Category: Constitution

Appointment of ad hoc Judges – High Courts are in a crisis situation – i. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) should submit its report/inputs within 4 to 6 weeks ii. It would be desirable that the Central Government forward the file(s)/recommendations to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks iii. It would be for the Government to thereafter proceed to make the appointment immediately on the aforesaid consideration and undoubtedly if Government has any reservations on suitability or in public interest

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. PLR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, Sanjay Kishan Kaul…

DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS -The courts in all criminal trials should, at the beginning of the trial, i.e. after summoning of the accused, and framing of charges, hold a preliminary case management hearing – This hearing may take place immediately after the framing of the charge – In this hearing, the court should consider the total number of witnesses, and classify them as eyewitness, material witness, formal witness (who would be asked to produce documents, etc) and experts

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS —…

High Court shall not pass order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah…

Conspiracy to Destabilize Judiciary – Phone call conspiracy against the High Court Chief Justice and a senior sitting Judge of the Supreme Court – Investigation- Authenticity and genuineness of the transcript having been admitted to the extent as contained in audio tape – Direction by the High Court calling for report from Justice R.V. Raveendran need not be allowed to continue – Order accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

Constitution of India-But the right not to be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of the territory of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e). Rohingyas in Jammu, on whose behalf the present application is filed, shall not be deported unless the procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHAMMAD SALIMULLAH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and V.…

Jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of determination of any dispute by the Tribunal is reserved with the High Court – Nomenclature of the proceedings as a petition under Article 226 or a petition under Article 227 is wholly inconsequential and immaterial.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KIRAN DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE BIHAR STATE SUNNI WAKF BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and…

Permanent Commission for Women Officers (Army) – Evaluation criteria set by the Army constituted systemic discrimination against the petitioners – Pattern of evaluation deployed by the Army, to implement the decision in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya, (2020) 7 SCC 469 disproportionately affects women – This disproportionate impact is attributable to the structural discrimination against women, by dint of which the facially neutral criteria of selective ACR evaluation and fulfilling the medical criteria to be in SHAPE-1 at a belated stage, to secure PC disproportionately impacts them vis-à-vis their male counterparts.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LT. COL. NITISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.…

Loan moratorium case – There shall not be any charge of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium from any of the borrowers and whatever the amount is recovered by way of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium, the same shall be refunded and to be adjusted/given credit in the next instalment of the loan account – There is no rational to restrict such relief with respect to loans up to Rs. 2 crores only

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION (REGD.) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.