A division bench of the Supreme Court recently decided to examine the correctness of a judgment by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi. The NCDRC had held that, among other things, consumer disputes cannot be settled by arbitration. This decision begs the question whether the line of reasoning preferred by the NCDRC is likely to invite more critical scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
Throughout 2017, the Supreme Court issued judgments on public interest litigation cases. These include reviewing the way in which senior advocates are designated, determining whether to constitute a special investigation team and establishing fast-track courts for criminal cases.
In 2017 the Supreme Court delivered several significant judgments which have far-reaching importance in the field of constitutional law. In particular, in one case, the court set aside the practice of talaq-e-biddat, while in another it held that the right to privacy was an intrinsic part of the right to life and other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
The Karnataka High Court recently issued a judgment which dealt with the retrospective application of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. The court held that a person cannot be tried for an offence under the act for the period when the offence was not inserted in the schedule of offences under the act. This would deny the writ petitioner the protection offered by Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
In 2015 the Supreme Court settled the law on contractual penalty clauses. In essence, the term 'contractual penalty clause' refers to a clause in a contract whereby a party in breach of an obligation under the contract is required to pay the other party an amount which is greater than the reasonable proportion of the damage or loss suffered due to such breach.