Tag: Supreme Court of India

Age Dispute in Crime : Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Murder Case
4Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Age Dispute in Crime : Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Murder Case

The Supreme Court upheld the determination of an accused as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, emphasizing that school records and birth certificates take precedence over medical age tests under Section 94(2). The Court clarified that once juvenility is established, bail considerations for juveniles differ from adults, focusing on rehabilitation rather than offence gravity. It also affirmed that Section 15 (preliminary assessment for heinous offences) does not negate juvenile status but mandates a separate evaluation for trial as an adult. The ruling reinforced the statutory hierarchy of age-proof documents and restricted JJBs from reviewing earlier age determinations. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Rajni (appellant), the mother of a ...
Read More
Supreme Court Directs Merger of 64 Fraud FIRs Across 10 States for Streamlined Trial
30May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Merger of 64 Fraud FIRs Across 10 States for Streamlined Trial

The Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to consolidate 64 FIRs across 10 states into single trials per state, merging subsequent FIRs with the earliest FIR in each jurisdiction. Subsequent FIRs were deemed Section 161 CrPC statements, enabling supplementary chargesheets under Section 173 CrPC. Bail in the principal FIR applies to clubbed cases, except where special enactments require fresh bail applications. Special Courts may try all offences, including IPC violations, under state laws. Single-FIR states proceed independently. Facts Of The Case: Ravinder Singh Sidhu, Managing Director of KIM Infrastructure and Developers Limited (KIDL), has been in custody since 11 October 2018. He faces 64 FIRs across 10 states (Punjab-23, Uttar Pradesh-15, Haryana-6, U...
Read More
Supreme Court : Mandates Full Pension for ALL Retired High Court Judges
30May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Mandates Full Pension for ALL Retired High Court Judges

The Supreme Court mandated uniform pension for all retired High Court Judges under the principle of "One Rank One Pension" (OROP), irrespective of their tenure, source of appointment (Bar/District Judiciary), or status (Permanent/Additional Judge). It held that discrimination in pension violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court directed payment of full pension (₹13.5 lakh/₹15 lakh p.a.) under the High Court Judges Act, 1954, rejecting minimum service requirements. Service breaks and New Pension Scheme (NPS) participation were deemed irrelevant, with NPS contributions refunded to affected judges. Family pension/gratuity was extended to families of Additional Judges, and 10 years were added to service for gratuity calculations under Section 17A. Facts Of The Case: This ...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions

The Supreme Court ruled that a decree of permanent injunction creates a perpetual right enforceable at any time against future breaches, clarifying that satisfaction recorded in one execution petition doesn't bar subsequent petitions under Section 47 CPC for fresh violations. It held that Article 136 of the Limitation Act imposes no time limit for enforcing perpetual injunctions, rejecting the erroneous application of res judicata by lower courts. The judgment emphasizes that each breach of injunction constitutes a fresh cause of action, requiring executing courts to examine subsequent execution petitions on merits regardless of prior disposals. The Court distinguished between temporary and permanent injunctions while underscoring the continuing nature of injunctive relief. Facts Of The C...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot revive quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC after parties have reached a lawful compromise, emphasizing the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing judgments except for clerical errors. It clarified that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, allowing recall only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of process. The judgment reaffirmed that violation of compromise terms must be addressed through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to this settled legal position. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute in Haryana, where an FIR (No. 432/2014) was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Raghunath Sharma and others for alleged ...
Read More
Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Andhra Liquor Scam Case
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Andhra Liquor Scam Case

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation is crucial in corruption cases involving influential accused. It clarified that confessional statements of co-accused under Section 161 CrPC cannot be considered at the bail stage, being inadmissible under Sections 25-26 of the Evidence Act. The Court reiterated that political vendetta allegations alone cannot justify anticipatory bail when prima facie evidence exists. It directed investigating agencies to avoid third-degree methods while preserving their right to seek custodial interrogation if warranted. The judgment reaffirmed the higher threshold for anticipatory bail compared to regular bail in serious economic offences. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from allegations of corruption ...
Read More
Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students

The Supreme Court held that the Kerala government's directive to create a corpus fund from NRI student fees lacked legislative backing, violating the principle that fees cannot be levied without statutory authority. It ruled that unaided institutions retain autonomy over fee structures, subject only to anti-profiteering regulations, and emphasized that welfare measures must be enacted through proper legislation. The Court allowed colleges to retain collected funds but mandated their use for subsidizing economically weaker students. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the Kerala government's directive requiring self-financing medical colleges to contribute a portion of fees collected from Non-Resident Indian (NRI) students towards a corpus fund. This fund aimed to subs...
Read More
Child Custody Battle : Supreme Court Eases Custody Rules for NRI Father
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Child Custody Battle : Supreme Court Eases Custody Rules for NRI Father

The Supreme Court ruled that requiring a non-custodial parent to file repeated applications for visitation rights imposes undue procedural burdens. It held that interim custody arrangements must balance a child's welfare with both parents' rights, emphasizing structured access schedules over case-by-case approvals. The judgment establishes that meaningful parent-child contact shouldn't be hindered by procedural formalities when consistent involvement is demonstrated, particularly in transnational custody cases. The Court directed family courts to implement standing visitation orders pending final custody determinations. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a custody dispute between Eby Cherian (appellant), an engineer working rotational overseas postings, and Jerema John (respondent), a ...
Read More
Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement

The Supreme Court ruled that arbitral tribunals have the power to award compound interest (interest on interest) under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It clarified that the "sum awarded" includes both principal and pre-award interest, and post-award interest can be calculated on this total amount. The judgment overruled earlier contrary interpretations, affirming arbitrators' discretion in interest calculations unless expressly barred by contract. The Court emphasized this aligns with the compensatory purpose of arbitration awards for delayed payments. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Interstate Construction (appellant) and National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (respondent) regarding construction work for Ramagundam Super Therma...
Read More
No Relaxation in OBC Certificate Requirements: Supreme Court Rules Against Candidates for Wrong OBC Certificate Format
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Relaxation in OBC Certificate Requirements: Supreme Court Rules Against Candidates for Wrong OBC Certificate Format

The Supreme Court upheld the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment Board's decision to reject OBC certificates not submitted in the prescribed state format, ruling that compliance with recruitment notification terms is mandatory. The Court emphasized that candidates must adhere to specified requirements and cannot claim relaxation if they fail to meet procedural conditions. Non-compliance disqualifies them from reservation benefits, as the state's format ensures verification of creamy layer exclusion. The judgment reinforced that recruitment rules must be strictly followed, and courts should not interfere unless constitutional violations are established. Facts Of The Case: The case involved two civil appeals arising from separate writ petitions challenging the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment...
Read More