Tag: Landmark Judgment

Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice

The Supreme Court ruled that violating mandatory procedural safeguards in disciplinary inquiries, like failing to question an employee on adverse evidence, inherently constitutes prejudice. Relying on undisclosed material, such as a vigilance report, to enhance punishment also violates natural justice. No independent proof of prejudice is required for such fundamental breaches. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, K. Prabhakar Hegde, was a senior officer and Zonal Head of Vijaya Bank (which later merged with Bank of Baroda). In 1999, he was served with notices alleging irregularities in sanctioning temporary overdrafts to various parties. Formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 2001. An inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted a report holding the charges proved. N...
Read More
Mens Rea is Must: Supreme Court Rules Accused Must Intend to Drive Victim to Suicide for Abetment Charge
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Mens Rea is Must: Supreme Court Rules Accused Must Intend to Drive Victim to Suicide for Abetment Charge

The Supreme Court reiterated that to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of mens rea and a proximate act of instigation by the accused, which directly led the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without positive action intended to push the victim toward suicide, are insufficient to sustain the charge. The absence of a live link between the alleged acts and the suicide warranted quashing of the FIR. Facts Of The Case: A seven-term independent Member of Parliament committed suicide on 22 February 2021, leaving behind a suicide note. In the note, he named several officials from the administration and police of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, accusing them of conspiring to defame, degrade, and demean him to end his political caree...
Read More
Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the mere recovery of tainted money is not conclusive proof of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution failed to prove the crucial element of demand beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused's plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case involved an appeal against the conviction of a Lower Division Clerk at the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution's case was that the accused demanded an additional ₹500 as a bribe from the complainant to expedite his passport application. After negotiation, an initial gratification of ₹200 was to be paid along with the official ₹1000 fee. The Cen...
Read More
Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed

The Supreme Court ruled that a "life imprisonment" sentence specifying a fixed term of "actual imprisonment without remission" is a determinative sentence. Upon completing that fixed term, the convict is entitled to automatic release and need not apply for remission. Any detention beyond this period violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: Sukhdev Yadav was convicted for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara, alongside Vikas and Vishal Yadav. In 2015, the Delhi High Court, while upholding his life sentence, specifically modified it to "life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission." This fixed-term sentence was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. Sukhdev Yadav completed this mandated 20-year period of actual inc...
Read More
No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change

The Supreme Court held that applications challenging exam answers filed after the cut-off date (21.11.2023) were barred by its prior order and thus dismissed. However, it allowed applications that were pending as of 24.04.2025, restoring them for re-evaluation benefits, while rejecting claims for grace marks as impermissible after a court-directed re-evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted in 2021-22 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The initial litigation focused on the correctness of specific questions, notably Question No. 88 in Booklet Series 'F'. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 21.11.2023, directed that answer 'D' be treated as correct for this question and order...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground
15Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground

The Supreme Court held that an appeal against an NCLT order under the IBC must be filed within 30 days from the date of its pronouncement. It reiterated that mandatory filing of a certified copy of the impugned order is integral to a valid appeal, and non-compliance renders the appeal barred by limitation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an order dated June 23, 2023, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. in the corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor. The respondent, DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd., being aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging the NCLT's decision. The ...
Read More
Supreme Court Seeks Larger Bench’s View :Can a Serving Judicial Officer Apply as a “Fresh” Judge?
14Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Seeks Larger Bench’s View :Can a Serving Judicial Officer Apply as a “Fresh” Judge?

The Supreme Court referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. It identified two substantial questions of law concerning the eligibility of judicial officers with prior bar experience for direct recruitment as District Judges, and the relevant time for determining such eligibility. Facts Of The Case: The present batch of petitions primarily sought a review of the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In that decision, a three-judge bench had upheld rules that barred members of the state judicial service from applying for the posts of District Judges reserved for direct recruitment from the bar under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The review petitioners, along with other connected writ petiti...
Read More
Supreme Court Returns Children to Adoptive Parents, Prioritizes Family Bonds Over Procedure
13Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Returns Children to Adoptive Parents, Prioritizes Family Bonds Over Procedure

The Supreme Court ruled that removing children from their adoptive parents violated the principle of the child's best interest, a cornerstone of juvenile justice law. Invoking Article 142 to ensure complete justice, the Court ordered the children's immediate return, prioritizing family bonds and rehabilitation over procedural non-compliance in adoption. Facts Of The Case: In a series of connected cases, multiple sets of appellants from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana claimed to be the adoptive parents of minor girls. They had adopted the children, ranging from two days to twenty days old, directly from the biological parents between 2021 and early 2024 under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, on May 22, 2024, police authorities forcibly took custody of...
Read More
Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death

The Supreme Court clarified that in claims under Section 166 of the MV Act, a notional income for a deceased child need not be limited to the figures in Schedule II (for Section 163-A claims). It reinstated the Tribunal's calculation, confirming no deduction for personal expenses is required in such cases. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a motor accident involving a 10-year-old boy who was fatally struck by a bus owned by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation while he was cycling to school. The parents of the deceased child filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, acknowledging the undisputed negligence of the bus driver, awarded a total compensation of ₹8,55,000. This calculation was based on attributing a notional monthly...
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