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) – Section 376 – Rape – Testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable – No reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy – Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PHOOL SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Medical negligence – If the operation theatres were occupied at the time when the operation of the patient was contemplated, it cannot be said that there is a negligence on the part of the Hospital – A team of specialist doctors was available and also have attended to the patient but unfortunately nature had the last word and the patient breathed his last -No doctor can assure life to his patient but can only attempt to treat his patient to the best of his ability which was being done in the present case as well – Findings recorded by the Commission holding the Hospital and the Doctor guilty of medical negligence are not sustainable in law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BOMBAY HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE — Appellant Vs. ASHA JAISWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

Government contracts – Understanding of public interest – – It is pertinent to remember that, by merely using grounds of public interest or loss to the treasury, the successor public authority cannot undo the work undertaken by the previous authority – Such a claim must be proven using material facts, evidence and figures – If it were otherwise, then there will remain no sanctity in the words and undertaking of the Government – Businessmen will be hesitant to enter Government contract or make any investment in furtherance of the same – Such a practice is counterproductive to the economy and the business environment in general.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHISHIR REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED AND…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 209 and 465 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 120B – Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 – Sections 21 and 23 read with Sections 4(1) and 4(1)(A) – Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 – Rule 165 read with Rule 144 – Unauthorized mining – Quashing of criminal proceedings – If the order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465 CrPC – No “failure of justice” under Section 465 CrPC is proved

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRADEEP S. WODEYAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B V…

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Section 2 – Felling of trees for Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System-Phase-IV project – Direction – DMRC to file applications under the FC Act, 1980 to the Chief Conservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer (FCI), GNCTD, seeking permission for diversion of the following extents of land for the construction of Metro, Phase-IV of MRTS Project with a request to forward the said documents to the MoEF&CC, GoI, for its consideration under Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…

(IPC) – Ss 302 and 149 – Murder – Injuries on vital parts – From the evidence of doctor, it can be gathered that the injuries on the vital parts like right lung and liver which resulted into bleeding and shock were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary cause of nature – Once the prosecution establishes the existence of the three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on the part of the accused to cause death – It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause the injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD KUMAR — Appellant Vs. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal…

(CPC)- S 100 – Dismissal of second appeal without assigning any reasons for conclusion – Court must display its conscious application of mind even while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage – Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps the adversely affected party to understand why his submissions were not accepted – High Court cannot dismiss the second appeal in limine without assigning any reasons for its conclusion HELD An appeal under Section 100 of the CPC could be filed both against the ‘concurrent findings’ or ‘divergent findings’ of the courts below.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HASMAT ALI — Appellant Vs. AMINA BIBI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 22 – Further construction – Environmental Clearance – Project of the appellant comprises six buildings of which three were constructed in full, and the super structure of the fourth building is completed and only the internal works remains to be done – Further construction cannot be made without environment impact assessment – If the Project Proponent wishes to construct the remaining buildings, they must secure fresh clearance from the competent authority, as per the currently applicable framework –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SAI BABA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 307 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Attempt to murder – Using arms – Appellant-accused was admittedly a police official – Illegal use of a licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27, without proving the misdemeanour under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act. At best, it could be a ‘misconduct’ under the service rules, the determination of which was not the subject of the trial – No motive or element of planning has been proved by the Prosecution –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURINDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE (UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH) — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Service Matters

Service Law – Back-wages – In the case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages is normal rule and the adjudicating authority to take into consideration the length of service of the employee, nature of misconduct, financial condition of the employer and similar other factors – High Court has correctly granted 50% of the back wages to the respondent.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAM BAHADUR YADAV — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

You missed