Tag: Writ Petition

Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization

This Supreme Court order modifies its earlier directions on stray dog management, balancing fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life) with the statutory Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The Court clarified that sterilized and immunized dogs must be released back to their localities as per Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, while allowing permanent impounding only for rabid or aggressively dangerous dogs. It issued supplementary directives, including creating designated feeding zones, and expanded the case's scope to all states and union territories for a uniform national policy. Facts Of The Case: The Supreme Court's intervention was triggered by a suo motu cognizance of a news report titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price,” detailing the death of a six-year-o...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in Telangana Job Case :Legitimate Expectation vs. Employer’s Right
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in Telangana Job Case :Legitimate Expectation vs. Employer’s Right

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that candidates in a select list possess no vested right to appointment. An employer's decision to cancel a recruitment process is valid if based on bona fide reasons like administrative changes (e.g., state bifurcation) and altered requirements. The Court's role is limited to examining the decision-making process, not substituting its own view on the sufficiency of accommodations like age relaxation offered to affected candidates. Facts Of The Case: The erstwhile Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP-Transco) initiated a recruitment process in 2011-2012 for 339 Sub-Engineer posts across the composite state. This process was delayed due to litigation challenging the marks weightage given to in-service candidates. While the legal challe...
Read More
Supreme Court : Courts Can’t Reopen Departmental Inquiries; Role is to Check Procedure, Not Merits
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Courts Can’t Reopen Departmental Inquiries; Role is to Check Procedure, Not Merits

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in departmental inquiries. The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts cannot act as appellate authorities to re-examine evidence. Interference is permissible only for procedural illegality, natural justice violations, or manifest perversity, not to reassess the merits of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Ramadhar Sao, was employed as a messenger (a Class-IV employee) with the State Bank of India. In 2008, the Bank received complaints alleging he acted as a middleman, taking bribes from customers to facilitate the sanction and disbursement of loans. A chargesheet was issued against him in 2010, accusing him of misconduct for acting as a conduit fo...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?

The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not constitute the "initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b). The bar against parallel proceedings is triggered only upon the issuance of a show-cause notice, which formally crystallizes the subject matter and commences adjudication. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd., a company providing security services, was issued a show-cause notice dated 18.11.2024 by the State GST authority (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This notice raised a tax demand for the period April 2020-March 2021 on grounds of under-declared tax and excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. Subsequently, on 16.01.2025, the Central GST authority (Respondent No. 1) conducted ...
Read More
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