SUPREME COURTArticle 8 - The Court clarified that when a person acquires a foreign citizenship, the cessation of Indian citizenship happens by operation of law by virtue of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. Hence, such cessation of citizenship cannot be regarded as voluntary. Therefore, children of such persons cannot seek to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act....
SUPREME COURT
Article 8 - The Court clarified that when a person acquires a foreign citizenship, the cessation of Indian citizenship happens by operation of law by virtue of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. Hence, such cessation of citizenship cannot be regarded as voluntary. Therefore, children of such persons cannot seek to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act. As per Section 8(2), children of persons who have voluntarily renounced Indian citizenship can seek Indian citizenship within one year of attaining majority. The Court interpreted that this option is not available for children of those who acquired foreign citizenship. The Court also clarified that a person who was born outside India after the commencement of the Constitution cannot seek citizenship under Article 8 of the Constitution on the ground that his grandparents were born in the undivided India. The Court held that allowing such an interpretation would lead to "absurd results", as foreign nationals born long after the independence, by claiming that their grandparents were born in the undivided India. Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 816
Article 12 and 13 - The Army Welfare Education Society cannot be considered as "State" under Article 13 of the Constitution. The High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondents herein holding that the appellant society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, the school run by the Appellant Society imparts education. Imparting education involves public duty and therefore a public law element could also be said to be involved. However, the relationship between the respondents herein and the appellant society is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract. If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element. The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents. (Para 42) Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 464
Article 12 and 226 – Maintainability of Writ Petition – 'State' or 'Other Authority' – The respondent employer, Air India Limited (AIL) after its disinvestment ceased to be a State or its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India – The writ petitions were maintainable on the date of institution but whether they continued to be maintainable as on the date the same were finally heard? – Held, the issue about exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would arise only on the date when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration and decision. The subsequent event of disinvestment of the Government Company and its devolution into a private company would make the company immune from being subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, even if the litigant had entered the portals of the Court while the employer was the Government. (Para 5, 32 & 38) R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 384
Article 12 and 226 – Writ Jurisdiction of High Court – The High Court has the power to issue the directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto and Prohibition to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government within its territorial jurisdiction for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution of India and for any other purpose. Held, since, respondent employer (AIL) had been disinvested and had assumed the character of a private entity not performing any public function, the High Court could not have exercised the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ to such private entity. (Para 34 & 38) R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 384
Article 13 – Scope of Judicial Review in matters of economic policy – Courts must adopt a less stringent form of judicial review while adjudicating challenges to legislation and executive action which relate to economic policy as compared to laws relating to civil rights such as the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion. The amendment to Section 31 of the RBI Act can be classified as a financial provision to the extent that it seeks to introduce a new form of a bearer banking instrument. However, any resemblance to an economic policy ends there. The amendments in question can be clubbed into two heads: first, provisions mandating non-disclosure of information on electoral financing; and second, provisions permitting unlimited corporate funding to political parties. Both these amendments relate to the electoral process. The Bonds were introduced only to curb black money in the electoral process, and protect informational privacy of financial contributors to political parties. The Union of India has itself classified the amendments as an “electoral reform”. Thus, the submission of the Union of India that the amendments deal with economic policy cannot be accepted. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : AIR 2024 SC 1441 : (2024) 5 SCC 1
Article 13 (2) - The entire statute does not need to be struck down each time that certain provisions of the statute are held to not meet constitutional muster. The statute is only void to the extent that it contravenes the Constitution. (Para 101) Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854
Article 14 - The recruitment process begins with the issuance of an advertisement inviting applications and concludes with the filling of vacancies. Eligibility criteria specified at the start of the recruitment process cannot be altered midway unless permitted by the applicable rules or the advertisement itself, provided such changes comply with Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of non-arbitrariness. The ruling in K. Manjusree, (2008) 3 SCC 512 establishes valid law and is distinct from Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 as the former pertains to the right to be included in the Select List, while the latter addresses the right to appointment from the Select List. Recruitment bodies may adopt procedures consistent with the rules to conclude the process, provided such procedures are transparent, non-discriminatory, and rationally connected to the objective. Statutory rules governing recruitment are binding. In the absence of such rules or if they are silent, administrative instructions may be applied to fill procedural gaps. Inclusion in the Select List does not guarantee an indefeasible right to appointment. While the State or its instrumentalities may choose not to fill vacancies for bona fide reasons, they cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to eligible candidates within the Select List if vacancies exist. Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 864
Article 14 - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008; Rule 13(v) which provides for age relaxation to the persons serving under educational projects is challenged to be discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Fixing of minimum and maximum age requirement is a policy decision – There was a valid classification based on intelligible differentia which distinguished applicants with project experience and those who lacked project experience. Further the differentia had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Rules. Held, the historical background leading to the enactment of the Rules itself provides a justification for granting relaxation to the persons serving under the educational project, if they fulfil the condition that they were within the age limit when they were initially engaged. Hence, relaxation provided for in Rule 13(v) is not arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 22, 24 & 25) Mahesh Chand Bareth v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 442
Article 14 - The principle of equal treatment of parties applies at all stages of arbitration proceedings, including the appointment of arbitrators. The Arbitration Act permits Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to maintain empanelled arbitrators, but arbitration clauses cannot compel the other party to select arbitrators exclusively from such panels. Clauses allowing unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator raise justifiable doubts about the arbitrator's independence and impartiality and hinder equal participation in the appointment process. In three-member tribunals, requiring one party to select its arbitrator from a PSU-curated panel violates the principle of equal treatment, as it creates an imbalance in the appointment process. Unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts contravene Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The express waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act permits parties to waive claims of bias against unilaterally appointed arbitrators after disputes arise, enabling them to consider the necessity of waiving the nemo judex rule. The judgment applies prospectively to arbitrator appointments made after its pronouncement, including appointments in three-member tribunals. Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv), 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 874
Article 14 - Manifest Arbitrariness – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 struck down – Protection of heritage institutions – Scope of judicial review – Legislative purpose and reasonableness - Held, the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it was enacted on a manifestly arbitrary basis. The reasoning that the establishment of Khalsa University would shadow and damage the heritage and pristine glory of Khalsa College, a significant icon of Khalsa heritage established in 1892, was found to be non-existent. The Khalsa College was neither part of the Khalsa University nor adversely affected by its establishment. The Court noted specific undertakings and evidence that safeguarded the distinct identity and heritage of Khalsa College. Consequently, the Repeal Act was deemed unconstitutional, and the Khalsa University Act, 2016, was restored. Khalsa University v. State of Punjab, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 773
Article 14 – Unlimited corporate funding – Arbitrariness of Section 182 of Companies Act - Removal of restrictions on political contributions is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution – Unlimited contribution by companies to political parties is antithetical to free and fair elections because it allows certain persons/companies (including shell companies) to influence the electoral process and policy making. This is violative of the principle of free and fair elections and political equality captured in the value of “one person one vote”. The ability of a company to influence the electoral process through political contributions is much higher when compared to that of an individual. Companies and individuals cannot be equated for the purpose of political contributions. Companies before the amendment to Section 182 could only contribute a certain percentage of the net aggregate profits and could be classified between loss-making companies and profit-making companies for the purpose of political contributions. The underlying principle of this distinction was that it is more plausible that loss-making companies will contribute to political parties with a quid pro quo and not for the purpose of income tax benefits. The amended provision does not recognize that the harm of contributions by lossmaking companies in the form of quid pro quo is much higher. Thus, the amendment to Section 182 is manifestly arbitrary for (a) treating political contributions by companies and individuals alike; (b) permitting the unregulated influence of companies in the governance and political process violating the principle of free and fair elections; and (c) treating contributions made by profit-making and loss-making companies to political parties alike. The observations means that the law must not treat companies and individual contributors alike because of the variance in the degree of harm on free and fair elections. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : AIR 2024 SC 1441 : (2024) 5 SCC 1
Article 14 - UGC's letter to University directing regularization of the teachers who were selected through a regular selection process and possessed required qualifications was not followed by university. Appellants' appointments were made according to a regular selection process. Held, considering the statutory position of UGC, there was no reason for the University not to follow directions of UGC. The University's action of not continuing them and starting a fresh selection process is unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the employment of the appellants will have to be continued after merger with the regular establishment of the University. Respondents directed to reinstate the appellants. (Para 20, 23 & 28) Meher Fatima Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 303 : AIR 2024 SC 2097
Article 14 - In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the rejection of a claim for compassionate appointment made by the son of a deceased government employee, who had attained the age of majority 11 years after his father's demise. The appellant's claim was rejected on the basis of Haryana Government instructions dated 22.03.1999, which stipulated that a minor dependent must attain the age of majority within three years from the date of the employee's death to qualify for compassionate appointment. The Court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception to the general rule of public employment. It emphasized that such appointments are aimed at alleviating immediate financial distress caused by the death of a government employee. The Court further clarified that equality under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity, such as extending benefits beyond the scope of applicable rules or policies. However, recognizing the prolonged pendency of the appellant's claim and the lack of timely communication by the State regarding his mother's entitlement to ex-gratia compensation, the Court directed the State to allow the appellant's mother to submit a representation seeking lump sum ex-gratia compensation under the relevant rules. The State was instructed to decide on the representation within six weeks, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum would apply to any compensation granted. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs. Tinku v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 886
Article 14 – Exemption of certain projects or activities from mandatory obtaining environment clearance – Unguided and blanket exemption, is, per se, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Item 6 grants exemption from the requirement of obtaining EC for “extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects, such as roads, pipelines, etc. Held, when an exception is sought to the requirement of obtaining EC, the exception must be specific. There is no specification about the quantum of ordinary earth, which can be extracted or the area which can be used to extract ordinary earth. “Linear projects” have not been defined making the term “linear projects” very vague. Even the amended item 6 continues to suffer from the same vice of arbitrariness, which Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits. The exemption granted without incorporating any safeguards is completely unguided and arbitrary and such blanket exemption completely defeats the very object of the EP Act. Hence, on account of the violation of Article 14, item 6 in the impugned notification, as well as the amended impugned notification, is struck down. (Para 25, 26 & 27) Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252 : AIR 2024 SC 1871
Article 14 – Right to equality of the underprivileged – Held, forests play a pivotal role in controlling pollution, which significantly affects the underprivileged, violating their right to equality. It is the vulnerable sections of the society who would be most affected by the depletion of forests, considering the fact that the more affluent sections of society have better access to resources as compared to the underprivileged. The concept of sustainable development is to be understood from an eco-centric approach. First and foremost, it is the environment that needs to be sustained, while the anthropogenic development must follow later. (Para 30 & 32) State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 314 : AIR 2024 SC 2466 : (2024) 6 SCC 461
Article 14 and Income Tax Rules, 1962; Rule 3(7) (i) – Fixing single benchmark for interest rates charged by different banks – Rule 3(7) (i) is challenged to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 insofar as it treats the PLR of SBI as the benchmark to determine the value of benefit to the assessee in comparison to the rate of interest charged by other individual banks – Held, it is neither arbitrary nor unequal exercise of power. By fixing a single clear benchmark for computation of the perquisite or fringe benefit, the rule prevents ascertainment of the interest rates being charged by different banks from the customers and, thus, checks unnecessary litigation. Rule 3(7) (i) ensures consistency in application, provides clarity for both the assessee and the revenue department, and provides certainty as to the amount to be taxed. Rule 3(7) (i) is based on a uniform approach and fair determining principle which aligns with constitutional values. Hence, Rule 3(7) is held to be intra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 32 & 33) All India Bank Officers' Confederation v. Central Bank of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 352 : (2024) 9 SCC 664
Article 14 - Substantive legitimate expectation and fairness in recruitment process - Whether the High Court's decision violated the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioner. Held, for a public authority to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation, it must objectively demonstrate an overriding public interest. The petitioner claimed a legitimate expectation under the unamended MJS Rules, 2005, that the merit list would be based on the aggregate marks of the written examination and viva voce. However, a minimum 40% cut-off for the viva voce was introduced after the recruitment process had begun, without prior notice to the candidates. Such a post-hoc imposition violated the petitioner's substantive legitimate expectation, rendering the process arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner's participation in the recruitment process did not preclude him from challenging the process's illegality, reaffirming the principle that the doctrine of estoppel cannot override the law. In conclusion, the Court ordered that the petitioner, having secured over 50% in aggregate marks, be declared successful in the recruitment test. The petitioner was granted appointment with notional seniority from 2015 for superannuation purposes but without retrospective monetary benefits. The directions were to be implemented within four weeks. Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 636
Article 14 - Judicial Review in Government Contracts – Principles and Application - The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles governing judicial intervention in matters of government contracts, emphasizing that courts do not act as appellate bodies but review the decision-making process to ensure it is free from arbitrariness, mala fides, and bias, and aligns with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 779
Article 14 - Impugned Decision Set Aside - The Court invalidated the rejection of the appellant's technical bid and the selection of the respondent as the successful bidder, finding the process grossly arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14. A fresh tender process was ordered to ensure adherence to constitutional and legal norms. Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 779
Article 14 - Government instrumentalities must uphold constitutional guarantees of fairness, equality, and non-arbitrariness in tender processes, especially in large-scale public projects, to safeguard public interest and ensure compliance with Article 14. Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 779
Article 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 - Caste-based Discrimination in Prisons – Removal of Caste References - Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 – Immediate deletion of the “caste” column and related references in prisoners' registers - The impugned provisions of the prison manuals and rules were declared unconstitutional - Issued comprehensive directions aimed at addressing caste-based discrimination in prisons and ensuring compliance across all States and Union Territories. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
Article 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 - Caste-based Discrimination in Prisons – Rejects view that caste-based segregation of prisoners will prevent violence - It is the responsibility of the prison administration to maintain discipline inside the prison without resorting to extreme measures that promote caste-based segregation. (Para 167) Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
Article 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 - Caste-based Discrimination in Prisons – Separate but equal' philosophy has no place in constitution - Adopting the logic accepted by the High Court is similar to the argument which was given in the United States to legalize race-based segregation: separate but equal. Such a philosophy has no place under the Indian Constitution. Even if there is rivalry between individuals of two groups, it does not require segregating the groups permanently. Discipline cannot be secured at the altar of violation of fundamental rights and correctional needs of inmates. The prison authorities ought to be able to tackle perceived threats to discipline by means that are not rights-effacing and inherently discriminatory. (Para 167) Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
Article 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 - Caste-based Discrimination in Prisons – the differentia between inmates that distinguishes on the basis of “habit”, “custom”, “superior mode of living”, and “natural tendency to escape”, etc. is unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate. These terms and phrases do not serve as an intelligible differentia, that can be used to demarcate one class of prisoners from the other. These terms have resultantly been used to target individuals from marginalized castes and denotified tribes. (Para 168) Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 - The High Court judgment and the AIIMS Nagpur Disability Assessment Board's report dated 13 August 2024 were quashed for non-compliance with statutory and regulatory standards. AIIMS Nagpur is directed to create a supernumerary seat for the appellant, subject to their non-allocation elsewhere. Colleges must implement recommendations to support the appellant's pursuit of the MBBS program, ensuring protection against victimization. The judgment shall have universal applicability. New disability-inclusive guidelines for medical admissions must be formulated by a committee including disability experts, aligned with contemporary disability justice principles. The Disability Assessment Boards must move beyond a benchmark model, ensuring fairness, transparency, and inclusion of health professionals with disabilities. Denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination, violating equality principles under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Encouraging persons with disabilities in the medical profession enhances healthcare quality and promotes fraternity. A database on college accessibility and accommodations must be created, with NEET applicants informed of such provisions. These units must facilitate clinical accommodations for students with disabilities. The appeal is allowed. Pending applications are disposed of, and the judgment is transmitted to relevant governmental authorities for compliance. Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 857
Articles 14 and 16 - The main issue was the legality of the OBC reservation, which was applied retroactively through a notification issued after the recruitment process had commenced. The petitioners argued that this change infringed upon their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the original recruitment notice did not include any reference to OBC reservations. The High Court set aside the selection made on 242 seats of OBC finding the retroactive application of the OBC reservation as illegal because proper opportunity was not served to all the candidates belonging to the OBC category to apply for the said posts. Held, changing the rules of the selection process mid-way would undermine the fairness of the selection process as it would deny equality of opportunity to other candidates eligible to be recruited in the OBC category. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision which annulled the selection of 242 candidates for Primary Teacher positions in the OBC category due to procedural flaws. The State should draw up a fresh selection list following the High Court's judgment limiting appointments to the originally stated 1,423 vacancies. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of equitable treatment for all similarly situated candidates following a recruitment process initiated in 2006. The Court observed that judgments declaring law, such as the High Court's decision on 06.10.2015, should be treated as judgments in rem, benefiting all candidates, irrespective of their involvement in litigation. The revised select list must be prepared strictly based on merit, with appointments confined to the originally notified 1,423 vacancies. The Court held that excluding candidates who did not litigate would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the prolonged recruitment process disadvantaged many. However, those appointed in 2011 and not listed in the revised merit list may face job displacement, with the government retaining discretion over their continued service. No arrears of salary were granted, but notional appointments from 09.12.2011 were recognized for superannuation benefits. The appeals filed by the State of Manipur were dismissed, and the recruitment process was ordered to conclude within specified timelines. Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. State of Manipur, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 792
Articles 14 and 16 - Whether a government employee, recommended for promotion before retirement but unable to assume the post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits for the promotional post post-retirement - Applicability of Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules in denying retrospective financial benefits without assuming the duties of the higher post. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Government of West Bengal, holding that Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules stipulates that an employee must assume the duties and responsibilities of a higher post to be eligible for the corresponding financial benefits. As respondent No. 1 retired before assuming such duties, he could not be granted financial benefits retrospectively. While the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the right to promotion itself is not absolute. Promotion becomes effective only upon the assumption of duties. Although the delay in processing the promotion was caused by the appellants' inaction, it does not override the statutory bar on retrospective promotions or the requirement of assuming the post's duties. Promotion becomes effective from the date an employee assumes charge of the higher post, not from the vacancy date or recommendation date. Retrospective promotions are not permissible unless explicitly enabled by statutory provisions. The impugned judgments of the High Court and the Administrative Tribunal were set aside. Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to notional financial benefits post-retirement. Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 927
Article 14 and 16 - Gujarat Rules, 2005; Rule 8 – Constitutionality of the Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test, as a part of the selection criteria, is challenged – Held, the Prescription of minimum qualifying marks for interview is permissible and this is not in violation of All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others which accepted certain recommendations of the Shetty Commission. Further held, the minimum cut-off of 20% for the Bihar recruitment and 40% for the Gujarat recruitment cannot be considered to provide a high threshold if one keeps in mind that the recruitment is for selection of judicial officers. The object of viva voce set out in Rule 8(5) of Gujarat Rules, 2005 has a reasonable and direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. the appointment of well-rounded judicial officers. For recruitment of judicial officers, ideally the effort should be to not only test the candidate's intellect but also their personality. The prescription of minimum cut off is also not perceived to be of such a nature that it reeks of irrationality, or was capricious and/or without any adequate determining principle. It does not appear to be disproportionate so as to adversely affect “meritorious” candidates and certainly not manifestly arbitrary, or irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The concerned recruitment Rules cannot be said to be unconstitutional. The impugned selection process in the State of Bihar and Gujarat are found to be legally valid and are upheld. (Para 66, 67 & 102) Abhimeet Sinha v. High Court of Judicature at Patna, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2024 SC 2596 : (2024) 7 SCC 262
Article 14, 16 and 21 - Reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities, - Fixation of cut-off marks - Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservations - The appellants challenged the recruitment process of 120 posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate initiated by the Rajasthan High Court, contending that the respondents failed to publish cut-off marks for the category of persons with benchmark disabilities in the preliminary examination results. The appellants claimed this omission was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights and the applicable state rules regarding reservation for persons with disabilities. Held, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is treated as an "overall horizontal reservation" and not compartmentalized into specific vertical categories such as SC, ST, or OBC. Candidates with disabilities were required to meet the cut-off marks for the vertical category they applied under. The Court found no statutory mandate requiring separate cut-off marks for the persons with benchmark disabilities in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, or the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018. The Court reaffirmed that those who participate in a selection process cannot challenge its methodology post-facto upon failing to succeed. Hence, the action of the respondents was not discriminatory or violative of the appellants' fundamental rights. Appeals dismissed. Rekha Sharma v. High Court of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 592 : AIR 2024 SC 4241
