Tag: Indian judiciary.

Dowry Death Mystery Solved: Supreme Court Holds Father-in-Law Guilty After High Court’s Acquittal
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Dowry Death Mystery Solved: Supreme Court Holds Father-in-Law Guilty After High Court’s Acquittal

The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, holding that in cases of unnatural death within a household, the burden to explain the circumstances lies with the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence complete, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around the death of Smt. Pushpa, who was married to Mahesh Singh. Her family alleged she faced persistent dowry harassment and cruelty from her husband and father-in-law, Janved Singh. On December 31, 1997, Janved Singh reported to police that Pushpa died from accidental electrocution while ironing clothes. However, the post-mortem revealed the cause was asphyxia due to strangula...
Read More
Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the underlying claim for recovery of money was hopelessly barred by limitation, rendering the appointment of an arbitrator untenable in law. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute arising from a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause. The petitioner, residing in the UK, entered into a partnership with the respondent on 20.09.2014, succeeding an earlier partnership involving the petitioner’s sister. The petitioner alleged that he paid substantial sums amounting to Rs. 2.31 crores, relying on a clause entitling him to 75% of profits from a property purchased on 04.05.2016, but received nothing. The partnership wa...
Read More
Just Compensation Explained: Supreme Court Raises MACT Award from Rs 30 Lakh to Rs 85 Lakh
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Just Compensation Explained: Supreme Court Raises MACT Award from Rs 30 Lakh to Rs 85 Lakh

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation by applying established principles under the Motor Vehicles Act. It awarded amounts under non-pecuniary heads like marriage prospects and pain & suffering, and granted attendant charges for two attendants, citing precedents to ensure just and equitable restitution for the claimant's 100% disability. Facts Of The Case: The claimant-appellant, Reshma, aged 24, suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident on February 23, 2015, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was duly insured. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded compensation of ₹30,24,800, assessing her income at ₹10,000 per month and her disability at 100%. Dissatisfied, she appealed to the High Court, which enhanced the total ...
Read More
Supreme Court :Why Consent Doesn’t Matter If Victim Is Under 16
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Why Consent Doesn’t Matter If Victim Is Under 16

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC, emphasizing that the testimony of a minor victim can be relied upon as a "sterling witness." It held that even if medical evidence is not conclusive, it does not rule out the offence, and consent is immaterial when the victim is below 16 years of age. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered in February 2007 against the appellant, Varun Kumar, for offences including kidnapping and rape under the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with a co-accused, abducted a minor girl aged about 15 years. The victim's testimony detailed that she was taken to Una and subsequently to a relative's house, where the appellant subjected her to forcible sexual and unnatural intercourse o...
Read More
Supreme Court Forms Supervisory Committee to Monitor CBI Investigation in Stampede Case
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Forms Supervisory Committee to Monitor CBI Investigation in Stampede Case

In the Special Leave Petitions concerning the Karur stampede, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 32. It ordered the transfer of investigation to the CBI, citing the necessity to ensure credibility, impartiality, and public confidence in the probe, which involves serious allegations and impacts fundamental rights. Facts Of The Case: This case stems from a tragic stampede on September 27, 2025, during a political rally organized by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in Karur, Tamil Nadu, resulting in 41 deaths and over 100 injuries. Multiple writ petitions were subsequently filed before the Madras High Court, primarily at its Madurai Bench, seeking a CBI investigation, compensation for victims, and the formulation of safety guidelines ...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Voice Sample Collection, Says It’s Similar to Fingerprints or Handwriting
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Voice Sample Collection, Says It’s Similar to Fingerprints or Handwriting

The Supreme Court held that a Judicial Magistrate is empowered to direct any person, including a witness, to provide a voice sample for investigation. Relying on the principle in Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ritesh Sinha, the Court ruled that such sampling does not constitute testimonial compulsion and does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the death of a 25-year-old married woman in February 2021, leading to allegations of harassment by her in-laws and counter-allegations of misappropriation of cash and jewellery by her parents. During the investigation, it was alleged that the 2nd respondent acted as an agent for the deceased's father and threatened a witness privy to an extortion demand. The Investi...
Read More
Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused appellant, holding that no prima facie case was established under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The Court ruled that mere subsequent purchase of property from a co-accused, without allegation of inducement or involvement in the initial fraudulent transaction, does not attract criminal liability for cheating or criminal breach of trust. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an FIR filed by Ms. Amutha in October 2022 against Gunasekaran (Accused No. 1) for offences under Section 420 of the IPC. She alleged that in 2015, Gunasekaran fraudulently represented himself as the owner of a vacant plot, inducing her into an unregistered sale agreement for ₹1.64 crore. She paid substantial sums totaling ₹92 lakhs ...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Plea of Juvenility Raised Decades After Conviction in Murder Case
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Plea of Juvenility Raised Decades After Conviction in Murder Case

This Supreme Court judgment affirms that claims of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction. The Court held that a juvenile offender cannot be detained beyond the statutory maximum period prescribed under the Act, and such excess detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, born on 10th June 1969, was convicted for a murder allegedly committed on 2nd November 1981, when he was approximately 12 years and 5 months old. The trial court, in its 1984 order, recognized his juvenility under the Children Act, 1960 and directed his placement in a children's home instead of prison. Following a reversal of his acquittal by the Supreme Court in 2009, the petitioner absconded and was subsequently arrested...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Older Couples to Continue Surrogacy if Embryos Frozen Before 2022
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Older Couples to Continue Surrogacy if Embryos Frozen Before 2022

The Supreme Court held that the age restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, do not apply retrospectively. Intending couples who had commenced the surrogacy process—specifically by creating and freezing embryos—before the Act's enforcement retain their vested right to continue the procedure, irrespective of subsequently exceeding the statutory age limits. Facts Of The Case: The case consolidates three petitions concerning age restrictions for intending couples under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. In the first, a couple married in 2019 began IVF treatment in 2020 but were advised to use surrogacy due to the wife’s medical history. Their embryos were frozen in January 2021, but the process was stalled by the pandemic before the Act, with its a...
Read More
Supreme Court Opens Direct Recruitment for District Judges to In-Service Judicial Officers
25Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Opens Direct Recruitment for District Judges to In-Service Judicial Officers

Supreme Court , This Constitution Bench judgment overruled prior rulings from Satya Narain Singh to Dheeraj Mor, holding that Article 233(2) of the Constitution does not bar in-service judicial officers from direct recruitment to District Judge posts. It clarifies that eligibility is determined at the time of application and requires a combined seven-year experience as an advocate and judicial officer. Facts Of The Case: The batch of matters arose from conflicting interpretations of Article 233 of the Constitution regarding the eligibility of in-service judicial officers (Civil Judges) for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge. The core legal controversy was triggered by the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020), which held that for di...
Read More