Division Bench - The Legal Chamber

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...

Supreme Court Explains Why: Can’t File Contempt in Supreme Court for Violating High Court Order

29Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains Why: Can’t File Contempt in Supreme Court for Violating High Court Order

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the doctrine of merger is not of universal application. It holds that where the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of an intra-court appeal, the parties revert to the status under the original High Court Single Judge order. Consequently, contempt for its violation lies before the High Court, not the Supreme Court. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/s Khurana Brothers, initially challenged an order of a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court by filing an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench. While the Division Bench dismissed this appeal, it made certain observations that, according to the petitioner, worsened its legal position compared to the Single Judge's order. The petitioner then sought and was granted leave to appeal to t...

Retired AFC Employees Win Supreme Court Battle for Higher Gratuity Payout

29Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Retired AFC Employees Win Supreme Court Battle for Higher Gratuity Payout

The Supreme Court held that under the AFC’s Staff Regulations, the gratuity ceiling for employees is linked to notifications issued by the State Government. Consequently, AFC employees are entitled to the enhanced gratuity limit prescribed by the Government of Assam, as the regulations incorporate such external ceilings for employee benefit. Facts Of The Case: The Assam Financial Corporation Limited (AFC) appealed against a High Court judgment favouring its retired employees. The employees, who retired between 2018–2019, had been paid gratuity under AFC’s internal regulations, which had a ceiling of Rs. 7 lakhs as per a 2012 office order. They contended that they were entitled to a higher gratuity ceiling as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was aligned with the enhanced...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case

25Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case

The Supreme Court held that Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, applies only to the preparation of a merit list and not to determining eligibility. The termination orders were quashed for violating principles of natural justice, as the appellants were not given notice regarding the exclusion of vocational subject marks. Facts Of The Case: The State of Jharkhand advertised posts for Intermediate Trained Teachers in 2015. The appellants—Ravi Oraon, Premial Hembrom, and Surendra Munda—successfully applied, were selected, and commenced their duties in December 2015. In September 2016, they were issued show cause notices alleging they did not meet the minimum eligibility criterion of 45% marks in their intermediate examination and questioning the validity ...

Supreme Court on Legal Metrology: No Search or Seizure Without “Reasons to Believe” & Independent Witnesses

2Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Legal Metrology: No Search or Seizure Without “Reasons to Believe” & Independent Witnesses

The Supreme Court held that inspection, search, and seizure under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, must comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards of the Cr.P.C., including recording "reasons to believe" and the presence of independent witnesses under Section 100(4). Non-compliance with these statutory procedures vitiates the entire action, rendering it illegal and unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, ITC Limited, maintained a warehouse for its 'Classmate' brand stationery. On July 2, 2020, Legal Metrology officers inspected these premises without a warrant and seized 7600 packages of exercise books for an alleged violation of Rule 24 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The appellant challenged this action before the Karnataka High Cour...

Supreme Court Upholds “Equal Pay for Equal Work” for Contractual Assistant Professors

25Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds “Equal Pay for Equal Work” for Contractual Assistant Professors

The Supreme Court affirmed the principle of "equal pay for equal work" for contractually appointed Assistant Professors performing identical duties as their regular and ad-hoc counterparts. It directed the State to pay them the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post, holding that the nature of the appointment (contractual) does not negate the entitlement to pay parity when the work is the same. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the State of Gujarat where a significant number of sanctioned posts for Assistant Professors in Government Engineering and Polytechnic colleges remained vacant for years. To address this shortage, the state government made appointments on both ad hoc and contractual bases. The respondents were Assistant Professors appointed on a contractua...

Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority

11Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority

The Supreme Court, while deleting specific administrative directions against a High Court judge upon the CJI's request, reaffirmed its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 136. It emphasized that persistent judicial errors raising institutional concerns compel the Court to intervene to protect the rule of law and maintain the judiciary's dignity and credibility. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 4th August 2025, found the High Court's judgment to be erroneous. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on the merits. The apex court's directive i...

Supreme Court Upholds National Fraternity: Teaching Experience Across India Counts

26Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds National Fraternity: Teaching Experience Across India Counts

The Supreme Court held that a government notification extending the retirement age must be interpreted purposively, and a condition requiring "10 years of teaching experience in any State-aided university" includes experience from universities outside the state. Excluding such experience was found to be an arbitrary and discriminatory classification violating the right to equality under Article 14. Facts Of The Case: The appellant was initially appointed as a teacher in a government college in Assam in 1991, where he served for 16 years. In 2007, he was selected for a non-teaching post at Burdwan University, West Bengal, based on his qualifications and experience, and was later promoted in 2012. In 2021, the State of West Bengal issued a notification increasing the retirement age from 60...