Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: May 2024

Service Matters
Service

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 – Rule 6(h) – House Rent Allowance (HRA) – The appellant, a retired Inspector(Telecom) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, was charged with unauthorized House Rent Allowance (HRA) drawals and asked to repay Rs.3,96,814/-.- The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to HRA while sharing government accommodation allotted to his retired father – The appellant argued that the quarter was allotted to his father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, and he only occasionally shared it, thus he should not be charged HRA – The State contended that the appellant was not entitled to HRA as per Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) because he shared rent-free accommodation allotted to his father – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision and the recovery notice – The Court found no application for Rule 6(h)(iv) in the appellant’s case and held that clauses 6(h)(i) and (ii) covered the controversy – The Court reasoned that since the appellant shared accommodation with a retired government servant, he was not entitled to claim HRA – The appeal is dismissed as devoid of force, and the recovery notice was justified in the eyes of the law

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 365 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R.K. MUNSHI — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Acquittal

”High Threshold Not Met: Supreme Court Blocks Trial of Additional Accused in Murder Case” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 and 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Issuing of the summons – The appeals concern a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the appellants to face trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC, based on a High Court decision dated 04.04.2023 – The main issue is the sufficiency of material against the appellants prompting the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The appellants argue that they were incorrectly named in the FIR and subsequent statements due to a longstanding family enmity, and there is no strong evidence against them – The State contends that even if the trial against existing accused has abated, there is no bar in summoning the appellants to start the trial afresh – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the summoning order, and the High Court’s judgment dismissing the Section 482 petition – The Court found that the evidence against the appellants was not strong enough to meet the higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The Court referenced the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence – The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in issuing the summons, and the High Court should have quashed the order under Section 482 Cr.P.C – The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 366 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Service Matters
Service

”Backlog Vacancies Get Priority: Supreme Court Orders Re-appointment Based on Reservation Rules” Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 – Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 – Rule 6 – Appointment – The case revolves around a service dispute regarding the appointment to a Scheduled Tribes (ST) reserved post at Bangalore University – The appellant was appointed based on merit, while respondent no. 7 was within the preferential age bracket – The main issue is whether the 2001 Rules apply to the university’s appointment process and if the appointment of the appellant, who was outside the age bracket, was legal – The appellant argued that the university should be governed by the Universities Act, not the 2001 Rules – Respondent no. 7 claimed that the university’s advertisement declaring the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules was correct – The court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the university’s advertisement was binding and the 2001 Rules were applicable – The court cited the amendment to Sec. 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990, and subsequent government letters as mandating the university to follow the 2001 Rules for filling backlog vacancies – The court found that the university’s conduct in advertising the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules was in compliance with statutory requirements and government demands – The court concluded that respondent no. 7 should be appointed as per the 2001 Rules and suggested the university consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the appellant.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 367 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar,…

Cr P C

“The charge sheet needs to include witness statements and include complete, clear entries that specify each accused person’s role” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2) – The appeals concern the nature of chargesheets filed by the state/police in some jurisdictions, particularly when they lack sufficient details of facts constituting the offense or relevant evidence – The main issue is whether chargesheets are being filed without adequate details or evidence, often merely reproducing the complainant’s details from the FIR, and whether this meets the legal requirements – The judgment discusses the legal position on the contents of a chargesheet as per Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with reference to the recent judgment in Dablu Kujur vs. State of Jharkhand – The Court quashed the chargesheet and summoning order, discharging the appellants, and clarified that the observations made will not affect any civil proceedings.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

State Laws

“Jalkar vs. Private Ownership: Supreme Court Settles Dispute Over Pond Land in Bihar” Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – Section 37 – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts – The dispute involves 0.32 decimal of land in Bihar, originally settled by ex-landlord ‘R’ to ‘M’, and then allegedly inherited by the plaintiff-appellant through adoption – The main issue is the possession and confirmation of the plaintiff’s possession over the land, which was challenged by the State authorities claiming the land as state-owned pond land (jalkar) – The plaintiff-appellant claims continuous possession since the land was settled to ‘M’ and asserts that the Consolidation Officer’s order confirming his title should be respected – The State of Bihar contends that the land is pond land and cannot be settled to the plaintiff-appellant, and that the civil suit is not maintainable due to the bar under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act – The Supreme Court set aside the appellate courts’ judgments, restored the trial court’s decree, and confirmed the plaintiff-appellant’s title and possession of the land – The Court found that the appellate courts erred in ignoring the final and conclusive order of the Consolidation Officer, which recognized the plaintiff-appellant’s rights – The Court reasoned that the Consolidation Officer’s order, which became final, should have been given effect to, and the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is impliedly excluded in such matters – The Supreme Court concluded that the civil suit for declaration of rights over the land is not barred by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, and the plaintiff-appellant’s rights stand recognized by the consolidation authorities.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM BALAK SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

