Judicial Order - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization

This Supreme Court order modifies its earlier directions on stray dog management, balancing fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life) with the statutory Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The Court clarified that sterilized and immunized dogs must be released back to their localities as per Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, while allowing permanent impounding only for rabid or aggressively dangerous dogs. It issued supplementary directives, including creating designated feeding zones, and expanded the case's scope to all states and union territories for a uniform national policy. Facts Of The Case: The Supreme Court's intervention was triggered by a suo motu cognizance of a news report titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price,” detailing the death of a six-year-o...

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in UAPA Bail Appeals :Trial Delay vs. Terror Charges

23Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in UAPA Bail Appeals :Trial Delay vs. Terror Charges

The Supreme Court, while dismissing appeals against bail grant and refusal under the UAPA, emphasized the prima facie test for bail under the stringent Act. It declined to interfere with the High Court's reasoned analysis of the chargesheet evidence, distinguishing the roles of the accused. The Court underscored the right to a speedy trial, directing the conclusion of proceedings within two years due to the accused's prolonged incarceration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered in January 2020 against 17 individuals, including Saleem Khan (Accused No. 11) and Mohd. Zaid (Accused No. 20), for alleged conspiracy under the IPC and various offences under the UAPA and Arms Act. The allegations involved connections with terrorist activities and organisations. The inves...

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

20Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

The Supreme Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, finding the delayed payment of dues, while a violation, was not wilful. It reinforced that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate new claims like pension, which were not part of the original decree. The Court, however, awarded compensatory costs for the protracted litigation. Facts Of The Case: A.K. Jayaprakash, a manager at Nedungadi Bank Ltd., was dismissed from service in 1985 on grounds of alleged irregularities in sanctioning loans and delays in reporting. He challenged this dismissal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour initially set aside the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement. This decision was repeatedly challenged by the Bank, first in the Madras Hi...

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

18Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: No Special Treatment for Celebrities in Bail Matters

17Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: No Special Treatment for Celebrities in Bail Matters

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the High Court, holding that the order was perverse and suffered from non-application of mind to material facts, including the gravity of the offence and prima facie evidence. The Court reiterated that bail in serious offences like murder requires careful consideration of the allegations, evidence, and risk of witness tampering, and cannot be granted mechanically. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the brutal murder of Renukaswamy, a resident of Chitradurga, whose body was discovered near an apartment in Bengaluru on June 9, 2024. The prosecution alleged that the murder was a result of a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by actor Darshan (A2) and his partner, Pavithra Gowda (A1), after the deceased had sent obscene messages to A1's Insta...

Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed

16Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed

The Supreme Court ruled that a "life imprisonment" sentence specifying a fixed term of "actual imprisonment without remission" is a determinative sentence. Upon completing that fixed term, the convict is entitled to automatic release and need not apply for remission. Any detention beyond this period violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: Sukhdev Yadav was convicted for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara, alongside Vikas and Vishal Yadav. In 2015, the Delhi High Court, while upholding his life sentence, specifically modified it to "life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission." This fixed-term sentence was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. Sukhdev Yadav completed this mandated 20-year period of actual inc...

No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change

16Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change

The Supreme Court held that applications challenging exam answers filed after the cut-off date (21.11.2023) were barred by its prior order and thus dismissed. However, it allowed applications that were pending as of 24.04.2025, restoring them for re-evaluation benefits, while rejecting claims for grace marks as impermissible after a court-directed re-evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted in 2021-22 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The initial litigation focused on the correctness of specific questions, notably Question No. 88 in Booklet Series 'F'. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 21.11.2023, directed that answer 'D' be treated as correct for this question and order...

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...