Article 14, 19, 21, 48A & 51A(g) – Fundamental rights and Directive principle of state policy are complimentary to each other – Article 48A and 51A(g) ought to be understood in light of Articles 14, 19 and 21, as they represent the collective conscience of the Constitution. If the continued existence and protection of forests is in the interest of humanity and nature, then there can be no other interpretation than to read the constitutional ethos into these provisions. Part III and Part IV of the Constitution are like two wheels of a chariot, complementing each other in their commitment to a social change and development. There is a constitutional duty enjoined upon every court to protect and preserve the environment. Courts will have to apply the principle of parens patriae in light of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 48A, 51A, 21, 14 and 19 of the constitution. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on a developer or industrialist and also on the State in a given case to prove that there is no degradation. (Para 25, 26 & 38) State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 314 : AIR 2024 SC 2466 : (2024) 6 SCC 461
Articles 14 and 21 - Disability assessment boards must apply mind - Disability assessment boards are not just monotonous automation to just look at the quantified benchmark disabilities as set out in the certificate of disability to cast aside a candidate. Such an approach would be antithetical to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and all canons of justice, equality and good conscience. The Disability assessment boards are obliged to assess the further question as to whether the candidate, in the opinion of the experts, would be eligible to pursue the course or in other words whether the disability will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question. (Para 46) Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 770
Articles 14 and 21 - The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 18 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail for offenses under the Act. The provision does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as the offenses under the Act form a separate class arising from the historical practice of untouchability and systemic oppression against SC/ST communities. Section 18 was upheld as it is necessary to prevent potential threats and intimidation by the accused, ensuring victims are not obstructed in pursuing justice. The Court acknowledged concerns of misuse but emphasized that the provision aligns with the object of the Act to protect vulnerable sections of society and uphold their dignity. Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : AIR 2024 SC 4557
Article 14 and 21 – The right to a healthy environment and the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change – The right to a healthy environment encapsulates the principle that every individual has the entitlement to live in an environment that is clean, safe, and conducive to their well-being. Even if there is no umbrella legislation in India which relates to climate change and the attendant concerns this does not mean that the people of India do not have a right against the adverse effects of climate change. As the havoc caused by climate change increases year by year, it becomes necessary to articulate this as a distinct right. It is recognised by Articles 14 and 21. Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised. States are compelled to prioritize environmental protection and sustainable development, thereby addressing the root causes of climate change and safeguarding the wellbeing of present and future generations. It is a fundamental right of all individuals to live in a healthy and sustainable environment. (Para 19, 24, 25 & 35) M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 286
Articles 14 and 51A - Appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers in the States - Submission that no such office is stipulated in the Constitution – Held, Appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers not unconstitutional. A Deputy Chief Minister is, first and foremost, a Minister in the Government of the State. The appellation of a Deputy Chief Minister does not breach the constitutional position. (Para 1) Public Political Party v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 130
Article 14 and 341 - Issue of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes - Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes Permissible - Article 14 allows sub-classification within a class that is not homogenous, provided it meets the intelligible differentia standard. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Article 15 - Colonial rulers imported caste-based allocation of work to prisons due to pressure from oppressor castes. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
Article 15 - End caste-based allotment of work to prisoners, delete caste columns in prison registers - Guidelines for the prevention of segregation and division of labour solely on the basis of the caste of the prisoners in Prisons - Struck down the provisions of the Prison Manuals of several States as per which jobs were assigned to prisons based on their castes - Assigning cleaning and sweeping to the marginalised castes and assigning cooking to higher-caste prisoners is nothing but a direct caste discrimination and a violation of Article 15. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
Article 15 (1) - The tendency to treat members of denotified tribes as habitual to crime or having bad character reinforces a stereotype, which excludes them from meaningful participation in social life. When such stereotypes become a part of the legal framework, they legitimize discrimination against these communities. Members of the denotified tribes have faced the brunt of colonial caste-based undertones of discriminating against them, and the prison Manuals are reaffirming the same discrimination. (Para 175) Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
Article 15(4) and 16(4) - Indra Sawhney Case - Applicability - The principle of sub-classification applies beyond Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and extends to beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) - In Indra Sawhney, the Court did not restrict sub-classification to Other Backward Classes, but extended it to other beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Article 16(1), 16(4) and 335 - Efficiency of Administration - Article 335 does not limit sub-classification; rather, it reinforces the importance of inclusion and equality in public services in line with Article 16(1). State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Article 17 - No social group born as 'scavenger class'; notion that some occupations are 'degrading' is an aspect of untouchability. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
Article 19 - A criminal defamation case was filed against the owner of a newspaper for an article published against an advocate. The Magistrate rejected the complaint, stating that the news article in question was published in good faith and in the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Magistrate's view cannot be termed as "illegal or unjustified," and therefore, there is no justification for interference by the Sessions Court or the High Court. (Para 8 & 9) Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 67 AIR 2024 SC 811 : (2024) 3 SCC 718
Article 19 - The Supreme Court upheld a rule issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) barring Chartered Accountants from accepting more than the "specified number of tax audit assignments" (at present, the upper limit is set at 60) in a financial year. The rule (para 6.0 of Chapter VI of the Council Guidelines No. 1-CA(7)/02/2008 dt. 08/08/2008 and the subsequent amendments) are not violative of the fundamental right to practise profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The clause will be deemed to be effective from 01.04.2024 and quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the members for violation of the clause. The ICAI will be at liberty to enhance the number of audits that a CA can undertake. Shaji Paulose v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 397
Article 19(1)(a) – Commercial speech includes advertisements and is protected under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, subject to the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2). Commercial speech that is deceptive, unfair, misleading, and untruthful is excluded from such constitutional protection and can be regulated and prohibited by the State. Subject to constitutional restrictions, the producer/ advertiser has the freedom to creatively and artistically promote his goods and services. (Para 5) Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Afreen Fatima Zaidi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : AIR 2024 SC 2333 : (2024) 10 SCC 515
Article 19(1)(a) – Constitutionality of Section 182(3) of Companies Act as amended by Section 154 of Finance Act – Non-disclosure of particulars of political contribution is violative of Right to Information – After amendment, Section 182(3) only requires the disclosure of the total amount contributed to political parties in a financial year. The deletion of the mandate of disclosing the particulars of contributions violates the right to information of the voter since they would not possess information about the political party to which the contribution was made which, is necessary to identify corruption and quid pro quo transactions in governance. Such information is also necessary for exercising an informed vote. The only purpose of amending Section 182(3) was to bring the provision in tune with the amendment under Section 29C of the RPA exempting disclosure requirements for contributions through electoral bonds. The amendment to Section 182(3) of the Companies Act serves no practical purpose as the Electoral Bond Scheme and relevant amendments to the RPA and the IT Act mandating non-disclosure of particulars on political contributions through electoral bonds is held unconstitutional. Hence, Section 182(3) as amended by the Finance Act 2017 is unconstitutional. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : AIR 2024 SC 1441 : (2024) 5 SCC 1
Article 19(1)(a) – Infringement of the Right to information of the voter – The non-disclosure of information about electoral contributions under amendments introduced by the Finance Act 2017 and the Electoral Bond Scheme is violative of the right to information of the voter traceable to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The voters have a right to the disclosure of information which is “essential” for choosing the candidate for whom a vote should be cast. The information about funding to a political party is such an 'essential' information for a voter to exercise their freedom to vote in an effective manner. The right to information of the voter includes the right to information of financial contributions to a political party because of the influence of money in electoral politics (through electoral outcomes) and governmental decisions. Information about political funding would enable a voter to assess if there is a correlation between policy making and financial contributions. Anonymizing contributions through electoral bonds are violative of Article 19(1)(a). Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : AIR 2024 SC 1441 : (2024) 5 SCC 1
Article 19(1) (a) – Freedom to criticise decisions of the government – Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, under which, every citizen has the right to offer criticism of the action of abrogation of Article 370 or every other decision of the State. If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive. The appellant intended to criticise the action of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India and did not refer to any religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. Describing the day the abrogation happened as a “Black Day” is an expression of protest and anguish. The effect of the words used by the appellant will have to be judged from the standards of reasonable women and men. Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract Section 153-A (1) (a) of the IPC. Further, every citizen has the right to extend good wishes to the citizens of the other countries on their respective independence days. It cannot be said that such acts will tend to create disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups. Motives cannot be attributed only because the person belongs to a particular religion. WhatsApp status of the appellant cannot be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony among various groups. Thus, continuation of the prosecution under Section 153-A of the IPC will be a gross abuse of the process of law. (Para 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14) Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 208 : (2024) 4 SCC 156
Article 19(1)(a) - Evidence act, 1872; Section 124 – Scope of right to information in the context of deciding the disclosure of evidence relating to affairs of the State – Conflict between public interest and private interest – Article 19(1)(a) has been held to guarantee the right to information to citizens. It is the role of citizens to hold the State accountable for its actions and inactions and they must possess information about State action for them to accomplish this role effectively. Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act stipulate that evidence which is relevant and material to proceedings need not be disclosed to the party if the disclosure would violate public interest. When such disclosure is denied on the ground that it would violate public interest, there is a conflict between private interest and public interest. There is a public interest in the impartial administration of justice which can only be secured by the disclosure of relevant and material documents. There is a close relationship between the right to information and open governance. Citizens have a duty to hold the government of the day accountable for their actions and inactions, and they can effectively fulfil this duty only if the government is open and not clothed in secrecy. The right to information has an instrumental exegesis, which recognizes the value of the right in facilitating the realization of democratic goals. But beyond that, the right to information has an intrinsic constitutional value; one that recognizes that it is not just a means to an end but an end in itself. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : AIR 2024 SC 1441 : (2024) 5 SCC 1
Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) - Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 - Infringement of the right to information of the voters for the purposes of curbing black money – Proportionality standard applied – Least restrictive means stage –The Electoral Bond Scheme is not the only means for curbing black money in Electoral Finance. There are other alternatives which substantially fulfill the purpose and impact the right to information minimally when compared to the impact of electoral bonds on the right to information. The legal regime itself provides other alternatives to curb black money such as contributions through cheques, bank draft, electronic clearing system or electoral trusts. Hence, the Electoral Bond Scheme does not fulfill the least restrictive means test. Further, the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) can only be restricted based on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2). The purpose of curbing black money is not traceable to any of the grounds in Article 19(2). Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : AIR 2024 SC 1441 : (2024) 5 SCC 1
Article 19(1) (a) & 21– Right to dissent – The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) and every individual must respect the right of others to dissent. An opportunity to peacefully protest against the decisions of the Government is an essential part of democracy. The right to dissent in a lawful manner must be treated as a part of the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21, but the protest or dissent must be subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with Article 19(2). Further, the police machinery must be enlightened on the concept of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and the extent of reasonable restraint on this freedom. The police machinery must be sensitised about the democratic values enshrined in our Constitution. (Para 10 & 13) Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 208 : (2024) 4 SCC 156
Article 20 - Constitutional validity of provisions in the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 - Applicability of the 2016 Amendment Act retrospectively or prospectively - Held, the Court recalled its judgment dated August 23, 2022, which declared Section 3(2) of the 1988 Act unconstitutional for being arbitrary and violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. Section 5 of the 1988 Act was also declared unconstitutional for being arbitrary. The 2016 Act, being substantive, cannot apply retrospectively for forfeiture provisions under Section 5. The constitutional challenge cannot be adjudicated without a proper lis between the parties. The review petition is allowed, recalling the judgment dated August 23, 2022. Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 is restored for fresh adjudication by a new Bench. Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 851
Article 20 - Calling upon the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution alongwith the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., could not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused, nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. However, the Court deleted the observations made in paragraph 56 of the impugned order, which suggested that deliberate denial of a document's genuineness could be considered an aggravating circumstance during sentencing. The petitioner is allowed to raise all legally permissible contentions during the trial. (Para 2 - 4) Ashok Daga v. Directorate Of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 480
Article 20(1) – Article 20(1) does not prohibit this Court, to award a lesser punishment in a befitting case, when this Court is of the opinion that a lesser punishment may be awarded since the new law on the penal provision provides a lesser punishment i.e. lesser than what was actually applicable at the relevant time. The prohibition contained in Article 20 of the Constitution of India is on subjecting a person to a higher punishment than which was applicable for that crime at the time of the commission of the crime. There is no prohibition for this Court to impose a lesser punishment which is now applicable for the same crime. (Para 8) A.K. Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 212
Article 20(3) and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 42(1) – Power of search and seizure under Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act 1985, is inherently limited by the recognition of fundamental rights by the Constitution as well as statutory limitations. Article 20(3) of the Constitution would not be affected by the provisions of search and seizure. The statutory provisions conferring authorities with the power to search and seize are a mere temporary interference with the right of the accused as they stand well regulated by reasonable restrictions emanating from the statutory provisions itself. (Para 41) Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 298 : AIR 2024 SC 2778
Article 21 - Judicial Conduct – Delay in Pronouncement of Judgments – Ante-dating of Orders - Judicial discipline requires prompt delivery of reasoned judgments and emphasized that delays undermine litigants' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Reasons should follow promptly after the pronouncement of the operative part to avoid suspicion and uphold judicial integrity. Judges were reminded of the three options for delivering judgments: (i) dictation in open court, (ii) reserving for a later date, or (iii) issuing the operative part with reasons to follow within a strict timeline. Any delay beyond five days must be avoided to maintain trust in the judiciary. While recognizing human fallibility and the workload on judges, the Court stressed the importance of judicial propriety and integrity in safeguarding the justice system's credibility. Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 820
Article 21 - The failure to implement these provisions, particularly Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act, denies victims the fundamental right to dignity and protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It directed strict implementation of these provisions to prevent victims from facing situations where their right to make informed choices about their future is compromised. The State is duty-bound to provide shelter, support, and financial assistance to victims, ensuring their reintegration into society and protecting their right to lead a dignified life. In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : AIR 2024 SC 4004
Article 21 - Bail on grounds of undue delay in Trial despite bar in NDPS Act – Failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered. Held, section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, does not fetter the grant of bail to an accused on the ground of undue delay in the completion of the trial. Direction given to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 416
Article 21 - Here the accused is lodged in jail for a considerable period and there is little possibility of trial reaching finality in the near future. The liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution does not get abrogated even for special statutes where the threshold twin bar is provided and such statutes, in our opinion, cannot carve out an exception to the principle of bail being the rule and jail being the exception. The cardinal principle of bail being the rule and jail being the exception will be entirely defeated if the petitioner is kept in custody as an under-trial for such a long duration. This is particularly glaring since in the event of conviction, the maximum sentence prescribed is only 7 years for the offence of money laundering. (Para 12) Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 644
Article 21 - Court must balance the statutory twin conditions required for bail with the fundamental principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." Even in cases under PMLA, the overarching principle of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails, ensuring that statutory conditions for bail should not override constitutional safeguards. Thus, courts should be guided by the higher constitutional mandate of speedy trial and personal liberty, especially where prolonged incarceration occurs without the conclusion of trial. (Para 11) Prem Prakash v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : AIR 2024 SC 4286
Article 21 - The appellants had been in custody for 2 years and 1 year 9 months, respectively. Initially, an FIR under various sections of the IPC was registered, but no scheduled offence under PMLA was present at the time of filing the charge-sheet. Subsequently, Section 384 IPC was added, but its validity as a scheduled offence was in question. Whether the appellants were entitled to bail under Section 4 of the PMLA Act, considering the absence of a valid scheduled offence at the time of filing the PMLA complaint and the prolonged incarceration. Held, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellants, observing that at the time of filing the PMLA complaint, there was no scheduled offence under the Act. The addition of Section 384 IPC later did not retrospectively validate the absence of a scheduled offence at the relevant time. Continued incarceration of the appellants violated their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Laxmikant Tiwari v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 787
Article 21 - Expeditious adjudication of bail matters - High Court's duty to ensure timely justice - Supreme Court's directive to High Court of Bombay - Constitutionality of Article 21 - Liberty of citizen paramount - Urgency in deciding bail applications emphasized. (Para 3 - 6) Amol Vitthal Vahile v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 159
Article 21 - Once a court concludes that an accused is entitled to bail, the implementation of the bail order cannot be postponed. Such a postponement would violate the accused's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Jitendra Paswan Satya Mitra v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 655
Article 21 – Bail conditions cannot be fanciful, arbitrary or freakish and must be within the four corners of Section 437(3). The bail conditions must be consistent with the object of imposing conditions. While imposing bail conditions, the Constitutional rights of an accused, who is ordered to be released on bail, can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required. In case of the accused whose guilt is yet to be established, the presumption of innocence is applicable and such person cannot be deprived of all his rights guaranteed under Article 21. Further held, Courts must show restraint while imposing bail conditions. Hence, while granting bail, the Courts can curtail the freedom of the accused only to the extent required for imposing the bail conditions warranted by law and cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself. (Para 7 & 7.1) Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 441 : AIR 2024 SC 3418 : (2024) 8 SCC 415 : 2024 CriLJ 3297
Article 21 – Validity of bail condition – The condition of dropping pin on google map – Bail condition of dropping a PIN on Google Map gives an impression that the condition will enable to monitor the movements of the accused on a realtime basis, which will be violative of the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Held, this cannot be a condition of bail and deserves to be deleted and ordered accordingly. (10, 10.2) Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 441 : AIR 2024 SC 3418 : (2024) 8 SCC 415 : 2024 CriLJ 3297
Article 21 - Whether the suspension of the substantive sentence by the High Court extended to the sentence of fine imposed on the respondent. Whether the respondent could avoid imprisonment for default of fine payment despite partial compliance. Held, a fine is a distinct form of punishment under Section 53 of the IPC, and its suspension is within the ambit of Section 389 CrPC. The High Court's order suspending the respondent's sentence implicitly covered the fine, given the substantial embezzlement allegations. However, to balance justice and ensure compliance, the Court modified the suspension to be conditional upon the deposit of ₹15,00,000. The Court clarified that a sentence of fine is as significant as imprisonment, and its suspension should be assessed case-wise, considering the accused's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Imposing an impossible financial condition for suspension could undermine the right to appeal. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 840
Article 21 - Right to Speedy Trial - If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude. (Para 22) Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 486 : AIR 2024 SC 3579 : (2024) 8 SCC 293
Article 21 and Criminal procedure Code, 1973 – Right to a speedy trial – Application for bail on grounds of delay in trial of 4 years – Held, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment – If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. Further held, the court is inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant for reasons: (i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; (ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and (iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses. As it cannot be assumed by what time the trial will ultimately conclude, howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions. (Para 7, 8, 9, 19 & 23) Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 437 : (2024) 9 SCC 813
Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the soul of the Constitution as the liberty of a citizen is of paramount importance. Not deciding the matter pertaining to liberty of a citizen expeditiously and shunting away the matter on one or the other ground would deprive the party of their precious right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 3) Amol Vitthal Vahile v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 159
Article 21 – Right to just and fair trial – Actions of the authorities concerned within the meaning of the NDPS Act 1985 must be towards ensuring of upholding the rights of the accused in order to allow the accused to have a fair trial. (Para 24) Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 298 : AIR 2024 SC 2778
Article 21 – Pre-conviction detention – Liberty of a pre-trial detenue – Detention before conclusion of trial at the investigation and post-chargesheet stage has the sanction of law but any form of deprival of liberty results in breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and must be justified on the ground of being reasonable, following a just and fair procedure. Pre-conviction detention must be proportionate in the facts of a given case depending on gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed. (Para 38) Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : AIR 2024 SC 2169 : 2024 Cri LJ 2001 : (2024) 6 SCC 591
Article 21 – Primacy of consent of pregnant person in abortion – The right to choose and reproductive freedom is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The consent of a pregnant person in decisions of reproductive autonomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount and the MTP Act does not allow any interference with the personal choice of a pregnant person in terms of proceeding with the termination. The Act or indeed the jurisprudence around abortion developed by the courts leave no scope for interference by the family or the partner of a pregnant person in matters of reproductive choice. In case there is a divergence in the opinion of a pregnant person and her guardian, the opinion of the minor or mentally ill pregnant person must be taken into consideration as an important aspect in enabling the court to arrive at a just conclusion. (Para 32, 35 & 37) A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 349 : AIR 2024 SC 2499 : (2024) 6 SCC 327
Article 21 – Right to abortion – The right to abortion is a concomitant right of dignity, autonomy and reproductive choice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The fundamental right of a pregnant person is not compromised for reasons other than to protect the physical and mental health of the pregnant person. (Para 21) A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 349 : AIR 2024 SC 2499 : (2024) 6 SCC 327
Article 21 – The expression 'life' unequivocally includes the right to live a life worthy of human honour and dignity. Self-regard, social image and an honest space for oneself in one's surrounding society, are just as significant to a dignified life as are adequate food, clothing and shelter. Held, pre-conceived notions of prevailing stereotypes associated with a particular community, often render them 'invisible victims' and impede their right to live a life with self-respect. (Para 14 & 15) Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 351 : AIR 2024 SC 2340 : (2024) 6 SCC 804
