The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Centre on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to safeguard rights of intersex children. Notably, intersex people are individuals born with a combination of male and female biological traits that do not fall under the binary notions of male or female bodies.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra issued notice to the Central government and sought assistance from Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati.

The plea filed by Gopi Shankar M said that intersex children are subjected to unregulated sex-change surgeries. It further pointed out that children are being subjected to intersex surgery at birth without their consent to turn them into male or female. Appearing for the petitioner, the counsel stated that such medical interventions are a punishable offence and that there should be a law to stop them.

Earlier in 2019, following a Madras High Court order, Tamil Nadu had banned sex assignment surgeries on babies whose sex was not clear at birth. The high court had previously said that such surgeries should be prohibited except in life-threatening situations.

As per United Nations, nearly 1.7 percent of babies are born with sex characteristics that don’t fit typical definitions of male and female. It mentioned that repeated surgeries and treatment intersex children are put through in order to fix their sex and appearance are often irreversible and can cause permanent infertility and lifelong pain, incontinence, loss of sexual sensation, and mental suffering.

The UN added that there is typically no medical reason to perform these procedures with so many possible serious negative impacts on children. It further underlined that carrying these out without consent violates human rights. Subsequently, it called upon governments to ban medically unnecessary surgery and procedures on intersex children.

The Supreme Court recently observed that AAP leader Satyendar Jain, along with his aides Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain are prima facie guilty of the alleged offences of money laundering.

A bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal stated that having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, they are of the opinion that the appellants have miserably failed to satisfy the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of the alleged offences. The bench added that there is sufficient material collected by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to show that they are prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.

The top court’s observation came as it refused to grant bail to Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case, pointing out the failure of the accused to fulfil the twin conditions set out in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for bail.

Appearing for ED, Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju, argued that the AAP leader exercised effective control over the companies involved in the alleged money-laundering racket, despite relinquishing his position as a director. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi vehemently refuted these allegations on behalf of Jain, alleging a lack of credible links tying Satyendar Jain to the alleged money laundering activities.

However, the Senior Advocate’s argument did not find favour with the court, which concluded that the AAP leader was responsible for conceptualising the idea of accommodation entries against cash, and was directly involved in the accommodation entries totalling approximately Rs. 4.81 crores.

The Supreme Court highlighted the assistance provided by Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain to Satyendar Jain in making false declarations, each declaring an alleged undisclosed income of Rs 8.26 crores, under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The declarations were made to protect AAP leader Satyendar Jain. Although the aforesaid declarations were later deemed void by the income tax authorities, the court mentioned that the appellants could not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrongdoing to mislead the authorities.

The court held that the appellants, Satyendar Jain and his aides had not complied with the twin mandatory conditions laid down in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Hence, the Delhi High Court’s ruling which had been challenged in these proceedings was found to not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

Subsequently, the apex court denied bail to the three accused and directed Satyendar Jain, who had been granted interim bail on medical grounds to immediately surrender before the special court.

AAP leader Satyendar Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in May 2022 on charges of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 

The Supreme Court today issued notice in Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind Halal Trust’s plea challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s ban on the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of halal-certified products. The apex court also protected Jamiat chief Mahmood Madani and other office-bearers of the trust from any coercive action.

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehra was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind Halal Trust. Earlier, the court had issued notice in two other pleas by Halal India Private Limited and Jamiat Ulama-e-Maharashtra challenging the ban imposed by the Uttar Pradesh Government on the manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of halal-certified products.

The ban on Halal products was implemented on November 18, 2023 triggering a controversy and prompting police raids on malls across the state to seize halal products. In their plea, the petitioners contended that the ban violates citizens fundamental rights and undermines established certification processes, mentioning that it is a misconceived action causing chaos for retailers and affecting legitimate trade practices.

During the hearing on Thursday, the counsel appearing for Jamiat argued that despite the organisation having already joined the investigation and duly supplied all documents sought, the Uttar Pradesh government has summoned the president of the trust, asking him to be present in-person, without specifying what is needed from him.

Responding to the allegation, Justice Gavai asked the counsel to show the government that the Supreme Court is seized of the matter. The counsel replied that they have pointed out that the Supreme Court is seized of this matter but the government wants the president to be present. 

Urging the top court to protect the president, the counsel stated that Mahmood Madani is a former Rajya Sabha member, bearded man and the purpose is there are TV cameras. The counsel added that the summon is completely extra-judicial. Consecutively, beside issuing notice, the bench also directed that no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner-organisation and its office-bearers.

Earlier in January, the Supreme Court was persuaded to issue notice in the petitions with the petitioner’s counsel citing the pan-India ramifications of the halal ban and its impact on inter-state trade and commerce. Initially, the top court was reluctant to exercise its Article 32 jurisdiction to hear the challenge against this ban. Although, the bench sought the Uttar Pradesh government’s response to the pleas, it declined to issue a stay on coercive steps under the impugned government notification.

Delhi Patiala House Court today dismissed the bail plea of Supertech Chairman and Promoter RK Arora in a money laundering case. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Devender Kumar Jangala dismissed the bail plea of RK Arora. 

