Every Month, the courts across the country deliver a number of judgments that impact the lives of millions of citizens. March 2023 was no exception, with a number of significant decisions given by the Supreme Court and various High Courts across the country.
From giving a landmark decision on bail jurisprudence to controversies around political matters, it was hard to keep up with legal news last Month, but no worries, we got you covered; in this blog, we have covered an overview of some of the important legal developments from March 2023.
So, let's unfold what the Courts were up to in the past Month!
Landmark Supreme Court Cases of March 2023
1. The SC rejected the center's petition seeking extra compensation from UCC for the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
Case Title- Union of India and Ors. v. M/s. Union Carbide Corporation And Ors., 2023, SC
Facts- After the tragic Bhopal Gas tragedy incident, the center filed a case against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). In 1989, UCC agreed to pay 470 million US Dollars to the Union of India to settle all claims relating to the Bhopal Gas disaster. In 2010, a curative petition was filed by the Union Government contending that the earlier settlement was based on incorrect data on the number of deaths, injuries, and losses, and had not taken into account the subsequent environmental degradation. The matter came before the SC in September 2022.
Judgment- However, the SC dismissed the petition. The Court observed that the center’s claim is not based on any known legal principle. A settlement can be set aside in cases where it is vitiated by fraud. However, the Court directed the Center that Rs.50 crore (a part of compensation) which is kept with RBI shall be utilized to satisfy any pending claims in accordance with the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and any Scheme made under the Act.
2. Membership of an unlawful organization is an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967: SC
Case Title- Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam, 2023, SC
Facts- The Union Government filed an application in the SC seeking reference against the judgment given in the cases of Arup Bhuyan vs. Union of India, (2011), State of Kerala vs. Raneef, (2011) on the ground that the Court gave interpretations to central legislation without hearing the side of Union. In these cases, it was held that mere membership in an illegal association does not constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 or the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, unless it is accompanied by some overt violent act and read down Section 10(a)(i) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In 2014 a 2-judge bench of SC then referred the matter to a three-Judge bench.
/content-assets/a4ef9543d0a34068add6f3f997de714b.png)
Judgment- The Supreme Court overruled the aforementioned 2011 judgments and upheld the validity of Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967, and held the Court should not have read down the said section when neither the constitutional validity of the Section was challenged nor the side of Union of India was heard. The Court held- “once an organization is declared unlawful & despite that, a person who is a member of such unlawful association continues to be a member of such unlawful association then he has to face the consequences and is subjected to the penal provisions as provided under Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967.”
3. Supreme Court directed prisoners released on COVID-19 parole to surrender within 15 days.
Case Title- In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons, 2023, SC
Facts- The application was made by the Director General (Prisons), New Delhi, to seek appropriate directions for the surrender of prisoners who had been released on Emergency Parole/Interim Bail by the Supreme Court in accordance with the recommendations of the High-Powered Committee, since the COVID-19 situation has now normalized.
Judgment- The Court ordered that undertrial prisoners and convicts released on interim bail shall surrender to the competent prison officials within 15 days. However, the Court stated that the concerned undertrials still have the option to apply for bail before the competent court. Similarly, they can apply for suspension of their sentence before the court in their appeals which might have been pending.
The Supreme Court of India, in the years 2020 and 2021 to avoid overcrowding prisons, passed several orders during the first and second waves of the pandemic for the grant of emergency parole to prisoners. The Court had also directed to constitute High Powered Committees in States.
4. Borrowers must be heard before their accounts are classified as fraud: SC
Case Title- State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal and ors., 2023, SC
Facts: The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the 2016 Directions (Frauds Classification and Reporting by Commercial Banks and Select FIs) issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant contended that borrowers were not given the opportunity to present their cases before their accounts were classified as fraudulent.
Judgment- The apex court observed: “Borrowers have the right to be heard before their accounts are classified as fraud, the decision to classify the account as fraudulent must be made by a reasoned order. “ The court noted that RBI's Master Directions do not give the opportunity of hearing to the borrower and thus the principle of audi alteram partem must be read into the provisions to safeguard borrowers from arbitrariness. The Court also noted that in accordance with principles of natural justice, the borrowers must also be served notice, then given an opportunity to explain the conclusions in the audit report, and to be allowed to represent their case before the banks before their accounts are classified as fraud.
