Stare Decisis - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Opens Direct Recruitment for District Judges to In-Service Judicial Officers

25Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Opens Direct Recruitment for District Judges to In-Service Judicial Officers

Supreme Court , This Constitution Bench judgment overruled prior rulings from Satya Narain Singh to Dheeraj Mor, holding that Article 233(2) of the Constitution does not bar in-service judicial officers from direct recruitment to District Judge posts. It clarifies that eligibility is determined at the time of application and requires a combined seven-year experience as an advocate and judicial officer. Facts Of The Case: The batch of matters arose from conflicting interpretations of Article 233 of the Constitution regarding the eligibility of in-service judicial officers (Civil Judges) for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge. The core legal controversy was triggered by the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020), which held that for di...

Supreme Court Clarifies: Trustees Can Be Sued for Dishonored Cheques, Even If Trust Is Not Named as Accused

This Supreme Court judgment holds that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a Trust is not a juristic person capable of being sued. A complaint for a dishonored cheque issued on behalf of a Trust is maintainable against the Trustee who signed it, without needing to array the Trust itself as an accused. The ruling clarifies that vicarious liability attaches directly to the responsible Trustee. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a financial arrangement concerning William Carey University. Facing a crisis, its sponsoring body, ACTS Group, entered an MoU with Orion Education Trust on 12.10.2017 to hand over the university's management. The Respondent, Vijaykumar Agarwal, was Orion's Chairman. In this capacity, he authorized the Appellant, Sankar Padam Thapa, to liaise wit...

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Unused ‘Bachat’ Land Doesn’t Belong to Panchayat

The Supreme Court upheld that lands contributed by proprietors during consolidation proceedings, but not specifically reserved or utilized for common purposes (known as bachat land), do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State. Relying on the doctrine of stare decisis and Constitution Bench precedents, the Court affirmed that such land continues to belong to the original proprietors, dismissing the State's appeal. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a challenge by landowners (respondents) to an amendment made by the State of Haryana in 1992 to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. This amendment, via Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, expanded the definition of "shamilat deh" (village common land) to include lands reserved for common purposes under the consolidation ...