A. Education Law – The case involves a service rule amendment by the State of Madhya Pradesh, impacting job aspirants – The amendment was later recalled, but not before affecting an ongoing recruitment process – The main issue was the application of the amended rule to the recruitment process, leading to legal challenges and the question of whether meritorious reservation category candidates should be treated as unreserved at the preliminary examination stage – The petitioners challenged the validity of the amended rule and its application to the recruitment process, arguing it caused injustice to candidates who had already cleared the main examination – The State and MPPSC defended the amended rule’s application and the subsequent recruitment process, including the normalization method used for merging examination results – The Court dismissed the civil appeal, finding no merit in the challenge against the High Court’s judgment, which had directed a special main examination for newly eligible candidates – The Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning that holding a special main examination was justified and that the normalization process was consistent with legal requirements – The Court referred to precedents affirming that meritorious reservation category candidates are entitled to be selected in the open category without counting against the reserved quota – The Supreme Court concluded that the normalization process was transparent and fair, and upheld the High Court’s judgment directing the completion of the recruitment process as per the unamended rules. B. Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 – Rule 4 of 2015 Rules was amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh – The Supreme Court of India dismissed a civil appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission’s (MPPSC) decision to normalize the marks of candidates who appeared in two different main examinations – The court found that the process of normalization and the consequent merger of marks secured by the candidates in the two main examinations was transparent and above board – The court also noted that the earlier amendment to the rules, which harmed the interests of reservation category candidates, was restored, enabling the drawing up of the result of the preliminary examination by segregating deserving meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates – The court concluded that the impugned judgment did not brook interference on any ground, be it on facts or in law.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

UPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEPENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

Acquittal

“Murder Conviction Overturned! Supreme Court Acquits Appellant Due to Inconsistent Eyewitness Accounts and Insufficient Evidence” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Property Dispute – The High Court affirmed the conviction, which led to this appeal – The appeal challenges the reliability of eyewitnesses and the recovery of the murder weapon, questioning the appellant’s conviction – The appellant claims false implication, questioning the credibility of eyewitnesses and the voluntariness of the extra-judicial confession – The State argues that the conviction is based on correct evidence assessment and that the appellant’s guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and directed his release, if not required in another case – The Court found inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and doubted their presence at the crime scene, leading to the acquittal – The Court scrutinized the eyewitness testimonies, the extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the weapon, finding them insufficient for conviction – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant’s acquittal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 349 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JASOBANTA SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ORISSA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal

“Conviction Quashed After 18 Years: Supreme Court Acquits Man Due to Flawed Identification and Doubtful Evidence” Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3(a) and 4(a)(i) – Arms Act, 1958 – Section 27(1) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 307,143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427 and 449 read with Section 149 – The case involves who appealed against his conviction under various sections of the IPC and other acts – The incident occurred on March 6, 2006, involving an unlawful assembly, murder, and grievous injuries with deadly weapons – The appeal challenges the High Court’s partial allowance of Appellant’s appeal, which set aside some convictions while confirming others, and modified the sentences – The petitioner argued that identification in court without a Test Identification Parade, after four and a half years, is unreliable. They also contested the motive attributed to the appellant and the credibility of the recovered iron rod with alleged blood stains – The respondent emphasized the credibility of the injured eyewitness (PW-2) and the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, which found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the previous judgments, and acquitted the appellant of all charges, directing his immediate release if not required in another case – The Court found the identification of the appellant in court, without prior identification parades, to be insufficient for maintaining the conviction, especially given the time elapsed since the incident – The Court questioned the preservation of blood stains on the recovered iron rod over two years and two monsoons, casting doubt on the prosecution’s evidence – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant’s acquittal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 350 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH @ UNNI @ VADI SURESH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Narcotics

“Divided Verdict in Narcotics Case: One Conviction Upheld, Another Overturned Due to Procedural Lapses” Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 42, 50 and 67 – The appeals arise from a common judgment by the Gujarat High Court, dismissing appeals against a trial court’s conviction of the appellants under the NDPS Act for possession of narcotics – The main issues revolve around the compliance with mandatory procedures of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure, and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – The appellants contend non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, questioning the seizure procedure and the reliability of witnesses – The NCB argues that the procedures were followed correctly, the witnesses are reliable, and there was no motive to falsely implicate the appellants – The Court dismissed Anwarkhan’s appeal, upholding his conviction, while allowing Appellant’s appeal, acquitting him due to insufficient evidence and doubts about the seizure procedure – The Court found the evidence against Anwarkhan convincing but had reservations about the evidence against Appellant, particularly the identification and the admissibility of his confessional statement – The Court applied the principles from the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which ruled that confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible as evidence – Anwarkhan’s conviction stands, while Appellant is acquitted and his bail bonds discharged. The Court directed Anwarkhan to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 351 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FIRDOSKHAN KHURSHIDKHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna Bhalachandra…

C P C

“Illegal Construction on Disputed Land: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order Permitting Compound Wall, Demands Impleading Affected Parties:” Land Dispute – The case involves a dispute over land ownership and the construction of a compound wall, which was permitted by the High Court under police protection without considering the rights of affected third parties – The main issue is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the construction of the compound wall under police protection, and whether necessary parties were impleaded – The petitioners argued that the High Court’s order was illegal due to non-joinder of necessary parties and that the principles of natural justice were not followed – The respondents claimed that no one was prejudiced by the construction of the compound wall and that the rights of adjacent landowners were not adversely affected – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the writ petition, and directed the High Court to decide the case afresh after impleading all necessary parties – The Court found that the High Court ignored the affidavits of government officers indicating that third parties would be affected by the wall’s construction – The Court emphasized that orders based on “Minutes of Order” are not consent orders and must be lawful, considering the rights of all affected parties – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was illegal and remanded the case for a fresh decision, with the possibility of demolishing the compound wall if found illegal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 353 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MEHER K. PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw