Tag: Writ Petition

Supreme Court Allows Plea of Juvenility Raised Decades After Conviction in Murder Case
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Plea of Juvenility Raised Decades After Conviction in Murder Case

This Supreme Court judgment affirms that claims of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction. The Court held that a juvenile offender cannot be detained beyond the statutory maximum period prescribed under the Act, and such excess detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, born on 10th June 1969, was convicted for a murder allegedly committed on 2nd November 1981, when he was approximately 12 years and 5 months old. The trial court, in its 1984 order, recognized his juvenility under the Children Act, 1960 and directed his placement in a children's home instead of prison. Following a reversal of his acquittal by the Supreme Court in 2009, the petitioner absconded and was subsequently arrested...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case
25Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case

The Supreme Court held that Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, applies only to the preparation of a merit list and not to determining eligibility. The termination orders were quashed for violating principles of natural justice, as the appellants were not given notice regarding the exclusion of vocational subject marks. Facts Of The Case: The State of Jharkhand advertised posts for Intermediate Trained Teachers in 2015. The appellants—Ravi Oraon, Premial Hembrom, and Surendra Munda—successfully applied, were selected, and commenced their duties in December 2015. In September 2016, they were issued show cause notices alleging they did not meet the minimum eligibility criterion of 45% marks in their intermediate examination and questioning the validity ...
Read More
Supreme Court Halts Transfer of Investigation to CBI, Calls High Court’s Order Illegal
23Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Halts Transfer of Investigation to CBI, Calls High Court’s Order Illegal

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot review or recall its own order under the inherent powers of Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) once it has attained finality. Such power is barred by Section 362 CrPC, which only permits the correction of clerical errors. The Court quashed the impugned orders directing transfer of investigation to the CBI as they amounted to an impermissible review. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, a granite mining businessman, alleged criminal intimidation, theft, and criminal conspiracy by accused individuals, including a former Revenue Minister. Following his complaint, FIRs were registered. Dissatisfied with the local police investigation, which filed a negative report in one case, he approached the Rajasthan High Court seek...
Read More
Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directions in Long-Pending PIL, Sets 7-Month Deadline for Compliance
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directions in Long-Pending PIL, Sets 7-Month Deadline for Compliance

Based on the proceedings, the Supreme Court has issued a series of substantive directions in a long-pending writ petition. The legal focus is on monitoring compliance with these judicial mandates, with the Court retaining continuing jurisdiction. The matter is scheduled for a future hearing specifically to review the implementation of its orders and assess further progress. Facts Of The Case: Based on the provided court proceeding document, which is a record of the pronouncement of an order and not the full case file, the specific facts and history of the case are not detailed. However, the document header identifies it as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012, filed by S. Rajaseekaran against the Union of India and Others.The case is categorized under "PIL-W", indicating it was filed as...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses

The Supreme Court struck down a tender condition requiring prior supply experience within Chhattisgarh as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The condition was held arbitrary for creating an artificial barrier, restricting competition, and offending the doctrine of a level playing field without a rational nexus to the tender's object. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying Sports Kits to various other states, challenged specific eligibility conditions in three tender notices issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools. The company was aggrieved by condition no. 4, which required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores to Sta...
Read More
Supreme Court’s One-Time Relief: Telangana Allowed to Appoint Judges Despite Rule Dispute
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s One-Time Relief: Telangana Allowed to Appoint Judges Despite Rule Dispute

The Supreme Court disposed of appeals challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023. While keeping all legal questions open, it granted a one-time exception, directing the High Court to declare results and appoint the qualified appellants without treating the order as a precedent, thereby resolving the immediate recruitment impasse. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment process for District Judges in Telangana. The appellants, advocates, had applied in April 2023 under the then-existing rules. However, in June 2023, the state introduced new rules, the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023. A key provision, Rule 5(5.1)(a), restricted eligibility to advocates who had been practicing specifically in the High Court of T...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Bank’s Illegal Mortgage Voids Multi-Crore Property Auction
21Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Bank’s Illegal Mortgage Voids Multi-Crore Property Auction

The Supreme Court quashed the e-auction sale as the proclamation violated Rule 53 of the Income Tax Act's Second Schedule, applicable via the RDDB Act. It failed to disclose material encumbrances, specifically DDA's claim for unearned increase. The Court held the sale was void, applying principles of restitution to refund the auction purchaser with interest. Facts Of The Case: The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) allotted a plot to Sarita Vihar Club on a leasehold basis. The club mortgaged the plot to Corporation Bank without obtaining the mandatory prior written consent from the Lieutenant Governor, as required by the lease deed. When the club defaulted on its loan, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) ordered the sale of the plot. Despite DDA's obj...
Read More
Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that if a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is unconditionally withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is grounded in public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure litigation finality. An appeal against an order merely dismissing a review petition is also not maintainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower who had defaulted on a loan from the Federal Bank, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Challenging this action, Satheesh filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Cou...
Read More
State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court
7Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant relief, ruling that an appellant, though initially ineligible, cannot be penalized for the state authorities' error in selecting and appointing him. The court reinstated the appellant with continuity of service but denied back wages, clarifying the decision was based on the case's peculiar facts and would not set a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission advertised for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), reserving 25% of vacancies for teachers from Government Elementary Schools with five years of experience. The appellant, a teacher at a fully government-aided minority school, applied under this quota. His application was processed by the Commission, which found hi...
Read More