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.

West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996 – Sections 217 and 218 – Demolition of illegal construction – Sanction of building plan was cancel by municipal authorities – There is no error committed by the High Court in holding that the order by which action was directed to be initiated under Section 218 of the Act for demolition of the structure does not survive as the basis of the said order was the order passed by the Municipality.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEBABRATA SAHA — Appellant Vs. SERAMPORE MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayats Act, 1961 – Section 28 – Motion of no-confidence in Adhyaksha – Provisions of Section 28 which ensured that an elected representative can only stay in power so long as such person enjoys the support of the majority of the elected members of the Zila Panchayat – As soon as such a person loses the confidence of the majority, he becomes unwanted – In a democratic set up, the will of the majority has to prevail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.…

Scheduled Caste Reservation for post of Mayor in Municipal Corporation Held :- Dominant intent of the said Rules is to give effect to the reservation policy while ensuring that reservations are not repeated in particular Corporations and at the same time in all the Corporations, there shall be reservation, at some point of time, for all the eligible categories by rotation – Legislative intent is to exclude the Corporations which were earlier reserved for a particular category until all the categories are provided reservation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL — Appellant Vs. SANJAY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Restraining of arrest – Text of the order of High Court did not contain any direction restraining the arrest – Oral observations in court are in the course of a judicial discourse -Absent a written record of what has transpired in the course of a judicial proceeding, it would set a dangerous precedent if the parties and the investigating officer were expected to rely on unrecorded oral observations – High Court of issuing oral direction restraining the arrest of first respondent was irregular – Order set aside – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIMBHAI HAMIDBHAI MENON — Appellant Vs. NITESHKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Appellant has raised false pleas and attempted to mislead Court, while the officials of NOIDA have not acted bona fide in the discharge of their duties – Appellant has stooped to the point of producing a fabricated sanctioned plan – Therefore, This Court confirm the directions of the High Court including the order of demolition and for sanctioning prosecution – Illegal Construction – Violation of building norms – Sanction of prosecution – Reimbursement to flat owners – Conclusion and directions

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUPERTECH LIMITED — Appellant Vs. EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R.…

Mental and physical torture and demands of dowry – Reduction of sentence – Compensation to wife and children – If the appellant is showing remorse and is willing to make arrangements for second wife and his two children born out of the wedlock – This Court not like to come in the way of such an arrangement, which should be beneficial to wife and her children – Object of any criminal jurisprudence is reformative in character and to take care of the victim. reduce the sentence to the period undergone in case the appellant pays to second wife for her benefit and her children’s benefit a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMAUL SK. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation – Basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for an officer in a subordinate office – absolute equality ought not to be given – If one may say, there would have been no requirement to make these separate recommendations if everyone was to be treated on parity on every aspect.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

HELD Prosecution stands proved against accused-P and accused-S and their appeals deserve to be dismissed while the appeals preferred by accused-I and accused-K deserve acceptance – Accused-I and accused-K be released forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence – Ordered accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1613…

(IPC) – S 302 r/with S 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – S 25 – Murder by Gunshot – Fired fatal shot from roof of house – Evidence – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Statements of eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with the earliest version recorded in the form of First Information Report – Trajectory of entry of bullet as found in Medical Report is also quite consistent with the version that deceased was shot from a height i.e. the roof of the house – Prosecution stands proved

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1613…

HELD Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that such records were not maintained properly, the official record containing entries of ownership and possession would carry the presumption of correctness – In view of the transfer of land on 10.10.1956 followed by delivery of possession on 19.3.1958 and continuous assertion of possession thereof, it leads to the unequivocal finding that appellants are owners and in possession of the suit land.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul…

You missed