Month: May 2024

Criminal Law – ‘History Sheet’ – The appellant challenged the inclusion of his minor children’s details in a ‘History Sheet’ and the proposal to declare him a ‘Bad Character’ in the police records – The primary issue was the inclusion of innocent family members, particularly minors, in the ‘History Sheet’ without any adverse material against them – The appellant argued for the quashing of the ‘History Sheet’ and the proposal to declare him a ‘Bad Character’, emphasizing the lack of evidence against his minor children – The Delhi Police agreed to revisit the rules to ensure the dignity and privacy of innocent individuals are not compromised – The court modified the impugned judgment, directing the amended Standing Order to be applied to the appellant’s case and designating a senior officer to audit ‘History Sheets’ – The court recognized the need to protect the identity of minors and ensure that ‘History Sheets’ do not unfairly target innocent individuals – The judgment referenced the Juvenile Justice Act and the prohibition on disclosing the identity of minors, emphasizing the need for police to adhere to these provisions – The court concluded by expanding the scope of the proceedings to address potential biases in police practices and directed all states and union territories to consider amendments similar to the ‘Delhi Model’.

2024 INSC 383 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMANATULLAH KHAN — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and K.V.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(i) and 342 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14(3)– The appeal involves a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) challenging the High Court’s order which set aside the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision and directed the trial to be conducted by the Children’s Court – The core issue is whether the CCL should be tried as a juvenile by the Board or as an adult by the Children’s Court, based on the preliminary assessment reports – The CCL’s counsel argued against the practice of passing orders without detailed reasons, the legality of the orders passed by the Board, and the deprivation of the CCL’s right to appeal – The State’s counsel contended that the Children’s Court can reconsider the Board’s decision and that the time limit for preliminary assessment under the Act is not mandatory – The judgment discusses the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, the mandatory or directory nature of the time period for preliminary assessment, and the exercise of revisional power by the High Court – The Court examines the procedural anomalies in the Act, the validity of the Board’s orders, and the remedy of appeal available to the appellant – The reasoning includes interpretation of the Act’s provisions, the role of the Board and the Children’s Court, and the application of the rules for preliminary assessment – The Court concludes with directions and reliefs based on the analysis of the arguments and legal provisions involved.

2024 INSC 387 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before…

Judicial Services – Judicial Appointment – Minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat – The petitioners argue that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – The respondents argue that the selection process is legally valid and in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations – The court concludes that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce is permissible and is not in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others – The court also finds that the impugned selection process in the State of Bihar and Gujarat is legally valid and is upheld – The court further concludes that the non-consultation with the Public Service Commission would not render the Gujarat Rules, 2005 (as amended in 2011) void – The writ petitions are dismissed without any order on cost.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHIMEET SINHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant…

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Ground of Irretrievable Breakdown – The court recognized irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid ground for divorce, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – This expands the scope of grounds for divorce and provides a more compassionate approach to ending a marriage that has irreparably broken down.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JATINDER KUMAR SAPRA — Appellant Vs. ANUPAMA SAPRA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S).of…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 – Murder of Wife – The court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt – The court pointed out that the incident occurred inside the appellant’s house, and the deceased was found in a pool of blood- The court also noted that the appellant failed to disclose the involvement of any unknown intruders to the police – The court rejected the defence’s argument that the incident was a result of a sudden fight, stating that the appellant took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner.- The court applied Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the person who claims to have special knowledge of the facts.The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the court found the appellant guilty of murder – False Explanation – The appellant’s false explanation regarding the incident was considered an additional incriminating circumstance.

2024 INSC 368 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ANEES — Appellant Vs. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Cruelty – Quashing of Chargesheet based on an FIR lodged by the appellant’s wife – The main issue is whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be quashed based on the allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty – The appellant argues that the FIR is vague, general, and lacks specific instances of criminal conduct – It is claimed to be a counterblast to a divorce petition and a domestic violence case, with an unexplained delay in filing the FIR indicating malice – The respondent contends that the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence and the truthfulness of these allegations should be determined by the trial court – The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, finding them to be an abuse of process and a travesty of justice – The Court reasoned that the allegations were made with an oblique motive and that continuing the proceedings would be unjust – The Court applied the principles from previous cases, emphasizing the need to scrutinize allegations in matrimonial disputes carefully and to prevent misuse of legal provisions – The Court concluded that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should have been exercised by the High Court to quash the proceedings and called for a relook at the relevant legal provisions to address the pragmatic realities of matrimonial disputes.

2024 INSC 369 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ACHIN GUPTA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.…

Custody of the minor child – The case involves a custody dispute over a minor child ‘G’ after his mother went missing and was later found deceased – The child’s father and maternal grandmother are contesting custody – Whether the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in child custody matters? – The High Court erred in entertaining the habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – The writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in child custody matters only if the detention of the child is illegal and without any authority of law – In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act – The High Court should have directed the parties to approach the civil court for a detailed enquiry – The welfare of the child is paramount, and the child’s custody should be decided in accordance with law.

2024 INSC 370 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NIRMALA — Appellant Vs. KULWANT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 19 – Arvind Kejriwal, the appellant, is challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement on 21.03.2024, which was upheld by the trial court and the High Court of Delhi – The case involves legal pleas concerning the scope and violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – The Court is considering granting interim bail to Kejriwal due to the ongoing 18th Lok Sabha General Elections and the importance of his participation as a political leader – The Court is taking a holistic view given the elections and Kejriwal’s role as Chief Minister and a national party leader, despite the serious accusations against him – The Court refers to case law on the power to grant interim bail and emphasizes the peculiarities of the case and the surrounding circumstances – The Court grants interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal until 1st of June 2024, with specific conditions, and states that this should not be seen as an opinion on the merits of the case – Kejriwal is to surrender on 2nd of June 2024 on the following conditions (a) he shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent; (b) he shall not visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat; (c) he shall be bound by the statement made on his behalf that he shall not sign official files unless it is required and necessary for obtaining clearance/ approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; (d) he will not make any comment with regard to his role in the present case; and (e) he will not interact with any of the witnesses and/or have access to any official files connected with the case. B. Bail – The power to grant interim bail is an inherent power of the court, which can be exercised under compelling circumstances and grounds, even when regular bail would not be justified. This power is commonly exercised in a number of cases, including cases involving politicians. C. Bail – The court must consider the peculiarities of each case and the surrounding circumstances when granting interim bail. In this case, the court considered the fact that the appellant, Arvind Kejriwal, was the Chief Minister of Delhi and a leader of one of the national parties, had no criminal antecedents, and was not a threat to society. D. Bail – The court rejected the argument that granting interim bail to politicians sets a precedent for special treatment – The court noted that the decision was based on the peculiarities of the case and the fact that the 18th Lok Sabha General Elections were being held. E. Bail – The court held that imposing conditions on interim bail, such as prohibiting the accused from participating in political activities, directly or indirectly, would breach their fundamental rights – The court deleted the condition imposed by the High Court in a similar case, stating that the appellant shall not be involved in any political activities, directly or indirectly. F. Bail – The court clarified that the grant of interim bail does not express an opinion on the merits of the case or the criminal appeal which is pending consideration before the court.

2024 INSC 400 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARVIND KEJRIWAL — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

2024 INSC 373 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T.R. VIJAYARAMAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

2024 INSC 375 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MOHAN LAL — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…

You missed