The court stated that the bail application is being dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. Reportedly, RK Arora is on interim bail granted to him on January 16 for 30 days on medical grounds. RK Arora had moved for interim bail, mentioning that he had lost 10 kg in custody. The Supertech chairman and promoter was arrested on June 27, 2023 by the Enforcement Directorate. 

Previously, the trial court took cognizance of the chargesheet lodged by the Enforcement Directorate against RK Arora and others. The court also issued summons to all accused named in the chargesheet and firms through their representatives. The Enforcement Directorate’s Special Public Prosecutors Naveen Kumar Matta, Manish Jain and Mohd Faizan had appeared in the matter before the court. 

Earlier, the ED apprised the court that 23 FIRs were lodged by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi Police, Haryana Police and UP Police against Supertech Limited and its group companies under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), 406 (criminal breach of trust)/420 (cheating)/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code having allegations of cheating at least 670 home buyers for an amount of Rs 164 crore. 

The ED also alleged that the amount collected by Supertech Ltd. was diverted to their group companies for the purchase of properties, with land having much lesser value. It further alleged that the accused persons have acquired properties and made illegal gains from the said proceeds of crime by involving, indulging and commissioning criminal activities related to scheduled offences. It is stated that the prima facie case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 3 and Section 4 of the PML Act has been made. 

The National Green Tribunal ordered the Punjab government to submit a revised action plan for mitigation of air pollution in the state, Delhi and National Capital Region. 

A coram of Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava, judicial member Justice Sudhir Agarwal and expert member Dr A Senthil Vil found that the plan submitted by the government earlier lacked a definitive time schedule. 

The NGT in its order dated January 19, 2024 stated that there are no proper linkages or manifest system between ex- in situ management. It added that as directed in earlier orders of the Tribunal, unless Area or Block by Block monitoring of management is done, it will be difficult to keep fire incidences under control. 

The National Green Tribunal was hearing a matter it had taken up suo motu on October 20, 2023 based on a news report highlighting a spike in air pollution in Punjab due to stubble burning.

Earlier on November 29, 2023, the tribunal had directed the States of Punjab as well as Haryana to prepare a time bound action plan disclosing phase-wise action proposed from January 1, 2024 to September 1, 2024 which may include several preventive steps for the next year.

In terms of these aforesaid directions, the State of Punjab had filed an action plan. Nonetheless, the NGT found it lacking. The tribunal stated that one of the main reasons for stubble burning was the small window farmers get between reaping the harvest and sowing.

The NGT further observed that the short period forces the farmers to burn the stubble which is left in the ground after harvesting. Hence, there is an immediate requirement to handle the stubble and its removal at the earliest so that the farmers do not resort to stubble burning for cleaning the field.

Suggesting certain measures, the NGT directed Punjab to file a fresh action taken report along with an amended action plan at least a week before the next hearing on March 22, 2024.  Further, the NGT said that the State should submit periodical reports indicating effective implementation of the action plan.

The Delhi High Court today refused to entertain a plea filed by BJP Odisha’s General Secretary, Jatin Mohanty against alleged misuse of public funds by Biju Janta dal (BJD) while advertising State welfare scheme using its party symbol Conch allotted by the Election Commission of India. 

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora asked the BJP leader to approach the Orissa High Court as everything, including advertisement of the welfare schemes happened there. 

After Mohanty’s counsel withdrew the petition, the Delhi High Court granted him the liberty to file the writ petition in the court having jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court observed that it is the story in every state, adding that the Orissa High Court will decide in this matter as forum convenience is Orissa.

Consecutively, the Delhi High Court disposed of the plea which sought direction on the ECI to take appropriate legal action against BJD, the ruling party in Orissa, for violating the election symbols (reservation and allotment) order, 1968 and model code of conduct. The plea further sought to restrain the Orissa Government from making any further advertisement of State welfare schemes using the symbol Conch.

The plea stated that as per the information received by an RTI Activist, BJP has spent nearly Rs 378 crores in advertisements in the last five years and Rs.378.629 crore on self-propagation. It also mentioned that from the newspaper articles circulating every day, it appears that the respondent had other motives for advertising various State Government Welfare Scheme.

The plea asserted that similar advertisement has been widely reported in various other platforms like plying buses, social media, hoarding in State Government offices, Hospitals and Cities and Towns. The plea further questioned if such a consideration can be said to be in public interest. 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to order a SIT probe into the allegations levelled in the Hindenburg research report regarding stock manipulations by the Adani group of companies. 

While pronouncing the verdict today, the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud stated that there was no ground to transfer the investigation into the matter from SEBI. The top court bench rejected the arguments of petitioners regarding conflicts of interest on the part of the members of the Expert Committee. The bench added that the Indian government and SEBI shall take into consideration recommendations of the committee to strengthen the interest of the Indian investors. 

CJI DY Chandrachud further mentioned that the SEBI has completed a probe in 20 out of 22 matters. He directed the SEBI to complete the investigation in other two cases within three months. The apex court underlined that the report of OCCRP cannot be taken into account to doubt SEBI investigation. In addition, the Chief Justice of India noted that the Centre and the SEBI should assess if there is any infraction of law by the Hindenburg report on short selling and if so, it directed to take action in accordance with law. 

