Author name: Team Lex Bharti

A) Abstract / Headnote This case pertains to the challenge by transporters and tour operators against the imposition of Border Tax/Authorization Fee by various State Governments, asserting violations of the All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023. Petitioners argued that such levies amounted to double taxation and were inconsistent with the legislative intent behind the Rules, 2023, which aimed to enable seamless inter-state transport. The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate the matter on its merits, emphasizing that the State-specific rules were not challenged directly. The Court dismissed the petitions, allowing petitioners the liberty to approach their respective High Courts for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Keywords B) Case Details C) Introduction and Background of Judgment The central issue arose from State Governments’ levying of Border Tax/Authorization Fee for vehicles carrying All India Tourist Permits, allegedly contravening the Permit Rules, 2023. These Rules, enacted by the Central Government, intended to harmonize inter-state tourist vehicle regulations, reduce barriers, and establish a revenue-sharing mechanism between the Centre and States. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of such levies, citing double taxation and lack of legislative competence under the Constitution. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the grievances, emphasized procedural propriety and directed petitioners to first challenge the State enactments before the respective High Courts. D) Facts of the Case E) Legal Issues Raised F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments G) Respondent’s Arguments H) Judgment a. Ratio Decidendi b. Obiter Dicta c. Guidelines I) Conclusion & Comments The judgment underscores the importance of jurisdictional discipline and procedural hierarchy in constitutional litigation. It reflects the balance between legislative federalism and judicial restraint in disputes involving inter-state coordination. The verdict directs focus on the primary question of legislative competence and urges comprehensive challenges before appropriate forums. J) References

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE This case involves a constitutional dispute under Article 131 of the Constitution of India between the State of West Bengal and the Union of India. The State challenged the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) jurisdiction to register and investigate cases after the State’s withdrawal of general consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act). The State sought reliefs declaring such actions as unconstitutional and violative of federal principles, while the Union contested the maintainability of the suit and asserted that the jurisdiction of CBI, as an organ under the control of the Central Government, superseded the withdrawal of consent. The Court’s judgment elaborated on the federal structure, the limits of executive consent under the DSPE Act, and the scope of Article 131. Keywords: Article 131, Federalism, CBI Jurisdiction, DSPE Act Section 6, Constitutional Rights. B) CASE DETAILS i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of West Bengal v. Union of India ii) Case Number: Original Suit No. 4 of 2021 iii) Judgement Date: 10 July 2024 iv) Court: Supreme Court of India v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta vi) Author: Justice B.R. Gavai vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 676 : 2024 INSC 502 viii) Legal Provisions Involved: ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None specified. x) Case is Related to: Constitutional Law, Federalism, and Criminal Law Procedure. C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT The case arose following the State of West Bengal’s withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, which previously enabled the CBI to investigate crimes within the State. Despite the withdrawal, the CBI continued registering cases, prompting the State to file a suit under Article 131, asserting that such actions were unconstitutional and undermined the federal framework. The Union of India raised preliminary objections, arguing that the matter did not fall within the ambit of Article 131 due to pending related cases under Articles 136, 32, and 226, and questioned the plaintiff’s claims about jurisdictional interference. D) FACTS OF THE CASE E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS i) The State of West Bengal argued that once consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is withdrawn, the CBI loses jurisdiction to investigate crimes within the State unless specifically authorized by the State or directed by a court. ii) The petitioner contended that continued investigation by the CBI undermined the federal structure and violated the State’s autonomy as protected under the Constitution. iii) They asserted that Article 131 grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for resolving disputes between States and the Union, making the suit maintainable. iv) Reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) and other precedents affirming the significance of federal principles in disputes between the Centre and States. G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS i) The Union contended that the suit was not maintainable under Article 131 as related matters were already under judicial consideration in other forums, such as Articles 136 and 226. ii) They argued that the CBI, being a central agency, derives its powers directly from the Central Government, and its actions were consistent with the law. iii) The Union stated that the consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is procedural and does not impact ongoing investigations or cases initiated based on prior consent or court orders. iv) They emphasized the CBI’s independence and the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, limiting central interference in its functioning. H) JUDGEMENT a. RATIO DECIDENDI The Court held that: b. OBITER DICTA The Court underscored the importance of federal cooperation and the need for clear delineation of powers between the Centre and States to prevent jurisdictional conflicts. c. GUIDELINES I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS This case reinforces the balance of power in a federal structure and highlights the significance of consent in intergovernmental investigations. It also elucidates the scope of Article 131, demonstrating its utility in resolving disputes involving constitutional interpretations. J) REFERENCES a. Important Cases Referred b. Important Statutes Referred

