Augustine George Masih J - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court’s One-Time Relief: Telangana Allowed to Appoint Judges Despite Rule Dispute

22Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s One-Time Relief: Telangana Allowed to Appoint Judges Despite Rule Dispute

The Supreme Court disposed of appeals challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023. While keeping all legal questions open, it granted a one-time exception, directing the High Court to declare results and appoint the qualified appellants without treating the order as a precedent, thereby resolving the immediate recruitment impasse. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment process for District Judges in Telangana. The appellants, advocates, had applied in April 2023 under the then-existing rules. However, in June 2023, the state introduced new rules, the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023. A key provision, Rule 5(5.1)(a), restricted eligibility to advocates who had been practicing specifically in the High Court of T...

Supreme Court’s Mixed Verdict for a Forest Officer :Right Declared, But Promotion Delayed

The Supreme Court ruled that the term "State Forest Service" under the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, refers to the service as a whole, not individual posts. The Court held that once a state service is approved, its substantively appointed gazetted officers, including Forest Range Officers, are eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, P. Maruthi Prasada Rao, was appointed as a Forest Range Officer (FRO) in 2006. In 2021, he petitioned the authorities, arguing that FROs should be considered part of the "State Forest Service" and thus be eligible for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) when sufficient numbers of senior officers like Deputy Conservators of Forests (DCFs) and Assistant Conserv...

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling :The Problem with Extra-Judicial Confessions

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction, based on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence, was unsustainable as the confessions were unreliable and the circumstantial chain was incomplete, violating the principles established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The benefit of doubt was accorded to the appellant. Facts Of The Case: Neelam Kumari, the appellant, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of her infant son. The prosecution's case was that on December 8, 2006, after returning with her husband, Nikku Ram, from his ancestral village, she was left alone with the child at their home in village Nand. When Nikku Ram returned later that evening, both the a...