CJI DY Chandrachud also remarked that the power to transfer investigation must be exercised in exceptional circumstances and that such powers cannot be exercised in the absence of cogent justifications. He asserted that reliance on newspaper reports and third party organisations to question the statutory regulator does not inspire confidence, adding that those can be treated as inputs but not conclusive evidence to doubt SEBI probe.

A three judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra  had reserved the judgement on November 24, 2023 on the Public Interest Litigations (PIL), which sought a court-monitored investigation into the allegation mentioned in the Hindenburg Research report regarding stock price manipulations by the Adani group of companies. 

Earlier, during the hearing of the matter, the bench had orally remarked that there was no material to doubt the investigation carried out by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The three-judge bench had also expressed reluctance to accept the arguments against the impartiality of the members of the expert committee constituted by the court to examine the issue.

A Varanasi court has sent three accused in the Indian Institute of Technology-Banaras Hindu University gang rape case to judicial custody for 14 days. The three accused namely Kunal Pandey, Abhishek Chauhan and Saksham Patel, were produced before a Varanasi court on December 31, 2023 which sent them to judicial custody. The accused are residents of Varanasi.

The aforementioned individuals who allegedly gang raped a B.Tech student on the IIT-BHU campus were apprehended 60 days after the incident. In November 2023, an incident of molestation involving a student from IIT BHU in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh was brought to attention.

The victim claimed that three assailants on a motorcycle had forcibly disrobed her, recorded a video, and issued death threats. The incident had triggered a massive protest among students who called for improved security measures within the campus. Consecutively, the victim lodged a complaint against three unidentified individuals at the Lanka police station. 

The woman in her complaint mentioned that she had gone out of her hostel with a friend when three men on a motorcycle forcibly took her to a corner and gagged her after separating her from her friend. The complaint further stated that the accused allegedly stripped the woman, made a video of her and took photos. It added that the accused allegedly let her go after 15 minutes and took her phone number. 

Following, the charge of gang rape was added to the first information report (FIR). The FIR was lodged under Section 354 (assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code at Lanka police station. 

Meanwhile, the opposition leaders shared on social media the purported images of the three accused with several BJP leaders and launched an attack on the chief minister Yogi-Adityanath led state government.

President Droupadi Murmu gave assent to the Bill to govern the appointment and service conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs) on Thursday.

On August 10, Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal introduced the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023 in Rajya Sabha. 

Reportedly, the bill was introduced in the wake of the Supreme Court judgement that had noted the legal vacuum as regards appointment of Election Commissioners. The aforesaid Bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha on December 12 before being passed by the Lok Sabha on December 21.

The Bill states that the selection committee that appoints the Chief Election Commissioners and Election Commissioners (ECs) will be chaired by the Prime Minister and will also comprise a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha.

Earlier, former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman had said that the bill could seriously jeopardise the independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Justice Nariman had mentioned that if the bill becomes law, the executive will have the final say in appointing Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, which would affect free and fair elections.

The apex court judgment dated March 2, 2023, had said that until the Central government comes up with a law on appointments to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the appointments should be done on the advice of a committee comprising the PM, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

A Constitution Bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar had also asked the Central government to consider establishing a permanent secretariat for the Election Commission of India. Additionally, it was also suggested that its expenditure be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India, so that the poll body can be truly independent.

The Court added that an election commission that does not ensure free and fair polls as per the rules of the game, guarantees the breakdown of the foundation of the rule of law.

The Supreme Court seven-judge Constitution benches will hear a series of important cases from January 9, 2024. 

The cases include the passage of laws as Money Bills, validity of sub-classification with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the interplay between breach of privilege and fundamental rights, whether state can make law on imposing surcharge on sales tax, whether central universities like Aligarh Muslim University can have minority status and whether the Speaker can adjudicate on disqualification petitions when they face such a petition.

Among the aforementioned six cases, four would be heard by a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in January 2024. A circular issued by the Supreme Court last week stated that six seven-judge bench matters and four nine-judge bench matters will be listed before the appropriate benches in the next three months. While the first batch of seven-judge bench matters will be taken up from January 9, the four nine-judge bench cases have been listed on February 6, February 20 and the third week of March.

On January 9, the seven-judge bench will hear two cases pertaining to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University in Aligarh Muslim University v Naresh Agarwal and the state’s power to make law imposing surcharge on sales tax in Arjun Flour Mills v State of Orissa. The aforesaid matters will be heard by the bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India.

On January 17 and January 30, the seven-judge bench will hear cases related to validity of sub-classification with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the passage of laws as Money bills respectively. Both these matters will also be decided by a bench presided over by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. 

Later, in the first week of March, the apex court’s seven-judge bench will hear the case relating to interplay between breach of privilege and fundamental rights. In the second week of March, the Supreme Court seven-judge bench has listed the case concerning whether the Speaker can adjudicate on disqualification petitions when they face such a petition. These cases will not be heard by a bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud.