In September, the Supreme Court granted bail to former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Tamil Nadu’s ex-Transport Minister V. Senthil Balaji, citing prolonged imprisonment and Article 21 rights violations. The Court also continued hearings on the K.G. Kar Medical College rape and murder case, addressing doctor protests, women lawyers’ safety, and gender equity in work conditions. It ruled that mere possession of child pornography is punishable under POCSO, accepted an apology from a Karnataka HC judge for inappropriate remarks, and heard arguments about bulldozer demolitions and Fundamental Duties. Lastly, the Court celebrated its 75th anniversary with reflections on book bans, gender in the judiciary, and bench allocation practices.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kejriwal Granted Bail in CBI Case: Legal Proceedings Unfold
On September 13, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was granted bail by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, following his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy scam. Kejriwal had been arrested on June 25 under charges of corruption pursuant to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA).
The court recognized that Kejriwal’s extended imprisonment breached his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Both judges observed that with 224 witnesses and multiple documents needing evaluation, the trial would likely take a long time. In the interim, they ruled that Kejriwal did not need to remain incarcerated. The bail conditions included the payment of a Rs. 10 lakh bond and an instruction to refrain from commenting on the CBI case.
However, the judges were divided over the validity of Kejriwal’s arrest. Justice Kant sided with the CBI, stating that the arrest had followed due procedure under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Conversely, Justice Bhuyan disagreed, pointing out that the CBI only considered arresting Kejriwal after he had already secured bail in a separate Enforcement Directorate (ED) case.
Court Continues Hearings on Kolkata Rape and Murder Case
The Supreme Court has also been actively hearing the K.G. Kar Medical College rape and murder case, which it took up suo moto in August. With five hearings completed by September, three were conducted during the month.
On September 9, the Court directed that proper accommodations be arranged for Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officers, deployed to secure the hospital premises, who had been commuting long distances. The Court also instructed protesting doctors to resume work, simultaneously urging the state government to install additional CCTV cameras for enhanced security. The police were asked to address safety concerns raised by doctors, and the Court emphasized that protests must not impede the doctors’ essential duties to patients.
On September 17, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal raised concerns about threats directed at women lawyers involved in the case, which he attributed to the public live streaming of court hearings. While Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud empathized with the issue, he maintained that live streaming had to continue in the interest of transparency. In a bid to protect the privacy and dignity of the victim, the Court also ordered Wikipedia to remove any references to the victim’s name and image from its platform.
Moreover, a notification from the West Bengal Government attempting to restrict women doctors from working night shifts or exceeding 12-hour shifts was struck down by Chief Justice Chandrachud. He remarked,
“While security is paramount, it should not come at the cost of denying women equal opportunities to work.”
On September 30, the Court reviewed the status of security measures at the hospital and reprimanded the state government for slow progress. The judges also took note of concerns raised by doctors’ associations about the continued employment of several individuals involved in the incident.
Bail for Senthil Balaji: Another Major Bail Case in September
Following Kejriwal, former Tamil Nadu Minister of Transport V. Senthil Balaji was also granted bail by the Supreme Court. The bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih applied similar reasoning, noting that Balaji had been imprisoned for an extended period with no trial in sight. Unlike Kejriwal’s case, however, Balaji faced an even longer legal road ahead, as one of the three FIRs filed against him named 2,000 accused individuals and 550 witnesses.
The Court held that Balaji’s continued imprisonment also violated his rights under Article 21. Furthermore, the bench used the case to outline key factors for determining whether an accused had been held for a reasonable amount of time. These factors included the maximum and minimum sentences for the alleged offense, statutory provisions for bail, and any timelines for trial completion under the relevant statute.
Supreme Court Clarifies Child Pornography Laws under POCSO Act
On September 23, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment clarifying that the viewing, possession, and storage of child pornography are punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012. The ruling overturned a 2024 Madras High Court decision that had created uncertainty around these actions.
The Court highlighted three distinct offenses under Sections 15(1), 15(2), and 15(3) of the POCSO Act. It interpreted Section 15(1) as criminalizing mere possession of child pornography, provided the accused had not deleted or destroyed the material.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that Section 30 of the POCSO Act presumes the accused has a “culpable state of mind” unless proven otherwise, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. For violations under Section 15(1), the prosecution need only establish possession of the material without evidence of attempts to dispose of it.
Karnataka High Court Judge Apologizes: Supreme Court Accepts
A controversy involving a Karnataka High Court judge drew attention in June 2024 after the judge referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bangalore as “Pakistan.” The same judge made “objectionable remarks” about a woman advocate in August. In response, the Supreme Court exercised its suo moto powers to investigate.
On September 25, the Court accepted the judge’s “unconditional apology” and closed the case. Despite the relatively brief proceedings, the episode prompted the Karnataka High Court to issue an interim order restricting the use of clips from its live-streamed proceedings on YouTube.
When Attorney General R. Venkataramani sought Chief Justice Chandrachud’s guidance on managing the now-viral clips, the Chief Justice asserted that “suppressing court proceedings would not be a solution.”
Supreme Court Weighs in on Demolition of Accused Individuals’ Homes
The issue of bulldozing homes of accused individuals surfaced again in September, with the Supreme Court hearing the Jamiat Ulama I Hind’s petition twice.
On September 2, Justice B.R. Gavai questioned the legality of demolishing homes solely because their owners were charged with a crime. The bench suggested the creation of pan-India guidelines to regulate demolition actions. On September 14, the Jamiat Ulama I Hind proposed guidelines requiring demolition notices to cite legal provisions and allow for appeals.
Despite these discussions, on September 17, the Court learned of another house demolition that occurred despite its previous remarks. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta attempted to justify the action, stating that the accused had been under notice of demolition since 2022. The Court, however, issued an order halting further demolitions until the matter was revisited on October 1.
Towards the end of the month, the United Nations condemned bulldozer demolitions as “an aggravated form of human rights violation” and urged the Supreme Court to set comprehensive pan-India guidelines.
Discussion on Fundamental Duties: Can They Be Enforced?
On September 11, the Supreme Court delved into arguments regarding the enforceability of Fundamental Duties as outlined in Section 51A of the Constitution. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar argued that these duties should be enforceable, stating,
“Had these duties not been enforceable, they would have been included in the Directive Principles of State Policy section.”
While the idea of enforcement was debated, Justice Sanjiv Khanna expressed skepticism, noting that courts cannot compel Parliament or states to adopt laws enforcing these duties. He pointed out that many existing laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, already incorporate aspects of Fundamental Duties.
Further hearings on this issue are expected in November.
Celebrating 75 Years of the Supreme Court
In September, two new stories and a video were released as part of a special series commemorating the Supreme Court’s 75th anniversary. One essay by Salil Tripathi explored the Court’s complex history with book bans, while another by associate editor Gauri Kashyap examined the challenges faced by women judges at the top court.
Lastly, Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Advay Vora conducted a deep dive into the Supreme Court’s bench allocation system under Chief Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and U.U. Lalit, proposing a transparent rostering system.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Electoral Bonds
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
