Read Time: 25 minutes

1. [Judge’s suspension allegedly for deciding POCSO case in 1 day] The Supreme Court asked the counsel appearing for the Patna High Court to seek instructions in a plea challenging a "non-speaking suspension order" passed by the Patna High Court against a Special Judge, for allegedly deciding a POCSO case in a day. Court remarked that there is judicial immunity and a judicial officer cannot be treated like this.
   Bench: Justice UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat
   Case Title: Shashi Kant Rai vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Anr.
   Click here to read more
    
2. [Kapil Sibals’ Controversial Remarks against Judiciary] Advocates Vineet Jindal and Shashank Shekhar Jha have written letters to Attorney General KK Venugopal to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal for allegedly scandalizing the Indian Judiciary and disgracing its dignity. Sibal, while speaking at an event, recently said, "I do not want to talk like this about a Court where I have practiced for 50 years but the time has come. If we don't speak it, who will? The reality is such that any sensitive matter which we know has a problem is placed before certain judges and we know the outcome."
   Click here to read more
    
3. [Deletion of Matters] Justice Chandrachud, judge, Supreme Court of India lashed out at the Registry for deleting a matter without intimating the bench. He said, “Are we the judges or is registry the judge? There is a limit to all this! They should at least tell us before deleting". As usual the court had started hearing the matters from its list in the morning, when they reached item 3 in the list, they were informed by the court master that it had been deleted. A visibly upset Justice Chandrachud said, “We read matters and come, and the matters are deleted without intimating us!”
   Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Bopanna
   Click here to read more
    
4. [Casting aspersions on Court] Supreme Court dismissed a plea moved by a lawyer seeking to set aside the cost imposed upon him by the Rajasthan High Court for casting aspersions on the court. The Bench, while dismissing the plea, observed that High Courts feel strongly that they are losing control of the discipline in their courtrooms when the Supreme Court sets aside orders imposing costs.
   Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Bopanna
   Case Title: Sumit Singhal vs. State of Rajasthan
   Click here to read more
    
5. [Nupur Sharma Controversy] Supreme Court directed the authorities not to take any coercive steps against Times Now Anchor Navika Kumar in current FIRs/Complaints and future FIRs/Complaints pertaining to the telecast of Gyanvapi debate dated May 26, 2022, which resulted in the Nupur Sharma controversy. The court issued notice in the matter and directed that all the States be served.
   Bench: Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli
   Case Title: Navika Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
6. [Hindus as Minority] Top Court while hearing a plea filed by Devkinanda Thakur, challenging the National Commission for Minorities Act, seeking identification of Hindus as a minority in states where they are in minority said, "There will be minorities all over, in some states one community would be in minority, in others some other community. It is not the court who should decide this. If you give us the exact example then we can certainly look into that." The court has also directed the plea to be tagged along with other similar matter.
   Bench: Justice UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat
   Case Title: Devkinandan Thakur Ji vs. Union of India & Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
7. [Nupur Sharma] While the top court permitted the transfer of all the present and future FIRs against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharm to the Delhi police registered against her in several parts of the country in relation to her comments on a TV debate on a religious figure in Islam, it has rejected West Bengal's plea for investigation in the matter by a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT).
   Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala
   Case Title: Nupur V Sharma vs. Union of India
   Click here to read more
    
8. [Mentioning of matters] The Chief Justice of India Justice Ramana while discouraging senior counsels to mention matters for urgent listing asked them to let the Advocates on Record or juniors mention the matter. Prior to commencing of the board, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared online to mention a case. To this, the CJI said, "I think it is better that we don’t permit seniors to mention matters. Let juniors mention.”
   Click here to read more
    
9. [Bhima Koregaon Case] Top Court has granted permanent medical bail to the 2018 Bhima Koregaon case accused Pendyala Varavara Rao. He is facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Bombay High Court in April this year had rejected Rao’s prayer for permanent medical bail. In the instant case, allegations made out in terms of the draft before Courts include CPI (Maoist) members recruited students from JNU and TISS for terrorist activities and encouraged them for membership of banned organizations CPI (Maoist).
   Bench: Justice UU Lalit, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
   Case Title: P. VARAVARA RAO vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ANR.
   Click here to read more
    
10. [Maharashtra Waqfs matter] Attorney General KK Venugopal, in his letter seeking adjournment in the Maharashtra Wakfs matter has stated that, “Looking at the entirety, it seems whoever is behind this whether beneficiaries of transfer or anyone else is bent on ensuring that Attorney General does not argue in this case." The controversy erupted when the AG received a letter from the Maharashtra Wakf Board, informing him that, “alternate arrangements have been made to go ahead with the matter” since he circulated a letter of adjournment on account of his health.
    Click here to read more
     
