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.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Quashing of fresh assessment – Appeal against – in the present case the fresh assessments have gone against the respective dealers. Therefore, as such the respective dealers were required to prefer the appeals before the First Appellate Authority against the fresh assessment orders – High Court quashing and setting aside the fresh assessment orders in the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are unsustainable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. S. PITCHI REDDY — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Service Law – Dismissal – When in the departmental enquiry, it has been specifically found that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, the accident took place in which four persons died, when the punishment of dismissal is imposed it cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate punishment – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. DILIP UTTAM JAYABHAY — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

With a view to find out a permanent solution for the air pollution menace occurring every year in Delhi and the National Capital Region, we direct the said Commission to invite suggestions from the general public as well as the experts in the field. Some experts have already approached this Court as Intervenors. The suggestions received shall have to be considered by an expert group, to be constituted by the Commission for the said purpose, before finalization of the policy to curb air pollution.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. NAZIM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

(CPC) – Section 96, Order 41 Rule 31 – Appeal from original decree – Without framing points for determination and considering both facts and law; without proper discussion and assigning the reasons – First Appellate Court cannot dispose of the first appeal under Section 96 CPC and that too without raising the points for determination as provided under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. – Impleadment of party in appeal – There cannot be an automatic allowing of the appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  IL AND FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. BHARGAVARAMA CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Reduction of sentence – Land dispute – Sudden quarrel – No premeditated or preplanned incident – While confirming the conviction for offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC – Sentence reduced form ten years to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  GOVINDAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Dowry Death – Brutally assault and harassment – Deceased was done away with within the four walls of her matrimonial home – Recovery of dead body from banks of river -There is sufficient evidence brought on record to inculpate husband of deceased – As for mother-in-law from the evidence on record only certain omnibus allegations have been made against her with respect to dowry demands – Respondent-State has not been able to indicate any specific allegations, nor point to any specific evidence or testimony against her – Conviction of husband of deceased maintained – Conviction of mother-in-law set aside.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARVATI DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya…

Service Matters

What is non-existent in the eye of the law cannot be revived retrospectively. Life cannot be breathed into the stillborn charge memorandum -Allegations against the appellant are serious in nature and ought not to be scuttled on purely technical ground. But the Tribunal in the judgment which was set aside by the High Court had reserved liberty to issue a fresh memorandum of charges under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as per Rules laid down in the matter, if so advised. Thus, the department’s power to pursue the matter has been reserved and not foreclosed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNNY ABRAHAM — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – If the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the ‘offenders’ had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the ‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAM RATAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 30(2) and 61(3) – Dominant purpose of the IBC is revival of the Corporate Debtor and making it an on­going concern – ‘commercial wisdom’ of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention, for ensuring completion of the processes within the timelines prescribed by the IBC –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NGAITLANG DHAR — Appellant Vs. PANNA PRAGATI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

You missed