suitable

amendment to Hindu Succession Act in this regard.

"To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a

period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which right to equality is

guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter

and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by

which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of

the Scheduled Tribe." the bench said.

Case : Kamla Neti (D) vs Special Land Acquisition Officer | 2022 LiveLaw (SC)

1014

100. 'Collegium Discussions Cannot Be In Public Domain' : Supreme Court

Dismisses Plea To Disclose Details Of Dec 2018 Meeting Under RTI

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition which sought for details of the

Supreme Court collegium's meeting of December 12, 2018 under the Right to

Information Act, observing that the discussion cannot be disclosed to the

public and that only the final decision of the Collegium need to be uploaded

in the website.

The Court observed that only the final resolution can be considered as the

decision and whatever is discussed is not required to not be in public

domain, that too under the RTI Act.

Case : Anjali Bhardwaj vs CPIO, SC (RTI Cell) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

Also Read :

100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part 1]

100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part 2]