After the High Court of AP granted stay on all further investigation here, State went to Apex Court challenging the Stay order.
Diary No.- 20400 – 2020
On 25-Nov-2020, Supreme Court has Stayed the High Court gag order alone. Rest of the Order remain as it is.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
The major-daughter here tried to grab maintenance from father under 125 CrPC showing that father has such responsibility under HAMA. Supreme Court said no-no.
Advocate Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya had filed this Writ Petition way back in 2016 (2016-09-06) and still the Supreme Court is working on it.
On 2020-03-05:
A 13-column format was finalized to be filled by High Courts, as not many High Courts supplied Amicus with required information. Amicus email id is given wherein the Crime data was to be sent.
On 2020-08-31:
On 2020-09-10:
Submission of the Amicus Curiae:
Order from Court:
On 2020-09-16:
Directions were passed to CJs of High Courts for monitoring and expediting the disposal of the criminal cases.
On 2020-10-06:
Supplementary Submission of the Amicus Curiae:
On 2020-11-02:
Supplementary Submission (12th Report) of the Amicus Curiae:
On 2020-11-02:
Further directions were passed by the Court
On 2021-08-10:
In view of the law laid down by this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that no prosecution against a sitting or former M.P./M.L.A. shall be withdrawn without the leave of the High Court in the respective suo-motu writ petitions registered in pursuance of our order dated 16.09.2020. The High Courts are requested to examine the withdrawals, whether pending or disposed of since 16.09.2020, in light of guidelines laid down by this Court.
On 2021-08-11:
The table given in previous day order was amended to include new column, ‘Whether Video Conferencing facility is available’.
On 2021-08-25:
This is the 14th Status Report by Amicus Curiae:
Here is the Order passed.
Supreme Court held that for offences under 191 and 192 IPC, procedure under 340 CrPC has to be followed and perjury application for such offences cannot be turned into private complaints under 190 CrPC.
Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 707], [(2020)20 SCC 1]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141105348/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f567c183321bc6ce2ef6f51
https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13132
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/m-s-bandekar-brothers-pvt-ltd-anr-versus-prasad-vassudev-keni-etc-etc
Index of Perjury case laws is here.
Many State Governments filed Review Petition and got SC to allow them (Central Ministers in lieu of Prime Minister, State Ministers in lieu of Chief Minister) to feature in Government-funded Advertisements.
Citations:
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127552520/
Earlier Judgment here.
Supreme Court deprecated the practice of using the photographs of politicians on Government Advertisements.
(1) publication of photographs of the Government functionaries and political leaders along with the advertisement(s).
(2) appointment of an Ombudsman
(3) the recommendation with regard to performance audit by each Ministry.
(4) embargo on advertisements on the eve of the elections.
Citations: [2015 ABR 4 219], [2015 SCC 7 1], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 479], [2015 KERLT 2 739], [2015 KLT 2 739]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177370809/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b298e561097e45a4e2fd
State Governments filed Review Petition and got SC to allow them (Central Ministers in lieu of Prime Minister, State Ministers in lieu of Chief Minister) to feature in Advertisements here.
Supreme Court very clearly said a staff on Administration on Justice, such as Registry Staff can not exercise Judicial functions.
From Paras 9 and 10,
9. The nature of judicial function is well settled under our legal system. Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which invests with that character. The distinguishing factor which separates administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act judicially. Judicial function may thus be defined as the process of considering the proposal, opposition and then arriving at a decision upon the same on consideration of facts and circumstances according to the rules of reason and justice. A Constitution Bench of five judges in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut vs. Lakshmichand and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 677, formulated the following criteria to ascertain whether a decision or or an act is judicial function or not, in the following manner
(1) it is in substance a determination upon investigation of a question by the application of objective standards to facts found in the light of preexisting legal rule;
(2) it declares rights or imposes upon parties obligations affecting their civil rights; and
(3) that the investigation is subject to certain procedural attributes contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a party, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence if a dispute be on questions of fact, and if the dispute be on question of law on the presentation of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact.
(emphasis added)
The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative. The objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires judicial application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard. Moreover, the wordings of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act itself indicates
at application of judicial mind. In this context, we accept the statement of the Attorney General, that the determination in this case is a judicial function and the High Court Registry could not have rejected the numbering.10. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench.
Citations: [2019 (2) Crimes 321], [2019 (2) JLJR 279], [2019 (2) KLJ 955], [2019 (2) PLJR 291], [2019 (2) RCR (Civil) 767], [2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 767], [2019 (6) Scale 465], [2019 All.M.R.(Cri.) 3493], [(2019) 9 SCC 154], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 507]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85097973/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ca8c17e9eff430a58956741
https://www.vakilno1.com/supreme-court-of-india/high-court-registry-cannot-question-maintainability-of-petition-supreme-court.html
Supreme Court gave this landmark reportable judgment regd delay condonation under Sec 5 of Limitation Act.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated
benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
Citations: [2012 AIR SC 1506], [2012 ALR 91 879], [2012 AWC SC 3 2651], [2012 CALLT SC 3 65], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 20], [2012 CLT 113 1066], [2012 COMPCAS SC 174 387], [2012 CTC 2 240], [2012 ELT SC 277 289], [2012 GLH 1 670], [2012 ITR SC 348 7], [2012 JLJR 2 252], [2012 JCR SC 3 59], [2012 PLJR 2 371], [2012 RLW SC 3 2142], [2012 SCALE 2 782], [2012 SCC 3 563], [2013 SLJ SC 1 320], [2012 TAXMAN SC 207 163], [2012 SCC CIV 2 327], [2012 SCC CRI 2 580], [2012 SCC L&S 1 649], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 192], [2012 GUJ LH 1 670], [2012 AIC 112 69], [2012 CALLJ 2 93], [2012 CALLT 3 65], [2012 VST 54 188], [2012 SCT 2 269], [2012 SUPREME 2 244], [2012 CLT 1 338], [2012 AIR SC 0 1812], [2012 SCR 1 1045], [2012 SLT 2 312], [2012 JT 2 483], [2012 CHN SC 3 20], [2012 CCC 2 1], [2012 AIOL 103], [2012 SCC L&S 2 649], [2012 SCJ 3 873], [2012 SCC CR 2 580], [2012 LW 4 100], [2013 CPR 2 306], [2013 CPR 3 622], [2012 CUTLT 113 1066], [2012 SCR 0 500], [2012 TAXMANNCOM SC 20 347]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20289457/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af18e4b014971141598b
See Supreme Court deprecated the unethical practice of State Government of Andhra Pradesh in this Order… Hehehe
State of Andhra Pradesh does it again! The incorrigible inefficiency in filing appeal is apparent from page 78 where the present special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 455 days. In view of Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 there are no more acceptable excuses. These are matters brought before the Court only to obtain a certificate of dismissal to put a quietus to the matter. We strongly deprecate the same.
The earlier judgment from erstwhile High Court of AP.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
State of AP went to Supreme Court in SLP against the AP High Court Order of Suspension of GOs related to doling out of Amaravati lands to people from Economically Weaker Sections here. Supreme Court dismissed it summarily.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1743 access attempts in the last 7 days.
