C.B.I. V. DR. R.R. KISHORE
2023 INSC 817 (11 September 2023)

1. Heading

Case Name: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) v. Dr. R.R. Kishore
Citation: 2023 INSC 817
Court: Supreme Court of India
Constitutional Bench: 5-Judge Bench (Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari)
Date of Judgment: September 11, 2023

2. Subject of the Judgment

The judgment dealt with whether the declaration of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1942 as unconstitutional (violating Article 14) in the Subramanian Swamy case (2014) applies retrospectively or prospectively, and its impact on pending investigations under Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

3. Related Laws & Sections

• Section 6A, DSPE Act, 1942 (Mandated prior approval for investigating corruption cases against senior officials).

• Article 14 (Right to Equality) – Struck down Section 6A for creating arbitrary classification.

• Article 20(1) (Protection against ex-post-facto laws) – Examined whether Section 6A provided immunity.

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) – Under which the accused was charged.

• Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) (Constitution Bench) – Declared Section 6A unconstitutional.

4. Explanation of the Judgment (Step-wise)

Background of the Case

• The CBI registered an FIR against Dr. R.R. Kishore (a senior official) under the PC Act, 1988 for corruption in 2004.

• Kishore argued that the investigation was illegal because Section 6A of the DSPE Act required prior approval from the Central Government, which was not obtained.

• The Delhi High Court (2006) ruled in Kishore’s favor, stating that investigation without approval was illegal.

• The Supreme Court (2014, Subramanian Swamy case) struck down Section 6A as unconstitutional for violating Article 14 (equality before law).

• The key question now was: Does this declaration apply retrospectively (void from inception) or prospectively (only after 2014)?

Key Legal Issues

1. Is Section 6A procedural or substantive?
   The Court held it was procedural (only a safeguard for investigation, not immunity from conviction).
   Article 20(1) only protects against retrospective conviction or enhanced punishment, not procedural changes.

2. Does Article 20(1) protect Section 6A?
   No, because:
   Article 20(1) bars new offences or increased penalties retrospectively.
   Section 6A did not decriminalize corruption; it only regulated investigation.

3. Retrospective or Prospective Effect?
   The Court ruled that unconstitutional laws are void ab initio (from the beginning).
   Since Section 6A was struck down in 2014, it was never valid from its insertion in 2003.

4. Impact on Pending Cases
   Investigations conducted without prior approval before 2014 were not illegal because Section 6A was non-existent from inception.
   The High Court’s 2006 order (quashing investigation) was overturned.

Conclusion of the Judgment

• Section 6A was always unconstitutional and unenforceable from 2003.

• No protection under Article 20(1) because it was a procedural rule, not a substantive right.

• Investigations before 2014 without approval remain valid (no retrospective penalty).

• The case was sent back to a regular bench for final disposal.

5. Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies that unconstitutional laws are void from inception, not just from the date of judgment.

• Reinforces that Article 20(1) does not protect procedural safeguards, only penal consequences.

• Ensures corruption investigations are not derailed due to procedural technicalities.

THE STATE OF PUNJAB V. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB
2023 INSC 1017 (10 November 2023)

1. Heading

Case Name: The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Original Jurisdiction (Writ Petition under Article 32)

2. Citation

Citation: 2023 INSC 1017 (Reportable)
Writ Petition No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1224 of 2023
Date of Judgment: November 10, 2023
Constitutional Bench: No (Decided by a 3-judge bench)

3. Subject of the Judgment in Short

The Supreme Court ruled on two key issues:

1. Governor’s Role in Withholding Bills: The Governor cannot indefinitely delay action on Bills passed by the State Legislature and must act as per Article 200 of the Constitution.

2. Speaker’s Power to Reconvene Assembly: The Speaker has the exclusive authority to reconvene a session of the Vidhan Sabha if it was adjourned but not prorogued.

4. Related Laws, Sections, and Acts

The judgment primarily interprets:

• Article 200 of the Constitution: Governor’s powers regarding assent to Bills.

• Article 174: Governor’s power to summon, prorogue, and dissolve the State Legislature.

