<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--generator='jetpack-15.6'-->
<!--Jetpack_Sitemap_Buffer_News_XMLWriter-->
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="//sclaw.in/news-sitemap.xsl"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9" xmlns:news="http://www.google.com/schemas/sitemap-news/0.9" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9 http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9/sitemap.xsd">
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/05/criminal-procedure-code-1973-crpc-section-1971-requirement-of-sanction-for-prosecution-of-public-servants-protection-under-section-1971-applies-only-to-public-serv/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-05T15:04:23Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 197(1) — Requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants — Protection under Section 197(1) applies only to public servants who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the government — Subordinate police officers not falling under this category are not entitled to the benefit of this protection, even if the alleged offence was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-05T15:04:23Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/05/service-law-dismissal-from-service-disciplinary-proceedings-violation-of-natural-justice-requirement-of-oral-enquiry-employers-burden-of-proof/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-05T15:02:41Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Service Law — Dismissal from Service — Disciplinary Proceedings — Violation of Natural Justice — Requirement of Oral Enquiry — Employer&amp;#039;s Burden of Proof — The Apex Court held that unless the charged employee clearly admits guilt, a disciplinary enquiry must be held — The employer must first present evidence and witnesses, allowing the employee to cross-examine — Only then should the employee be given an opportunity to present their defense — The Court emphasized that relying solely on documents without examining witnesses or making them available for cross-examination when charges are denied, vitiates the enquiry.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-05T15:02:41Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/05/civil-procedure-code-1908-cpc-order-9-rule-13-setting-aside-an-ex-parte-decree-a-minor-who-was-not-properly-represented-in-succession-proceedings-despite-being-a-lega/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-05T14:58:07Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 — Setting aside an ex parte decree — A minor who was not properly represented in succession proceedings, despite being a legal heir and known to respondents, can file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after attaining majority to challenge the ex parte proceedings.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-05T14:58:07Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
</urlset>