Article 21 – Right to health – The fundamental right to health encompasses the right of a consumer to be made aware of the quality of products being offered for sale by manufacturers, service providers, advertisers and advertising agencies. (Para 23) Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 381 : (2024) 8 SCC 46
Article 21 – Procedure of inviting objections to the draft Environmental clearance (EC) notification – Held, before the issue of the second EC notification, the procedure of inviting objections to the draft notification was followed, and the objections were considered. Hence, there is no reason to dispense with the requirement of inviting objections before publishing the impugned notification. Article 21 guarantees a right to live in a pollution-free environment and therefore, the participation of the citizens is very important by allowing them to raise objections to the proposed notification. Hence, their participation cannot be prevented by casually exercising the power under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5. (Para 22) Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252 : AIR 2024 SC 1871
Article 21 & 22(1) & 22 (5) – Mandatory to inform' grounds of arrest' – The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Noncompliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. (Para 30) Prabir Purkayastha v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376 : AIR 2024 SC 2967 : 2024 Cri LJ 2450 : (2024) 8 SCC 254
Article 21 and 32 - Writ petition aggrieved by non-consideration and non-disposal of criminal appeal is not maintainable. If priority has not been given to the criminal appeal by the High Court for early hearing, for whatever reason, the same is also part of the judicial process and cannot be made amenable to a challenge in a writ petition under Article 32 citing breach of Article 21. A judicial decision rendered by a Judge of competent jurisdiction in or in relation to a matter brought before him does not infringe a Fundamental Right. If the petitioner wishes to be released on bail pending the criminal appeal, cannot invoke the writ remedy but has to take recourse to an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 3) Ganpat @ Ganapat v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 147
Article 21 and 47 – Right to food – Although the Constitution of India does not explicitly provide for Right to food, the fundamental Right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution does include Right to live with human dignity and right to food and other basic necessities. Article 47 of the Constitution also provides that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. (Para 5) Anun Dhawan v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 161 : AIR 2024 SC 1248
Article 22 - The provision regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest to a person arrested contained in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA is verbatim the same as that in Section 19(1) of the PMLA – It is a statutory mandate requiring the arresting officer to inform the grounds of arrest to the person arrested under Section 43B(1) of the UAPA at the earliest. Both the provisions find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is the same in both the statutes. Hence, applying the golden rules of interpretation, the provisions which lay down a very important constitutional safeguard to a person arrested on charges of committing an offence either under the PMLA or under the UAPA, have to be uniformly construed and applied. (Para 17, 18, 22 & 34) Prabir Purkayastha v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376 : AIR 2024 SC 2967 : 2024 Cri LJ 2450 : (2024) 8 SCC 254
Article 22 - The High Court had previously dismissed the appellant's writ petition, which claimed that relevant documents were not supplied, impairing the detenue's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Held, the grounds for detention were nearly identical to those in a prior case where the High Court quashed the detention orders due to the non-supply of similar documents, particularly WhatsApp chats. The Court emphasized the necessity for judicial discipline and adherence to precedent within the same High Court, ruling that the second Division Bench should have followed the earlier decision. Quashed the detention order and its confirmation, reinstating the rights of the detenue. Shabna Abdulla v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 588
Article 22(1) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); Section 43B (1) – The proceedings of arrest and the police custody remand of appellant is questioned – On grounds that mandator requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested is not provided – The arrest memo nowhere conveys the grounds on which the accused was being arrested. Keeping the accused in police custody without informing him the grounds on which he has been arrested; deprives the accused of the opportunity to avail services of the legal practitioner of his choice to oppose the prayer for police custody remand and seek bail. Held, the copy of the remand application in the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the accused appellant or his counsel before passing of the order of remand which vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant. Further held, the mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused. The arrest of the appellant followed by remand order are hereby declared to be invalid in the eyes of law and are quashed and set aside. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a direction for release from custody. (Para 48, 50 & 51) Prabir Purkayastha v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376 : AIR 2024 SC 2967 : 2024 Cri LJ 2450 : (2024) 8 SCC 254
Article 22(4) and Act, 1986; Section 9, 10, 11 & 12 - Advisory Board - Article 22(4) mandates that, any law pertaining to preventive detention must provide for constitution of an Advisory Board consisting of persons who have been or qualified to be appointed as judges of the High Court. It further vests the Advisory Board with the pivotal role of reviewing an order of detention within three-months by forming an opinion as to whether there is a sufficient cause for such detention or not, after consideration of all the material on record including representation if any, of the detenu. Under preventive detention legislations, Advisory Boards(s) are constitutional safeguards available to the detenu against an order of detention. Under the Act, 1986, Section 9 gives expression to this constitutional requirement, and provides for the constitution and composition of an Advisory Board for the purposes of the Act. Under section 10, any order of detention that has been made under the Act shall be placed before an Advisory Board thereunder within three-weeks from the date of its passing. As per Section 11, the Advisory Board must form an opinion and specify as to whether there is sufficient cause warranting the detention of the detenu. (Para 50, 52 & 53) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253 : AIR 2024 SC 1610 : 2024 Cri.L.J. 1733
Article 29 and 226 - Right to Separate Language Channel – Petition sought mandamus for setting up a dedicated Sindhi language channel on Doordarshan under Article 226. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no constitutional obligation on Doordarshan to establish a separate channel for the Sindhi-speaking population under Article 29 of the Constitution. The feasibility of a separate Sindhi channel had been thoroughly evaluated, considering factors like viewership and costs, and the decision to deny it was deemed reasonable and non-arbitrary. The Court clarified that the relief was confined to the plea for a separate channel and did not include any broader relief. Special Leave Petition dismissed. Sindhi Sangat v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 833
Article 30 (1) - Interpretation of - Minority Educational Institutions – Universities established before Constitution - Dual Nature of Article 30(1) - Proof of Establishment - Definition of Minorities - Retention of Minority Character - Criteria for Establishment by Minorities - Validity of Reference - Overruling of Azeez Basha - Impact on Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) - The reference in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya regarding the correctness of the decision in Azeez Basha was valid, adhering to the parameters laid down in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community. Article 30(1) serves as both an anti-discrimination and a special rights provision. It prohibits discrimination against religious or linguistic minorities in establishing or administering educational institutions and guarantees greater administrative autonomy to such institutions. Religious or linguistic minorities must prove that they established the institution for it to qualify as a minority educational institution under Article 30(1). Article 30(1) rights extend to universities established before the Constitution's commencement. The right under Article 30(1) applies to minorities as defined at the Constitution's commencement. No new right-bearing groups can be identified for pre-Constitution institutions. Incorporation of a university does not automatically result in the loss of its minority character. Courts must assess the surrounding circumstances and statutory provisions to determine if the minority character was relinquished upon incorporation. The idea, purpose, and implementation of the institution must originate from the minority community. The administrative setup must affirm the institution's minority character and its purpose to protect minority interests. The view that a minority cannot establish an institution if it derives its legal character through a statute is overruled. The minority status of AMU must be determined based on the principles laid down in this judgment. Reference disposed of. Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 869
Article 30 (1) guarantees the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice to religious and linguistic minorities. However, the State has an interest in ensuring that the minority educational institutions impart secular education along with religious education or instruction. The constitutional scheme allows the State to strike a balance between two objectives: (i) ensuring the standard of excellence of minority educational institutions; and (ii) preserving the right of the minority to establish and administer its educational institution. The State generally strikes a balance by enacting regulations accompanying the recognition of minority educational institutions. The High Court erred in holding that education provided under the 2004 Act is violative of Article 21A because (i) The RTE Act which facilitates the fulfilment of the fundamental right under Article 21 – A contains a specific provision by which it does not apply to minority educational institutions; (ii) The right of a religious minority to establish and administer Madarsas to impart both religious and secular education is protected by Article 30; and (iii) the Board and the state government have sufficient regulatory powers to prescribe and regulate standards of education for the Madarsas. (Para 79) Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854
Article 31C - The provision of Article 31C, as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India, remains operative. Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855
Article 32 - The petitioner, a person with benchmark disability under the Act, 2016, sought enforcement of inclusive accessibility guidelines at airports and training for airport staff to sensitively assist passengers with disabilities. The petitioner invoked Article 32 of the Constitution, raising concerns over the implementation of accessibility standards and discriminatory practices during security screening. Held, the Supreme Court, emphasizing the assimilation of persons with disabilities into mainstream society, mandated the enforcement of detailed guidelines proposed by the Union of India. These include: Development of a real-time wheelchair availability mobile application. Mandatory mechanized wheelchairs at designated airport points. Coding of boarding passes with disability-specific identifiers and severity scales. Integration of the Unique Disability Identity Database (UDID) into ticket booking systems for seamless verification. Installation of specialized kiosks with voice recognition for enhanced accessibility. Regular sensitization training for airport staff, categorized into frequent training for frontline staff and periodic training for others. The Court extended these guidelines to include elderly and injured passengers requiring assistance and clarified that physical assistance currently provided at airports must continue alongside the new measures. Writ Petition disposed of with the above guidelines made mandatory. Arushi Singh v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 907
Article 32 – Writ petition – Double taxation challenged – Legality of different State Governments levying and collecting Authorization Fee/Border Tax in violation of All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023 in question – Held, the State enactments, rules and regulations being not under challenge, it cannot be said that the demand of Border Tax/Authorization Fee at the borders by the respective State Governments is bad under law. The petitioners, in order to succeed, have to first consider challenging the State provision contained in the Act. (Para 10) Muthyala Sunil Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 450 : AIR 2024 SC 3496
Article 32 – Quashing the order of detention – The Court does not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction but may ascertain whether the subjective satisfaction is based on objective facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind. (Para 43) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253 : AIR 2024 SC 1610 : 2024 Cri.L.J. 1733
Article 32 – Writ of Habeas Corpus – 'Habeas Corpus' literally means 'have his body'. This is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective relief of immediate release from unlawful or unjustifiable detention, whether in prison or in private custody. It is the duty of the Court to issue this writ to safeguard the freedom of the citizen against arbitrary and illegal detention. By the writ of habeas corpus, the Court can cause any person who is imprisoned to be brought before the Court and obtain knowledge of the reason why he is imprisoned and then either set him free then and there if there is no legal justification for the imprisonment, or see that he is brought speedily to trial. The writ may be addressed to any person whatsoever an official or a private individual who has another in his custody. (Para 29 & 30) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253 : AIR 2024 SC 1610 : 2024 Cri.L.J. 1733
Article 32 - Writ or direction for expeditious disposal of Criminal Appeal - Held, the Supreme Court has no power of superintendence over the High Courts. There is no provision in Chapter-IV (titled The Union Judiciary) under Part-V (The Union) of the Constitution of India which, in terms similar to Article 227 of the Constitution (Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court) under Chapter-V thereof, confers power of superintendence on the Supreme Court over the High Courts. In our constitutional scheme there is a clear division of jurisdiction between the two institutions and both the institutions need to have mutual respect for each other. Accepting the prayer of the petitioner and issuing any direction, as prayed, would amount to inappropriate exercise of discretionary jurisdiction showing disrespect to another constitutional court; hence, no such direction, as prayed by the petitioner, can be issued. That apart, assuming that an extraordinary case requires a nudge from Supreme Court for early hearing of a long pending criminal appeal, it is only a request that ought to be made to the High Court to such effect in appropriate proceedings, care being taken to ensure that the proceeding before Supreme Court is otherwise maintainable. (Para 1 - 3) Ganpat @ Ganapat v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 147
Article 32 and 226 – Maintainability of Writ Petition in Supreme Court – Held, the petitioners ought to have first approached their jurisdictional High Courts to challenge their respective State enactments. Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the matter at the present stage. (Para 9 & 10) Muthyala Sunil Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 450 : AIR 2024 SC 3496
Article 39 (b) - Interpretation of - The majority judgment in Ranganatha Reddy explicitly distanced itself from the minority opinion of Justice Krishna Iyer. Consequently, the reliance on this minority view in Sanjeev Coke was erroneous. Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855
Article 39 (b) - Observation in Mafatlal - The single-sentence observation in Mafatlal Industries—stating that “material resources of the community” include privately owned resources—is not part of its ratio decidendi and is therefore not binding. Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855
Article 39 (b) - Material Resources of the Community: The phrase “material resources of the community” in Article 39(b) may theoretically include privately owned resources. However, the Court rejects the broad interpretation in Justice Krishna Iyer's minority judgment and emphasizes that not all privately owned resources qualify as “material resources of the community” merely by serving material needs. Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855
Article 39 (b) - Context-Specific Inquiry - Determining whether a resource falls under Article 39(b) requires a context-specific analysis based on factors such as: The nature and characteristics of the resource; Its impact on community well-being; Its scarcity; and Potential consequences of private ownership concentration. The Public Trust Doctrine may guide this determination. Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855
Article 39 (b) - Scope of 'Distribution' - The term “distribution” under Article 39(b) has a broad meaning. It encompasses various state mechanisms, including vesting resources in the state or nationalization, provided the distribution serves the common good. Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855
Article 131 - Scope of - Explained - CBI under administrative control and superintendence of Union Govt. - The State's suit against the Union over the registration of cases by the CBI despite revocation of its general consent is maintainable. State of West Bengal v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 451
Article 136 - The bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available. Gopal Krishnan MS v. Ravindra Beleyur, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 5
Article 136 - A judgment setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 is appealable under Section 37. The jurisdiction under Section 37 is akin to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 and restricted to the same grounds of challenge as Section 34. As per section 37(3) of Arbitration Act, a recourse to Section 37 is the only appellate remedy available against a decision under Section 34 and no second appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 37. Held, nothing in the section 37(3) takes away the constitutional right under Article 136 to grant Special Leave to Appeal against a decision rendered in appeal under Section 37. This is the discretionary and exceptional jurisdiction of this Court to grant Special Leave to Appeal and it is a third stage at which this court tests the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts acting under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. (Para 41, 42) Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 291 : AIR 2024 SC 2070 : (2024) 6 SCC 357
Article 136 - The Court reaffirmed that locus standi under Article 136 of the Constitution can be extended to third parties with a bona fide interest in the matter, provided the appeal advances substantial justice. The Court held that the appellant, a socially spirited individual connected to the matter, had locus standi to maintain the appeal, especially given the grave allegations of interference with judicial processes. The Court observed that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings based on Section 195(1)(b). The initiation of the proceedings stemmed from judicial directions and not from a private complaint. The Court emphasized that judicial or administrative orders by a subordinate court are sufficient to overcome the statutory bar under Section 195(1)(b). The Court upheld the High Court's direction for a de novo trial, citing the principles in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 89 and emphasizing that retrial is permissible in exceptional circumstances to avert miscarriage of justice. Locus standi under Article 136 is context-dependent and must be exercised with vigilance to prevent abuse. The bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. applies only when offences are committed with respect to documents in judicial custody and not prior. Retrial is justified in rare cases where procedural or substantive lapses lead to miscarriage of justice. M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 905
Article 136 - Extraordinary Powers of the Supreme Court - Article 136 of the Constitution confers plenary and extraordinary powers upon the Supreme Court, enabling it to interfere in any judgment, decree, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. Unlike statutory appellate powers, Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal but provides discretionary authority to address exceptional cases where substantial injustice or a significant question of law arises. These powers are not bound by procedural limitations. This jurisdiction, though wide, is sparingly exercised, especially in matters where grave miscarriage of justice is evident. Article 136 acts as a corrective and protective jurisdiction, with the Court exercising its discretion to uphold justice, maintain legal consistency, and safeguard fundamental rights. (Para 19) Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : AIR 2024 SC 5081
Article 136 - The Supreme Court's powers under Article 136 are plenary and extraordinary, unfettered by statutory provisions and distinct from ordinary appellate powers. The jurisdiction under Article 136 is invoked in cases of grave injustice or substantial legal questions of public importance, even extending to the correction of factual errors where lower courts have acted perversely or improperly. This discretionary power, exercisable by special leave, is not restricted by procedural limitations and can be invoked by private parties as well as the State. (Para 19) Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : AIR 2024 SC 5081
Article 136 - The Court has emphasized the need for this power to be exercised sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances, to ensure justice is upheld and miscarriage of justice is prevented. It is a corrective and supervisory jurisdiction aimed at maintaining consistency in legal precedents and safeguarding the rights and liberties of individuals. The inherent limitations are self-imposed and exercised with judicial discretion to avoid arbitrary decisions. (Para 19) Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : AIR 2024 SC 5081
Article 136 – Interference not warranted – The Technical Assistants are not claiming against the 75% posts available for direct recruits. Their claim is only towards 25% posts which are required to be filled in from Junior Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants who have put five year service and have acquired B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification. Held, the Technical Assistants are not encroaching upon the quota apportioned for directly recruited Assistant Engineers. The continuation of the appellants as Assistant Engineers would not amount to encroaching upon the 75% posts apportioned for the members of the appellants' association. Hence, any interference at this stage is likely to undo the settled position which has been prevalent almost for a period of last 18 years. (Para 21, 25 & 26) Association of Engineers v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 304 : AIR 2024 SC 2061
Article 136 – Interference under Article 136 is not warranted – The Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article 136 sparingly and only when exceptional circumstances exist which justify the exercise of its discretion. The court is not inclined under Article 136 of the Constitution to re-appreciate the findings of facts which have been arrived at by the High Court. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any error that would warrant the invocation of jurisdiction under Article 136. (Para 18 & 23) Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 211
Article 136 – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Discretion to interfere – In cases where there is no substantial question of law this court would not exercise its discretion. (Para 18) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 230
Article 136 – Power to interfere in acquittal passed by High Court – Once the appellate court acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence as it existed before conviction by the Trial Court, stands restored. Court, while scrutinizing the evidence, will proceed with great circumspect and will not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal, save when the impeccable prosecution evidence nails the accused beyond any doubt. An intervention is warranted when the High Court's approach or reasoning is deemed perverse or when based on suspicion and surmises court rejects evidence or when the acquittal is primarily rooted in an exaggerated adherence to the rule of giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Further circumstance for intervention arises when the acquittal would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice. An erroneous or perverse approach to the proven facts of a case and/or ignorance of some of the vital circumstances would amount to a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice. Supreme Court will be justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to undo the injustice mete out to the victims of a crime. (Para 15, 17 & 18) State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 218 : AIR 2024 SC 3135 : (2024) 4 SCC 469
Article 136 – Scope of interference in arbitral award – While adjudicating the merits of a Special Leave Petition and exercising its power under Article 136, the Supreme Court must interfere sparingly and only when exceptional circumstances exist, justifying the exercise of the Court's discretion. The Supreme Court must be slow in interfering with a judgement delivered in exercise of powers under Section 37 unless there is an error in exercising of the jurisdiction. Held, the judgment of the Division Bench provided more than adequate reasons to come to the conclusion that the arbitral award suffered from perversity and patent illegality. There was no valid basis for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 43 & 71) Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 291 : AIR 2024 SC 2070 : (2024) 6 SCC 357
Article 136 – Special leave petition – Interference not required – Findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court are based on evidence and is not perverse. (Para 11) Rajco Steel Enterprises v. Kavita Saraff, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 306 : AIR 2024 SC 2105
Article 136 – Wrongful denial of employment and regularization – Distinction between the two sets of workers – Artificial distinction asserted by appellant between two set of workers is unjustified. The appellant has failed to establish any distinction between the 19 workers who were regularized and the 13 workers who were left out. The tribunal came to the conclusion that the nature of the duties performed by the 13 workmen are perennial in nature and they hold the same status as the 19 regularized employees but were wrongly not made part of the settlement. There is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant. (Para 20, 21 & 22) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 230
Article 136 - Custodial Death - It is a fact that, in ordinary circumstances, we ought not to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to invalidate an order granting bail to an accused. But this criteria, while dealing with the question of granting bail, would not apply in a case of custodial death, where police officials are arraigned as accused. Such alleged offences are of grave and serious nature. Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 266
Article 141 – Held, directions of the court shall be treated as the law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (Para 24) Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 381 : (2024) 8 SCC 46
Article 141 - Directions against misleading ads – Held, before an advertisement is printed/aired/displayed, a Self-declaration shall be submitted by the advertiser/advertising agency on the lines contemplated in Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. The Self-declaration shall be uploaded by the advertiser/advertising agency on the Broadcast Sewa Portal run under the aegis of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. No advertisements shall be permitted to be run on the relevant channels and/or in the print media/internet without uploading the self-declaration as directed above. Further held, the directions shall be treated as the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (Para 23 & 24) Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 381 : (2024) 8 SCC 46
Article 142 - Vacancies not filled up to be carried forward –Respondent no.1 has been made to run from pillar to post to get an appointment, though there is a large backlog of vacancies in various PWD categories. The appellant has taken a stand which defeats the very object of enacting laws for the benefit of persons with disability. Held, by applying the principles governing Section 36 of the PWD Act, 1995, the cases of respondent no.1 and the other 10 candidates who are above him in merit could have been considered, especially when there is a gross default on the part of the appellant (Union of India) in promptly implementing the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Respondent shall be considered for appointment against the backlog vacancies of PWD candidates either in IRS (IT) or in other service/branch. (Para 9, 14 & 15) Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 444
Article 142 – Joint application to declare the marriage void – Held, marriage between the parties is not a 'Hindu marriage' having regard to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Hence, the registration certificate is null and void. Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 334
Article 142 - The complainant purchased a BMW 7 Series vehicle and reported a defect. A complaint was lodged for alleged offences under Sections 418 and 420 of the IPC, naming the manufacturer, Managing Director, and other directors as accused. The High Court concluded that the ingredients of the offence of cheating were not established based on the contents of the FIR. Having come to this conclusion, there was no justification for the High Court thereafter to direct the manufacturer to replace the vehicle with a new BMW 7 Series. Held, the High Court correctly quashed the criminal proceedings, as the ingredients of cheating were not established based on the FIR. The Court deemed it unnecessary to continue prosecution, given the nature of the dispute and the elapsed time. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed BMW India Private Limited to pay Rs 50 lakhs to the complainant in full settlement. (Para 10 - 15) State of Andhra Pradesh v. BMW India P.Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 466
