Tag: Writ Petition

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’s Big Equality Ruling :Army Can’t Restrict Women’s Numbers After Allowing Them In
12Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Big Equality Ruling :Army Can’t Restrict Women’s Numbers After Allowing Them In

This Supreme Court judgment holds that once the Central Government permits women's induction into the JAG branch via notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, it cannot subsequently impose gender-based restrictions through administrative policies. Any such limitation violates Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, as it constitutes indirect discrimination and exceeds the permissible scope of exceptions under Article 33. Facts Of The Case: The petitioners, two female candidates who secured the 4th and 5th ranks in the women's merit list for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch's 31st Course, challenged a recruitment notification dated 18th January 2023. The notification prescribed six vacancies for male candidates and only three for female candidates. Despite the petiti...
Read More
Beyond Impeachment: Supreme Court Validates Its Internal Mechanism for Judicial Misconduct
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Beyond Impeachment: Supreme Court Validates Its Internal Mechanism for Judicial Misconduct

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 'In-House Procedure' for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct. It ruled that the mechanism, which can recommend a judge's removal, is a valid exercise of the CJI's authority under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and does not violate the constitutional scheme for impeachment. Facts Of The Case: In March 2025, a fire broke out in the store-room of a Delhi High Court judge's official bungalow while he was away. During efforts to douse the flames, officials discovered burnt currency notes on the premises. This discovery raised serious suspicions of misconduct, potentially violating the values outlined in the Restatement of Judicial Life. Consequently, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court sought an explanation from the ...
Read More
Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulatory Assets, while a valid regulatory tool, must be created only in exceptional circumstances and liquidated in a time-bound manner. It upheld the legal framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, and directed strict adherence to the newly inserted Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules, which mandates a maximum 3% gap in revenue and a 7-year liquidation period for existing assets. The judgment emphasizes the duty of Regulatory Commissions to ensure cost-reflective tariffs and affirms APTEL's power under Section 121 to issue directions against regulatory failure. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from petitions and appeals filed by three private power distribution companies (Discoms) in Delhi—BSES Rajdhani, BSES Yamuna, and Tata Power Delhi—agains...
Read More
Supreme Court Backs Government’s 2025 Notification, Says No Special Treatment for Educational & Industrial Buildings
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Government’s 2025 Notification, Says No Special Treatment for Educational & Industrial Buildings

The Supreme Court upheld the 2025 EIA Notification, ruling that General Conditions under the 2006 Notification never applied to building and township projects. It affirmed that State-level expert bodies (SEIAA) are competent to appraise such projects. However, the exemption for industrial and educational constructions was struck down as arbitrary. Facts Of The Case: The writ petition challenged the constitutional validity of the notification dated 29th January 2025 and an Office Memorandum dated 30th January 2025, both issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The petitioner, an environmental organization, argued that the new notification fundamentally diluted the environmental regulatory regime established by the original 2006 EIA Notification. The ...
Read More
Employers Must Accommodate: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Medical Disability & Jobs
29Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Employers Must Accommodate: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Medical Disability & Jobs

This Supreme Court held that a binding Memorandum of Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which specifically provided alternate employment for colour-blind drivers, created an enforceable statutory obligation on the employer. The subsequent settlement and internal circulars could not override this specific contractual right, and the Corporation's failure to explore redeployment violated principles of natural justice and statutory compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant was appointed as a driver by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in 2014. During a subsequent periodic medical examination, he was found to be colour blind and declared medically unfit to continue in his role as a driver. Following this, the appellant sought alternate employment...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Life Ban on Kerala Cricketer, Slams “Non-Transparent” Ombudsman Process
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Life Ban on Kerala Cricketer, Slams “Non-Transparent” Ombudsman Process

The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman's proceedings lacked transparency and violated principles of natural justice by not providing the appellant with copies of orders and a fair hearing. The subsequent blacklisting by the cricket association, based on these flawed proceedings, was also set aside. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a former Ranji Trophy player and member of a district cricket association, filed an original application before the Ombudsman of the Kerala Cricket Association (KCA). He sought directions to frame and implement uniform model bye-laws for all district associations, based on the Lodha Committee recommendations, and to ensure elections were conducted in conformity with these bye-laws. The Ombudsman dismissed his app...
Read More
Supreme Court Judgment: Banks Can Classify MSME Loans as NPA Without Prior “Stress Identification”
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Banks Can Classify MSME Loans as NPA Without Prior “Stress Identification”

The Supreme Court held that the obligation to identify incipient stress under the MSME Rehabilitation Framework is not a mandatory precondition for a bank to classify an account as an NPA or issue a demand notice under the SARFAESI Act. The benefit of the Framework must be actively claimed by the MSME borrower in response to a notice under Section 13(2), supported by an affidavit, which then obligates the bank to consider the claim and pause recovery actions. Facts Of The Case: An MSME-registered enterprise, Shri Swami Samarth Construction & Finance Solution, had availed a loan from NKGSB Co-operative Bank. Upon defaulting on repayments, its account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The bank's authorized officer subsequently issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of...
Read More
Supreme Court Strikes Down Kerala’s Preventive Detention Order: A Win for Personal Liberty
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Strikes Down Kerala’s Preventive Detention Order: A Win for Personal Liberty

The Supreme Court of India, in Dhanyam v. State of Kerala & Ors., set aside a preventive detention order, emphasizing that such extraordinary power must be used sparingly and only in situations affecting "public order," not merely "law and order". The Court reiterated that if a detenu is on bail and allegedly violating conditions, the State should seek bail cancellation rather than resorting to preventive detention. Facts Of The Case: The appeal originated from a High Court of Kerala judgment dated September 4, 2024, which affirmed a preventive detention order issued on June 20, 2024, by the District Magistrate, Palakkad. The detenu, Rajesh, the appellant's husband, runs a registered lending firm named 'Rithika Finance'. The detention order, issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala ...
Read More