frivolous litigation - The Legal Chamber

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...

No Narco Test Without Consent: Supreme Court Cites Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court ruled that involuntary narco-analysis tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, affirming that such tests and information derived from them are inadmissible as sole evidence for conviction. While voluntary tests with safeguards are permissible, their results alone cannot lead to conviction. An accused has a right to voluntarily undergo the test during trial, but it's not an indefeasible right; the court must assess all circumstances, including free consent and safeguards. The Court emphasized that a bail application should not involve ordering such involuntary investigative techniques. Facts Of The Case: A First Information Report (FIR No. 545 of 2022) was registered on August 24, 2022, at P.S. Mahua, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,...

Legal Heir or Tenant? : Supreme Court Decides on Protracted Property Battle in Kerala

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the impleadment of a party in execution proceedings, holding that the application for deletion was barred by res judicata as objections were not raised earlier. It ruled that a decree for specific performance implicitly includes possession unless contested by a third party. The Court rejected claims of tenancy rights under the Kerala Rent Control Act due to lack of evidence and upheld the lower courts' findings, emphasizing that frivolous pleas cannot delay execution. Costs of ₹25,000 were imposed for protracting litigation. The Executing Court was directed to ensure possession is handed over within two months Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 1996 agreement to sell between the original plaintiff (Prakasan) and defendant (Jame...