Article 142 - The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the incorporation of provisions similar to Section 377 IPC in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner requested the invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution to address the alleged lacuna in the law. The Court, however, held that the power under Article 142 cannot be exercised to define acts as offences, as such matters fall within the domain of Parliament. The petition was dismissed, with the Court suggesting that the petitioner may approach the Union Government for redress if a lacuna in the law is perceived. Pooja Sharma v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 834
Article 142 – Action of forfeiture of security deposit is challenged to be punitive – Claiming re-commencement of the e-auction process on grounds of bona fide mistake – Held, the system pop-up gives only one option to the bidder to submit the bid with the digital signature with no scope of rectification or retraction. There was no opportunity available on the platform for the appellant to rectify the error in the bid, having once entered it. Even if the bidder had realized that the bid amount requires to be rectified, it could not have done so because of the system not permitting such a course. Further held, it can be inferred from the circumstances that the mistake in entering the bid was committed inadvertently and the appellant on discovery of the error or mistake acted promptly in informing the authority concerned for rectification of the bid. Held, applying the balancing test to the factual matrix of the present case, it is clear that the forfeiture of entire security deposit of the appellant as against evident human error is punitive. (Para 10, 14, 21) Omsairam Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Director of Mines and Geology, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 477
Article 142 – Negligence in competitive bidding process – E-auction in process was a competitive bidding process which demanded a high degree of caution and care on the part of the appellants. The human error envinces a degree of remiss and carelessness the result of which is bound to cost the public exchequer heavily in terms of time, effort and expense. Held, on account of the appellant's failure to act with the required degree of care, the liberty granted to conduct fresh e-auction is confirmed. Hence, the appellant id directed to pay to the first respondent Rs 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crore only) within a month from date. (Para 25) Omsairam Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Director of Mines and Geology, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 477
Article 142 – Power to constitute SearchcumSelection Committee for selection of VC– Held, to do complete justice the Supreme Court may pass a common order for constitution of SearchcumSelection Committee for all the subject Universities. Further held, the court resolves to constitute SearchcumSelection Committee(s) of the same composition so as to avoid any confusion, irrespective of the fact that the relevant provision of the Statute of the concerned University may contain slight variations. While shortlisting the experts for composition of the SearchcmSelection Committee, the nature of subjects and disciplines in which education is being imparted in different Universities can be focused on. (Para 10 & 11) State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 440 : AIR 2024 SC 3319 : (2024) 8 SCC 369
Article 142 doesn't empower Courts to ignore substantive rights of litigants - Issued guidelines on exercise of inherent powers. High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
Article 142 – Direction of Supreme Court for automatic vacation of interim stay due to lapse of time – The jurisdiction of Supreme Court under article 142 cannot be exercised to make judicial legislation. By a blanket direction in the exercise of power under Article 142, the Supreme Court cannot interfere with the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court of granting interim relief by limiting its jurisdiction to pass interim orders valid only for six months at a time. Putting such constraints on the power of the High Court will amount to making a dent on the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. Elementary principles of natural justice, mandate that an order vacating or modifying interim relief is to be passed only after hearing all the affected parties and order passed without hearing the beneficiary is against the basic tenets of justice. If an interim order is automatically vacated only because the High Court cannot hear the main case within the time limit, the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” will apply, i.e. no litigant should be allowed to suffer due to the fault of the Court. Further, automatic vacation on lapse of time gives an unfair advantage to the respondent in the case and adversely affects a litigant's right to the remedies under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Such orders virtually defeat the right of a litigant to seek and avail of statutory remedies such as revisions, appeals, and applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as the remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. (Para 16, 17, 24, 28 & 32) High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
Article 142 – Direction of Supreme court to dispose stay cases on a day-to-day basis – Such directions of the Supreme Court virtually amounts to judicial legislation. The High Courts cannot be expected to decide, on a priority basis or a day-to-day basis, only those cases in which a stay of proceedings has been granted while ignoring several other categories of cases that may require more priority to be given. Therefore, the issue of giving out-ofturn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. (Para 28, 30 & 32) High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
Article 142 – Scope of powers of Supreme Court under Article 142 – The jurisdiction under Article 142 cannot be invoked to pass blanket orders setting at naught a very large number of interim orders lawfully passed by all the High Courts, and that too, without hearing the contesting parties. The jurisdiction under Article 142 can be invoked only to deal with extraordinary situations for doing complete justice between the parties before the Court. Although the Supreme Court under Article 142 can always issue procedural directions to other Courts, the right to be heard before an adverse order is passed is not a matter of procedure but a substantive right. Hence, Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants. Power under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence. (Para 19 & 22) High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
Article 142 – Power to ensure electoral democracy – The Court is duty-bound, to do complete justice to ensure that the process of electoral democracy is not allowed to be thwarted by subterfuges. The Court must step in exceptional situations to ensure that the basic mandate of electoral democracy at the local participatory level is preserved. The extraordinary situation of electoral misconduct by the presiding officer himself, justifies the invocation of the power of this Court under Article 142. (Para 37) Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 146 : (2024) 3 SCC 526
Article 142 – Setting aside the Election Process – It would be inappropriate to set aside the election process in its entirety when the only infirmity which has been found is at the stage when the counting of votes was recorded by the Presiding Officer. Allowing the entire election process to be set aside would further compound the destruction of fundamental democratic principles which has taken place as a consequence of the conduct of the Presiding Officer. (Para 35) Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 146 : (2024) 3 SCC 526
Article 142 and Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 354D & 506 – Power of court exercised to quash conviction of accused – Held, the offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused, and the fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of the appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed. Hence, on grounds that the accused and the complainant married each other and the affirmation of the conviction of accused would have the disastrous consequence on the matrimonial relationship of the accused with the complainant, the appellant is acquitted of the charges. (Para 7, 9 & 11) Dasari Srikanth v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 391 : AIR 2024 SC 2879
Article 142 – Maintainability of the Curative Petition – Test of 'manifest injustice' – The exercise of the curative jurisdiction of this Court should not be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and create a fourth or fifth stage of court intervention in an arbitral award. The Court may entertain a curative petition to (i) prevent abuse of its process; and (ii) to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. The concern of the Court for rendering justice in a cause cannot be considered less important than the principle of finality. There are certain situations, which would require reconsideration of a final judgement even after the review has been dismissed to set right a miscarriage of justice. The interference by Supreme Court by setting aside the judgement of the Division Bench, has resulted in restoring a patently illegal award and has caused a grave miscarriage of justice. Hence, curative petition is allowed applying the standard of a 'grave miscarriage of justice'. (Para 32, 33 & 70) Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 291 : AIR 2024 SC 2070 : (2024) 6 SCC 357
Article 142 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had any ill intention of cheating or defrauding the complainant. The transaction between the parties was purely civil in nature which does not attract criminal law in any way. Held, all pending criminal appeals is liable to be quashed. (Para 13) Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 336 : (2024) 8 SCC 588
Article 142 – Applicability/non-applicability of the doctrine of merger – The extraordinary constitutional powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is to be exercised with a view to do complete justice between the parties, remains unaffected and being an unfettered power, shall always be deemed to be preserved as an exception to the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis." Held, the doctrine of merger is not of universal application and powers under Article 142 of the Constitution shall be deemed as an exception to the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis. (Para 33) Government of NCT of Delhi v. BSK Realtors LLP, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 420 : (2024) 7 SCC 370
Article 163 and 239AA(4) - Delhi Lt. Governor position not akin to that of a State's Governor - There is a clear distinction between the discretionary power of the Governor under Article 163 and that of the Lt. Governor under Article 239AA(4). While Article 163 requires Governor of a State to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, 'except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion', the exception in so far as the Lt. Governor, under Article 239AA(4) is concerned, he will act in his discretion, 'in so far as he is required by or under any law'. Article 239AA of the Constitution takes into account the unique position of NCTD and therefore adopts the mandate of 'law' as a distinct feature for exercise of discretion". Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 551
Articles 217 and 221 - High Court Judges – Equality in Service Benefits and Pension – Non-discrimination based on Recruitment Source – Financial Independence and Judicial Independence - High Court judges, regardless of their source of appointment (from the Bar or district judiciary), are holders of constitutional offices in equal measure. They form a homogeneous class under the Constitution, and any differentiation in their service conditions or retiral benefits based on the source of appointment violates Articles 217 and 221 of the Constitution. Judicial independence, a fundamental aspect of the Constitution's basic structure, is intrinsically linked to the financial independence of judges. Ensuring parity in salaries, allowances, and pensions for all High Court judges is essential to uphold judicial independence. The Constitution mandates non-discrimination in the determination of service conditions and benefits for High Court judges. Conditions of service, including pension benefits, must be uniform and cannot be affected by the source of recruitment. The communication dated 30 December 2022, which excluded judges appointed from the district judiciary under a contributory pension scheme from subscribing to the General Provident Fund, was quashed as unconstitutional. Directions were issued to ensure that all High Court judges, irrespective of their recruitment source, are treated equally with respect to the General Provident Fund and retiral benefits. Contributions to the General Provident Fund are to commence from their date of appointment, and amounts credited under the New Pension Scheme are to be refunded. Communication dated 30 December 2022 is quashed. Petitioners are entitled to equality in pension and service benefits as High Court judges. Justice Shailendra Singh v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 872
Article 225 and 329(a) - Judicial review in delimitation matters is not completely barred by Article 329(a) of the Constitution. Constitutional courts can intervene under Article 226 if the delimitation process is found to be arbitrary or unconstitutional. Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 556
Article 226 - Electoral Bond Scheme - Constitutionality and Investigations - The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the grievances regarding quid pro quo or criminality must be addressed through available legal remedies under the law, such as invoking criminal procedure or approaching the High Courts under Article 226. The Court further declined to order the constitution of an SIT, emphasizing that existing statutory mechanisms, such as the Income Tax Act, must be followed. The Court ruled that premature invocation of its jurisdiction under Article 32 was not warranted when statutory remedies had not yet been exhausted, reiterating that judicial review was reserved for constitutional challenges, not ordinary criminal investigations. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 567
Article 226 - The Committee of Creditors (CoC) of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited, undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), challenged a High Court Order which deferred the CIRP. The High Court passed this direction while declining to consolidate the CIRP of KSK Mahanadi with two other entities. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court lacked justification to defer the CIRP after refusing consolidation. The Court emphasized that such directions breached the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be invoked to override the insolvency framework. The impugned High Court order deferring the CIRP was set aside. CoC of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 815
Article 226 - A very strange and unusual Writ Petitions have been filed by the State against the Directorate of Enforcement under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the High Court seeking relief, which would indirectly stall or delay the inquiry/investigation. The Writ Petitions filed, at the instance of the State Government, challenging summons issued to the District Collectors prima facie appears to be thoroughly misconceived, and the impugned order passed by the High Court also being under utter misconception of law. Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 172
Article 226 - The accused was not an adolescent, but his age was about twenty-five years on the date of the commission of the offence, and the victim was only fourteen years old. When such offences of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault are committed, by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the High Court cannot acquit an accused whose guilt has been proved. Even if the accused and the victim (who has now attained majority) were to come out with a settlement, the High Court could not have quashed the prosecution. (Para 21 & 23.1) In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : AIR 2024 SC 4004
Article 226 - The power to deal with such verification has been specifically vested with Scrutiny Committee and it falls within the exclusive domain of it in view of Rule 13(b) of 2012 Rules and Section 6. Section 7 further empowers the Scrutiny Committee with suo motu powers or otherwise to call for record and enquire into correctness of a caste certificate if it is of the opinion that such certificate was obtained fraudulently and also vests the Committee with the power to cancel and confiscate the certificate in question in accordance with law. Such order of Scrutiny Committee is said to be final and protected from any challenge before any authority except High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. For the purposes of verification, the Scrutiny Committee has all the powers of Civil Court while trying a civil suit. (Para 10 & 12) Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 278
Article 226 - The High Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can entrust investigation to the CBI. However, for doing so, it has to come to a reasoning as to why it finds that investigation by State police is not fair or is partisan. Merely, on the basis of some letters, such exercise is not warranted. Such an exercise of entrusting the investigation by the High Court has to be done in very rare cases. A perusal of the order passed by the learned single judge would reveal that there is not even a whisper as to why it finds the investigation by the state to be unfair or impartial so as to find it necessary to direct an enquiry to be conducted by CBI. For the very same reasons, the order passed by the learned Division Bench is also not sustainable in law. State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 759
Article 226 - Custody and disposal of the property pending an inquiry or trial – When any property is produced before any criminal court during the course of inquiry or trial, it is the criminal court which would have the jurisdiction and the power to pass appropriate orders for the proper custody of such property or for selling or disposing of such property. The appellant without approaching the concerned court under Section 451 of CrPC, directly approached the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Held, when there is a specific statutory provision contained in the CrPC. empowering the criminal court to pass appropriate order for the proper custody and disposal of the property pending the inquiry or trial, the appellant could not have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking release of his vehicle. (Para 5 & 6) Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 289 : AIR 2024 SC 2139 : 2024 CriLJ 2092
Article 226 – Exercise of extraordinary power to quash proceedings – Such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Some instances where such power can be exercised is: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Held, present case would squarely fall under categories (1), (3) and (5) and even if the allegations made in the FIR and the material on which the prosecution relies, are taken at its face value, there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. (Para 17 & 18) Ms. X v. Mr. A, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 242 : 2024 CriLJ 1894
Article 226 - Under Section 432(1) of the CrPC and Section 473(1) of the BNSS, the appropriate Government may remit a convict's sentence wholly or partially, either unconditionally or subject to reasonable conditions. A convict has no inherent right to remission but is entitled to a fair consideration of their case in accordance with the law and applicable policy. Conditions imposed must be reasonable. Arbitrary conditions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The cancellation of remission impacts the convict's liberty and requires adherence to natural justice. A show cause notice specifying grounds must be served, allowing the convict to respond and be heard before a reasoned order is passed. Convicts can challenge remission cancellations through remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution. Registration of a cognizable offence is not sufficient grounds for cancellation. Each case must be assessed on its facts, and only serious breaches supported by substantive evidence justify cancellation under Section 432(3) of the CrPC or Section 473(3) of the BNSS. Minor breaches are insufficient. Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : AIR 2024 SC 5470
Article 226 - Whether the High Court was correct in quashing criminal proceedings based on affidavits indicating a settlement without verifying their genuineness and securing the personal presence of the victim. Whether affidavits executed by an illiterate victim without proper endorsement explaining their contents can be relied upon in quashing criminal proceedings for serious offences. Held, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings and remanded the matter for further inquiry into the authenticity of the alleged settlement and affidavits. In cases involving serious offences under IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the High Court must verify the genuineness of any alleged settlement before exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The personal presence of the victim, particularly an illiterate one, is critical for the Court to verify whether affidavits or settlements are genuine and made with informed consent. In absence of an endorsement indicating that the contents of an affidavit were explained to the affirming party, especially when illiterate, such affidavits cannot be relied upon without further inquiry. The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, requiring the personal presence of the appellant and an inquiry into the affidavits. The High Court was directed to consider whether the settlement was genuine and, if so, whether the power to quash proceedings could be exercised in light of the seriousness of the allegations. Appeal partly allowed. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 887
Article 226(3) – Clause (3) will not apply when an interim order in a writ petition under Article 226 is passed after the service of a copy of the writ petition on all concerned parties and after giving them an opportunity of being heard. It applies only to ex-parte ad interim orders. It provides for an automatic vacation of interim relief only if the aggrieved party makes an application for vacating the interim relief and when the application for vacating stay is not heard within the time specified. (Para 26) High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
Article 226 - Criminal procedure Code, 1973; Section 482 – Categories of cases wherein quashing power could be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice are: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are absurd and inherently improbable to reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is provision providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is mala fide. (Para 32) Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 251 : (2024) 7 SCC 555
Article 226 – Error of jurisdiction of High Court – The petitioner had expressly consented to the High Court to evaluate the entirety of the matter in its full perspective. As the petitioner has agreed to the evaluative action by the High Court, it cannot be concluded that the High Court has committed an error of jurisdiction. (Para 16 & 17) Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 211
Article 226 – Jurisdiction to interfere in administrative decisions – The judiciary must exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary intervention qua administrative decision(s) of the executive involving specialised expertise in the absence of any mala-fide and / or prejudice. The process of evaluation of an IAS officer, ought to have been left to the executive on account of it possessing the requisite expertise and mandate for the said task. The High Court entered into a specialised domain i.e., evaluating the competency of an IAS officer without the requisite domain expertise and administrative experience to conduct such an evaluation. The High Court ought not to have ventured into the said domain particularly when the Accepting Authority is yet to pronounce its decision qua the Underlying Representation. (Para 25, 27 & 28) State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 220 : AIR 2024 SC 1397
Article 226 – Delay defeats equity – Writ petition dismissed on grounds of Delay or Laches – An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. The High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. The High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is not gainsaid that in all cases of delay the petition is to be dismissed and in certain circumstances depending on the facts of each case, if the court thinks fit can on its discretion condone the delay. For filing a writ petition, there is no fixed period of limitation prescribed but the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and laches of the applicant in approaching a writ court. (Para 9, 10 & 11) Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 318 : AIR 2024 SC 2717
Article 226 – Entertaining petition under Article 226 in case of availability of alternative remedy – The High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an alternate effective remedy is available. This rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. (Para 15) PHR Invent Educational Society v. Uco Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 294 : AIR 2024 SC 1893 : (2024) 6 SCC 579
Article 226 – Exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy – (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. (Para 29) PHR Invent Educational Society v. Uco Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 294 : AIR 2024 SC 1893 : (2024) 6 SCC 579
Article 226 – Power of High court to interfere – Reopening the issue is not allowed under Article 226 – Held, the High Court could have interfered in the confirmed auction sale only in cases of fraud or collusion. As the case is not of fraud or collusion, the effect of the order of the High Court would be again reopening the issues which have achieved finality. (Para 26) PHR Invent Educational Society v. Uco Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 294 : AIR 2024 SC 1893 : (2024) 6 SCC 579
Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Jurisdiction of High Court to overturn finding of scrutiny committee – The High Court ought not to have interfered, especially when Scrutiny Committee had followed the due procedure under Rule 12, 17 and 18 of the 2012 Rules and that there was nothing perverse about a finding of fact. The order of validation of caste claim by Scrutiny Committee is based on subjective satisfaction. The Scrutiny Committee is an expert forum armed with fact finding authority. Held, order passed by Scrutiny Committee reflects due appreciation of evidence and application of mind and in absence of any allegation of bias/malice or lack of jurisdiction, disturbing the findings of Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained. The High Court has clearly overstepped by reappreciating the evidence in absence of any allegation of malafide or perversity. (Para 15, 17 & 19, 22) Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 278
Article 226 – Writ of certiorari – Object – The writ jurisdiction is supervisory and the Court exercising it, ought to refrain to act as an appellate court unless the facts so warrant. The writ of certiorari is expended as a remedy and is intended to cure jurisdictional error, and should not be used by superior Court to substitute its own views by getting into fact-finding exercise unless warranted. High Courts as well as Supreme Court should refrain themselves from deeper probe into factual issues like an appellate body unless the inferences made by the concerned authority suffers from perversity on the face of it or are impermissible in the eyes of law. (Para 17 & 19) Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 278
Article 226 – Civil Suit filed to declare clause 8 of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) arbitrary – Clause 8 of the NIT mandated deposit of five post-dated cheques and bank guarantee to secure the payment of balance auction amount – Held, once the respondent-writ petitioner had participated in the tender process being fully conscious of the terms and conditions of the auction notice, he was estopped from taking a U-turn so as to question the legality or validity of the terms and conditions of the auction notice. By dragging the matter to litigation, the respondent himself was responsible for the delay occasioned in issuance of the work order which deprived him of the opportunity to work for the entire period of 365 days. The impugned order granting payment of pro-rata auction amount for the 33 days, that he has worked less than the contract period, is ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside. (Para 21 & 24) Municipal Committee Katra v. Ashwani Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 373 : AIR 2024 SC 2855
Article 226 – Claim of damages in Writ Petition – Held, such relief is not subject matter of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Law is well settled that disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by the High Court in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Hence, the High Court ought to have relegated the writ petitioner (respondent herein) to the competent Court for claiming damages. (Para 22 & 23) Municipal Committee Katra v. Ashwani Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 373 : AIR 2024 SC 2855
Article 226 – Writ petition – Petition rejected by High Court on grounds of delay – Held, delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the court. The condition of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. It would depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. Hence, impugned order of High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. (Para 25) Dharnidhar Mishra v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 380 : (2024) 10 SCC 605
Article 226 - the High Court by way of the interim order could not have passed an order which had the effect of encroaching upon the areas reserved for the Legislature and the Executive. Our Constitution recognizes the independence of the three wings of the State, i.e. the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary. No doubt that if the High Court found that the legislature concerned was not valid on account of any of the grounds available within the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it could set aside such a legislation. But by way of an interim order it could not have in effect stayed the operation of the said Statute. (Para 8 - 10) State of Uttar Pradesh v. In Re Constitution of Education Tribunals, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 71
