Month: August 2023

Service Matters

Increase/Enhancement of Retirement age – Retired Employees cannot claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement to them retrospectively and assume that by virtue of the enhancement in age ordered by the State at a later date, they would be entitled to all the benefits including the monetary benefits flowing from G.O. dated 9th April, 2012, on the ground of legitimate expectation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Ss 167, 173 and 272 – A charge sheet filed within the period provided either under Section 167 of CrPC or any other relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground – the investigating agency/officer to file charge sheet in the language of the Court determined in accordance with Section 272 of CrPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NAROTTAM DHAKAD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

An accused is under an obligation to stand for identification parade – An accused cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be forced or coerced for the same – Conduct of Test Identification Parade not violates the fundamental right of an accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUKESH SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Not finding of material to satisfy that release of the Appellant on bail shall be a liberty to the Appellant to influence the witnesses or there is any danger of justice being thwarted by such order being passed – In agreement with the ultimate view of the High Court – Order granting bail is upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH XXX — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Majority award – A dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside – When a majority award is challenged by the aggrieved party, the focus of the court and the aggrieved party is to point out the errors or illegalities in the majority award

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind…

Service Matters

Service Law – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalty Order – Unless punishment imposed is only co-relatable to any of those charges found not proved, the penalty cannot be set aside – Scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited – It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. A.G.D. REDDY — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a complete code for resolving all disputes, including against strangers to the decree. – The Executing Court could not have dismissed the execution petition by treating the decree to be inexecutable merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession to a third party/encroacher.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. VED KUMARI (DEAD THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR. VIJAY AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER — Respondent (…

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5 – Cancellation of bail – Gang-rape of a 15-year-old girl, threat of making video of rape recorded viral and extortion – Accused is the son of sitting MLA would disclose the domineering influence he would wield not only in delaying the proceedings but also in pressurizing the witnesses to either resile from their statement given during the course of investigation or pose threat to them from deposing against accused on their failure to act according to his dictates or induce them to testify as per his dictates or to help the defence of the accused – Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAGWAN SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…

You missed

EVM and VVPAT – Reliability – The petitioners challenged the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems, suspecting potential manipulation and demanding transparency in the voting process – The core issues revolved around the integrity of EVMs, the adequacy of VVPAT verification, and the fundamental right of voters to know their votes are correctly recorded and counted – Petitioner argued for a return to paper ballots, provision of VVPAT slips to voters, or 100% counting of VVPAT slips alongside electronic counts, citing concerns over EVM transparency and voter confidence – The Election Commission of India (ECI) defended the EVMs’ success in ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections, highlighting technological safeguards against tampering and the benefits over paper ballots – The Court upheld the current EVM and VVPAT system, dismissing the petitions and suggesting improvements for transparency without disrupting the ongoing electoral process – The Court relied on past precedents, the ECI’s robust procedures, and the absence of cogent material evidence against EVMs to reject the petitions – The judgment referenced constitutional provisions, electoral laws, and previous rulings to support the ECI’s position and the current electoral practices – The Supreme Court concluded that the EVMs and VVPAT systems are reliable, and the petitions were dismissed based on the lack of substantial evidence against the current electoral process.