Supreme Selections: Top Supreme Court Judgments of September 2024

30 September, 2024

Share on:

Overview of September Month

In this month, the Supreme Court (SC) of India delivered a total of 83 judgments. Apart from these cases, the SC also heard matters including RG Kar Hospital Rape and Murder Case, the Tirupati Balaji Adulterated Ghee case, Karnataka High Court Judge’s controversial Remark Case, and many more. Let us discuss in brief some of the important verdicts or decisions of the Supreme Court delivered in September 2024.

Important Verdicts of September Month

PMLA Prevails Over CrPC in Summoning Procedure

Judgment Name: Abhishekh Banerjee & Anr. vs. Directorate of Enforcement (September 09, 2024)

Bench: Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 190 (1)(a) r/w Section 200}, {The India Penal Code, 1860- Section 120B, 409, Section 174}, {The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 120B and 409, Section 174}, and {The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The bench was hearing Abhishek Banerjee and his wine Rujira Banerjee’s plea seeking quashing of summons issued by the ED (Respondent) in relation to a money laundering case (under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act). They also sought a direction against the ED not to issue any Summons under Section 50 of the PMLA to them for their appearance in New Delhi, rather than their hometown/ place of domicile i.e. Kolkata. The bench said, “...Rs. 168 Crores were transferred through vouchers to Delhi and Overseas, which clearly established adequate nexus of the offence and the offenders with the territory of Delhi. We therefore do not find any illegality in the summons issued by the respondent-ED summoning the Appellants to its Office at Delhi, which also has the territorial jurisdiction, a part of the offence having been allegedly committed by the accused persons as alleged in the complaint. It is also not disputed that Appellant No.1 being a Member of Parliament has also an official residence at Delhi.” It also illustrated that “Thus, there being specific procedure prescribed under the Statutory Rules of 2005 for summoning the person under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the Act, the same would prevail over any other procedure prescribed under the Code, particularly the procedure contemplated in Section 160/161, as also the procedure for production of documents contemplated in Section 91 of the Code, in view of the overriding effect given to the PMLA over the other Acts including the Cr.P.C. under Section 71 r/w Section 65 of the PMLA.”

Bail to Arvind Kejriwal in CBI Case

Judgment Name: Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (September 13, 2024)

Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 439}, {The Indian Penal Code, 1806- Section 120B read with Section 477A}, {The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002- Section 19}, and {The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Section 7}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a case registered by the CBI in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy Scam. While granting relief to Arvind Kejriwal, the SC bench criticized the CBI and questioned their arrest. It said, “...CBI case was registered on 17.08.2022. Till the arrest of the appellant by the ED on 21.03.2024, CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the appellant though it had interrogated him about a year back on 16.04.2023.” The bench granted him bail stating that it would be a travesty of justice to keep the appellant in further detention in the CBI case, more so, when he had already been granted bail on the same set of allegations under the more stringent provisions of PMLA.

Online Presence of Only Those Advocates be Furnished Who are Appearing or Assisting During Hearing

Judgment Name: Bhagwan Singh vs. State of UP & Ors. (September 20, 2024)

Bench: Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 482}, {The Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 363, 366 and 376}, {The Notaries Act, 1952- Section 8}, and {The Notaries Rules, 1956- Rule 11}

Judgment Brief and Decision: In this case, false proceedings were filed in the name of the appellant in the High Court and Supreme Court, by filing false and fabricated documents. The bench opined “Though, the said Bhagwan Singh had never met any of the…Advocates nor had instructed any advocates to file the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court and, though he had never met his daughter…and son- in-law…since the time they had eloped and married with each other in 2013, they with the help and assistance of the said Advocates had tried to misuse and abuse the process of law and malign the stream of justice.” Further, the top court bench came down heavily on Advocates-on-Record for their insensitive approach in practicing before it. The Supreme Court directed “...in this Court, online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing as indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates.” It added, “Request the member of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association to furnish online presence only of those advocates as indicated, and ensure its compliance in true sense and spirit.”

Storing Child Pornography Material, Constitutes An Offence Under POCSO Act

Judgment Name: Just Rights For Children Alliance vs. S. Harish (September 23, 2024)

Bench: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482}, {The Information Technology Act, 2000- Section 67B}, and {The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012- Section 15(1)}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The bench set aside the Madras High Court (HC) judgment which held that merely watching and storage of child pornography on digital devices without any intention to transmit the same was not an offence under the POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act). It said that the HC committed an egregious error in passing the impugned judgment. The SC further suggested the Union of India in its Ministry of Women and Child Development that the “Parliament should seriously consider to bring about an amendment to the POCSO for the purpose of substituting the term ‘child pornography’ that with ‘child sexual exploitative and abuse material’ (CSEAM) with a view to reflect more accurately on the reality of such offences.”

Bail to V Senthil Balaji in Money Laundering Case

Judgment Name: V. Senthil Balaji vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (September 26, 2024)

Bench: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution of India, 1950- Article 21}, {The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 439}, and {The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002- Section 3}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The SC bench granted bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji in the money laundering case in connection with the cash for jobs scam. He was arrested in June 2023, by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and a charge sheet was filed against him on August 12, 2023. While pronouncing the judgment, the bench said “We have referred to Najeeb and other judgements. What we have said is that stringent and higher threshold of bail and delay in prosecution cannot go together. And therefore we have slightly expanded the scope in Najeeb and bail granted but there are very onerous conditions put in the bail.”