Article 226 - Abandonment of Service - Termination - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), setting aside the High Court's decision to reinstate the respondent who had been terminated on grounds of abandonment of service. Whether the termination of the respondent for abandonment of service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulations, 1960, was valid. Whether the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent without considering his suppression of material facts. The respondent, employed as an Assistant Administrative Officer by the LIC, was absent from duty without informing his employer since September 25, 1995. Multiple notices issued to the respondent went unanswered, and postal remarks indicated he had abandoned his job. The respondent was terminated on June 25, 1996, under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulations, treating his prolonged absence as abandonment of service. The respondent later secured employment with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) on April 14, 1997, a fact not disclosed in his writ petition challenging the termination. Held, the LIC acted within its authority under Regulation 39(4)(iii) to terminate the respondent, as he had failed to respond to notices and had not informed the employer of his whereabouts. The respondent's suppression of his subsequent employment with the FCI disentitled him to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court erred in reinstating the respondent without considering the full factual matrix, including his abandonment of service and subsequent conduct. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order granting relief to the respondent was quashed. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Om Parkash, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 899
Article 227 – Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with order of trial court – Held, the High court could not have interfered with the order of the trial Court, unless found the view taken by the learned trial Judge was perverse or impossible. (Para 19) P. Seshareddy v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 379
Article 229 - Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts - Article 229 (2) pertains only to the service conditions of 'officers and servants' of the High Courts and does not include Judges of the High Court (both sitting and retired judges). The Chief Justice does not have the power, under Article 229, to make rules pertaining to the post-retiral benefits payable to former Chief Justices and judges of the High Court. Therefore, the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice, in the present case, do not fall within the competence of the Chief Justice under Article 229. (Para 25) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Judges, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : (2024) 3 SCC 1
Article 229 (2) - The High Court did not have the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High Court. The Chief Justice did not have the competence to frame the rules under Article 229 of the Constitution. Further, the High Court, acting on the judicial side, does not have the power to direct the Government to frame rules proposed by it on the administrative side. (Para 24 – 30) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Judges, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : (2024) 3 SCC 1
Article 234 - Gujarat Rules, 2005; Rule 8 – Consultation with public service commission required under Article 234 of the Constitution for amending the rules –The prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce under Rule 8(3) of Gujarat Rules, 2005 as amended in 2011 was only in consultation with the High Court of Gujarat but not with the Gujarat Public Service Commission. Held, the Governor is under no compulsion to consult the Public Service Commission in case the Commission does not wish to be consulted. The concerned Gujarat Rules cannot, therefore, be declared to be void particularly when the Rules were framed with due consultation with the High Court. (Para 93, 97 & 102) Abhimeet Sinha v. High Court of Judicature at Patna, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2024 SC 2596 : (2024) 7 SCC 262
Article 285 - 'Enemy property' vested in the possession of the Union Government-appointed 'custodian', as per the Enemy Property Act, 1968, cannot be considered a property of the Union Government to claim the exemption from the municipal taxes under Article 285 (1) of the Constitution of India. (Para 22) Lucknow Nagar Nigam v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 156
Article 293 – Borrowing by states – Plaintiff -State seeks interim injunction against Union of India to restore the position that existed before the Defendant union imposed ceiling on all the borrowings of the Plaintiff state – The Triple-Test, are followed by the Courts as the pre-requisites before a party can be mandatorily injuncted to do or to refrain from doing a particular thing. These three cardinal factors, are: (a) A 'Prima facie case', which necessitates that as per the material placed on record, the plaintiff is likely to succeed in the final determination of the case; (b) 'Balance of convenience', such that the prejudice likely to be caused to the plaintiff due to rejection of the interim relief will be higher than the inconvenience that the defendant may face if the relief is so granted; and (c)'Irreparable injury', which means that if the relief is not granted, the plaintiff will face an irreversible injury that cannot be compensated in monetary terms. Held, the Plaintiff – State has failed to establish a prima facie case that even after adjusting the over-borrowings of the previous year, there is fiscal space to borrow. The balance of convenience, thus, clearly lies in favour of the Defendant – Union of India as the mischief that is likely to ensue in the event of granting the interim relief, will be far greater than rejecting the same. Further Plaintiff – State has sought to equate 'financial hardship' with 'irreparable injury'. Held, it appears prima facie that 'monetary damage' is not an irreparable loss. If the State has essentially created financial hardship because of its own financial mismanagement, such hardship cannot be held to be an irreparable injury that would necessitate an interim relief against Union. Since the Plaintiff – State has failed to establish the three prongs of proving prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, State of Kerala is not entitled to the interim injunction, as prayed for. (Para 3, 12, 25, 33, 35 & 37) State of Kerala v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 269
Article 300A - Though, the Right to Property is no more a Fundamental Right, still it is recognized as a Constitutional Right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Depriving a citizen of his Constitutional Right to use the land for 20 years and then showing graciousness by paying the compensation and beating drums that the State has been gracious is unacceptable. The state is not doing charity by paying compensation to the citizens for acquisition of land. (Para 25 & 26) Sudha Bhalla @ Sudha Punchi v. Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 167
Article 300A - The expression person in Article 300-A covers not only a legal or juristic person but also a person who is not a citizen of India. The expression property is also of a wide scope and includes not only tangible or intangible property but also all rights, title and interest in a property. (Para 18) Lucknow Nagar Nigam v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 156
Article 300A – Right to property – The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that the State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article. (Para 18) Dharnidhar Mishra v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 380 : (2024) 10 SCC 605
Article 300A – Sub-rights to Right to property – The seven sub-rights or strands constituting the right to property. These are: i) duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property – the right to notice, ii) the duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition – the right to be heard, iii) the duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire – the right to a reasoned decision, iv) the duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose – the duty to acquire only for public purpose, v) the duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate – the right of restitution or fair compensation, vi) the duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings – the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and vii) final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting – the right of conclusion. Held, the larger right to property is seen as comprising intersecting sub-rights, each with a distinct character but interconnected to constitute the whole. The sub-rights weave themselves into each other, and as a consequence, State action or the legislation that results in the deprivation of private property must be measured against this constitutional net as a whole, and not just one or many of its strands. Further held, noncompliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being without the authority of law. These sub-rights of procedure have been synchronously incorporated in laws concerning compulsory acquisition and are also recognised by our constitutional courts while reviewing administrative actions for compulsory acquisition of private property. (Para 26, 28 & 29) Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 382
Article 300A – The Right to notice – A prior notice informing the bearer of the right that the State intends to deprive them of the right to property is a right in itself; a linear extension of the right to know embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The Constitution does not contemplate acquisition by ambush. The notice to acquire must be clear, cogent and meaningful. (Para 30.1) Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 382
Article 300A – The Right to be heard – It is the right of the property-bearer to communicate his objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the property. This right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham. (Para 30.2) Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 382
Article 300A – The Right to a reasoned decision – It is incumbent upon the authority to take an informed decision and communicate the same to the objector. The declaration is mandatory, failing which, the acquisition proceedings will cease to have effect. (Para 30.3) Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 382
Article 300A – The Duty to acquire only for public purpose – The acquisition must be for a public purpose is inherent and an important fetter on the discretion of the authorities to acquire. Further, the decision of compulsory acquisition of land is subject to judicial review and the Court will examine and determine whether the acquisition is related to public purpose. If the court arrives at a conclusion that that there is no public purpose involved in the acquisition, the entire process can be set-aside. (Para 30.4) Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 382
Article 300A – The Right of restitution or fair compensation – A person's right to hold and enjoy property is an integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300A. Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation or other similar means. Compensation has always been considered to be an integral part of the process of acquisition. Fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition process. (Para 30.5) Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 382
Article 300A – The Right to an efficient and expeditious process – It is necessary for the administration to be efficient in concluding the process and within a reasonable time. This obligation must necessarily form part of Article 300A. (Para 30.6) Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 382
Article 300A – The Right of conclusion – The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete. With the taking over of actual possession after the normal procedures of acquisition, the private holding is divested and the right, title and interest in the property, along-with possession is vested in the State. The obligation to conclude and complete the process of acquisition is also part of Article 300A. (Para 30.7) Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 382
Article 300A - Legality of the demolition of the petitioner's ancestral house without due process. Procedural safeguards required for actions against alleged encroachments. State accountability for high-handed and unauthorized actions. The petitioner alleged that his ancestral home in Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh, was unlawfully demolished during a road widening project for National Highway 730. The demolition was carried out without written notice, based solely on public announcements. The NHRC and Commissioner's reports revealed procedural lapses, including lack of demarcation, absence of land acquisition, and demolition beyond the alleged encroachment. No evidence was presented by the State to establish the width of the highway or the extent of encroachment. The demolition exceeded the purported encroachment of 3.70 meters, going up to 8 meters in some areas. No compensation was provided, and the State failed to follow due process as mandated by law. The demolition was declared illegal, high-handed, and violative of procedural safeguards under Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property. The Court emphasized the requirement of due process, written notice, and proper demarcation before taking actions against alleged encroachments. State authorities were ordered to adopt procedural safeguards, including written notice, demarcation, and compensation, before initiating demolitions. Disciplinary and criminal proceedings were recommended against officials involved in unauthorized actions. The principle of “justice through bulldozers” was condemned as incompatible with the rule of law and constitutional guarantees. The Court held that any demolition of private property must strictly adhere to legal procedures to uphold constitutional protections and ensure public accountability. Arbitrary actions by the State undermine the rule of law and cannot be justified in a civilized society. In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 878
Article 341 - Determination of Scheduled Caste Status Post-Conversion to Christianity - Whether an individual who has converted to Christianity can continue to claim Scheduled Caste status for availing reservation benefits under the Constitution. Upon conversion to Christianity, an individual loses their caste identity, as Christianity does not recognize caste distinctions. The appellant, who was baptized and actively practices Christianity, cannot claim Scheduled Caste status while professing Christian faith. The principle of reconversion to Hinduism and resumption of caste membership requires evidence of both a genuine conversion ceremony and acceptance by the original caste community. The appellant failed to meet these requirements. The appellant's claim to Scheduled Caste status, while maintaining adherence to Christianity, amounts to misrepresentation and undermines the constitutional policy of reservation. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the appellant, a practicing Christian, could not legally identify as a member of a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of availing reservation benefits. C. Selvarani v. Special Secretary cum District Collector, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 923
Article 341 – Power to amend list of schedule caste – The list of scheduled caste can be amended, altered only by law made by Parliament. The Resolution extending benefit of Scheduled Castes to the members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community by merging it with 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr' community under Entry 20 of the list of Scheduled Castes, was patently illegal, erroneous as the State Government had no competence/ authority/power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution. “TantiTantwa” Caste, which does not appear in the list of Scheduled Castes of Bihar cannot be issued Scheduled Castes Certificates treating them to be 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr'. Hence, whether synonymous or not, any inclusion or exclusion of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within the castes, races or tribes has to be, by law made by the Parliament, and not by any other mode or manner. Further held, that that such posts of the Scheduled Castes Quota which had been filled up by members of “Tanti-Tantwa” community availing benefit on the basis of Resolution may be returned to the Scheduled Castes category and such candidates of “Tanti-Tantwa” community be accommodated by the State in their original category of Extremely Backward Classes by taking appropriate measures. (Para 2, 3, 36 & 42) Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 472 : AIR 2024 SC 3531
Article 341 intends to only give 'constitutional identity' to scheduled castes; not to hold them as 'homogenous class'. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Article 341 (1) - Interpretation of - Article 341(1) does not create an integrated homogenous class, as the castes notified by the President are "deemed" to be Scheduled Castes but can be further classified. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Article 341 (2) - Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes does not violate Article 341(2), unless it results in a preference or exclusive benefit to certain castes over all the seats reserved for the class. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Articles 341 and 342 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Public notification of 'tribes or tribal communities' by the President of India, upon consultation with the Governor, is a sine qua non for deeming such tribes or tribal communities to be 'Scheduled Tribes' in relation to that State or Union Territory for the purposes of the Constitution. (Para 15) Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 139
Articles 341 and 342 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Insofar as a person claiming benefit having regard to his status as a Scheduled Tribe in a State, when he migrates to a Union Territory where a Presidential Order has not been issued at all insofar Scheduled Tribe is concerned, or even if such a Notification is issued, such an identical Scheduled Tribe does not find a place in such a Notification, the person cannot claim his status on the basis of his being noted as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin. (Para 29) Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 139
Articles 341 and 342 - Validity of Scheduled Caste Certificates - While the appellants had obtained their certificates through lawful processes, subsequent circulars issued by the Government of Karnataka, effectively revoked those certificates and classified the appellants as General Merit category candidates. The court emphasized that only Parliament has the authority to amend the list of Scheduled Castes as stipulated under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. The court acknowledged the pragmatic decision by the State to protect the employment of individuals who obtained their certificates under earlier erroneous inclusions but clarified that they would not be entitled to future benefits from the reserved category. Ultimately, the court quashed the notices issued by respondent banks to terminate the appellants' services, upheld their entitlement to protection based on prior government circulars, and allowed the appeals. K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : AIR 2024 SC 4503
Article 368 - Challenge to the insertion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble of the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. Allegation that the amendment was unconstitutional due to its enactment during the Emergency period and the extended tenure of the Lok Sabha. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the Parliament has the power to amend the Preamble under Article 368 of the Constitution, provided the amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The inclusion of "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble reflects the evolving ethos of the Constitution as a living document. These terms represent the principles of economic and social justice and the commitment to equal respect for all religions, both of which are consistent with the constitutional framework. The challenge to the amendment nearly four decades after its enactment was deemed untenable, as the additions had attained widespread acceptance and had not restricted legislative or policy actions within the constitutional framework. The Court reiterated its earlier rulings in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), and other landmark cases that secularism and socialism are integral to the Constitution's basic structure. The argument regarding the amendment's retrospectivity was rejected, as the Constitution permits amendments to its provisions without being constrained by the date of adoption. The Court emphasized that "socialism" in the Indian context does not mandate a specific economic model but underscores a welfare state's commitment to equity and social justice. The writ petitions and related applications were dismissed for lack of merit and absence of a valid cause of action. The constitutional position regarding the Preamble's amendment remains unambiguous and upheld. Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 917
A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. (Para 32) Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 486 : AIR 2024 SC 3579 : (2024) 8 SCC 293
A statute can be struck down only for the violation of Part III or any other provision of the Constitution or for being without legislative competence. The constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. The reason is that concepts such as democracy, federalism, and secularism are undefined concepts. Allowing courts to strike down legislation for violation of such concepts will introduce an element of uncertainty in our constitutional adjudication. Recently, this Court has accepted that a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute for violation of the basic structure is a technical aspect because the infraction has to be traced to the express provisions of the Constitution. Hence, in a challenge to the validity of a statute for violation of the principle of secularism, it must be shown that the statute violates provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism. (Para 55) Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854
Ad-interim order of stay – When a High Court grants a stay of the proceedings while issuing notice without giving an opportunity of being heard to the contesting parties, it is not an interim order, but it is an ad-interim order of stay. It can be converted into an interim order of stay only after an opportunity of being heard is granted on the prayer for interim relief to all the parties to the proceedings. Ad-interim orders, by their very nature, should be of a limited duration. (Para 14) High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001 - Under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation(s) in place. There is no gainsaying in the fact that exhibiting compassion to all living beings, is the enshrined Constitutional value and mandate, and cast obligation on the authorities to maintain. (Para 11) Animal Welfare Board of India v. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 434
Appointment of Vice Chancellors (VC) - Power to decide on dispute regarding appointment of (VC) – Held, in case(s) where the Chief Minister of the State has objected to the inclusion of any name in the panel and such objection is not acceptable to the Chancellor or where the Chancellor has an objection against empanelment of any particular name for which he has assigned his own reasons, all such files shall be put up before the Supreme Court. The final decision in this regard shall be taken by the Supreme Court after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the objectors. (Para 22) State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 440 : AIR 2024 SC 3319 : (2024) 8 SCC 369
Constitutional Conduct - The Court emphasized the responsibility of all Constitutional functionaries to respect each other's roles and discouraged unwarranted comments, stressing the importance of mutual respect among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 733
Constitutional courts should exercise caution while interfering in contractual and tender matters, disguised as public interest litigations. The respondent no. 1, being an interested party could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. The prayer made in writ petition, makes it clear that the real grievance of respondent no 1 is about the grant of contract in favour of another bidder. The High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition on behalf of an interested person who sought to convert a judicial review proceeding for enhancing personal gain. (Para 19 & 21) Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 207
Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy. It is disruptive of the aspirations and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy. (Para 104) Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185 : AIR 2024 SC 1701 : (2024) 5 SCC 629
Fundamental Right - Bar association's resolution to not represent a party - Such a Resolution could not have been passed. Right to defend oneself is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution of India and further right to appear for a client is also a Fundamental Right being a part of carrying on one's profession as a lawyer. (Para 3) Rupashree H.R. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 126
Government's policy of preferential land allotment to housing societies comprising MPs, MLAs, judges, civil servants, defence personnel, and journalists - The Court deemed this policy arbitrary, unreasonable, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. The Court annulled the 2005 Government Orders (GOs) that categorized these groups as a distinct class eligible for land allotment at basic rates. The Court also nullified subsequent GOs from 2008 that facilitated such allotments, concurring with a 2010 High Court judgment. The Court criticized the policy for perpetuating inequality by favoring privileged groups, thereby undermining the principles of fairness and equality enshrined in the Constitution. It emphasized that state resources should be allocated in a manner that benefits all citizens, particularly the marginalized and socio-economically disadvantaged, rather than a select elite. This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional principles and ensuring that government policies do not arbitrarily favor certain sections of society at the expense of others. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 918
Grounds on which interim order comes to an end – Can come to an end by disposal of the main case either on merits or for default or other reasons, by the High Court, in which the interim order has been passed or by a judicial order vacating interim relief, passed after hearing the contesting parties on the above stated grounds. (Para 16) High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
Guidelines issued to secure the fundamental rights and dignity of intimate partners, and members of the LGBTQ+ communities in illegal detention – Mandatory in nature – Habeas corpus petitions and petitions for protection must be given a priority in hearing and courts must avoid adjournments or delays in the disposal of the case; In evaluating the locus standi of a partner or friend, the court must not make a roving enquiry into the precise nature of the relationship between the appellant and the person; Effort must be to create an environment conducive for a free and un-coerced dialogue to ascertain the wishes of the corpus; The court must ensure that the corpus is produced before the court and given the opportunity to interact with the judges in-person in chambers to ensure the privacy and safety of the detained or missing person; The court must ensure that the wishes of the detained person is not unduly influenced by the Court, or the police, or the natal family during the course of the proceedings; Upon securing the environment and inviting the detained or missing person in chambers, the court must make active efforts to put the detained or missing person at ease; If a detained or missing person expresses their wish to not go back to the alleged detainer or the natal family, then the person must be released immediately without any further delay; Courts must grant an ad-interim protection while dealing with a petition for police protection by intimate partners on the grounds that they are a same sex, transgender, inter-faith or inter-caste couple to maintain their privacy and dignity; The Court must not adopt counselling or parental care as a means of changing the mind of the appellant, or the detained/missing person; The Judge during the interaction with the corpus to ascertain their views must not attempt to change or influence the admission of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the appellant or the corpus and Sexual orientation and gender identity fall in a core zone of privacy of an individual and no stigma or moral judgment must be imposed when dealing with cases involving parties from the LGBTQ+ community. (Para 16 & 17) Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 249
Hierarchy in judiciary – Any orders passed by the Supreme Court, ought to be respected and fully complied with, in view of the fact that the hierarchy in the judiciary needs to be respected by one in all. In that hierarchy, the orders passed by the Supreme Court would bind not just the parties, but the judicial officers as well. (Para 8) Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Gopinath, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 428
High Court's power to vacate or modify interim relief – The High Courts are always empowered to vacate or modify an order of interim relief passed after hearing the parties if (a) A litigant, after getting an order of stay, deliberately prolongs the proceedings either by seeking adjournments on unwarranted grounds or by remaining absent when the main case in which interim relief is granted is called out for hearing before the High Court with the object of taking undue advantage of the order of stay; (b) The High Court finds that the order of interim relief is granted as a result of either suppression or misrepresentation of material facts by the party in whose favour the interim order of stay has been made; and (c) The High Court finds that there is a material change in circumstances requiring interference with the interim order passed earlier. A long passage of time may bring about a material change in circumstances. These grounds are not exhaustive and there can be other valid grounds for vacating an order of stay. (Para 15) High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. (Para 32) Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 486 : AIR 2024 SC 3579 : (2024) 8 SCC 293
