Judicial Review - The Legal Chamber

10Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Arrears for RBI Pension Opt-Ins: Supreme Court Reinforces Policy Decisions on Pension Benefits

The Supreme Court of India upheld the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) decision to fix a cut-off date (July 1, 2020) for pensionary benefits for employees switching from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme, rejecting the claim for retrospective arrears from the date of retirement. The Court emphasized that financial implications and administrative exigencies are valid considerations for policy decisions and that employees cannot selectively accept beneficial terms while rejecting unfavorable ones. Facts Of The Case: M.T. Mani, Respondent No. 1, joined the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 1981 and was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme. He retired as a Manager on November 30, 2014, having received four prior opportunities between 1990 and 2000 to switch to the Pe...

Section 26 NGT Act Strictly Applied: Supreme Court Clarifies Penal Liability in Environmental Violations

7Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Section 26 NGT Act Strictly Applied: Supreme Court Clarifies Penal Liability in Environmental Violations

The Supreme Court ruled that penalties under Section 26 of the NGT Act, 2010 cannot be imposed without proving willful disobedience by the accused. It held that the Mayor, not being a party to the original proceedings and lacking executive authority over waste management, could not be penalized for violations. However, the Municipal Corporation's fine for environmental damage was upheld. The Court emphasized that strict construction of penal provisions is necessary and accepted the Mayor's unconditional apology for remarks against the NGT, setting aside his punishment while clarifying the limits of liability under environmental laws Facts Of The Case: Rayons-Enlighting Humanity, Invertis University, and residents of Village Razau Paraspur, Bareilly, filed applications with the Na...

Supreme Court Split Verdict: When Can Schools Be Held Accountable Under Article 226?

6Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Split Verdict: When Can Schools Be Held Accountable Under Article 226?

The Supreme Court examined whether Air Force Schools qualify as a "State" under Article 12 or an "authority" amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The majority held that despite partial government control and funding, the schools lacked pervasive state dominance, relegating disputes to private contract law. However, the dissenting opinion emphasized their public function, deep administrative control by the Indian Air Force, and indirect public funding, making them subject to writ jurisdiction. The split verdict clarifies the distinction between regulatory control and pervasive state authority in educational institutions Facts Of The Case: The case involved two civil appeals before the Supreme Court concerning the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad. In Ci...

Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Retired Lt. Col’s Promotion Grading After 20-Year Battle

5Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Retired Lt. Col’s Promotion Grading After 20-Year Battle

The Supreme Court partially allowed the civil appeal, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision but directing reconsideration of the appellant's 'Z' grading in the 2001 promotion board. The Court affirmed the Chief of Army Staff's discretionary authority under Defence Services Regulations to modify Selection Board recommendations, while emphasizing fair reconsideration of the appellant's case within three months. The judgment clarified that promotions in the Territorial Army remain subject to the Army's hierarchical decision-making process, balancing institutional autonomy with individual rights to equitable evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Lt. Col. NK Ghai (Retd.), who challenged his non-promotion to Colonel rank despite 22 years of service in the Territorial Army. ...

Supreme Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal Over Fake Transfer Order – Natural Justice Principles Explained

4Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal Over Fake Transfer Order – Natural Justice Principles Explained

The Supreme Court held that natural justice violations must cause actual prejudice to invalidate disciplinary proceedings. Technical non-compliance with procedural rules doesn't automatically vitiate departmental action. Courts assess whether different outcomes would emerge if procedures were followed. Preponderance of probability standard applies in disciplinary cases, not criminal proof standards. Facts Of The Case: S. Janaki Iyer was appointed as a Hindi trained graduate teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan, Bangalore on probation from January 11, 1989, and became permanent from April 16, 1992. Since her husband worked in Mumbai, she sought transfer from Bangalore to Mumbai or Pune. A transfer order dated October 1, 1991, allegedly signed by VK Jain, Assistant Commissioner (Headqu...

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

26May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot revive quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC after parties have reached a lawful compromise, emphasizing the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing judgments except for clerical errors. It clarified that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, allowing recall only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of process. The judgment reaffirmed that violation of compromise terms must be addressed through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to this settled legal position. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute in Haryana, where an FIR (No. 432/2014) was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Raghunath Sharma and others for alleged ...

“Who Pays for Delays in Power Projects? : Supreme Court Explains CERC’s Role in Tariff and Compensation”

22May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

“Who Pays for Delays in Power Projects? : Supreme Court Explains CERC’s Role in Tariff and Compensation”

The Supreme Court held that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) can exercise regulatory powers under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to impose compensation for delays, even without specific regulations under Section 178. It clarified that CERC’s orders under Section 79 are appealable to APTEL under Section 111, not through writ petitions unless jurisdictional or constitutional issues arise. The Court emphasized that regulatory gaps can be addressed via Section 79, distinguishing it from legislative rule-making under Section 178. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition when an alternative remedy existed. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) and Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company L...