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE This case examines the legality of a resolution by the State of Bihar merging the caste “Tanti-Tantwa” with “Pan/Sawasi” in the Scheduled Castes (SC) list. The Supreme Court found the resolution unconstitutional as it bypassed the prescribed process under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, which vests Parliament with the exclusive authority to amend the SC list. The Court quashed the resolution and directed measures to rectify the benefits extended improperly to the “Tanti-Tantwa” community under the SC category, restoring their original category of Extremely Backward Classes (EBC). Keywords: Scheduled Castes, Extremely Backward Classes, Article 341, Constitutional authority, Bihar State Backward Commission. B) CASE DETAILS i) Judgement Cause Title:Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar & Ors. ii) Case Number:Civil Appeal No. 18802 of 2017 iii) Judgement Date:July 15, 2024 iv) Court:Supreme Court of India v) Quorum:Hon’ble Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra vi) Author:Justice Vikram Nath vii) Citation:[2024] 7 S.C.R. 796 : 2024 INSC 528 viii) Legal Provisions Involved: ix) Judgments Overruled:None specifically overruled but overturned the decision of the Patna High Court in CWJC No.12403 of 2015. x) Related Law Subjects:Constitutional Law, Reservation Law, Administrative Law. C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT The dispute originated from a notification issued on July 1, 2015, by the Government of Bihar. Based on the State Backward Commission’s recommendations, the government attempted to transfer the caste “Tanti-Tantwa” from the Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) category to the SC list under Entry 20. The resolution purportedly aimed at extending SC benefits to the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste. The petitioners challenged the notification on the grounds that the State Government lacked the authority to alter the SC list, which is governed exclusively by Article 341 of the Constitution. They argued that such changes could only be made through Parliamentary legislation. The Patna High Court upheld the government’s resolution, leading to appeals in the Supreme Court. D) FACTS OF THE CASE E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED i. Whether the State Government has the authority to alter the SC list under Article 341.ii. Whether the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste was rightly categorized as synonymous with “Pan/Sawasi”.iii. Legality of extending SC benefits to members of “Tanti-Tantwa” caste under a State notification. F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS i. Unconstitutional Authority: Counsel argued that Article 341 prohibits States from altering the SC list.ii. Prior Rejection by RGI: The Registrar General of India (RGI) had rejected the State’s 2011 recommendation to include “Tanti-Tantwa” in the SC list.iii. Mala Fide Action: The notification was termed a mala fide attempt to bypass constitutional procedures and extend undue benefits.iv. Non-Severability of Notification: The petitioners contended that the notification’s two parts—removal from EBC and inclusion in SC—were inseparable and must be struck down in entirety. G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS i. Clarification, Not Alteration: The State argued the resolution only clarified that “Tanti-Tantwa” was synonymous with “Pan/Sawasi”.ii. Binding Recommendations: The State claimed it acted on binding recommendations of the State Backward Commission.iii. Socio-Historical Evidence: Ethnographic reports and past recommendations supported the claim of synonymity between the castes. H) JUDGEMENT a. RATIO DECIDENDI The Court held that Article 341 explicitly reserves the power to amend SC lists to Parliament. The State exceeded its authority in issuing the notification, violating constitutional provisions. The Court quashed the resolution as unconstitutional and directed corrective measures. b. OBITER DICTA The Court emphasized the need for adherence to constitutional processes to prevent misuse of reservation policies. c. GUIDELINES I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS This case underscores the importance of constitutional mechanisms in reservation law. It clarifies that State governments cannot bypass Parliament in amending SC lists, ensuring equitable application of affirmative action. J) REFERENCES a. Important Cases Referred b. Important Statutes Referred

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE This case addresses the arbitrability of disputes arising post-execution of a discharge voucher in insurance contracts, particularly when such a discharge is contested as coercive. The Supreme Court clarified whether disputes about “full and final settlement” terms can be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court reinforced the principle of separability of arbitration agreements, concluding that arbitration clauses survive the discharge of substantive contracts unless explicitly negated. The judgment provides guidance on judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Act and the interplay between “accord and satisfaction” and arbitration. Keywords: Arbitration Clause, Discharge Voucher, Accord and Satisfaction, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Judicial Scrutiny. B) CASE DETAILS i) Judgment Cause Title:SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning ii) Case Number:Civil Appeal No. 7821 of 2024 iii) Judgment Date:18 July 2024 iv) Court:Supreme Court of India v) Quorum:Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala (author), and Manoj Misra, JJ. vi) Author:Justice J.B. Pardiwala vii) Citation:[2024] 7 S.C.R. 840 viii) Legal Provisions Involved: ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:None explicitly. x) Related Law Subjects:Arbitration Law, Insurance Law, Contract Law. C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT The dispute arose when Krish Spinning, an insured entity under SBI General Insurance, contested the validity of a discharge voucher executed as “full and final settlement” of its insurance claims. The insured claimed coercion in accepting the settlement amount offered by the insurer after a fire incident. The insurer argued that post-execution of the discharge voucher, no arbitrable dispute subsisted. The High Court ruled in favor of arbitration, prompting the insurer to appeal to the Supreme Court. D) FACTS OF THE CASE E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS H) JUDGMENT a. Ratio Decidendi b. Obiter Dicta c. Guidelines Issued I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS The judgment strengthens arbitration jurisprudence by emphasizing the separability principle and restricting judicial intervention in referral proceedings. It underscores that mere execution of a discharge voucher does not preclude arbitration, ensuring fairness in contracts involving unequal bargaining power. J) REFERENCES