2025 - The Legal Chamber

Grounds for Arrest: The Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict on Constitutional Safeguards

11Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Grounds for Arrest: The Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict on Constitutional Safeguards

The Supreme Court addressed the legality of arrest and compliance with constitutional mandates under Article 22, specifically concerning the prompt furnishing of grounds for arrest. The judgment deliberated on the application of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, affirming adherence to due process in arrest procedures. Facts Of The Case: This appeal originated from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds of alleged illegal arrest and unlawful detention of Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, the appellant's son. He was arrested by the CID in connection with offenses purportedly committed under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The core contention in t...

From Life Imprisonment to Freedom: Supreme Court Cites “Misreading of Evidence” in Acquittal

The Supreme Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136, set aside the concurrent convictions of the appellants, finding that the Trial Court and High Court had misread and ignored striking features of the prosecution's evidence. The Court highlighted issues with witness credibility, unexplained delays in statements, and unreliable corroborating evidence, concluding that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt Facts Of The Case: In 2011, the wife of PW-1 won the Panchayat Board elections, a position held by Accused No. 1's family for approximately four decades. This led to numerous skirmishes between the two sides in the months following the elections. On the night of November 14, 2012, PW-1's brother (Deceased No. 1), his son (Deceased No. 2), and daughter (PW-9)...

Supreme Court : Mandates Full Pension for ALL Retired High Court Judges

The Supreme Court mandated uniform pension for all retired High Court Judges under the principle of "One Rank One Pension" (OROP), irrespective of their tenure, source of appointment (Bar/District Judiciary), or status (Permanent/Additional Judge). It held that discrimination in pension violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court directed payment of full pension (₹13.5 lakh/₹15 lakh p.a.) under the High Court Judges Act, 1954, rejecting minimum service requirements. Service breaks and New Pension Scheme (NPS) participation were deemed irrelevant, with NPS contributions refunded to affected judges. Family pension/gratuity was extended to families of Additional Judges, and 10 years were added to service for gratuity calculations under Section 17A. Facts Of The Case: This ...