The Supreme Court has clarified that Bharat Drilling cannot be treated as an authority for the view that contractually barred claims bind only the employer and not arbitral tribunals, and has referred the issue to a larger bench for authoritative settlement of the law.
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether insurance companies must pay no-fault compensation under Section 163A of the MV Act for the vehicle owner’s death, even without a third-party claim. The case arose from a minor’s plea after losing her parents in a solo accident.
The Supreme Court of India will revisit its 2022 PMLA ruling on August 6, amidst petitions calling for a larger Bench to address constitutional concerns. Key issues raised involve the validity of provisions upheld in the previous judgment, particularly those affecting the rights of the accused regarding the Enforcement Case Information Report.
Justice Surya Kant criticized a 1981 Supreme Court reference questioning the Chief Justice’s authority regarding Aligarh Muslim University’s minority status, labeling it “bad in law.” He emphasized judicial integrity, asserting that a two-judge bench cannot challenge larger bench rulings, and highlighted the Chief Justice’s role in maintaining judicial clarity and authority within the system.
Retired Justice Muralidhar suggested increasing Supreme Court benches to avoid conflicting rulings and improve consistency. He emphasized limited time for contemplation, the need for structural improvements, and the demanding nature of judgeship. He also advocated for detailed reports from the National Commission for Women and discusses the impact of a judgment decriminalizing consensual homosexual sex.