judicial propriety - The Legal Chamber

13Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Political Patronage, Hostile Witnesses, and Fair Trial: Supreme Court Declines to Cancel Bail in High-Profile Murder Case

The Supreme Court held that a coordinate bench cannot modify or relax bail conditions imposed by an earlier bench absent gross error or changed circumstances, emphasizing judicial discipline, finality of orders, and sanctity of verdicts. Cancellation of bail requires proof of breach, not mere apprehension. Trial courts must avoid unwarranted criticism of court-appointed special public prosecutors. Facts Of The Case: The case arises from a murder conspiracy allegation registered on 8th October 2019, wherein Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman and co-accused were charged under Sections 302/120B IPC and Arms Act for the killing of a political rival. Anisur was arrested on 16th November 2019 and trial commenced before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Tamluk. On 26th February 2021, the West Bengal gover...

Judicial Propriety Upheld: Supreme Court Says Validity of Sanction Must Be Challenged Only Before It

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Judicial Propriety Upheld: Supreme Court Says Validity of Sanction Must Be Challenged Only Before It

The Supreme Court ruled that when a sanction order is issued pursuant to its ongoing monitoring of proceedings, its validity can only be challenged before the Supreme Court itself. No other court, including a High Court, is entitled to entertain such a challenge or grant a stay on that sanction while the matter remains pending before the apex court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the Supreme Court's suo moto action concerning illegal construction and rampant tree felling within the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The investigation, initially directed by the Uttarakhand High Court and later monitored by the Supreme Court, was conducted by the CBI. The CBI filed a final report, leading to the requirement of prosecution sanction against involved officers. While the State of ...

Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty

13Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty

The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of counsel to respect the Court's expressed inclination and maintain decorum. While continuous insistence after the Court indicates its mind is improper, the Bench accepted an unconditional apology in this instance. Accordingly, it exercised its discretion to delete adverse remarks and the costs imposed in the original order. Facts Of The Case: The State Election Commission of Uttarakhand filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging an interlocutory order of the High Court. The High Court had stayed a clarification issued by the Commission, holding it to be contrary to statutory provisions. During the hearing on September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court repeatedly communicated to the Commission's counsel that the matter did not warrant...

Central vs. State Green Authority: Supreme Court Settles the Jurisdiction Debate for Builders

4Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Central vs. State Green Authority: Supreme Court Settles the Jurisdiction Debate for Builders

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2025 EIA Notification, clarifying that the "General Conditions" under the EIA 2006 Notification do not apply to building and construction projects. Consequently, such projects will continue to be appraised and granted environmental clearance by State-level authorities (SEIAA/SEAC) and not be automatically elevated to the Central level for approval. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT had directed that all building and construction projects falling within 5 km of protected areas, critically polluted areas, or other eco-sensitive zones must be treated as ‘Category A’ projects. This meant they would require environmental clearance from ...

Lawyer’s Reputation Restored: Supreme Court Wipes Clean High Court’s “Professional Impropriety” Remark

27Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Lawyer’s Reputation Restored: Supreme Court Wipes Clean High Court’s “Professional Impropriety” Remark

The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks made by the High Court against an advocate, holding that such observations could have been avoided. The Court considered the possibility of a bona fide omission by the counsel, who was not involved in the connected case, and ruled that the expunction of the adverse comments was warranted in the circumstances of the case. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an advocate named Siddharth Gupta, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on behalf of his clients. During the proceedings, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre. The Division Bench of the High Court, in its final order, made adverse observations against the appellant, noting that his conduct "bor...

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 Expunges Remarks Against Judicial Officer: Protects Subordinate Judiciary

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Expunges Remarks Against Judicial Officer: Protects Subordinate Judiciary

The Supreme Court expunged the strictures passed by the Rajasthan High Court against a judicial officer, emphasizing that higher courts should refrain from making adverse remarks against subordinate judicial officers without providing them an opportunity to be heard. The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors., highlighting that criticism of judicial orders should focus on errors rather than personal conduct. The judgment also recommended incorporating provisions in High Court Rules to mandate disclosure of criminal antecedents in bail applications, ensuring transparency and informed judicial decisions. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned observations were expunged. Facts Of The Case: The case involves ...