Month: February 2023

Service Matters

Provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order / record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed HELD new stand for the payment of salary to teachers’ subject-wise, unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PANCHAM LAL PANDEY — Appellant Vs. NEERAJ KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Civil…

Delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies – Article 170 will have no application as it forms a part of Chapter III of Part VI which deals with only the State Legislature – It has no application to the Legislatures of Union Territories HELD argument that certain provisions of the J&K Reorganisation Act and actions taken thereunder are in conflict with Article 170 and in particular Clause (3) thereof is clearly misconceived and deserves to be rejected.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAJI ABDUL GANI KHAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 and 300A – Development Control Rules – Rule 19 – Building bye Laws – Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution are not violated by the requirement to reserve 10% of land for open space – It does not amount to compulsory acquisition – Areas covered by the Open Space Regulation area (OSR) cannot be diverted for any other purpose

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERS — Appellant Vs. V. GOPINATH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

HELD whether the protection can be given by Article 26(b) to the practice of ex-communication is to be tested on the touchstone of the concept of Constitutional morality as the said right is subject to morality. This is an important and emergent issue. These are the two main grounds on which the said decision may need reconsideration by a larger Bench. Writ petition tagged to 9 judge bench.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan…

While exercising power of judicial review cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision – To do so would violate the law as declared, as it would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of the Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability and merits of the person

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANNA MATHEWS AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Twin conditions – For the purpose of lapsing the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the twin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not paying the compensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

AIBEA examination HELD the role of the universities to impart legal education, in any way, prohibit the Bar Council of India from conducting pre-enrolment examination, as the Council is directly concerned with the standard of persons who want to obtain a license to practice law as a profession.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay…

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.