• Article 207: Special provisions for Money Bills.

• Article 208: Rules of procedure for State Legislatures.

• Article 212: Immunity of legislative proceedings from judicial scrutiny.

• Rules of Procedure of Punjab Vidhan Sabha (Rule 16): Speaker’s power to adjourn and reconvene sessions.

5. Explanation of the Judgment (Step-wise)

Background of the Case

• The Punjab Government passed four Bills in the Vidhan Sabha, but the Governor refused to take any action (neither assenting nor returning them).

• The Governor claimed that the session where these Bills were passed was "illegal" because the Speaker had reconvened it after an adjournment without prorogation.

• The State of Punjab approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking a declaration that the sessions were valid and a direction to the Governor to act on the pending Bills.

Key Issues Decided by the Supreme Court

A. Governor’s Role in Withholding Bills (Article 200)

• The Court held that the Governor is a constitutional head and must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers (as established in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab).

• Under Article 200, the Governor has three options when a Bill is presented:
  Assent to the Bill
  Withhold assent (but must return it for reconsideration as per the first proviso)
  Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration (only in specific cases).

• The Governor cannot indefinitely delay action on Bills. If he withholds assent, he must return the Bill "as soon as possible" with reasons for reconsideration.

• The Court criticized the Governor for not following constitutional procedure and keeping Bills pending without any valid justification.

B. Speaker’s Power to Reconvene the Assembly

• The Vidhan Sabha was adjourned sine die (indefinitely) on March 22, 2023, but not prorogued.

• The Speaker later reconvened the session in June 2023 under Rule 16 of Punjab Vidhan Sabha Rules, which allows the Speaker to recall an adjourned House in public interest.

• The Court ruled that:
  Adjournment ≠ Prorogation: An adjourned session can be recalled, but a prorogued session ends the term.
  Speaker has exclusive power to regulate House proceedings (as per Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India).
  The Governor cannot question the validity of a session once the Speaker reconvenes it.

Conclusion of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha sessions held in June and October 2023.

• The Governor was directed to act on the pending Bills as per Article 200 without further delay.

• The Court emphasized constitutional democracy, stating that unelected officials (like Governors) must not obstruct elected legislatures.

Final Takeaways

1. Governor’s Role is Limited – Must act promptly on Bills and cannot veto legislative decisions.

2. Speaker’s Authority is Supreme – Only the Speaker can decide on adjournment and reconvening of sessions.

3. Judicial Safeguard for Democracy – Courts will intervene if constitutional functionaries misuse power.

COX AND KINGS LTD. V. SAP INDIA PVT. LTD.
2023 INSC 1051 (6 December 2023)

1. Citation

Case Name: Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 INSC 1051
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Constitution Bench (5 Judges)
Date of Judgment: December 6, 2023

2. Subject of the Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the validity and applicability of the "Group of Companies Doctrine" in Indian arbitration law. The doctrine allows non-signatory companies within a corporate group to be bound by an arbitration agreement if their involvement in the transaction shows mutual intent to arbitrate.

3. Related Laws & Sections

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
  Section 2(1)(h): Definition of "party" to an arbitration agreement.
  Section 7: Requirements of a valid arbitration agreement (written form, consent).
  Section 8: Power of judicial authority to refer parties to arbitration.
  Section 11: Appointment of arbitrators.
  Section 45: Enforcement of foreign arbitration agreements.

• Indian Contract Act, 1872: Principles of consent and privity of contract.

• Companies Act, 2013: Separate legal identity of companies.

4. Key Issues Decided by the Court

The Supreme Court addressed two main questions:

1. Can the phrase "claiming through or under" (Sections 8 & 45) include the Group of Companies Doctrine?

2. Is the Group of Companies Doctrine valid in Indian law?

5. Explanation of the Judgment (Step-wise)

A. What is the Group of Companies Doctrine?

• The doctrine allows a non-signatory company (part of the same corporate group) to be bound by an arbitration agreement if:
  It was actively involved in negotiations, performance, or termination of the contract.
  There is a clear mutual intention to include it in arbitration.

