Month: May 2021

(IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 – Murder – Common intention – Evidence of injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside without assigning cogent reasons – Evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted – His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOT — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters

Implementation of MACPS for civilian employees – Whether the Government of India is justified in implementing the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (‘MACPS’) – This Court find force in the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that uniform implementation of MACPS for civilian employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would result in large scale recoveries of amounts paid in excess.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. R.K. SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.