Judicial service is an integral and significant component of the functions of the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to sustain the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics and in terms of the responsibilities which are cast upon the officers of the District Judiciary to render objective dispensation of justice to citizens. The State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement, are commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working conditions for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement emoluments made available to former members of the judicial service. Members of the district judiciary are the first point of engagement for citizens who are confronted with the need for dispute resolution. The conditions in which judicial officers across the country are required to work are arduous. The work of a judicial officer is not confined merely to the working hours rendered in the course of judicial duties in the court. Every judicial officer is required to work both before and after the court working hours. The judicial work of each day requires preparation before cases are called out. A judicial officer continues to work on cases which may have been dealt with in court, in terms of preparing the judgment and attending to other administrative aspects of the judicial record. That apart, members of the district judiciary have wide ranging administrative functions which take place beyond working hours, especially on week-ends including the discharge of numerous duties in relation to prison establishments, juvenile justice institutions, legal service camps and in general, work associated with the Legal Services Act 1987. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 25 : AIR 2024 SC 1110
Madarsa Education - The High Court erred in holding that a statute is bound to be struck down if it is violative of the basic structure. Invalidation of a statute on the grounds of violation of secularism has to be traced to express provisions of the Constitution. Further, the fact that the State legislature has established a Board to recognise and regulate Madarsa education is not violative of Article 14. The Madarsa Act furthers substantive equality. (Para 73) Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854
Military Nursing Service - Terminating women officer on ground of marriage - Such rule was exfacie manifestly arbitrary, as terminating employment because the woman has got married is a coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality. Acceptance of such patriarchal rule undermines human dignity, right to non-discrimination and fair treatment. Laws and regulations based on gender-based bias are constitutionally impermissible. Rules making marriage of women employees and their domestic involvement a ground for disentitlement would be unconstitutional. Union of India v. Ex. Lt. Selina John, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 135
Object of passing interim orders – An order of interim relief is usually granted in the aid of the final relief sought in the case. An occasion for passing an order of stay of proceeding arises as it is not possible for the High Court to take up the case for final hearing immediately. Further, to avoid the possibility of passing an order of remand, the grant of stay of proceedings is called for in many cases. (Para 13) High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
Parliamentary processes not taking place on the floor of the house are also covered by parliamentary privilege. Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185 : AIR 2024 SC 1701 : (2024) 5 SCC 629
Pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules. (Para 35) U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 517
Pensionary payments to Judges constitute a vital element in the independence of the judiciary. As a consequence of long years of judicial office, Judges on demitting office do not necessarily have the options which are open to members from other services. The reason why the State assumes the obligation to pay pension to Judges is to ensure that the protection of the benefits which are available after retirement would ensure their ability to discharge their duties without “fear or favour” during the years of judgeship. The purpose of creating dignified conditions of existence for Judges both during their tenure as Judges and thereafter has, therefore, a vital element of public interest. Courts and the Judges are vital components of the rule of law. Independence of the judiciary is hence a vital doctrine which is recognized in the constitutional scheme. The payment of salaries and dignified pensions serves precisely that purpose. Hence, any interpretation which is placed on the provisions of the Act must comport with the object and purpose underlying the enactment of the provision. (Para 25) Union of India v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 277
Position of the High Courts and its power of superintendence – Both the Supreme Court and the High Court are constitutional Courts. A High Court is constitutionally independent of the Supreme Court of India and is not judicially subordinate to the Supreme Court. (Para 23) High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
Power of constitutional courts to transfer case to CBI – The powers of the Supreme Court for directing further investigation regardless of the stage of investigation are extremely wide. This can be done even if the chargesheet has been submitted by the prosecuting agency. Held, unresolved crimes tend to erode public trust in institutions which have been established for maintaining law and order. In the present case the investigation has been ineffective is self-evident. Hence, this case needs to be handed over to CBI, for a proper investigation and also to remove any doubts in the minds of the appellants, and to bring the real culprits to justice. Case shall be transferred from SIT to the CBI. (Para 14 & 16) Awungshi Chirmayo v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 263
Quashing of proceedings – Held, tested on the touchstone of the principles stated in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., allowing continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR is gross abuse of process of law because the allegations as set out in the FIR do not disclose necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence. Hence, the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant are quashed and set aside. (Para 33) Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 251 : (2024) 7 SCC 555
Quashing of proceedings – The object of dispute, manifestly rife with mala fide intentions of only recovering the tainted money by coercion and threat of criminal proceedings. Such proceedings cannot be allowed to proceed further and exploit the time and resources of the law enforcement agency. The valuable time of the police is consumed in investigating disputes that seem more suited for civil resolution. The need for vigilance on the part of the police is paramount, and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit of justice. There is a need for a circumspect approach in discerning the genuine from the spurious and thus ensuring that the resources of the state are utilised for matters of true societal import. (Para 14 & 15) Deepak Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 129 : 2024 Cri LJ 1388 : (2024) 3 SCC 601
Rajya Sabha's role is part of basic structure - Rajya Sabha elections protected by legislative privileges under Article 194. Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185 : AIR 2024 SC 1701 : (2024) 5 SCC 629
Remission – Appellant granted liberty to prefer an appropriate representation addressed to the State Government praying for remission of sentence. Considering the fact that the appellant has undergone almost 11 years of imprisonment so far i.e. almost half of his life lived so far has been spent undergoing the ordeal of the criminal prosecution. Held, when a crime is committed, a variety of factors are responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations. (Para 85 & 86) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344 : AIR 2024 SC 2297 : 2024 Cri LJ 2377
Reserved category candidate can claim general category seat of horizontal reservation based on merit. Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 589 : AIR 2024 SC 4252
Retrospective Application of Statutes – Requirement of Clear Legislative Intention - Rights accrued under an old Act cannot be extinguished with the enforcement of the new Act unless a retrospective effect was given to the New Act. Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra v. Karnani Properties Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 790
Right to free and fair elections – It is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Elections at the local participatory level act as a microcosm of the larger democratic structure in the country. Local governments, such as municipal corporations, engage with issues that affect citizens' daily lives and act as a primary point of contact with representative democracy. The process of citizens electing councillors, who in turn, elect the Mayor, serves as a channel for ordinary citizens to ventilate their grievances through their representatives – both directly and indirectly elected. Ensuring a free and fair electoral process throughout this process, therefore, is imperative to maintain the legitimacy of and trust in representative democracy. (Para 36) Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 146 : (2024) 3 SCC 526
Right to legal aid – When the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness is being recorded, the presence of the Advocate for the accused is required, as the advocate has a right to object to a leading or irrelevant question being asked to the witness. The report of trial court records that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded in the presence of the appellants, but their Advocate was not present as they had not engaged any Advocate. Held, after finding that the appellants-accused had not engaged any Advocate, the Trial Court ought to have provided a legal aid Advocate to the appellants accused so that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could have been recorded in the presence of the Advocate representing the appellants-accused. Recording of evidence in this fashion is not justified even if the High Court had fixed a time-bound schedule for disposal of the case. The trial court could have always sought an extension of time from the High Court. (Para 5 & 6) Ekene Godwin v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 261
Scope of judicial review in matters of transfer – The scope of judicial review is only available when there is a clear violation of statutory provision or the transfer is persuaded by malafide. In absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted. The impugned transfer order is not alleged to be malafide or violative of any prescribed statutory provision, hence, the interference made by the Division Bench setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the Single Judge is not justified. The Division Bench has committed an error in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. (Para 12 & 13) Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 231
Scope of judicial review in policy matters – The Courts do not and cannot examine the correctness, suitability or appropriateness of a policy, nor are the courts advisors to the executive on the matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The Courts cannot direct the States to implement a particular policy or scheme on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, would be the subject of judicial review. The scope of judicial review in examining the policy matters is very limited. (Para 8) Anun Dhawan v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 161 : AIR 2024 SC 1248
Social Heterogeneity of Scheduled Castes - Historical and empirical evidence shows that Scheduled Castes are socially heterogeneous. Therefore, the State can classify them further if there is a rational principle with a clear nexus to the purpose of sub-classification. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Special leave Petition against order of High Court – To set aside impugned termination order – Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed. It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However, when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered. Termination from service order is liable to be set aside. Chatrapal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 120 : AIR 2024 SC 948
Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes - Data Collection and Representation - The State can sub-classify based on inadequate representation, provided backwardness is established through data. The State must collect data on inadequate representation in public services, which can serve as an indicator of backwardness. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is permissible to ensure substantive equality of opportunity, provided it is based on backwardness and inadequate representation. The decision in Chinnaiah that barred sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is overruled. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Summoning of Government Officials before Courts - Law officers act as the primary point of contact between the courts and the government. Courts must refrain from summoning officials as the first resort. While the actions and decisions of public officials are subject to judicial review, summoning officials frequently without just cause is not permissible. Exercising restraint, avoiding unwarranted remarks against public officials, and recognizing the functions of law officers contribute to a fair and balanced judicial system. Courts across the country must foster an environment of respect and professionalism, duly considering the constitutional or professional mandate of law officers, who represent the government and its officials before the courts. Constantly summoning officials of the government instead of relying on the law officers representing the government, runs contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution. (Para 41 & 44) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Judges, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : (2024) 3 SCC 1
Supreme Court asks Yamuna River Board to decide Delhi Govt's plea for additional water; HP Govt withdraws statement on surplus water. Government of NCT of Delhi v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 429
The decision of the Supreme Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of pendency thereof because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from inception. (Para 16) Bhumikaben N. Modi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 365 : AIR 2024 SC 2444
The Madarsa Act to the extent to which it seeks to regulate higher education, including the 'degrees' of Fazil and Kamil, is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature since it conflicts with Section 22 of the UGC Act. Entry 25 of List III, pursuant to which the Madarsa Act has been enacted, has been expressly made subject to Entry 66 of List I. The UGC Act governs the standards for higher education and a state legislation cannot seek to regulate higher education, in contravention of the provisions of the UGC Act. (Para 99) Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854
The power of the Court to enter the regulatory domain of SEBI in framing delegated legislation is limited. The court must refrain from substituting its own wisdom over the regulatory policies of SEBI. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy framed by a specialized regulator is to scrutinise whether it violates fundamental rights, any provision of the Constitution, any statutory provision or is manifestly arbitrary. (Para 67 (a)) Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2024 SC 414
The presumption of constitutionality is based on two premises. First, it is based on democratic accountability, that is, legislators are elected representatives who are aware of the needs of the citizens and are best placed to frame policies to resolve them. Second, legislators are privy to information necessary for policy making which the Courts as an adjudicating authority are not. The presumption of constitutionality is rebutted when a prima facie case of violation of a fundamental right is established, upon which the onus would shift to the State to justify the infringement. The broad argument of the petitioners that the presumption of constitutionality should not apply to a specific class of statutes, that is, laws which deal with electoral processes cannot be accepted. Courts cannot carve out an exception to the evidentiary principle which is available to the legislature based on the democratic legitimacy which it enjoys. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : AIR 2024 SC 1441 : (2024) 5 SCC 1
The proportionality standard - To determine if the violation of the fundamental right is justified – The proportionality standard is by nature curated to give prominence to the fundamental right and minimize the restriction on it. The measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal (legitimate goal stage); The measure must be a suitable means for furthering the goal (suitability or rational connection stage); The measure must be least restrictive and equally effective (necessity stage); and The measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right holder (balancing stage). Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : AIR 2024 SC 1441 : (2024) 5 SCC 1
The role of the constitutional courts is to ensure that such environmental bodies function vibrantly, and are assisted by robust infrastructure and human resources. The constitutional courts will monitor the functioning of these institutions so that the environment and ecology is not only protected but also enriched. (Para 32) In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 74
The rule of 'Judicial Discipline and Propriety' and the Doctrine of precedents has a merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions. The Constitution benches of this court have time and again reiterated the rules emerging from Judicial Discipline. Accordingly, when a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench. It is the only course of action open to a bench of co-equal strength, when faced with the previous decision taken by a bench with same strength. (Para 1) Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2024 SC 714 : (2024) 3 SCC 224
The scope of judicial review, when examining a policy framed by a specialized regulator, is to scrutinize whether it (i) violates the fundamental rights of the citizens; (ii) is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution; (iii) is opposed to a statutory provision; or (iv) is manifestly arbitrary. The legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review, (Para 17 (b)) Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2024 SC 414
The State has the constitutional duty to not only protect water bodies within the state but also to restore those water bodies which have been illegally filled in. Mirza Abid Beg v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 488
The Supreme Court expressed concern that despite the decision of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177, High Courts were issuing directions for expeditious trials without considering the existing pendency of criminal cases in the State of Bihar. Santosh Kumar @ Santosh v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 505
Unlicensed Arms - The Court highlighted the grave threat posed by unlicensed arms to the rule of law and public safety, emphasizing that the Constitution of India does not grant a fundamental right to bear arms, unlike the U.S. Constitution. Observing an increasing trend in crimes involving illegal arms, the Court directed States, Union Territories, and the Union of India to submit affidavits detailing the prevalence of unlicensed firearms, actions taken to curb their use, and statistical data on cases under the Arms Act, 1959. The Union of India and Amicus Curiae submitted detailed suggestions for strengthening the legal framework and enforcement mechanisms. Despite existing laws, the Court noted ineffective implementation and a rise in illegal manufacturing, smuggling, and use of firearms. To address these issues, the Court ordered the constitution of a five-member committee in each State and Union Territory, chaired by the Chief Secretary, to formulate and implement an action plan addressing illegal firearms. The committee's tasks include auditing arms factories, analyzing smuggling patterns, and preventing the use of illegal arms in crimes. The Court directed the Committees to submit their action plans within ten weeks and scheduled the matter for further consideration on 30.01.2025. Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 885
Voters right to know - Candidates non-disclosure of fact of substantial character – Held, 'right to privacy' of the candidate would still survive as regards matters which are of no concern to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office. In that respect, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect of a substantial character. Every case would have to turn on its own peculiarities and there can be no hard and fast or straitjacketed rule as to when the non-disclosure of a particular movable asset by a candidate would amount to a defect of a substantial character. (Para 44) Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 290 : AIR 2024 SC 2121
When an application for remission is granted under the provisions of the Constitution, the following among other tests may apply to consider its legality by way of judicial review of the same. (i) that the order has been passed without application of mind; (ii) that the order is mala fide; (iii) that the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations; (iv) that relevant materials have been kept out of consideration; (v) that the order suffers from arbitrariness. (Para 55 (i) Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 22 : AIR 2024 SC 289
While the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. This is how we have read our constitutional text, and this is how we have built our precedents on the basis of our preambular objective to secure justice. (Para 19) Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 143 : AIR 2024 SC 1265 : (2024) 3 SCC 563
Writ Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction of the Writ Court in entering into fact-finding exercise while testing legality of an award of tribunal – For revision of wages and other facilities, the standard criteria followed by the industrial adjudicator is the 'industry-cum-region test', which implies that the prevailing pay and other allowances should be compared with equally placed or similarly situated industrial units in the same region. To determine comparability of units applying the industry-cum-region test, the financial capacity of the employer would be a strong factor. Held, where the employer contested comparability of the concerned units, on grounds of its financial position, the proper course would have been to remit the matter to the Industrial Tribunal rather than entering into these factual question independently in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The High Court ought not to re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own finding for that of the Tribunal, it would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court in its power of judicial review to altogether eschew such a process. (Para 12 & 15) VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. VVF India Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 299
Writ Petition - In public law proceedings, when it is realised that the prayer in the writ petition is unattainable due to passage of time, constitutional courts may not dismiss the writ proceedings on the ground of their perceived futility. In the life of litigation, passage of time can stand both as an ally and adversary. Our duty is to transcend the constraints of time and perform the primary duty of a constitutional court to control and regulate the exercise of power or arbitrary action. By taking the first step, the primary purpose and object of public law proceedings will be subserved. (Para 20) Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 143 : AIR 2024 SC 1265 : (2024) 3 SCC 563
Writ petition – Lack of proper procedure – The writ petition filed claiming title on the disputed plot of land was taken up by the High Court in hot haste and was allowed without issuing formal notice to all the respondents. Further, the State authorities were not given proper opportunity of filing a counter and the standing counsel was instructed to appear without any formal notice being issued and was given a single day's opportunity to present the factual report. Impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from patent illegality, perversity and in sheer violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 16 & 18) Suneeta Devi v. Avinash, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 226
Writ petition – Writ petition was manifestly tainted on account of concealment of material facts. Factum of filing of two earlier writ petitions with similar prayers was concealed by respondent while filing the present writ petition. (Para 14 & 16) Suneeta Devi v. Avinash, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 226
HIGH COURTS
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case Title: Indu Bhushan Pandey vs. State Of Up Thru Prin Secy Dept Of Energy And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42 [WRIT - A No. - 5813 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court has held that denial of pension by retrospectively applying the amended rule is a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
While restoring pension of retired members State Electricity Regulatory Commission as prescribed under the unamended Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Appointment and Condition of Service of the Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2008, the bench comprising of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“The denial of payment of pension to the petitioner as per the un-amended Rules, 2008 and application of National Pension Scheme to the petitioners on account of the retrospective application of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2008 as amended vide Rules, 2021 is absolutely arbitrary and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as in violation of Section 89 (2) of the Act.”(Referring to Electricity Act, 2003).
Case Title: Kamlesh Devi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45 [WRIT - C No. - 15864 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State to pay additional compensation of Rs. 5,26,000 against the medical bill vouchers of mother-son duo who suffered acid attack injuries.
The bench comprising of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I held,
“It has been well established from the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 1051 and Consumer Education and Research Centre Vs. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 that medical grant is a fundamental right under the sweep of Article 21 which relates to Right to Life and Personal Liberty of all persons living in India.”
Case title - Atul Kumar Singh Alias Atul Rai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) granted interim bail to Ghosi MP Atul Rai on medical grounds until March 22 noting that he is suffering from a “life-threatening” ailment and hence, needs immediate redressal.
Stressing that no matter how serious an offence is, the health condition of a human being is paramount, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan directed that Rai be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 2 lacs.
“The custody during the period of trial cannot be termed to be punitive in nature. The health concern of a person in custody has to be taken care of by the State and is to be keenly watched and evaluated by the judiciary. Every person has a right to get himself adequately and effectively medically treated even if he is under trial or a convict,” the Court remarked.
Allahabad High Court Declares 'UP Board Of Madarsa Education Act 2004' As Unconstitutional
Case title – Anshuman Singh Rathore vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Edu. New Delhi And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) declared the 'UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as UNCONSTITUTIONAL violating the principle of Secularism. A detailed Judgment is awaited.
While declaring the law as Ultra Vires, the Division comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame a scheme so that the students presently studying in Madrasas can be accommodated in the formal education system.
Case Title: Shiv Pratap Maurya And 667 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209 [WRIT - A No. - 1453 of 2014]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209
While granting relief to Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male), the Allahabad High Court has held the 'Begar' is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
“Article 23 of the Constitution of India has wider implications and scope regrading begar i.e. by taking work but not paying for the same which is linked with right to livelihood covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” held Justice Manish Kumar.
Case title - Naziya Ansari And Another vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 383 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9396 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 383
In a significant remark, the Allahabad High Court has said that no one can restrain an adult from going anywhere that he/she likes, staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will or wish as “this is a right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution”
Observing thus, a bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also criticised a Judicial Magistrate for sending an adult woman (petitioner no. 1) to her uncle's home after the uncle (respondent no. 3) lodged an FIR against her husband (petitioner no. 2).
Case title - Shriniwas Rav Nayak vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 427
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 427
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has observed that while the Constitution of India grants citizens the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, it does not allow any citizen to convert another citizen from one religion to another.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal further opined that the individual right to freedom of conscience, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensures that every person has the liberty to choose, practice, and express their religious beliefs; however, this personal freedom does not extend to a collective right to proselytise, which means attempting to convert others to one's religion.
Case title - Ramu vs. State of U.P and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 498
The Allahabad High Court took note of the lack of legal aid, particularly for impoverished/indigent prisoners, observing that the denial of the same results in prolonged detention and a significant deprivation of liberties for those unable to access legal assistance.
