Tag: B.R. Gavai

Supreme Court Allows Ex-Post Facto Environmental Clearance: A Major Shift in Environmental Law
6Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Ex-Post Facto Environmental Clearance: A Major Shift in Environmental Law

The Supreme Court, in a review petition, reversed its earlier judgment by allowing the recall of the ban on ex-post facto environmental clearances. The Court ruled that the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not absolutely prohibit such clearances and that they may be granted in exceptional cases after applying the principle of proportionality and the polluter pays principle. The bench emphasized that a balanced approach, weighing ecological damage against economic and public interest, must be adopted. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from legal challenges to a 2017 notification and a 2021 office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). These instruments created a framework for granting ex-post facto Environmental Clearance (EC...
Read More
Supreme Court on Land Acquisition: Proximity to Town & Highway Matters in Valuation
6Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Land Acquisition: Proximity to Town & Highway Matters in Valuation

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, applying parity from its earlier decision in Manohar & Others. It upheld the market value determined from comparable sale exemplars but mandated a 20% deduction due to the superior location and smaller size of the exemplar plots. The Court awarded enhanced compensation with statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while denying interest for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition. Facts Of The Case: The appellants were landowners whose agricultural lands near Jintur town in Parbhani District were acquired in the 1990s under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, for setting up an industrial area. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in 1994, fixing compensation. Dissatisfied with the quantu...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Expert Panels’ Role in Cauvery Water Dispute, Dismisses Tamil Nadu’s Applications
3Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Expert Panels’ Role in Cauvery Water Dispute, Dismisses Tamil Nadu’s Applications

The Supreme Court declined to intervene, emphasizing the principle of judicial restraint in matters requiring technical expertise. It held that statutory expert bodies like the CWMA and CWRC are the appropriate fora to adjudicate disputes concerning water allocation and project approval under the final decree, and parties must exhaust these remedies first. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the long-standing Cauvery river water dispute between the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Karnataka. The core issue arose when Tamil Nadu filed Miscellaneous Application No. 3127 of 2018 in the Supreme Court, seeking to stall Karnataka's proposed Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir cum Drinking Water Project. Tamil Nadu argued that the Central Water Commission's (CWC) permission for ...
Read More
Supreme Court Directs Statutory Protection for Delhi Ridge to Curb Encroachments
31Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Statutory Protection for Delhi Ridge to Curb Encroachments

This Supreme Court judgment directs statutory reconstitution of the Delhi Ridge Management Board under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to function as a single-window authority. It mandates the Board to ensure the protection, removal of encroachments, and ecological restoration of both the notified Ridge and the Morphological Ridge, with oversight by the Central Empowered Committee and the Supreme Court. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the long-standing litigation over the protection and management of the Delhi Ridge, a vital ecological area within the National Capital Territory. The primary legal proceedings originate from Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India) and connected matters. The Supreme Court was tasked with adjudicat...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

The Supreme Court held that once an interim court order is in operation, it remains binding unless specifically vacated. Merely releasing a reserved matter does not invalidate or nullify an existing interim order. Violating such an order without obtaining prior leave from the court constitutes a prima facie case for contempt proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a professor at KGMU, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for implementing a software system in 2010. In 2017, audit objections arose regarding expenditures during his tenure, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The professor challenged the preliminary inquiry and a subsequent notice via his first writ petition in 2018. While this petition was reserved for judgment, the disciplinary committee sent him a questionnaire, which...
Read More
Use of Blunt Side of Weapons Key: Supreme Court Converts 302 IPC to 304 in Land Dispute Killing
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Use of Blunt Side of Weapons Key: Supreme Court Converts 302 IPC to 304 in Land Dispute Killing

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below on the appellants' involvement in causing the deaths. However, it altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, finding that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without the intention to kill. The sentence already undergone was deemed sufficient. Facts Of The Case: On the morning of August 6, 1986, complainant Ram Gopal (PW-1) went with his father and two uncles to a river ghat to measure agricultural land for partition. There, they encountered the four accused appellants, including the owner of the adjacent land, Raghav Prashad. The accused, who were hiding, suddenly emerged and a dispute over the measurement ensued. This altercation quickly turned vi...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Section 498-A, 377, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the in-laws. It held that general and vague allegations, without specific details of cruelty or unlawful demands, do not constitute a prima facie case. The Court reiterated that proceedings without such foundational ingredients amount to an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, who were the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the complainant, sought the quashing of an FIR registered against them. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 377 (unnatural sex), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The marriage between the complainant and the appellants' son/brother took place ...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against concurrent orders of CERC and APTEL. It upheld that coal linkage for a power plant is allocated to the project as a whole, not to specific PPAs. Consequently, the additional cost from 'Change in Law' events must be apportioned pro-rata among all power procurers based on their energy drawal. Facts Of The Case: GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited (GKEL) set up a power plant and entered into long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with three utilities: Haryana, Odisha (GRIDCO), and Bihar. The project was allocated coal from specific linkages and a captive block, intended for the entire plant. When changes in law and a coal supply shortfall increased GKEL's costs, it sought compensation. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) ruled GKEL w...
Read More
Supreme Court Slashes NGT’s ₹50 Crore Fine, Rules Turnover Can’t Dictate Environmental Penalty
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slashes NGT’s ₹50 Crore Fine, Rules Turnover Can’t Dictate Environmental Penalty

In this judgment, the Supreme Court curtailed the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) powers, ruling that environmental compensation cannot be arbitrarily linked to a polluter's turnover, lacking a direct nexus to the actual damage. It also held that the NGT lacks jurisdiction to direct investigations by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA, affirming that such actions require a scheduled offence to be registered. The Court emphasized that penalties must be determined based on established methodologies and legal principles, not rhetoric. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Adil Ansari before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2019 against M/s C.L. Gupta Export Ltd. The allegations were that the company, an exporter of handicraft ite...
Read More
Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements

The Supreme Court ruled that naming government welfare schemes after political leaders is not prohibited by law. It clarified that the Common Cause judgments primarily regulate the use of photographs in government advertisements, not the naming of schemes themselves, thereby setting aside the interim order of the High Court. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tamil Nadu government launched a welfare initiative named the "Ungaludan Stalin" (Your's Stalin) scheme. Its stated objective was to bridge the gap between citizens and existing government programs by organizing camps and dispatching volunteers to help people understand and access their entitled benefits. An opposition Member of Parliament filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging the scheme's name and ass...
Read More