Tag: Article 142

Supreme Court: TET Mandatory for All Teachers, But RTE Act’s Application to Minority Schools Under Scrutiny
6Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: TET Mandatory for All Teachers, But RTE Act’s Application to Minority Schools Under Scrutiny

This Supreme Court judgment holds that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for the appointment and promotion of all teachers under the RTE Act. However, the Bench expressed doubts about the correctness of the precedent in Pramati which exempts all minority institutions from the RTE Act, and has referred this specific constitutional question for reconsideration by a larger bench. Facts Of The Case: This set of civil appeals originated from conflicting judgments of the Bombay and Madras High Courts concerning the applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, and specifically the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to minority educational institutions. The appellants included minority educational institutions, state authorit...
Read More
No Endless Cases: Supreme Court Uses Special Power to End Dowry Case After Couple Divorced
15Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Endless Cases: Supreme Court Uses Special Power to End Dowry Case After Couple Divorced

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the father-in-law, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court held that continuing prosecution after divorce and in the absence of specific, timely allegations amounted to an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between the complainant (Respondent No. 2) and the appellant’s son was solemnized in December 2017. By May 2019, marital discord arose, leading the wife to leave the matrimonial home and allege mental and physical cruelty. Both parties attended police-led counselling sessions, which resulted in an agreement to remarry through Hindu rites. However, the wife soon left again and, in July 2019, filed an FIR alleging that her ...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Village Assistant: Merely Accepting Bribe Isn’t Enough
14Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Village Assistant: Merely Accepting Bribe Isn’t Enough

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the main accused under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proven. However, the conviction of the co-accused was set aside due to the absence of a specific charge of abetment and lack of evidence proving his connivance or independent demand for the bribe. Facts Of The Case: The case involved two government officials, A. Karunanithi (A-1), the Village Administrative Officer, and P. Karunanithi (A-2), the Village Assistant. The complainant approached A-1 to obtain a necessary community certificate for a government job. On two separate occasions, A-1 demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant to process the application. The complainant subsequently lodged a formal...
Read More
Supreme Court Returns Children to Adoptive Parents, Prioritizes Family Bonds Over Procedure
13Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Returns Children to Adoptive Parents, Prioritizes Family Bonds Over Procedure

The Supreme Court ruled that removing children from their adoptive parents violated the principle of the child's best interest, a cornerstone of juvenile justice law. Invoking Article 142 to ensure complete justice, the Court ordered the children's immediate return, prioritizing family bonds and rehabilitation over procedural non-compliance in adoption. Facts Of The Case: In a series of connected cases, multiple sets of appellants from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana claimed to be the adoptive parents of minor girls. They had adopted the children, ranging from two days to twenty days old, directly from the biological parents between 2021 and early 2024 under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, on May 22, 2024, police authorities forcibly took custody of...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

This Supreme Court case reaffirms the principle that an insurance policy stands rescinded upon dishonour of the premium cheque and intimation to the concerned parties, absolving the insurer from statutory liability. However, applying the "pay and recover" doctrine, the insurer was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the third-party claimants and was permitted to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: On August 22, 2005, Dheeraj Singh died when his motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding truck (HR 46 A 1020). The deceased, a 36-year-old computer engineer, was found to be earning ₹3,364 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., disowned liability by contending that the...
Read More
Marriage Dead: Supreme Court Dissolves Union, Quashes 498A Case in Landmark Irretrievable Breakdown Ruling
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Marriage Dead: Supreme Court Dissolves Union, Quashes 498A Case in Landmark Irretrievable Breakdown Ruling

The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. It quashed the pending criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, finding the allegations to be vague and arising from marital discord, while upholding the terms of a settlement agreement for a clean break. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between Anurag Goel (appellant-husband) and the second respondent (wife) took place on July 25, 2015, following prior divorces for both. After approximately one year and nine months of conjugal life, the relationship soured. The husband alleged constant harassment, leading him to abandon the matrimonial home—a Mumbai apartment he owned—in April 2017 to move to Faridabad with his autistic child fro...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

The Supreme Court held that the suit against the State Financial Corporation was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC. The decree was declared a nullity as it erroneously applied the Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993, to a pre-enactment transaction and fastened liability without privity of contract. Execution proceedings were quashed. Facts Of The Case: In 1985, Respondent No. 1, M/s. Vigyan Chemical Industries, supplied raw materials to Respondent No. 2, an industrial unit. Due to a loan default, the Appellant, Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC), took possession of Respondent No. 2's unit in 1987 under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In 1988, Respondent No. 1 filed a recovery suit for its unpaid dues. OSFC was impl...
Read More
Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant’s admission and subsequent degree in M.Sc. Environmental Management should not be invalidated despite initial eligibility ambiguities. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court held that the university’s delayed and unclear addendums caused confusion, and denying the degree after completion would cause irreparable injustice. The withdrawal of the degree was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Sakshi Chauhan, who applied for admission to the M.Sc./MBA (Agri Business) program at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry in 2020 based on its prospectus. She held a B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree from Eternal University, a UGC-recognized private institution. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ...
Read More
Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, dissolved the marriage between Shivangi Bansal and Sahib Bansal, quashing all pending civil/criminal cases between them and their families. The wife retained custody of their daughter, while the husband secured visitation rights. Mutual undertakings barred future litigation, and an unconditional apology was mandated. Property transfer and police protection were also ordered, ensuring a conclusive settlement. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Shivangi Bansal (wife) and Sahib Bansal (husband), who married in December 2015 and had a daughter in 2016. After marital discord, they separated in October 2018, leading to multiple legal battles across courts in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The wife filed cases under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, and the Domestic V...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142 for Unhappy Couple
11Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142 for Unhappy Couple

The Supreme Court granted divorce under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, citing 16 years of separation and failed reconciliation. It upheld the husband’s acquittal in a false cruelty case (IPC 498A) and enhanced maintenance to ₹15,000/month for the wife and child, prioritizing dignity over a defunct marital bond. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between Pradeep Bhardwaj (appellant-husband) and Priya (respondent-wife) was solemnized on 7 May 2008 in Delhi under Hindu rites. A son was born in 2009, who remained in the wife’s custody. The couple separated in October 2009, just over a year after marriage, and had been living apart for 16 years by the time of the Supreme Court’s judgment. The husband filed for divorce in 2010 under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu...
Read More