Expressive concern over the situation, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot remarked “that while the nation celebrates the Amrit Kaal of Azaadi, there is a class of Indian citizens who lead 'anonymized' lives in the 'dark walls of prisons' where the 'light of Constitutional liberties does not penetrate”.
Case title - Ajeem vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502
The Allahabad High Court observed that the purpose of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, is to guarantee religious freedom to all persons, reflecting India's social harmony and spirit. The objective of this Act is to sustain the spirit of secularism in India.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal further said that while the Constitution guarantees each person the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, however, this individual right does not translate into a collective right to proselytize, as religious freedom equally belongs to both the person converting and the individual being converted.
Case Title: - Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal v. Sudhir Mohan Agrawal
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 652
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non-obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated.
Case title - Kamare Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 678
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the 'arbitrary' confiscation of a vehicle that a person might be using for his trade, profession, or occupation is a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
“The confiscation, by its very connotation, implies depriving a person of his property to which he is entitled to retain. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Arbitrary confiscation of the property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation is a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on his trade, occupation or business,” the Court remarked.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: M/s. Apna Chemist v. Assistant Commissioner (Zone-3) & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
The Bombay High Court admonished the State government, the appellate authority against drugs licence suspension orders, stating that a decision must not be kept pending for so long that it becomes a case of 'operation successful, patient dead'.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla observed that the appellate authority, responsible for adjudicating statutory appeals, must be alive to the consequences that the order under appeal could have on the appellant. The court emphasized that remedy provided in law must be effective and observed that the inaction of the appellate authority could impact the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, read with Articles 14, 21, and 300A.
Case Title: Aoudumbar Anil Sagar & Ors v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
Observing that “stereotypical and generalising” observations on the behaviour of transgender persons was “uncalled for,” the Bombay High Court granted bail to four transgender persons accused of harassing and assaulting a devotee at the Vitthal-Rukmini Temple in Pandharpur last month.
Justice Madhav J Jamdar noted that the observations were not even required for adjudication of the bail application. “Transgenders are citizens of this country. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and personal liberty of all citizens. The right to life includes right to live with dignity. Therefore, the observations which are recorded in Paragraph Nos.19 to 21 of the said impugned Order should not have been recorded and are not required or material for consideration of a Bail Application.”
Case Title: Shivangi Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
The Bombay High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by four law students opposing Maharashtra government's notification that designates January 22, 2024, as a public holiday to mark the consecration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
A special bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that in a country of diverse religions, the impugned decision of the State in fact fosters the principle of secularism. Referring to a catena of precedents on the subject of public holidays, the bench said.
Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Goa Cess Act
Case Title: Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. State of Goa
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
The Bombay High Court upheld the Goa Rural Improvement and Welfare Cess Act, 2000 (Goa Cess Act). The Act imposes cess on carriers transporting scheduled materials including coal, coke, sand, debris, garbage, packaged water, mineral ore etc. in Goa.
The court accepted the state's argument that materials listed in the Act's schedule cause pollution and emphasized the state's responsibility to balance economic interests and development with the preservation of natural resources and environmental protection. It held that the state had legislative power to enact laws addressing adverse effects on health caused by human activities.
Exercise Of The Right To Remain Silent Cannot Be Equated With Non Cooperation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Chanda Kochhar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 63
The Bombay High Court declared former ICICI bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar's arrest in the 'ICICI Bank - Videocon Loan Fraud Case' as illegal and confirmed an interim order on their release last year.
Justice Anuja Pabhudessai confirmed an interim order in January, 2023 in which a coordinate bench held their arrest was prima facie not in accordance with section 41A and section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC.
The bench rejected the reasons cited by CBI for arrest in the arrest memo in December 2023 which included non-cooperation and non-disclosure of true facts of the case. The court also observed that the judge failed to properly record his own satisfaction while granting their custody to CBI.
“The right to silence emanates from Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which gives an accused the right against self-incrimination. Suffice it to say that exercise of the right to remain silent cannot be equated with non-co-operation”, the court observed.
Case Title: XYZ v. The Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
The Bombay High Court allowed two women to undergo surrogacy using 'donor gametes' which is otherwise prohibited under an amendment in 2023 to Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022. The bench noted that one of the two petitioners was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder. The doctor opined there were high chances of the disorder being passed on the foetus as well. Therefore IVF experts advised surrogacy to avoid passing on the genetic defects to a child. The second petitioner also couldn't conceive due to various medical reasons.
Justices GS Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwala observed, “...we are of the clear opinion that if the protection as prayed for is not granted to the Petitioners it would certainly prejudice their legal rights to achieve parenthood through surrogacy which they ought to be permitted without the insistence on the compliances of condition as stipulated under the impugned notification dated 14 March 2023.”
Case Title: Maharani Ahilyadevi Samaj Prabodhan Manch v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
In a setback for approximately 1.5 crore people of the Dhangar (shepherd) community in Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court dismissed pleas seeking Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for the community.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata dismissed a clutch of petitions with the Maharani Ahiliya Devi Samaj Prabodhan Manch a Charitable Trust as the lead petitioner.
It was the petitioner's case that owing to a typographical error in Maharashtra (then Bombay), the ST status was accorded to a non-existent 'Dhangad' community in Presidential orders from the 1950s.
Citing Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, which authorise the President to declare certain castes and classes as Scheduled Castes in a state, the court held that the President's Orders are sacrosanct and can be altered only by the parliament.
Based on the 1964 Supreme Court decision in B Basavalingappa v. D Munichinnappa – the court held that it is only when an entry in the PO turns out to be a zero-member community or non-existent, can a constitutional court analyse the issue to realise the true intent behind the Presidential Order entry.
Education Has Become Unaffordable, State Has Constitutional Responsibility To Ensure Quality Education Reaches All Citizens: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Jagruti Foundation, Pune v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
The Bombay High Court observed that education has become unaffordable, and the State has a Constitutional responsibility to ensure quality education reaches all the citizens of this country in order to achieve the growth and development of humanity.
“Although “education” is a pious in our culture but with change in time it has taken a different colour and has become unaffordable. It is the State's Constitutional responsibility to ensure quality education reaches all the citizens of this country to achieve the growth and development of humanity”, the court said.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain opined that granting Letter of Intent (LoI) for establishing new colleges in the State only to institutions with prior experience in education could lead to a monopolistic situation, hindering the entry of new institutions.
Minority Institution Receiving State Government Aid Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment To An Applicant Eligible Under State Government Scheme: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Rahul S/o Dhondiram Meshram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court imposed Rs 25000 costs on Amravati's Holy Cross Convent English High School for denying a compassionate appointment to a man on the ground that the school has adopted a policy not to hire male peons.
“We are sensitive to the fact that the said respondent is running a School, mainly for the girls, however the said act of the respondent of managing the School for the girls by itself will not give it privileges to deny employment by adopting the gender-bias approach...the stand taken by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (school and the society managing it) that they are not granting compassionate appointment to a male member, in our opinion, also can be said to be violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India”, a division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice Abhay J Mantri observed.
Case Title: Hari Sankaran v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 130
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Hari Sankaran (63), prime accused in the high-profile Rs. 94 crore IL&FS alleged fraud case, five years after his arrest.
Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan noted that Sankaran has been suffering from various severe ailments, including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and other comorbidities.
The court observed that continuing his detention would increase the risk of cardiac death and frustrate the very object of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Case Title: Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 174
The Bombay High Court held that the action of the Maharashtra Government in levying stamp duty on delivery orders (DO) is within the legislative competence of the state.
The bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the action of the State of Maharashtra in levying stamp duty on Delivery Orders (DO) as provided in Article 29 of Schedule I of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (MSA) is well within the legislative competence of the State and does not intrude upon the legislative domain of the Parliament as reserved in Entries 41 and 83 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and is not ultra vires Article 246(1), 286(1)(b) and 286(2) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 233
The Bombay High Court observed that Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) against loan defaulters at the behest of public sector banks (PSBs) are strong-arm tactics to circumvent legal processes and violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Madhav J Jamdar struck down the LOCs as well as the provisions of governing Office Memoranda (OMs) that empowered PSBs to seek LOCs against loan defaulters.
The court held that the right to travel abroad, part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by an executive action without any governing statute or controlling statutory provision.
Case Title: Gorai Villagers Welfare Association v. Hydraulic Engineer, Municipal Commission of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 251
The Bombay High Court directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to employ 10 tankers of 10,000 litres on a daily basis to ensure the continuous supply of 1,00,000 litres of potable water to residents of Gorai village, consisting of around 2000 families.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor was hearing a PIL shedding light on the acute shortage of drinking water faced by residents of Gorai village, Borivali (West). At least 2005 families in the area are deprived of access to clean drinking water, the court noted.
Case Title: Dattaram Atmaram Sawant v. Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 270
Leave encashment is not a bounty but right earned by employee, the Bombay High Court observed while affirming the entitlement of two former employees of Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank to encash their accrued privilege leave, despite their resignations from the bank.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye observed “Leave encashment is akin to a salary, which is property. Depriving a person of his property without any valid statutory provision would violate Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Leave encashment paid on account of unutilised leave is not a bounty. If an employee has earned it and the employee has chosen to accumulate his earned leave to his credit, then encashment becomes his right”.
Case title: Symbiosis Open Education Society and Symbiosis Skills and Professional University & Anr. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, which require universities to meet specific accreditation scores or rankings and to offer programmes in conventional/traditional mode before offering them through distance or online modes. However, the Court also observed that the current accreditation criteria are inappropriate for a Skill University.
The Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan observed thatthrough the requirement that ODL (Open and Distance Learning) and OL (Online) programme must also be offered in the conventional mode, with at least one batch having passed out, the HEIs (higher Educational Institutions) must demonstrate as a 'proof of concept' in offering a programme. It observed that if at least one batch has graduated from the conventional programme, it would indicate that the HEI is conducting the programme with market acceptability for it, thus ensuring the quality in the ODL and OL modes. The Court therefore held the requirements of the Regulations were a rational and reasonable policy choice.
Maharashtra Govt Decision Hiking Lease Rentals In Mumbai's Bandra Not Extortionate: High Court
Case title: Vrindavan CHSL & Ors., State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
The Bombay High Court has held that the State Government's decision to calculate lease rent based on the value of land given in the 'Ready Reckoner' was not arbitrary. However, it ruled the Government Resolution allowing lease rent revision every 5 years, as per the value of land on date of such revision, was invalid because the original lease deed did not stipulate such revision.
The Division Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan and Justice B. P. Colabawalla were considering a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State's Government Resolutions (GR), namely, 2006 GR, 2012 GR and 2018 GR. The government had granted long-term leases of government land to various lessees, located in Bandra, Mumbai.
Case Title: Cong Ling v. FRRO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
Observing that it is the obligatory duty of the State to ensure that the liberty of foreign nationals coming to India is not deprived except by law, the Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered the Customs Department to issue a "no objection certificate" (NOC) for facilitating the return of a Chinese national woman to her home country, who was wrongly booked in a gold smuggling case.
Single-judge Justice Prithviraj Chavan observed "The State has an obligation to protect the liberty of such foreigners who come to this country and ensured that their liberty is not deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Notwithstanding the said guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution, in this case, the Customs Department acted in a most brazen and perfunctory manner..."
Case Title: Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 350
The Bombay High Court while ordering the immediate release of a man, detained under a preventive detention order, said that the authorities responsible for curtailing the fundamental rights of a citizen must act with promptitude and with a sense of urgency.
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande terming the explanation by authorities 'unsatisfactory', said in their observed, "..this delay not being convincing, has proved to be fatal to his right which is bestowed upon him by the Constitution, with an expectation that the decision on his representation shall be taken by the State Government with striking urgency. Since we are satisfied on this ground itself, that the Detention Order cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside."
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
The Bombay High Court while granting relief to Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case, criticised the complainant - Rajesh Kunte, a worker of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for unnecessarily protracting the trial and thwarting the Congress leader's right to speedy trial. The case pertained to Gandhi's statement made in a speech made in a political rally in Bhiwandi district during the 2014 general elections, wherein he allegedly accused RSS for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.
Single-judge Justice Prithviraj Chavan in his order pulled up Kunte for resorting to delay tactics. "…Free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done," the judge observed.
Case Title: Aswini Jitendra Kable v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 366
The Bombay High Court has held that Maharashtra government's decision exempting private unaided schools from providing 25% quota in Class I or Pre-school for children of disadvantaged sections, if there is a government-run or aided school within 1 km radius of that private school, is "unconstitutional". The decision was taken by the State this year by amending the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar set-aside the Rules as unconstitutional and ultra-vires to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
Case title: Yusuf Yunus Kantharia vs. Bombay Housing And Area Development Authority and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 399
The Bombay High Court came down on the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for failing to compensate an individual whose land was acquired by it 36 years ago. The Court ruled that this inaction constitutes a violation of the individual's constitutional and human rights.
The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata expressed their frustrations that despite 36 years having lapsed since the acquisition, the respondent authorities have not traced the acquisition records and have not carried out any exercise to determine the compensation amount.
Case title: Yusuf Yunus Kantharia vs. Bombay Housing And Area Development Authority and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 399
The Bombay High Court came down on the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for failing to compensate an individual whose land was acquired by it 36 years ago. The Court ruled that this inaction constitutes a violation of the individual's constitutional and human rights.
The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata expressed their frustrations that despite 36 years having lapsed since the acquisition, the respondent authorities have not traced the acquisition records and have not carried out any exercise to determine the compensation amount.
Principle Of Denial Of Relief On Grounds Of Laches Applicable To PIL: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Govind Kondiba Tanpure & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 418
The Bombay High Court observed that the principle of denying relief on grounds of delays and laches is applicable to Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It emphasized that in the absence of an explanation for the delay from the petitioners, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Dattatray Shrikrushna Shejole vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 422
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man booked in a rape case observing that Article 21 of the Constitution of India will apply irrespective of the nature of the crime.
Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke in her order passed on August 6 noted that the accused was arrested on December 15, 2021, and was in custody since then. The judge further noted that an earlier bail application was withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to file a fresh plea if the trial did not commence within six months.
Case title: Dr. Pradeep Mehta & anr. vs. UPI & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 449
The Bombay High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs to two individuals whose Demat accounts were frozen at the behest of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and National Stock Exchange (NSE), following the directives of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the arbitrary freezing of demat accounts by the authorities violated the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Case Title: Kunal Kamra vs Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 481
The Bombay High Court's 'Tie-Breaker' Judge Justice Atul Chandurkar, while opining that the amendments to the Information and Technology Rules, 2021 are 'unconstitutional' held that the citizens only have the 'right to free speech and expression' but not a 'right to truth' and thus the State cannot claim to have a responsibility to ensure that citizens know only 'truth' and not 'fake or false information.'
Case Title: Manjeet Kaur vs Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 552
The Bombay High Court on Monday (October 21) dismissed the plea filed by a woman advocate, who sought to be designated as a 'senior advocate' in view of her completing 10 years in legal practice.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Vrushali Joshi noted that the petitioner advocate - Manjeet Kaur (47), sought senior designation while relying on section 16 (which provides for designation of senior advocates based on their knowledge and standing in the Bar) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and also the fundamental duties provided under Article 51A of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Apollo Tyres vs. Union of India
Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 597
The Bombay High Court recently clarified that writ courts shall not trench upon an alternate remedy provided by statute (Income tax Act) for granting any relief, by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Similarly, writ courts shall not act as a court of appeal against the decision of the lower court or Tribunals, to correct errors of fact, observed the Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 4
Case: State of West Bengal & Ors. v Achinta Roy @ Achinta Kumar Roy Ghatak Choudhury
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the State must protect citizens and respect their Constitutional right to property, enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
In directing the authorities to pay damages of Rs 2 lakhs for unlawfully evicting the plaintiffs from the suit property, without any basis in the year 2000, a single-bench of Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury directed for the plaintiff's possession to be restored within 90 days of the order. It held:
Admittedly during pendency of the proceeding before the learned court below the defendant -State evicted the plaintiffs from the suit property which was out and out an illegal act. State is supposed to protect the citizens and respect their right of property which is being considered as constitutional right. Therefore, the State has incurred the obligation to pay damages for unlawful possession of the property effect from 1.5.2000 till the possession is restored.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 25
Case: Sardar Lalu Singh v The State of West Bengal and others
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order of excommunication by the 'Gurudwara Chhota Singh Sangat,' against the petitioner, excommunicating him from the entire Agrahari Sikh community due to an alleged matrimonial dispute between the petitioner's son and his wife.
In setting aside the order of excommunication and directing the respondent office-bearers to pay costs of Rs 1.5 lakhs to the petitioner due to the harassment suffered by him, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:
Excommunication from an entire community, not pertaining to religious persecution alone but also the social life and relations of the petitioner is such a stringent action, which touches the normal life of a person and the right to live with dignity. Petitioner [cannot] be held responsible for a dispute between his son and his daughter-in-law. Even if there is such a dispute, the same cannot castigate either of the parties to the said dispute, more so at the behest of a Gurudwara. For such innocuous reason, the extreme step of social, religious and economic excommunication unleashed on the petitioner is palpably violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 47
Case: SANJAY BISWAS v THE STATE
The Calcutta High Court has held that filling up gaps in the prosecution case by invoking Section 53A (examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) would offend Article 21 of the Constitution.
A single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya sitting at the High Court's Circuit Bench at Port Blair held:
It is clear from the facts of the present case that the prosecution sought to fill in the gaps in its case by applying for DNA profiling. Diversion of the procedure established under the Cr.PC or creating a procedure unknown to law raises the presumption of arbitrariness which is violative of rights of the accused. Article 21 of the Constitution embodies a fair trial and presumes that every person will have the benefit of a trial which follows the procedure established by law. The principles of criminal jurisprudence cannot be diluted or bent to justify civil or social considerations which are collateral in nature.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 56
Case: Neeta Kumari v Union of India & Ors
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that it is impermissible and violative of the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, to differentiate between contractual employees and permanent employees for the purpose of extending maternity leave.
A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held:
On the question of a woman's right to child birth and maternity leave no differentiation is permissible between regular and contractual employees of the respondent no.2. Denial of grant of maternity leave to the petitioner constitutes a discriminatory would tantamount to compel an employee to work during her advanced pregnancy, notwithstanding the same may ultimately endanger both her and her foetus. If the same is permitted, the object of social justice would stand deviated.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 64
Case: Monoyara Begum v Union of India
The Calcutta High Court has recently ordered the release of a Pakistani national who remained in prison, even after serving the full length of their sentence under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya observed:
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are [not] restricted to Indian citizens, but are available to any person on the soil of India. In fact [it] does not flow from the Constitution but has merely been recognized by the Constitution. Such rights are implicit human rights which are inextricable from a life worth being called a human existence and a person cannot be denuded under any circumstances. The petitioner, having completed his sentence, cannot be retained in further custody, in any prison cell, of whatever colour, texture or dimension. The petitioner no. 2 is entitled to live a life of dignity.
Case: Smt. Lachhmina Devi & Anr. -Vs- Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 277
The Calcutta High Court has held that in cases for providing compassionate employment, it is 'reprehensible' to consider the source of inception of a child's birth and discriminate against those who may have been born from a void marriage.
Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held: "The objective to grant compassionate appointment to redress financial constraints occasioned in a family in the event of the death of the bread earner ensures a means of sufficiency to assuage abrupt crisis and indigence, which cannot be refused ambiguously and unjustifiably on the basis of a circular which is unequivocally unconstitutional to judge a child's entitlement to an appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of its descent."
Case: Jagannath Prasad Gupta & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 280
The Calcutta High Court has held that the right of eminent domain exercised by a state for the larger public interest would prevail over the constitutional right to property of private landowners under Article 300A of the Constitution.
While allowing the authorities to acquire the petitioner's premises for metro railway construction, Justice Aniruddha Roy held:
The right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution shall have to be read by including the provisions laid down under Article 31A of the Constitution of India and not in exclusion thereof. The sovereign power vested in the State to take private property for public use stands concluded with payment of just compensation to the land looser. A superior right to apply private property for public use. A superior right inherent in society and exercised by the sovereign power or upon delegation from it, whereby the subject matter of rights of property may be taken from the owner and appropriated for the general welfare of the society for a public purpose.
Case: Ashok Sharma v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 281
The Calcutta High Court has held that regulatory measures under the Goods and Services Tax Act cannot be labeled as violative of an assessee's right to trade/ business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj reasoned that such regulatory measures are “necessary to ensure compliance and prevent tax evasion”.
Case: Shyamchand Mondal Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 285
The Calcutta High Court has held that bail is an essential element of the criminal justice system as it affords a right to a fair trial to the accused in a criminal case.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul made these observations in a plea by a man accused under the POCSO act, against an order cancelling his bail issued by the trial court. She said:
"Bail is a Rule and Jail is an exception. This is in line with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to all citizens of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the 'right to life and personal liberty' to every individual and no one should be deprived of it except according to the procedure established by law. It guarantees the fundamental right to live with human dignity and personal liberty."
