judicial error - The Legal Chamber

Witness Protection vs. Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Explains the Crucial Difference

7Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Witness Protection vs. Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Explains the Crucial Difference

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinct legal roles of bail cancellation and the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Supreme Court held that the Scheme is a curative measure to protect witnesses, while bail cancellation is a judicial remedy for violations of bail conditions. The existence of the Scheme cannot be a ground to deny cancellation of bail when an accused intimidates witnesses, as these are separate legal avenues serving different purposes. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (No. 137 of 2022) lodged by the appellant, Phireram, for offences including murder and conspiracy under the IPC. The accused were arrested and subsequently granted bail by the High Court, subject to specific conditions prohibiting them from threatening witnesses or tampering with...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

25Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court must examine the pleadings of the party seeking to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC. Permission to adduce such evidence cannot be granted unless the case sought to be established is already pleaded. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on this legal principle. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, Iqbal Ahmed and another, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.02.1995 against the defendant, Abdul Shukoor. The plaintiffs claimed they had agreed to purchase the defendant's house property for ₹10,67,000, having paid ₹5,00,000 as advance. They pleaded that they had sold their own immovable properties to arrange the funds for this purchase and were always ready and willing to perform thei...

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’s Big Ruling: Criminal History Matters in Bail for Heinous Crimes

8Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Big Ruling: Criminal History Matters in Bail for Heinous Crimes

The Supreme Court overturned a bail order, ruling that the High Court failed to apply correct legal principles under Section 389 CrPC for suspending a sentence. It emphasized that post-conviction bail in heinous offences requires a palpable prima facie case for acquittal, not a re-appreciation of evidence or conjectural reasoning. Facts Of The Case: In a case originating from Rajasthan, the prosecutrix, a 14-year-old girl, testified that on June 13, 2023, Respondent No. 2 accosted her at gunpoint while she was defecating in a field. He covered her mouth, forcibly took her to a nearby abandoned house, and raped her. She immediately reported the incident to her family, and her father filed an FIR. The Trial Court convicted Respondent No. 2 under the POCSO Act and sentenced him to 20 years ...

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Bail Hearing for Convict

8Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Bail Hearing for Convict

The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that appellate courts should liberally suspend sentences of fixed short-term imprisonment during the pendency of an appeal to prevent the appeal itself from becoming infructuous. It held that denial requires recording exceptional, compelling reasons why release would be against public interest. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Aasif @ Pasha, was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in Meerut for offences under the POCSO Act, IPC (Sections 354, 354Kha, 323, 504), and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The sentences, which included terms of four years of rigorous imprisonment for the major charges, were ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Allahabad High...

Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid sale agreement, a prerequisite for specific performance under Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha. The burden of proof was not discharged as the sole evidence was self-serving and key witnesses were not examined. The High Court's reversal of concurrent factual findings was erroneous. Facts Of The Case: The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 12.02.1999, claiming the appellant (defendant) had agreed to sell his house for Rs. 70,000. They asserted having paid Rs. 55,000 as advance and taken possession, subsequently renting the property back to the appellant. The appellant contested the suit, denying any agreement to sell. His defense was that...

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Peaceful Protest, Quashes Criminal Case Against Andhra Educationists

28Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Peaceful Protest, Quashes Criminal Case Against Andhra Educationists

The Supreme Court held that certified copies of municipal documents, duly certified under Section 376 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, carry the same evidentiary value as originals. The failure of the Municipal Council to produce original records despite court orders justified drawing an adverse inference, and a registered sale certificate cannot be invalidated by a mere administrative resolution. Facts Of The Case: The dispute concerned two plots, No. 394 and 395, auctioned by the City Municipal Council (CMC). Respondent No. 2, Prabhudeva, purchased plot No. 395 in a 1973 auction, but his 1988 sale deed erroneously mentioned plot No. 394. Upon realizing this mistake, he applied for rectification in 1992. The CMC's Junior Engineer inspected the site and confirmed the error, lea...

Supreme Court: Jail Overcrowding Can’t Be a Ground for Granting Bail in Heinous Crimes

25Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Jail Overcrowding Can’t Be a Ground for Granting Bail in Heinous Crimes

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail without properly considering the absence of "new circumstances" as mandated by the Court's earlier judgment cancelling bail. The impugned order lacked cogent reasoning, relied on irrelevant factors like jail overcrowding, and failed to accord due deference to the Supreme Court's previous decision, warranting its quashing. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by the informant, Ajwar, against an order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused, Waseem. Waseem was charged under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 (murder). His bail was initially granted by the High Court in 2022 but was cancelled by the Supreme Court. A subsequent grant of bail by the High Court was again cancelled by th...

Supreme Court How Contradictory Witness Testimonies Saved a Man from the Death Penalty

12Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court How Contradictory Witness Testimonies Saved a Man from the Death Penalty

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, overturning his death sentence, due to glaring inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies (PW1, PW2) and lack of corroborative evidence. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as recoveries were unreliable, forensic links were absent, and material contradictions undermined the case. The Court emphasized strict adherence to evidentiary standards in capital offenses. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the brutal murder of four family members—Seema Rani (the appellant’s wife), Reena Rani (sister-in-law), and two minor children, Sumani Kumari (3-4 years) and Harsh (1.5-2 years)—along with injuries to two others, Harry (5 years) and Om Prakash (18 years). The incident occurred on November 29, 2013, in the early morning at the...

Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions

26May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions

The Supreme Court ruled that a decree of permanent injunction creates a perpetual right enforceable at any time against future breaches, clarifying that satisfaction recorded in one execution petition doesn't bar subsequent petitions under Section 47 CPC for fresh violations. It held that Article 136 of the Limitation Act imposes no time limit for enforcing perpetual injunctions, rejecting the erroneous application of res judicata by lower courts. The judgment emphasizes that each breach of injunction constitutes a fresh cause of action, requiring executing courts to examine subsequent execution petitions on merits regardless of prior disposals. The Court distinguished between temporary and permanent injunctions while underscoring the continuing nature of injunctive relief. Facts Of The C...