legal reform - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Eases Burden of Proof for Railway Accident Victims in Landmark Ruling

24Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Eases Burden of Proof for Railway Accident Victims in Landmark Ruling

In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof in railway accident compensation claims under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court held that the initial burden on claimants can be discharged by affidavit and verified ticket records, shifting the onus to the Railways. Mere absence of a ticket or seizure memo does not defeat a legitimate claim, as the statutory regime is a welfare-oriented, no-fault liability system based on preponderance of probabilities. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the death of Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik on 19 May 2017. He was allegedly travelling from Indore to Ujjain by the Ranthambore Express (Train No. 12465) when, due to overcrowding, he was pushed from the moving train near Ujjain, sustaining fatal head injuries. The police regi...

Supreme Court Rules :Landowners Can’t Get Uniform Compensation for Power Lines

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment for failing to properly assess compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It emphasized that compensation must be determined based on location-specific evidence and remanded the cases. The Court also highlighted the absence of a statutory appeal mechanism against orders of the District Judge and referred the issue to the Law Commission for examination. Facts Of The Case: A power transmission project titled "400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission System-PPP-1" was initiated by HVPNL in Haryana. Jhajjar KT Transco Private Limited (JKTPL) was awarded the project, which sub-contracted the erection work to Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. The 100 km-long transmission line passed through land in four districts, including Sonepat and Jha...

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...