• Example: If Company A (signatory) and Company B (non-signatory, but part of the same group) work together on a project, Company B can be compelled to arbitrate if its role shows consent.

B. Supreme Court’s Ruling

1. Doctrine is Valid but Consent is Key
   The doctrine is part of Indian arbitration law but must be applied carefully.
   Consent (express or implied) of the non-signatory is essential.
   Mere membership in a group is not enough—active participation in the contract is required.

2. No Link to "Claiming Through or Under"
   The phrase "claiming through or under" (Sections 8 & 45) applies only to legal heirs, assignees, or successors, not group companies.
   The doctrine is independent and based on mutual intent, not statutory interpretation.

3. Factors to Determine Applicability
   Direct involvement in contract performance.
   Common business purpose between signatory and non-signatory.
   Composite nature of transactions (multiple agreements linked to one deal).
   No strict reliance on "single economic unit" theory—separate legal identity must be respected.

4. Referral Court’s Role
   Courts should only check prima facie if an arbitration agreement exists.
   The arbitral tribunal must decide whether a non-signatory is bound.

C. Rejection of Misuse of the Doctrine

• The Court warned against misapplying the doctrine to force unrelated companies into arbitration.

• Piercing the corporate veil (ignoring legal separation of companies) cannot be used unless fraud is proven.

6. Conclusion

• The Group of Companies Doctrine is valid in India but must be applied cautiously.

• Consent and conduct of the non-signatory are crucial—not just corporate affiliation.

• Courts should not expand arbitration unnecessarily; tribunals must decide disputes fairly.

• The judgment balances corporate realities with legal principles, ensuring arbitration remains consensual and fair.

IN RE INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT 1899. V.
2023 INSC 1066 (13 December 2023)

Citation

Case Name: In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899
Citation: 2023 INSC 1066
Date of Judgment: 25 April 2023 (Constitution Bench of 7 Judges)

Subject 

The Supreme Court examined whether an unstamped or insufficiently stamped contract containing an arbitration clause is enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Stamp Act). The Court overruled its earlier judgments (SMS Tea Estates and Garware Wall Ropes) and held that:

• Non-payment of stamp duty does not invalidate an arbitration agreement.

• Courts cannot refuse to appoint an arbitrator merely because the underlying contract is unstamped.

• The arbitral tribunal (not courts) has the authority to examine stamping issues.

Related Laws & Sections

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

• Section 5 – Limits judicial intervention in arbitration.

• Section 7 – Defines an arbitration agreement.

• Section 11(6A) – Courts must only examine the existence (not validity) of an arbitration agreement.

• Section 16 – Arbitral tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction (including stamping issues).

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899

• Section 33 – Duty to impound unstamped documents.

• Section 35 – Unstamped documents are inadmissible in evidence but not void.

C. Indian Contract Act, 1872

• Section 2(g) & (j) – Defines void agreements but does not apply to stamping defects.

Key Issues & Supreme Court’s Decision (Step-by-Step Explanation)

Issue 1: Does non-stamping make an arbitration agreement invalid?

• Earlier View (Overruled):
  SMS Tea Estates (2011) & Garware Wall Ropes (2019) held that an unstamped contract is void, so the arbitration clause inside it cannot be enforced.
  Courts had to impound unstamped contracts before appointing arbitrators.

• New Ruling (2023):
  Non-stamping is a curable defect (not fatal to arbitration).
  Section 35 (Stamp Act) only makes unstamped documents inadmissible in evidence, not void.
  Arbitration agreement is separate from the main contract (doctrine of separability).

Issue 2: Who should decide stamping issues—Courts or Arbitrators?

• Earlier View (Overruled):
  Courts had to examine stamping at the appointment stage (Section 11).

• New Ruling (2023):
  Arbitral tribunal (not courts) must decide stamping issues under Section 16 (competence-competence principle).
  Courts should only check prima facie existence of arbitration agreement (not stamping).

Issue 3: Does the Stamp Act override the Arbitration Act?

• Earlier View (Overruled):
  Courts applied Stamp Act strictly, delaying arbitration.