11. [Freebies] The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has filed an application of intervention before the Supreme Court in the plea seeking de-registration of political parties promising ‘Irrational Freebies’ for voters from public funds, stating that the PIL is a “non-partisan litigation” and alleges petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay’s strong ties to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). AAP has submitted that Upadhyay has previously served as BJP’s spokesperson and as a leader of its Delhi unit. It also alleges that Upadhyay’s “frivolous petitions” filed in the name of public interest, often inspired by this party's political agenda, have previously been criticized by Court in the past.
    Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India and Anr.
    Click here to read more
     
12. [Gyanvapi] A special leave petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Archeological Survey of India to ascertain the nature of the structure found in the Gyanvapi complex. It has been further argued that the impugned structure is certainly more than 100 years old and so it needs to dealt with under the provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958.
    Case Title: Sudhir Singh And 6 Others vs. Union Of India
    Click here to read more
     
13. [Population Control Law] Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea seeking direction to the Central Government to ascertain the feasibility of enacting a stringent population control law. The court while issuing notice in the plea sought centre’s response and tagged it with a similar petition by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
    Bench: Justices Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari
    Case Title: Devkinandan Thakurji vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more

14. [POCSO case] In the Kadakkavoor POCSO case, a plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking direction to dismiss the Special Investigation Team's report, which claims that the mother, accused of sexually abusing her 13-year-old minor boy, is innocent. The complainant in the case has also asked for the suspension of the mother's release.
    Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S Oka
    Click here to read more

15. [Freebies PIL] The Chief Justice of India Justice NV Ramana while hearing a plea pertaining to the issue of irrational distribution of freebies from public funds before elections, observed that there is a need to balance between the loss to exchequer owing to freebies and welfare schemes for the benefit of the people. The court also debated as to what extent it can interfere in an issue such as this. CJI said, “Election Commission is an independent body, the political parties are there. So, to what extent can we interfere in this?”
    Bench: CJI NV Ramana led bench
    Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more

16. [Mehmood Pracha] The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) convicting Advocate Mehmood Pracha for contempt of court. In 2020, the principal bench of the CAT took suo moto cognizance of the behaviour of advocate Mehmood Pracha, while arguing the case of Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Indian Forest Service officer of Uttarakhand cadre on deputation to AIIMS, Delhi, who filed different applications with regard to recording of his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
    Bench: Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy
    Click here to read more

17. [Quashing of UAPA charges against Maoist leader] Supreme Court today issued notice in a plea by the State Government of Kerala challenging a Kerala High Court decision to quash charges invoked against Maoist Leader Roopesh under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
    Case Title: State of Kerala vs. Roopesh
    Click here to read more
     
18. [Plea in SC] Top Court issued notice in a plea by journalist Sucheta Dalal pertaining to unclaimed money of investors and depositors taken by various regulators and remaining inaccessible to rightful legal heirs. The plea has sought a direction to the Central Government to take appropriate steps, in a time-bound manner, towards creation of a centralized database providing information about bank accounts, insurance, post office funds etc. held by deceased account holders.
    Bench: Justices Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari
    Case Title: Sucheta Dalal vs. Union of India and Ors
    Click here to read more
     
19. [Sulli deals] Supreme Court has refused to stay investigation against Aumkareshwar Thakur, who allegedly created the Sulli Deals mobile application. Thakur had approached the Supreme Court for clubbing of FIRs registered against him in various States including Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. Thakur is accused of promoting enmity between different groups.
    Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh
    Case Title: Aumkareshwar Thakur vs. Union of India
    Click here to read more
     
20. [Builder-buyer Agreement] The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to prepare a road map for implementation of a model /uniform builder buyer agreement after considering the responses forwarded by the States/Union Territories, so that to the extent it is feasible, a model agreement for sale can be uniformly made applicable while leaving a certain degree of flexibility to the individual needs of the States/UTs.
    Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Bopanna
    Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Ors. 
    Click here to read more
     
21. [Supertech Twin Towers] Top Court has acceded to Noida authority's request to confirm August 28, 2022 as the date of demolition of Supertech twin towers. Court has further granted a “bandwidth of seven days” between August 29 to September 4 in order to take into account any marginal delay on account of technical reasons or weather conditions.
    Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Bopanna
    Click here to read more
     
22. [Hajj Committees] While hearing a plea by a former member of Central Haj Committee, Hafiz Naushad Ahmed Azmi stating that Centre and the States have not complied with the provision of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 and have failed to appoint committees as per the legislation, the Supreme Court has directed the States to file affidavits apprising it of the status of constitution of Haj committees in two weeks. The court has further directed the States to specify the names of committee members.
    Bench: Justices Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari
    Case Title: Hafiz Naushad Ahmad Azmi vs. Union of India 
    Click here to read more