Tag: Justice J.B. Pardiwala

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...
Read More
Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directions in Long-Pending PIL, Sets 7-Month Deadline for Compliance
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directions in Long-Pending PIL, Sets 7-Month Deadline for Compliance

Based on the proceedings, the Supreme Court has issued a series of substantive directions in a long-pending writ petition. The legal focus is on monitoring compliance with these judicial mandates, with the Court retaining continuing jurisdiction. The matter is scheduled for a future hearing specifically to review the implementation of its orders and assess further progress. Facts Of The Case: Based on the provided court proceeding document, which is a record of the pronouncement of an order and not the full case file, the specific facts and history of the case are not detailed. However, the document header identifies it as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012, filed by S. Rajaseekaran against the Union of India and Others.The case is categorized under "PIL-W", indicating it was filed as...
Read More
Supreme Court :You Can’t Escape a Murder Charge Just Because the Victim Lived for Months
4Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :You Can’t Escape a Murder Charge Just Because the Victim Lived for Months

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a time gap between the infliction of an injury and death does not automatically reduce the offence from murder to attempt to murder. If the original injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, subsequent complications like septicemia do not break the chain of causation. The offence remains punishable under Section 302 IPC, rendering Section 307 inapplicable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a violent incident on February 22, 2022, in which the appellant, Maniklal Sahu, along with three co-accused, trespassed into the house of Rekhchand Verma. They dragged the victim to the terrace of his house and flung him down. After the fall, the accused further assaulted the injured Rekhchand with sticks and fists. The v...
Read More
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 ...
Read More
Coal India’s 20% Price Hike for Select Industries Upheld by Supreme Court
1Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Coal India’s 20% Price Hike for Select Industries Upheld by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Coal India's Interim Pricing Policy, ruling that the 20% price increase for the non-core sector was a valid economic policy decision. The Court affirmed that such price fixation, based on reasonable classification and to subserve the common good, does not violate Article 14, and set aside the refund directed by the High Court. Facts Of The Case: Following the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Ashoka Smokeless that struck down the e-auction system for coal sales, Coal India Limited (CIL) introduced an Interim Coal Policy on December 15, 2006. This policy increased the price of coal by 20% over the pre-e-auction notified price specifically for linked consumers in the non-core sector, such as manufacturers of smokeless fuel. An associat...
Read More
Supreme Court Overturns 11-Year Delay Condonation, Sets New Precedent on Limitation Law
1Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Overturns 11-Year Delay Condonation, Sets New Precedent on Limitation Law

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the expression "within such period" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires a party to explain the delay for the entire period from when the limitation period commenced until the actual filing date, not just the period after the limitation expired. It overrules the narrower interpretation in Rewa Coalfields and aligns with the view that "sufficient cause" must be shown for the full duration of the delay, emphasizing that the State is not entitled to preferential treatment in condonation matters. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from a dispute over a parcel of land. The appellant, Shivamma, became the absolute owner of the land, including a 4-acre portion, through a compromise decree in 1989. However, the Karnataka Housing Board (...
Read More
Landlords Can’t Evict Tenants for Minor Acts, Rules Supreme Court
28Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landlords Can’t Evict Tenants for Minor Acts, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that eviction of a cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, requires cogent evidence of acts destructive or injurious to the land. It emphasized the principle of beneficent construction, stating that such protective statutes must be interpreted liberally in favor of tenants, and mere pruning of trees or minor alterations do not warrant eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a dispute over agricultural land in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The appellants, represented by their legal heirs, were the cultivating tenants, while the respondents were the landlords. The tenants had previously successfully sued the landlords (O.S. No. 1363/1993) to protect their possession. Subsequently, the...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains Section 195 CrPC: Police Can Investigate, But Courts Face a Hurdle
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains Section 195 CrPC: Police Can Investigate, But Courts Face a Hurdle

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that for offences under Section 186 IPC, a written complaint by the concerned public servant or their superior is mandatory under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC before a court can take cognizance. However, the bar under Section 195 CrPC applies only at the stage of cognizance and does not prohibit the police from investigating such offences. The court also held that "obstruction" under Section 186 IPC is not limited to physical force but includes any act that impedes a public servant's duties. The legality of splitting distinct offences from those covered by Section 195 depends on the facts of each case. Facts Of The Case: A Process Server from the Nazarat Branch of the Shahdara courts was assigned to serve a warrant and a summons at the Nand Nagri police st...
Read More
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...
Read More
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Bail Hearing for Convict
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Bail Hearing for Convict

The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that appellate courts should liberally suspend sentences of fixed short-term imprisonment during the pendency of an appeal to prevent the appeal itself from becoming infructuous. It held that denial requires recording exceptional, compelling reasons why release would be against public interest. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Aasif @ Pasha, was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in Meerut for offences under the POCSO Act, IPC (Sections 354, 354Kha, 323, 504), and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The sentences, which included terms of four years of rigorous imprisonment for the major charges, were ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Allahabad High...
Read More