• New Ruling (2023):
  Arbitration Act is a special law and prevails over the Stamp Act.
  Section 5 (Arbitration Act) restricts judicial interference in arbitration.

Conclusion 

1. Unstamped contracts do not invalidate arbitration clauses.

2. Courts must appoint arbitrators without examining stamping issues.

3. Arbitral tribunal (not courts) will decide stamp duty disputes.

4. Overrules SMS Tea Estates & Garware Wall Ropes.

5. Promotes faster arbitration by reducing court interference.

VISHAL TIWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 3 (3 January 2024)

Analysis of Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India (2024 INSC 3)

1. Heading

Case Name: Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2024 INSC 3

2. Subject 

The Supreme Court addressed concerns regarding market volatility, investor protection, and allegations of regulatory failure by SEBI in relation to the Adani Group following the Hindenburg Research report. The Court examined SEBI's regulatory framework, investigations, and recommendations by an Expert Committee, ultimately upholding SEBI's authority and dismissing petitions seeking a transfer of investigations.

3. Related Laws, Sections, and Acts

• Constitutional Provisions:
  Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies)
  Article 142 (Supreme Court’s Power to Ensure Justice)

• Statutory Laws:
  SEBI Act, 1992 (Sections 11, 30)
  Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (Rule 19A)
  SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2014
  SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015
  Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002

• Judicial Precedents:
  IFB Agro Industries Ltd v. SICGIL India Ltd (2023)
  Prakash Gupta v. SEBI (2021)
  Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022)

• Date of Judgment: January 3, 2024

• Constitutional Bench:
  Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (CJI)
  J.B. Pardiwala (J.)
  Manoj Misra (J.)

4. Explanation of the Judgment (Step-wise)

A. Background

• Petitions were filed under Article 32 alleging market manipulation by the Adani Group after the Hindenburg Report (January 2023), which accused the group of financial irregularities and stock price manipulation.

• The report led to a sharp decline in Adani Group’s stock prices, causing investor losses.

• Petitioners sought:
  Court-monitored investigation by an SIT/CBI.
  Revocation of SEBI’s amendments to FPI and LODR Regulations.
  Action against Hindenburg for short-selling.

B. Key Issues

1. Regulatory Failure by SEBI:
   Petitioners argued SEBI’s amendments to FPI and LODR Regulations diluted disclosure norms, aiding Adani Group.
   Court’s View: SEBI’s amendments were tightened (not diluted) to mandate upfront disclosures. No evidence of regulatory failure.

2. Transfer of Investigation to SIT/CBI:
   Petitioners claimed SEBI’s investigation was inadequate.
   Court’s View: SEBI had completed 22 out of 24 investigations. No proof of bias or inaction. Transfer of probe is rare and requires extraordinary circumstances.

3. Conflict of Interest in Expert Committee:
   Petitioners alleged bias in committee members.
   Court’s View: Allegations were unsubstantiated and raised belatedly.

4. Short-Selling by Hindenburg:
   SEBI stated short-selling is legal but agreed to probe if Hindenburg violated laws.

C. Court’s Findings

1. Limited Judicial Review Over SEBI:
   Courts cannot interfere with SEBI’s policy decisions unless they violate fundamental rights or are arbitrary.
   SEBI’s expertise in market regulation is final unless proven mala fide.

2. No Regulatory Failure:
   SEBI’s amendments to FPI/LODR Regulations were valid and aimed at stricter compliance.

3. No Grounds for SIT/CBI Probe:
   SEBI’s investigation was comprehensive. No evidence of deliberate delay.

4. Expert Committee’s Recommendations Accepted:
   Suggestions on investor awareness, market surveillance, and unclaimed assets were directed for implementation.

5. Conclusion

• The Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking SIT probe and revocation of SEBI’s regulations.

• SEBI was directed to complete pending investigations within 3 months.

• Government and SEBI must consider Expert Committee’s recommendations to strengthen investor protection.

• The judgment reaffirmed SEBI’s autonomy and emphasized that unverified petitions harm public interest litigation.

Final Outcome: Petitions disposed of; SEBI’s authority upheld.