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.

(IPC) – Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 read with Section 376A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Conduct of the appellant in the prison has been found to be satisfactory – There are no criminal antecedents – It is the first offence committed by the appellant – No doubt, a heinous one – Appellant is not a hardened criminal – It therefore cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative – the death penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC is commuted to life imprisonment

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LOCHAN SHRIVAS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989 – Clause 5(i) – Casual workers – Temporary Status and Regularization – Respondent has completed maximum 38 days in 12 calendar months during 1.1.1995 to 31.12.1995 and as such the applicant is not entitled to grant of temporary status as per the provisions of the Scheme

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SRI DEO KUMAR RAI @ DEO KUMAR RAY — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

A large number of family members are shown in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and the contents do not disclose their active involvement, as such, taking cognizance of the matter against them was not justified – No external injuries noticed in the postmortem certificate, except the single ante-mortem injury i.e. ligature mark around the neck, and the cause of death is shown as asphyxia – No specific allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute them for the offences alleged – Chargesheet quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MIRZA IQBAL @ GOLU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt of Courts – Violation of Court’s directions – A decree obtained under Land Acquisition Act, is an executable decree and no contempt can be maintained for non-compliance of such decree – Weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused – inasmuch as contempt is between contemner and the court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL — Appellant Vs. SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act of 1966 – Sections 65 and Section 65(2-A) – Market fee – Liability – Merely imports notified agricultural produce from outside the State for the purpose of cleaning and processing without selling the processed produce within the market area is not liable to pay market fee.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH APMC YASHWANTHAPURA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY — Appellant Vs. M/S. SELVA FOODS THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Setting aside of arbitral award – Contract maintenance of road for a length of 31.17 kilometres – Award passed by the Arbitrator awarding the amount/compensation at Rs.45,000/ per km per month up to January, 2008 under claim Nos.1 and 8 is hereby confirmed – Award passed by the Arbitrator awarding the amount/compensation at Rs.45,000/ per km per month from February, 2008 to 31.05.2010 i.e. till the end of the contract is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. M/S. SHIV SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Char Dham highway – In exercise of judicial review, cannot second-guess the infrastructural needs of the Armed Forces – Need of the Army will be sub-served better by disaster resistant roads of a smaller dimension – Submission of the appellants requires the Court to override the modalities decided upon by the Army and the MoD to safeguard the security of the nation’s borders -Submission of the appellants requires the Court to interrogate the policy choice of the establishment which is entrusted by law with the defence of the nation – This is impermissible – Application Allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya…

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – Section 6(1) – Notice of forfeiture – Section 6(1) of the 1976 Act nowhere provides that it is “mandatory” to serve the convict or detenu with a primary notice under that provision whilst initiating action against the relative of the convict –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I (2), KUMBAKONAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. V. MOHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar…

Agreement to sell – Joint Hindu Family Property – Agreement to sell cannot be set aside on the ground of absence of legal necessity – whether the alienation was in need for legal necessity as enumeration on what would be legal necessity is unpredictable and would depend upon facts of each case.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BEEREDDY DASARATHARAMI REDDY — Appellant Vs. V. MANJUNATH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

NDPS BAIL – In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act – Bail granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BHARAT CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Petition…

You missed