Supreme Court - The Legal Chamber

Breaking Down the Supreme Court Judgment on DTH Services & Tax Dispute

7Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Breaking Down the Supreme Court Judgment on DTH Services & Tax Dispute

The Supreme Court ruled that states have the legislative competence to levy entertainment tax on DTH services under Entry 62, List II (State List) of the Constitution, as the tax is on the "entertainment" aspect, not the broadcasting service. The Court upheld the "aspect doctrine", allowing simultaneous taxation by states (on entertainment) and the Centre (on broadcasting services under Entry 97, List I), provided the levies target distinct aspects of the same transaction. It rejected arguments of legislative overlap, emphasizing the pith and substance of state laws as valid exercises of taxing power. Facts Of The Case: The case involved multiple civil appeals and writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of state laws imposing entertainment tax on Direct-to-Home (DTH) broad...

Justice Delayed, Not Denied: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Compensation Certificates

6Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Justice Delayed, Not Denied: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Compensation Certificates

The Supreme Court disposed of contempt petitions, affirming wilful disobedience of prior orders dated November 21, 2014, May 17, 2022, and December 10, 2024, regarding the issuance of DRCs/TDRs. The Court rejected attempts to re-examine previously decided issues or impose new conditions, emphasizing its limited contempt jurisdiction. DRCs/TDRs are to be released to complainants upon filing an undertaking, with the State retaining a first charge on any future compensation from civil appeals Facts Of The Case: This case involves contempt petitions filed due to alleged wilful disobedience of court orders dated November 21, 2014, May 17, 2022, and March 19, 2024. The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated December 10, 2024, found the contemnors guilty of wilful non-compliance despite purported c...

Shelter vs. Forest: Supreme Court’s Solution for Maharashtra’s Zudpi Jungle Dispute

6Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Shelter vs. Forest: Supreme Court’s Solution for Maharashtra’s Zudpi Jungle Dispute

The Supreme Court affirmed 'Zudpi Jungle' as forest, but allowed pre-1996 non-forestry regularization without NPV or compensatory afforestation. It mandated strict action for post-1996 diversions, declared fragmented Zudpi lands 'Protected Forests,' and ordered transfers to the Forest Department, with conditions for using Zudpi land for compensatory afforestation. Facts Of The Case: This case revolves around the legal status and utilization of "Zudpi Jungle" lands in six districts of Eastern Vidarbha, Maharashtra. Historically, these lands, characterized by bushy growth and inferior soil, were recorded as "Zudpi Forest" or "Scrub Jungle" in revenue records since the early 1900s, often used for grazing and domestic needs. Due to bureaucratic inaction and state reorganization in 1956, thes...

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Murder Case, Citing “Last Seen” Evidence Insufficient

6Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Murder Case, Citing “Last Seen” Evidence Insufficient

The Supreme Court clarified that judicial members of Consumer Commissions are exempt from written exams. It upheld a five-year tenure and judicial majority in selection committees, while validating past appointments made before specific Limaye-I directives. The Court also mandated new rules from the Union of India, ensuring a permanent adjudicatory forum and expediting recruitment across states. Facts Of The Case: The prosecution's case originated from an incident on April 4, 2016, around 11 a.m., when the informant's son, Akash Garadia, along with Budhadeba Garadia (PW-1), Susanta Kusulia (PW-2), and the appellant/accused, went to a river to bathe. Subsequently, the appellant and Akash proceeded to a cashew field. When Akash and the appellant failed to return, PW-1 and PW-2 came back to...

Supreme Court Big Consumer Protection Verdict: Tenure, Transparency, and Tribunal Reforms

6Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Big Consumer Protection Verdict: Tenure, Transparency, and Tribunal Reforms

This Supreme Court judgment addresses the appointment process and tenure of members in State and District Consumer Commissions. It mandates judicial majority in selection committees and a five-year tenure, overturning previous rules. The Court also clarifies that written examinations are not required for judicial members, but are necessary for non-judicial members for both appointment and reappointment. Facts Of The Case: The genesis of this case lies in challenges to the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. Initially, the Bombay High Court struck down certain rules concerning eligibility criteri...

