Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside. Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation on account of untoward incidents — ‘No-fault’ liability — Accidental falling of a passenger from a running train constitutes an “untoward incident” — Liability under S. 124A arises irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railway Administration, subject only to statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or the passenger’s own criminal act — Provision held to be beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31 — ‘Clean slate’ doctrine — Effect of approved Resolution Plan on claims — Upon approval under S. 31(1), claims provided in the Plan stand frozen and are binding on the Corporate Debtor and all stakeholders — Claims not incorporated in the Plan stand extinguished, withdrawn or abated — Resolution Applicant entitled to commence operations free from unforeseen liabilities — Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657, followed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 299 — Record of evidence in absence of accused — Scope and applicability — Exception to the rule that a witness must be examined in presence of the accused and to the principle under S. 33, Evidence Act — Being an exception, all prescribed conditions must be strictly complied with — Deposition recorded in absence of an absconding accused admissible against him upon arrest, if deponent is dead, incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience.

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) – Quashing of charge-sheet – Voluntarily causing hurt – There is no material worthy of consideration in this behalf except a bald statement that the complainant sustained multiple injuries “in his hand and other body parts” – If indeed the complainant’s version were to be believed, the IO ought to have asked for a medical report to support the same

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH CHANDRA VAISHYA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta,…

Parties have suffered an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and hence, in order provide complete justice, the this Court exercised the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant mutual consent divorce to the parties and also closed all cases filed by the parties against each other.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANSI KHATRI — Appellant Vs. GAURAV KHATRI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Transfer Petition (Civil) No.…

Acquittal – Rape and murder of a six-year-old -There are, in fact, yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances rendering it far from being established- pointing to the guilt of the appellant – Needless to state, such responsibilities would be all the more heightened in cases of crimes involving severe punishments such as imprisonment for life or the sentence of death

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol,…

Service Matters

Judicial officers Pension – – SCOI vide Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023 already directed that all arrears of pay be cleared by 30.06.2023 – In this regard, it is directed that compliance affidavits must be filed by all States and Union Territories by 30.07.2023 that the arrears of pay have been positively credited into the accounts of the concerned officers

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., V. Ramasubramanian…

‘Jallikattu’ and ‘Bullock Cart Race’ is upheld – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 does not go contrary to the Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph, Ajay…

You missed