Madras High Court - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Limits on High Court’s Revisional Powers

16Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Limits on High Court’s Revisional Powers

The Supreme Court of India, in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that in an appeal filed by an accused against conviction, the High Court cannot suo motu exercise revisional powers to enhance the sentence or convict on a charge for which the trial court acquitted the accused, especially when no appeal or revision was filed by the State, victim, or complainant. The Court emphasized the principle of no reformatio in peius, meaning an appellant should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal Facts Of The Case: Nagarajan, the appellant, was the neighbor of the deceased, Mariammal. On the night of July 11, 2003, the appellant entered Mariammal's room, hugged her, and attempted to outrage her modesty. Mariammal's mother-in-law intervened, scolded the appel...

Big Relief for Mothers: Supreme Court Backs Woman’s Right to Benefit After Remarriage

The Supreme Court ruled that K. Umadevi is entitled to maternity leave under FR 101(a), setting aside the High Court Division Bench's decision. The Court emphasized a purposive and liberal interpretation of maternity benefit provisions, aligning with reproductive rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and international conventions, irrespective of prior children not in the mother's custody or born from a previous marriage. Facts Of The Case: K. Umadevi, the appellant, married A. Suresh in 2006, having two children from this wedlock in 2007 and 2011. Their marriage was dissolved in 2017, and the children remained in the custody of her former husband. In December 2012, she joined government service as an English Teacher in Tamil Nadu. On September 12, 2018, the appellant remarried M...

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals

The Supreme Court ruled that ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) violate environmental jurisprudence and are alien to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the EIA Notification, 2006. Stressing the precautionary principle and Article 21 (right to a pollution-free environment), the Court struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 OM permitting retrospective ECs, holding them arbitrary and illegal. It reiterated that prior EC is mandatory, and no regularization of violations is permissible, aligning with its earlier judgments in Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals. The Court barred future exemptions but spared already granted ECs. Facts Of The Case: The case involved multiple writ petitions and a civil appeal challenging the legality of the 2017 notification and 2021 ...