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.

Government has no right to walk into the Court as and when they want “We have categorized such cases as “certificate cases” where the only purpose is to approach this court to get a certificate of dismissal of the appeal/petition and such endeavours must be discouraged.”

Filing Of ‘Certificate Cases’ Must Be Discouraged, Says SC [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 21 Jun 2020 11:27 AM “We have categorized such cases as “certificate cases” where the only…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 – Rule 70(8) – Grant of contract – Once the bidding process is complete, the appellant is entitled to take work from the successful bidders rather than taking work from the short-term tenderers who were granted contract in exigency of the situation.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and…

IMP ::: Jagannath Rath Yatra – This Court Suggested to the parties that the procession of chariots, i.e., the Rath Yatra itself, could be allowed to proceed, however, without the general congregation which participates in this Yatra and informed that it would be well nigh impossible to ensure that there is no congregation

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ODISHA VIKASH PARISHAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mr. S.A. Bobde, CJ., Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari…

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 114 and 307 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1)(B)(a) – Bombay Police Act, 1951 – Section 135(1) – Attempt to Murder – Sentence enhanced from Six to Seven Years by High Court – Appeal against – Minor discrepancies in evidence and inability to recall details of the description of houses, roads and streets after several years, do not vitiate the evidence of recovery itself

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSTAK @ KANIO AHMED SHAIKH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ. )…

Amrapali : SC Directs ED To Transfer JP Morgan’s Attached Money For Construction Purposes HELD that let the attached money of the home buyers, which is diverted as found in the aforesaid order, be transmitted by the Enforcement Directorate to the Amrapali Account [UCO Bank A/c No. 02070210002834] maintained by the Registry of this Court and be utilized for the purpose of construction of the projects.

Amrapali : SC Directs ED To Transfer JP Morgan’s Attached Money For Construction Purposes [Read Order] Nilashish Chaudhary 20 Jun 2020 12:51 PM In a significant development regarding the completion…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B, 220, 323, 330 348, 506B and 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 197, 245 and 482 – Karnataka Police Act, 1963 – Section 170 – Cognizance of offence – Quashing of proceedings – Want of sanction – Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined at any stage of the proceedings. HELD application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of court. Proceedings quashed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH D. DEVARAJA — Appellant Vs. OWAIS SABEER HUSSAIN — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

IN RE : THE PROPER TREATMENT OF COVID 19 PATIENTS AND DIGNIFIED HANDLING OF DEAD BODIES IN THE HOSPITALS ETC. – HELD Court direct that all States shall also constitute an expert team of Doctors and other experts for inspection, supervision and guidance of Government hospitals and other hospitals dedicated to Covid-19 – Chief Secretary of state to comply, within 7 days.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE : THE PROPER TREATMENT OF COVID 19 PATIENTS AND DIGNIFIED HANDLING OF DEAD BODIES IN THE HOSPITALS ETC. ( Before :…

Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 – Section 28(8) – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 94 – Election law – It is a trite position of law that when it comes to the interpretation of statutory provisions relating to election law, jurisprudence on the subject mandates strict construction of the provisions – An election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but purely a statutory proceeding, provision for which have to be strictly construed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LAXMI SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. REKHA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari,…

V IMP – DEFAULT BAIL ::: HELD This Court are of the view that neither this Court in its order dated 23.03.2020 (Extension of Limitation) can be held to have eclipsed the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) CrPC to get to get a default bail

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH S.KASI — Appellant Vs. STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAMAYNALLUR POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTRICT — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, M.R.…

You missed