Judicial Review - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: No Absorption for Waitlisted Candidate After Recruitment Process Ends

31Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: No Absorption for Waitlisted Candidate After Recruitment Process Ends

The Supreme Court held that a candidate in the reserved panel (waitlist) has no vested right to appointment once the selected candidates join their posts. A legal concession made before a tribunal cannot bind the authorities if it contravenes statutory recruitment rules or extends the life of a waitlist indefinitely. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio, Eastern Zone, for three Technician posts reserved for Scheduled Castes. The respondent, Subit Kumar Das, was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Reserved Panel (waitlist). All three selected candidates joined their posts, so the waitlist was not operated. In 1999, during litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the appellants (Union of India) gave a statement that the r...

Supreme Court Protects 37.5-Acre Family Plantation from Kerala Vesting Act

31Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Protects 37.5-Acre Family Plantation from Kerala Vesting Act

The Supreme Court held that the lands were exempt from vesting under Sections 3(2) & 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. It ruled that the appellants had sufficiently proved the existence of bona fide coffee and cardamom plantations prior to the appointed date (10.05.1971), thereby removing the land from the definition of "private forest" liable to be vested in the State. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a 37.50-acre property in South Wayanad, Kerala. The appellant, M. Jameela, and her predecessors claimed the land was developed as a coffee and cardamom plantation well before May 10, 1971—the "appointed day" under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The original owner, Imbichi Ahmed, had lawfully purchased the land...

Corporate vs. Cultivator: Supreme Court Rules Land Restoration Only for Disadvantaged Farmers

28Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Corporate vs. Cultivator: Supreme Court Rules Land Restoration Only for Disadvantaged Farmers

The Supreme Court held that the restoration remedy in Kedar Nath Yadav, grounded in protecting vulnerable agricultural communities, does not extend to industrial entities. A party that accepted compensation without challenge and failed to pursue statutory remedies cannot belatedly claim relief from a judgment secured by others through public interest litigation. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the restoration of 28 Bighas of land in Singur, West Bengal, originally acquired in 2006 for the Tata Nano manufacturing project. The land was purchased and converted for industrial use by M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1), which established a manufacturing unit thereon. The acquisition process, conducted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was subsequently...

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Power to Modify Military Conviction

27Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Power to Modify Military Conviction

The Supreme Court affirmed the Armed Forces Tribunal’s power under Section 15(6) of the AFT Act, 2007, to substitute a conviction. It held that where evidence establishes an act prejudicial to military discipline under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, the Tribunal can legally replace a more severe charge with this lesser offence and modify the sentence accordingly. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Colonel S.K. Jain, was the Commandant of the Northern Command Vehicle Depot in Udhampur. In September 2008, a contractor alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe for passing motorcycles during inspection. A trap was laid, and during a search of his office on September 27, 2008, a Board of Officers recovered an envelope containing ₹10,000 and, significantly, a quantity of old ammunition (7....

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...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case

25Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case

The Supreme Court held that Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, applies only to the preparation of a merit list and not to determining eligibility. The termination orders were quashed for violating principles of natural justice, as the appellants were not given notice regarding the exclusion of vocational subject marks. Facts Of The Case: The State of Jharkhand advertised posts for Intermediate Trained Teachers in 2015. The appellants—Ravi Oraon, Premial Hembrom, and Surendra Munda—successfully applied, were selected, and commenced their duties in December 2015. In September 2016, they were issued show cause notices alleging they did not meet the minimum eligibility criterion of 45% marks in their intermediate examination and questioning the validity ...

Evidence Wholly Unreliable: Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Conviction for Power Pilferage

24Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Evidence Wholly Unreliable: Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Conviction for Power Pilferage

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the use of "artificial means" for electricity theft under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which is necessary to invoke the statutory presumption against the consumer. The evidence was deemed insufficient, speculative, and not beyond reasonable doubt to establish offences under Sections 39 or 44. Facts Of The Case: Officials from the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) detected a 36.6% discrepancy between supplied units and meter readings at M/s. Rushi Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. in March 1993. An inspection revealed three holes in the company's meter box. The prosecution alleged that unauthorized wires were inserted through these holes to slow the meter and steal electricity, ca...

Supreme Court Judgment: Family Gifts & Registered Deeds Matter More Than Authority Claims

23Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Family Gifts & Registered Deeds Matter More Than Authority Claims

The Supreme Court upheld the exemption from Open Space Reservation charges under Annexure XX of the Development Regulations, applicable to holdings below 3000 square metres. It affirmed that a lawful pre-1975 subdivision, evidenced by registered deeds and revenue records, created a separate holding, preventing the authority from notionally recombining it with a larger parent estate to levy charges. Facts Of The Case: The property originated from the estate of Haji Syed Ali Akbar Ispahani. Following a 1949 partition, 21 grounds in Nunganbakkam were allotted to his son, Syed Jawad Ispahani. In 1972 and 1973, Syed Jawad gifted 11 grounds to his own son, Syed Ali Ispahani, via registered deeds, and separate pattas were issued for this holding. In 1984, Syed Ali gifted a small portion (125 sq...

Supreme Court Halts Transfer of Investigation to CBI, Calls High Court’s Order Illegal

23Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Halts Transfer of Investigation to CBI, Calls High Court’s Order Illegal

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot review or recall its own order under the inherent powers of Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) once it has attained finality. Such power is barred by Section 362 CrPC, which only permits the correction of clerical errors. The Court quashed the impugned orders directing transfer of investigation to the CBI as they amounted to an impermissible review. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, a granite mining businessman, alleged criminal intimidation, theft, and criminal conspiracy by accused individuals, including a former Revenue Minister. Following his complaint, FIRs were registered. Dissatisfied with the local police investigation, which filed a negative report in one case, he approached the Rajasthan High Court seek...

Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses

29Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses

The Supreme Court struck down a tender condition requiring prior supply experience within Chhattisgarh as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The condition was held arbitrary for creating an artificial barrier, restricting competition, and offending the doctrine of a level playing field without a rational nexus to the tender's object. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying Sports Kits to various other states, challenged specific eligibility conditions in three tender notices issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools. The company was aggrieved by condition no. 4, which required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores to Sta...