Latest Post

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with 34, 148, and 341 — Murder —Appeal against reversal of acquittal — Appellate court’s duty in overturning acquittal — Trial court’s acquittal based on “imaginary and illusionary reasons” and misappreciation of evidence, including attributing undue significance to minor contradictions and perceived manipulation of delayed FIR submission, justifies reversal by High Court. (Paras 31, 45, 46, 52) Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Recruitment: Disqualification — Second Marriage — Rule 18(b) disqualifies a person who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person from appointment to the Force — Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for marrying a second time while his first marriage subsisted, violating Rule 18(b) — Held, the rule is a service condition intended to maintain discipline, public confidence, and integrity in the Force, and is not a moral censure — The rule is clear and mandatory, and the maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies — The statutory rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed — Dismissal upheld. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9) Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 366A, 372, 373, 34 — Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) — Section 3, 4, 5, 6 — Child Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation — Evidence of Minor Victim — Appreciation of Evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court regarding conviction for procuring and sexually exploiting a minor victim upheld — Prosecution case substantially corroborated by testimony of minor victim (PW-13), decoy witness (PW-8), independent witness (PW-12), and recovery of incriminating articles — Minor contradictions in testimony (e.g., about forcible sexual intercourse causing injury, or apartment topography) do not vitiate the prosecution case, as the consistent version of the victim establishes procurement for sexual exploitation. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Annulment of Bail — Distinction — Cancellation of bail is generally based on supervening circumstances and post-bail misconduct; Annulment of an order granting bail is warranted when the order is vitiated by perversity, illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind — High Court granted bail ignoring prior cancellation of bail due to commission of murder by accused (while on bail) of a key witness in the first case, and failed to consider the gravity of offenses (including under SC/ST (POA) Act) and threat to fair trial — Such omissions and reliance on irrelevant considerations (existence of civil dispute) render the bail order perverse and unsustainable, justifying annulment by the Supreme Court. (Paras 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5) Environmental Law — Wildlife Protection and Conservation — Protection of Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican (LF) — Conflict between conservation goals and green energy generation (solar/wind) — Supreme Court modified earlier blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines based on Expert Committee recommendations to balance non-negotiable preservation of GIB with sustainable development and India’s international climate change commitments — Importance of domain expert advice in policy matters concerning conservation and infrastructure development affirmed. (Paras 6, 14, 15, 60, 61)
Service Matters

In the present case, 440 vacancies were advertised; they were to be considered together; obviously, in respect of older vacancies which arose for previous years, the qualifications applicable for the vacancy years were applicable – None of the appellants disputed that they were ineligible in terms of the old rules, as they did not hold the requisite intermediate qualifications in the science stream – Appellants’ contention, in this regard too, consequently fails – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

Construction of Road over Bridges – Felling of trees – As per the Report of the Expert Committee submitted, primarily, about 50 trees have already been felled and potentially another 306 trees are to be felled. As per the Report, many of the trees can be called ‘historical trees’ ,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A.…

Appeal against acquittal – Dying declaration – the accused is able to create a doubt not only with regard to the dying declaration but also with regard to the nature and manner of death, the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused – Therefore much shall depend on the facts of a case – There can be no rigid standard or yardstick for acceptance or rejection of a dying declaration.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. KALAWATI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 35…

Permanent Commission for Women Officers (Army) – Evaluation criteria set by the Army constituted systemic discrimination against the petitioners – Pattern of evaluation deployed by the Army, to implement the decision in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya, (2020) 7 SCC 469 disproportionately affects women – This disproportionate impact is attributable to the structural discrimination against women, by dint of which the facially neutral criteria of selective ACR evaluation and fulfilling the medical criteria to be in SHAPE-1 at a belated stage, to secure PC disproportionately impacts them vis-à-vis their male counterparts.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LT. COL. NITISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.…

IBC – Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors – Limited jurisdiction in matter of approval of resolution plan – Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority is also circumscribed by the limited grounds of appeal provided in Section 61 of the Code

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JAYPEE KENSINGTON BOULEVARD APARTMENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh…

Enquiry at the Stage of Pre-Registration of FIR – Permissibility – Such a preliminary enquiry would be permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would be registered – Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be in the interest of the alleged accused also against whom the complaint is made.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHARAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Loan moratorium case – There shall not be any charge of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium from any of the borrowers and whatever the amount is recovered by way of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium, the same shall be refunded and to be adjusted/given credit in the next instalment of the loan account – There is no rational to restrict such relief with respect to loans up to Rs. 2 crores only

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION (REGD.) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy…

Service Matters

Suspension – Manipulation in weight measurement – Chairman of the Administrative Committee to be a Disciplinary Authority – Since the Chairman of the Administrative Committee happens to be the Registrar, the decision to impose punishment may not require prior approval

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE U.P. MILK UNION AND DAIRY FEDERATION CENTRALIZED SERVICES — Appellant Vs. JAGPAL SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…

You missed