Judicial Review - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Revives Forgery Case: Fake Stamp Paper Probe Must Go On

19Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Revives Forgery Case: Fake Stamp Paper Probe Must Go On

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate's referral under Section 156(3) CrPC for police investigation is justified when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence and such a direction is conducive to justice. The High Court's orders quashing the referral were set aside, emphasizing that the police must be allowed to investigate prima facie allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, filed a civil suit claiming ownership of a property via an oral gift from his father, challenging a registered sale deed in favour of accused No. 1, Veena. The suit was dismissed in 2013. During the pendency of his appeal (RFA No. 4095/2013) before the High Court, a status quo order on the property's title and possession was initially granted b...

Right to Education Act Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Teachers Who Qualified TET Later

17Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Right to Education Act Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Teachers Who Qualified TET Later

The Supreme Court held that teachers appointed before 31st March 2015 were granted a grace period until 31st March 2019 to acquire the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification under the amended RTE Act. Since the appellants had cleared TET well before this deadline, their subsequent termination solely for lacking the certificate at the initial appointment was illegal and set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the appellants, Uma Kant and another, who were appointed as Assistant Teachers at Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Kanpur, in March 2012. Their appointments were made pursuant to an advertisement from July 2011. At the time of their appointment, the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification, introduced by a National Counci...

Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness

17Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness

The Supreme Court ruled that investigating agencies cannot directly summon an Advocate to disclose privileged communications with a client under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. Such a summons violates the attorney-client privilege and the accused's fundamental rights. Any exception must be explicitly justified, approved by a senior officer, and is subject to judicial review under Section 528 of the BNSS. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered at the Odhav Police Station in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and other statutes concerning a loan agreement dispute. Following the arrest of an accused, an Advocate filed a successful bail application before the Sessions Court. Subsequently, the Assistant C...

Clarity in Tender Documents is Key: Supreme Court Quashes Bid Rejection Over Ambiguous Term

16Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Clarity in Tender Documents is Key: Supreme Court Quashes Bid Rejection Over Ambiguous Term

The Supreme Court held that a tender condition must be explicitly stated. The rejection of a bid for not submitting a solvency certificate from a District Magistrate was invalid, as the tender notice did not specify this requirement. Authorities cannot reject a bid on grounds not stated in the tender documents. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a tender floated by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (Mandi Parishad) to lease a banquet hall and terrace lawn for ten years. The appellant, Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd., submitted its bid alongside other parties, including the fifth respondent, who emerged as the successful bidder. The Mandi Parishad rejected the appellant's technical bid on a specific ground: the 'haisiyat praman patra' (solvency certificate) it submitted was issued b...

Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted

15Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted

The Supreme Court ruled that for a missing person, the date of civil death is legally presumed to be after seven years from disappearance, not the date they went missing, as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A court decree declaring death merely recognizes this presumption without fixing an earlier date. This legal presumption is central to claims dependent on establishing the date of death. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a claim for compassionate appointment by Shubham, the son of Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, an employee of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Gulab went missing on September 1, 2012. During the period of his disappearance, he was treated as being in continuous service and was duly retired on January 31, 2015. His family received all retiral ben...

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

6Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

The Supreme Court held that once an interim court order is in operation, it remains binding unless specifically vacated. Merely releasing a reserved matter does not invalidate or nullify an existing interim order. Violating such an order without obtaining prior leave from the court constitutes a prima facie case for contempt proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a professor at KGMU, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for implementing a software system in 2010. In 2017, audit objections arose regarding expenditures during his tenure, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The professor challenged the preliminary inquiry and a subsequent notice via his first writ petition in 2018. While this petition was reserved for judgment, the disciplinary committee sent him a questionnaire, which...

Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry

4Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry

The Supreme Court held that a departmental inquiry is vitiated if based on the unexamined statement of a key complainant, denying the delinquent employee the right to cross-examination—a violation of natural justice. Charges unsupported by conclusive evidence cannot sustain a dismissal order, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, V.M. Saudagar, was a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) with Central Railway, Nagpur. On 31 May 1988, a Railway Vigilance team conducted a surprise check on his coach. He was subsequently charge-sheeted in July 1989 for alleged misconduct, including demanding illegal gratification from three passengers for berth allotment, possessing excess undeclared cash, failing to recover a small fare difference, and forgin...

Supreme Court Rules: “Vacancies Can Increase After Advertisement” – Quashes Illegal Terminations from 2008

2Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: “Vacancies Can Increase After Advertisement” – Quashes Illegal Terminations from 2008

The Supreme Court held that appointments made in excess of originally advertised vacancies are permissible under the rules if filled from a valid waiting list within a reasonable period, typically the recruitment year or the succeeding year. Terminations based solely on the "excess vacancy" ground were found unjustified when such appointments align with the recruitment rule's intent and the advertisement's stipulation that vacancy numbers were subject to change. Facts Of The Case: The case involved four appellants who were appointed to Class IV posts in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, in 2001 against an advertisement that notified twelve vacancies but included a rider that the number of posts could increase or decrease. In 2008, their services were te...

Supreme Court Protects Religious Freedom: Quashes Multiple UP Conversion FIRs

2Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Protects Religious Freedom: Quashes Multiple UP Conversion FIRs

This Supreme Court judgment quashed multiple FIRs under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, holding that the unamended Section 4 restricted lodging of complaints only to aggrieved persons or their relatives. The Court found the subsequent FIRs were impermissible as they pertained to the same incident, violated the principle against multiplicity of proceedings, and were an abuse of process. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a batch of petitions and appeals concerning six FIRs registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The primary FIR (No. 224/2022) was lodged on 15.04.2022 at the instance of Himanshu Dixit, a Vice President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, alleging mass reli...

Directly Approaching High Court Barred When Tribunal Exists, Rules Supreme Court

1Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Directly Approaching High Court Barred When Tribunal Exists, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the principle that the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) is the designated court of first instance for service disputes, including recruitment matters. The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked when an effective statutory alternative remedy exists, barring exceptional constitutional circumstances not present in this case. Facts Of The Case: The State of Karnataka issued a recruitment notification in March 2022 for 15,000 Graduate Primary Teacher posts. Following examinations, a provisional select list was published in November 2022. This list excluded certain married women candidates who had applied under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category because they submitted caste and income certificates in their fathers' n...