5. Undue delay in a trial can be a ground to grant bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, 1985: SC
Case Title- Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023, SC
Facts- The accused in the case was an undertrial prisoner who was caught seven years ago as part of a group supplying Ganja. Four of the co-accused in this case were found in possession of more than a hundred kilograms, and the appellant was later charged based on one of the co-accused's confessional statements. After the Delhi High Court declined his request for regular bail, he filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
Judgment- A division bench granted bail to the appellant, holding that "bail can be granted on the ground of undue delay in trial and it cannot be restricted by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as Section 436A of the Crpc applies to NDPS Act offenses as well." While the right to bail may be restricted by special acts such as the NDPS Act, the court explained that the standard to be considered even within the context of Section 37 of the act is that of a prima facie determination that the accused is not guilty of the offense; if the conditions under Section 37 are literally interpreted, it would effectively exclude the grant of bail entirely.
According to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court may give bail to the accused only if it is satisfied that there are reasonable reasons to believe that he is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any other offence while on bail.
Top Legal Events of India March 2023
1. Legal Recognition For Same-Sex Marriage
The Supreme Court has referred the petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriages to a Constitution Bench. The matter has been listed for hearing on 18th April 2023. The apex Court in 2018, in the case of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. UOI, partially struck down section 377 of IPC and paved the way for LGBT rights in India.
2. Foreign lawyers and law firms are allowed to practice foreign law in India by the Bar Council of India.
The Bar Council of India has now permitted foreign lawyers and law firms to practice foreign law in India on a reciprocity basis. The Bar Council of India, in consultation with the Law Ministry, if required, will lay down guidelines in areas of practice of law by a foreign lawyer or Foreign Law Firm. Interestingly, the Supreme Court in BCI v. AK Balaji, 2018 held that foreign law firms/companies or foreign lawyers cannot practice law profession in India either in the litigation or in the non-litigation side.
3. Supreme Court reserved judgment in the Shiv Sena Case.
A Constitution Bench was hearing petitions related to the rift within the Shiv Sena party between the Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde groups, which resulted in a change in Maharashtra's government in 2022. In August 2022, a three-judge bench referred the petitions to a Constitution bench because the case contained issues pertaining to the interpretation of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with disqualification and the powers of the Speaker and Governor regarding the same. The Bench has reserved its decision on the issue.
4. Rahul Gandhi lost his Lok Sabha membership after being convicted in a defamation case.
A Surat District Court convicted Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case for comments he made during a political campaign in Karol in April 2019 about "why all thieves share the Modi surname." After finding him guilty of Defamation under the IPC, the Court sentenced him to two years imprisonment and issued a fine of Rs. 15,000. Following this, the Lok Sabha Secretariat then issued a notification of disqualification. The disqualification is based on Article 102 (1) (e) of the Indian Constitution and Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1951. According to the 1951 Act, if a person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more, he will be disqualified for a time of six years after his release. The disqualification can be reversed if a higher court gives a stay on the person's conviction in an appeal or decides the appeal moved against the conviction in favor of the person involved.
5. The SC asked the Gujarat government to respond on the early release of convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang rape case.
Bilkis Bano was gang-raped and her three-year-old daughter was amongst the 14 people killed by a mob on March 3, 2002, in Gujarat during the riots. Eleven people who were convicted for the case were released on August 15, 2022, after the State Government allowed their remission applications. Bilkis Bano approached the Supreme Court on November 30 last year challenging the “premature” release of 11 convicts by the Gujarat government, contending it has “shaken the conscience of society”. A Division bench consisting of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna issued a notice in the petition & directed the State governments to be ready with the relevant files granting remission to the parties.
Conclusion
Whether you're a legal professional, a student of law, or preparing for competitive exams like the judiciary, civil services or postgraduate exams in law, it is important to keep up with the legal developments, hope this roundup of March 2023 helps you.