Supreme Court Split Verdict: When Can Schools Be Held Accountable Under Article 226?

6Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Split Verdict: When Can Schools Be Held Accountable Under Article 226?

The Supreme Court examined whether Air Force Schools qualify as a "State" under Article 12 or an "authority" amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The majority held that despite partial government control and funding, the schools lacked pervasive state dominance, relegating disputes to private contract law. However, the dissenting opinion emphasized their public function, deep administrative control by the Indian Air Force, and indirect public funding, making them subject to writ jurisdiction. The split verdict clarifies the distinction between regulatory control and pervasive state authority in educational institutions Facts Of The Case: The case involved two civil appeals before the Supreme Court concerning the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad. In Ci...

Supreme Court Orders Digital Portal & Patrol Teams to Curb Illegal Occupations on National Highways

5Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Digital Portal & Patrol Teams to Curb Illegal Occupations on National Highways

The Supreme Court issued directives under Article 32 to strengthen implementation of the Control of National Highways Act, 2002, emphasizing statutory obligations to prevent highway encroachments. It mandated grievance redressal mechanisms (portal/toll-free number), regular inspections, and surveillance teams while underscoring the Highway Administration's duty to enforce Section 26 (removal of unauthorized occupation). The judgment established procedural safeguards for encroachment removal and ordered Standard Operating Procedures for transparency, affirming judicial oversight through continuing mandamus to ensure compliance with road safety norms. Facts Of The Case: The writ petition was filed by Gyan Prakash under Article 32 of the Constitution, highlighting alarming road fatalities (...

Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Retired Lt. Col’s Promotion Grading After 20-Year Battle

5Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Retired Lt. Col’s Promotion Grading After 20-Year Battle

The Supreme Court partially allowed the civil appeal, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision but directing reconsideration of the appellant's 'Z' grading in the 2001 promotion board. The Court affirmed the Chief of Army Staff's discretionary authority under Defence Services Regulations to modify Selection Board recommendations, while emphasizing fair reconsideration of the appellant's case within three months. The judgment clarified that promotions in the Territorial Army remain subject to the Army's hierarchical decision-making process, balancing institutional autonomy with individual rights to equitable evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Lt. Col. NK Ghai (Retd.), who challenged his non-promotion to Colonel rank despite 22 years of service in the Territorial Army. ...

Ex-MLA’s Plea Rejected: Supreme Court Rules Against Fraud Claims in Rs. 2426 Crore Irrigation Scheme

5Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Ex-MLA’s Plea Rejected: Supreme Court Rules Against Fraud Claims in Rs. 2426 Crore Irrigation Scheme

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's rejection of a PIL alleging fraudulent revision of costs in the Palamuru-Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme. The Court held that factual adjudication cannot be pursued under Article 226 and upheld the High Court's discretion in refusing a CBI probe, citing prior findings by the Central Vigilance Commission and constructive res judicata. The ruling reaffirmed judicial restraint in interfering with discretionary orders absent jurisdictional errors. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Nagam Janardhan Reddy, a former MLA and Minister in Andhra Pradesh, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, alleging fraudulent revision of cost estimates for the Palamuru-...

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh to Follow Central Rules for Forest Officers Performance Reports

4Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh to Follow Central Rules for Forest Officers Performance Reports

The Supreme Court quashed the Madhya Pradesh Government Order (G.O.) dated 29th June 2024, which allowed IAS officers to evaluate Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers' Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR). Reaffirming its 2000 ruling, the Court held that IFS officers up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator must be assessed by their departmental superiors, not IAS officers, to maintain service hierarchy and accountability under the All-India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970. The State was directed to amend its rules within one month to comply with this mandate. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a challenge to the Madhya Pradesh Government Order (G.O.) dated 29th June 2024, which mandated that Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers – specifically Distric...