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Lakhan Subodh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 5
The Chhattisgarh High Court has binned a plea seeking to declare 'Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme' of the Chhattisgarh Government as unconstitutional and ultra vires being in violation of secular fabric of the Constitution.
While terming the scheme to be a 'policy decision' of the Government, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held –
“The petitioner himself had been a political person associated earlier with the CPI, CPI(M) and BSP and this petition appears to be nothing but an attempt to gain some personal/political mileage, though the petitioner claims that at present he is not associated with any political party. Even otherwise, it is well settled that a policy decision of the State can normally be not interfered with.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 11
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled that the reservation policy for SC/ST in promotions must be established based on quantifiable data and in accordance with Article 16(4A) and (4B) of the Constitution.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held, “Reservation Policy for SC and ST in Promotion can be framed only on the basis of yardstick fixed for collecting quantifiable data by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various authoritative pronouncements and also based on the provisions contained in Article 16(4A) and (4B) of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title – Anju Lal and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 12
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently directed the State government to compensate a mother-daughter duo with ₹3 Lakh (₹1 lakh to the mother, ₹2 lakhs to the daughter) for their illegal arrest and illegal detention for over 30 hours.
A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal passed this order on a plea moved by one Anju Lal (Mother/a retired school teacher) and one Deeksha Lal (daughter).
Case title - Prabhakar Gwal vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 27
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court recently confirmed the 2020 order of the Single Judge upholding the dismissal of a judicial officer who had filed criminal cases against the former Chief Justice and Judge of the High Court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu observed that the single Judge's order was based on applying a judicious mind, considering the law applicable to the facts of the case and relying upon the precedents on the subject.
Case Title: Mahaveer College of Ayurvedic Science Village & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPC No. 4327 of 2023
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 33
Case Title: Mahaveer College of Ayurvedic Science Village & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors
Holding that the State cannot fix quota or percentage of admission in unaided minority educational institutions, the Chhattisgarh High Court declared the Rule 4(1)(d)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Ayush Graduate Course Admission Rules, 2023 as ultra-vires and unconstitutional.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held so while hearing a writ petition filed by the Jain Community's unaided minority educational institutions which had assailed the 2023 Admission Rules as unconstitutional arguing that it empowered the State Government to fix quota for state-domiciled students in the petitioner's unaided minority educational institution. The plea had further sought a direction to the respondents authorities to permit the petitioner No.1–Mahaveer College of Ayurvedic Science Village to admit all India students in Bachelor of Aayurvedik Medicine and Surgery (BAMS).
DELHI HIGH COURT
Title: Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 5
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that an accused cannot be coerced to reveal or disclose the passwords or any other similar details of the digital devices or gadgets seized during investigation while the trial is ongoing, in view of the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that the investigating agency cannot expect an accused to "sing in a tune which is music to their ears", more so when such an accused enjoys the Constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
Title: Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 47
The Delhi High Court has observed that foreigners cannot claim right to reside and settle in India and their fundamental rights are limited to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“We may also note that foreign national cannot claim that he has right to reside and settle in India in terms of Article 19 (1) (e) of Constitution of India,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said.
Title: MS KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 86
The Delhi High Court has observed that advertising is a part of commercial speech recognized under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and any restraint on such a right can be placed only with some authority of law.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that exaggerations, puffery, and hyperbole are part of advertising that cannot be completely curtailed, except in accordance with law.
Title: KIRTI v. RENU ANAND & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 367
The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders passed by the tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora relied upon various judgments on the issue and observed that the orders passed by the tribunals as well as the judicial acts by administrative bodies or authorities or persons exercising quasi-judicial functions are all amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Title: JIYA THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MS. SUSHMA v. MAHARAJA AGRASEN MODEL SCHOOL & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 375
The Delhi High Court has observed that Article 21A of the Constitution of India is only for free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen and does not confer on any child a constitutional right to be educated in a particular school of his or her choice.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that such a right would arise only if the child applies to the Directorate of Education (DoE) as an EWS (economically weaker section) student for admission in the entry level class for that year and is shortlisted in the computerized draw of lots.
Title: PT PRASADI LAL KAKAJI TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 483
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is a “State” for the purposes of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India.
Justice C Hari Shankar held that an executive decision taken by the NCTE would also, therefore, constitute “law” for the purposes of Article 19(6).
Case Title: Sanjeev Goyal v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 31 of the Finance Act, 2017. This section amended the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA) by adding sub-section (3A) to Section 71. The petition was filed by a government employee who claimed to have constructed a house in 2014, incurring an expenditure of Rs. 1.35 crore.
Title: RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH: ITS SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 111
The Delhi High Court has upheld the provisions concerning anti-profiteering measure and establishment of National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) under the Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 and its Rules, observing that they are in the nature of a beneficial legislation as they promote consumer welfare.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 and 134 of Rules of 2017.
Title: DEBARATI NANDEE v. MS. TRIPTI GURHA & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 178
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to adopt cannot be raised to the status of a fundamental right within Article 21 of the Constitution of India, nor can it be raised to a level granting Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) the right to demand their choice of who to adopt.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that there is no right at all to insist on the adoption of a particular child before the final order of adoption is passed by the District Magistrate under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Case Title: The Executive Engineer & Ors Vs M/S Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 244
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be invoked where a party has failed to invoke other remedies available to it under law. It held that if a party fails to challenge the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot approach the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
'X' Corp Does Not Perform 'Public Function', Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
Title: SANCHIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 875
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that X Corp, formerly Twitter, does not perform “public function” or discharges public duty and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the social media platform operates as a “private entity” under “private law” and does not carry out any governmental duties or obligations.
Case title: Manhar Sabharwal vs. High Court Of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 935
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutionality of Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which mandates that a written statement has to be filed within 120 days, including in non-commercial matters.
Case title: Resident Welfare Association vs. Kishan Devnani and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 936
The Delhi High Court has observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, which alleges encroachment on government land, cannot be entertained if it requires the court to conduct a 'roving or fishing enquiry' into disputed facts of the case.
Case Title: DR. RAJAN JAISWAL v. M/S SRL LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1149
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain held that judicial interference under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in the arbitral matters should be limited and confined to exceptional cases.
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Syed Habibur Rahman v. The State of Assam & 2 Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 2
The Gauhati High Court has directed the Department of Fishery, Government of Assam to consider the representation of a retired In-Charge District Fisheries Development Officer (DFDO) for promotion to the post of DFDO on merit regarding the position obtaining on the date of his retirement from service and pass an appropriate order within 3 months.
The single-judge bench of Justice Suman Shyam observed:
“Law is well settled that the right to be considered for promotion is a facet of a fundamental right. If there are vacancies available for being filled up by way of promotion and there are eligible departmental candidates who have a right to be considered for promotion to such posts, the authorities cannot deny such candidates, coming within the zone of consideration, an opportunity of being promoted and thereby deprive them not only of the satisfaction of career progression but also the consequential pecuniary benefits.”
Case Title: Prafulla Govinda Baruah v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 29
The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday held that Article 11 of Schedule I of the Court Fee (Amendment) Act, 1950 in respect of levy of Court fee for grant of probate or letter of administration at the rate of 7 percent ad valorem where the value of properties exceeds Rs.5 Lakhs without there being any upper limit fixed, as unconstutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: F. Lalhminglina and 3 Ors. v. The State of Mizoram & 4 Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 62
The Gauhati High Court recently held that proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 2008, shall be interpreted in a manner which provides equal opportunity of promotion to the Inspectors of the Armed Branch as well as Un-armed Branch of the Mizoram Police.
The division bench of the Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Suman Shyam observed:
“It is a salutory principle of law of interpretation of statute that Court should make every effort to preserve the validity of a legislation and should only declare a law invalid as a last resort. By adopting a harmonious construction of the rules, we are of the opinion that proviso to Rule 6(1) is required to be read down so as to render the same constitutionally valid. The rules ought to be interpreted in a manner which provides equal opportunity of promotion to the Inspectors of Armed Branch as well as Un-armed Branch of the Mizoram Police.”
Case Title: Shri. Kekhriesilie Richa & 25 Ors. v. The State of Nagaland & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 64
The Gauhati High Court on Friday quashed the appointment of 935 police constables who were appointed during the period from January, 2018 to October, 2019 by the State of Nagaland, without any advertisement.
The single judge bench of Justice Devashis Baruah sitting at Kohima further directed the State to take steps for holding fresh selection of the 935 posts of Constables by issuance of advertisement in newspapers and the said selection process shall be completed preferably within six months.
Case Title: Shri Kezhalesa Kuotsu & 14 Ors. v. The State of Nagaland & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 71
The Gauhati High Court recently quashed the appointment of 40 Sub-Inspectors of Police, Unarmed Branch Sub-Inspector of Police, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and Instructor Havildar who were appointed during the years 2019 and 2020 in Nagaland Police.
The single judge bench of Justice Devashis Baruah sitting at Kohima observed that the orders of appointment of the said police personnel were made without any kind of advertisement and without following the principles which emanate from Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.Gujarat High Court
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Gujarat High Court Directs Authorities To Follow Court Orders In IGST Refund Case
Case Title: Real Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 17
The Gujarat High Court, in its decision on a special civil application, while emphasising the binding nature of its directions on respondent-authorities, stated that once the Court issues directions, they hold authority over the respondent-authorities, and consequently, the respondent-authorities are obligated to adhere to the directions issued by the Court when exercising their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Union Of India & Ors. Versus Dilip Wagheshwari S/O Danabhai Wagheshwari
LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 28
In a stern stance, the Gujarat High Court has rejected with Rs. 25,000 an Article 227 petition filed by the Union of India and its Officers with more than two years' delay.
Justice S Umesh A. Trivedi and Rajendra M Sareen remarked it is a "classic example of sheer lethargic attitude and total disregard of Court proceedings by the petitioners."
The Court in its Order observed, “Any amount of extension or reading any paragraph from even additional affidavit cannot salvage the situation as not only the impugned orders which are challenged refusing the condonation of delay, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has come to be filed after more than two years delay by the petitioners, and therefore, this petition is required to be rejected with cost of Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of 04 (four) weeks from today.”
Case Title: NEPRA Resources Management Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 69
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the Notified Area Authority, Vapi, does not qualify as a local authority or governmental authority. As a result, the Solid Waste Management and recycling services provided to it are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30th June 2017.
The division bench, comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral M. Mehta, held, “considering the conspectus of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra), the Notified Area Authority, Vapi cannot be considered as “local authority” or “Governmental Authority”. Therefore, the Notified Area Authority,Vapi is neither a “local authority” nor a “Governmental Authority” carrying out any activity in relation to any function entrusted to Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution.”
Case Title: Sohanaben Hanifkhan Malek since minor through her guardian Hanifaben Bismillakhan Jatmalik v State of Gujarat & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
While disposing of a 2022 public interest litigation (PIL) moved by the sister of a 14-year-boy allegedly killed in a “fake encounter” by Gujarat police officials, the Gujarat High Court orally remarked that in a case like this “no one can refuse to lodge” an FIR.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a PIL by one Sohanaben Hanifkhan Malek alleging that on November 6, 2021, her father and her minor brother were allegedly killed in a “Fake encounter” by a sub-inspector from Bajana police station in Patdi taluka located in district Surendranagar. The petitioner sought the registration of an FIR into the alleged incident and an independent investigation against the concerned police personnel.
Gujarat High Court Dismisses Maulana Mufti Salman Azhari's Plea Against PASA Detention
Case Title - Salman @Mufti Mohammad Salman Azhari S/O Mohammad Hasan Razvi Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 102
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Maulana Mufti Salman Azhari challenging his detention under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA).
The Court ruled that despite Azhari's claims of not being given a proper opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the detention order was valid.
The division bench comprising Justices Ilesh J Vora and Vimal K Vyas observed, “As discussed, the contentions that proper opportunity to make representation as mandated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, has not been given, having no any merits, as despite of language barrier the petitioner made effective representation through his brother as well as social worker and therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, merely, non-supplying the documents and grounds of detention in the language understandable to him, would not vitiate his detention order.”
Law Passed To Eradicate Human Sacrifice, Evil And "Aghori" Practices: State Tells Gujarat High Court
Case Title: AKHIL BHARTIYA ANDHASHRADDHA NIRMOOL SAMITI & ANR. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 127
The Gujarat government enacted a new legislation with the intention of wiping out human sacrifice and other inhuman practices for safeguarding citizens. Taking this into account, the court dismissed a PIL brought before it with regard to such unlawful practices. Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi had sought the government's response after noting the absence of legislation that would curtail such activities.
The new law, known as 'The Gujarat Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil, and Aghori Practices Act', was notified in September. The court ordered that the law and its provisions be publicized widely by the government. This PIL was filed by a trust, Akhil Bhartiya Andhashraddha Nirmool Samiti and Ashwinkumar Navalchand Karia, where unlawful tantrik activities were highlighted in the state, and legislation for these to be stopped was brought to the forefront. The court appreciated the petitioners for bringing such an issue into public ey
Case Title: Kailashbhai Gobarbhai Savaliya v/s Election Commission of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 152
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a public interest petition seeking a directive for the Election Commission to announce bye-elections for the Visavadar Assembly seat, left vacant after MLA Bhupendrabhai Bhayani's resignation in December 2023. The court, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, noted that a pending election petition by a losing candidate contested the original election result, meaning bye-elections couldn't proceed until this issue was resolved. The court also clarified that the Election Commission and State Government have no control over election petition timelines and dismissed the plea, stating no directive could be issued under the current circumstances.
Case Title: Jagat Bahadur Deviram Aitaram Dalami v/s State of Gujarat
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 162
The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a man, allegedly a Nepali citizen, who was accused of forging an Indian passport using fake documents. The court emphasized that bail is the rule, and jail should be the exception, noting that prolonged pre-trial detention could violate personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The man had been in jail since June, and the investigation was complete with a charge sheet filed. The court considered his clean record, the fact that nothing further needed to be recovered and that he was earning his livelihood in India. The court granted him bail with conditions, including a Rs 25,000 bond, a local surety, surrendering his passport, and providing personal details to the court and police.
Case Title: Adarsh Gujarat Anganwadi Union & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 173
The Gujarat High Court directed that Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Helpers (AWHs), though not official part of the State Civil Services, should still be considered as regular workers in view of their importance to the statutory mandates under the Right to Education Act (RTE) and the National Food Security Act (NSF). The Court held that not recognizing them as employees, not paying them a minimum wage, was unequal treatment under the Indian Constitution, which guarantees everyone the right to equality. The Court underlined the fact that AWWs and AWHs do critical and diverse work such as teaching, coordination, and management of public health programs. They put in long hours and are burdened with work, but get miserably low wages which is below the minimum wage. The Court ordered the State and Central Governments to develop a policy to regularize AWWs and Give the AWHs the status of government employee and offer them proper pay scale and all benefits, policy to be finalized within six months and in the meanwhile, minimum wage to be provided to the petitioners.
Case Title: Durgaben w/o Amrutbhai Parmar vs State of Gujarat
Case Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 190
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition of a long-time resident in the precincts of the Gandhi Ashram who challenged the compensation awarded under the Ashram redevelopment policy and sought housing units and financial benefits in addition to what other residents have been getting. Petitioner had been living in the Ashram precincts since 1990. He had also been associated with the Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram Memorial Trust since 1983. The rehabilitation policy provided for three choices: a 4BHK flat, a 3BHK tenement, or ₹60 lakh compensation.
The Collector granted ₹60 lakh for one unit and another ₹30 lakh for half a unit considering the fact that she had her married son staying with her. The demand for four separate housing units made by the petitioner was unwarranted since her dwelling was much smaller compared to the beneficiaries who were given such relief. The Court held that the compensation provided was fair, benevolent, and beyond the policy requirement. It held that a wrong benefit provided to another does not confer the right on others to claim the same under Article 14 (Right to Equality). The petition was dismissed as the Court held that the petitioner had already received more than her entitlement under the policy, and no further benefits could be claimed.
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and others Vs Hon'ble Speaker, H.P. Legislative Assembly and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 23
While delivering a split verdict on the issue as to whether the court by invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a direction to the speaker of the house to decide on the resignation letters forwarded by a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) within a fixed time frame.
Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewak Dua pronounced their respective conflicting verdicts while hearing plea of Independent MLA's Of HP Legislative Assembly seeking direction upon the Speaker of the House to forthwith accept their resignation tendered in March this year and issue appropriate communication to that effect forthwith.
Case Title: Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and Ors. v. Hon'ble Speaker and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 28
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that courts cannot impose a specific timeframe on the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to decide on the resignations submitted by Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).
“…no timeframe can be fixed by the Constitutional Court for the Speaker to decide the issue of resignation tendered by members of the Legislative Assembly/Vidhan Sabha, if any, brought before him”, the court held.
Case title - Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi vs. Harsh Mahajan
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 57
The Himachal Pradesh High Court UPHELD the maintainability of Congress' Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi's election plea challenging his defeat in the Rajya Sabha polls of February 2024.
A bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua DISMISSED an application moved by BJP Rajya Sabha MP Harsh Mahajan to reject the election petition filed by Dr Singhvi challenging the results of the February 2024 Rajya Sabha election in which Mahajan was declared as the winner.Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT
Case Title: GHULAM AHMAD BHAT & OTHERS Vs STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 9
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered the state to compensate landowners whose property was arbitrarily seized 45 years ago. The court declared that no amount of delay can extinguish the fundamental right to property, granting long-awaited relief to the petitioners.
Case Title: Suhail Ahmad Lone Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 163
Quashing a preventive detention order under J&K Public Safety Act 1978 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sounded a note of caution for detaining authorities who assume that their powers under the act are unchecked.
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti has stated that subjective satisfaction of the authorities for issuing detention orders cannot be construed as a matter of wordplay while assuming that they have an omnipotent power and authority to subject any person to suffer preventive detention at any given point of time.
Case Title: Qadeer Hussain Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 52
Emphasising the paramount importance of adhering to the principles enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution regarding public employment the jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that regular appointments to government posts cannot be made without following the proper procedure of issuing advertisements inviting applications from eligible candidates and conducting a fair selection process.
Case Title: Aaftab Hussain Dar Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 161
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ordered the Union Territory administration to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation to Aftab Hussain Dar, a 22-year-old student, after quashing his preventive detention, declaring it illegal and unconstitutional.
Case Title: Bansi Lal Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 179
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to Bansi Lal, a 56-year-old former police officer, who had been in judicial custody for almost 18 years.
The order, passed by Justice Atul Sreedharan, highlighted the prolonged delay in the trial, describing it as a clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.
Case Title: Shameem Ahmad Shah Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 185
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that employees appointed in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution can be disengaged without the necessity of affording them an opportunity to be heard.
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Case Title: Rudra Narayan Ray vs Piyali Ray Chatterjee
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 20
The Jharkhand High Court has observed that serving elderly mothers-in-law or grandmothers-in-law is both a cultural practice and an obligation for women in India. The Court also underscored that the wife's insistence to live separately from such in-laws is unreasonable.
"It is the culture in India to serve the old aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law as the case may by the wife in order to preserve this culture. It was obligatory on the part of wife to serve her husband's mother and maternal grandmother and not to insist for unreasonable demand to live separate from his old aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-in-law," a bench of Justice Subhash Chand remarked.
Case Title: Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 58
A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. and Navneet Kumar, J., while deciding Letters Patent Appeals in the case of Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand, has held that denying pensionary benefits to an employee is to rob them of a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution, as pension is earned by the employee on account of their meritorious past services.
Case Title: Shrawan Kumar Das V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 88
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that pensionary benefits are a constitutional and fundamental right of employees, not a discretionary bounty of authorities. The Court expressed bewilderment at the withholding of retiral benefits from an employee whose dismissal order had been quashed by the appellate authority without any appeal or revision from the Department.
Justice SN Pathak presiding over the case, remarked, “This Court fails to understand that under which authority of law, the entire admitted retiral benefits of an employee can be withheld when the order of dismissal has been quashed and set aside by the appellate authority, that too when no appeal / revision has been preferred by the Department. The respondents are taking flimsy stand, which is not acceptable to this Court. This is yet another glaring example of delay and laches on the part of the respondents for not extending the retiral benefits.”
The Jharkhand High Court has held that if a cognizable offence has been committed and the petitioner feels that a First Information Report (FIR) needs to be registered, he can be the informant and get an FIR registered at the police station or file a complaint before a competent court.
The Court emphasized that there are ample provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure to address such situations, and approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India initially is not the appropriate remedy.
Case Title: M/s. Deepak Construction V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 139
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a writ court operating under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess the quantum of damage or compensation, as such an assessment requires adjudication through evidence, which is the jurisdiction of another appropriate forum.
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai observed, “This Court is of the view that the writ court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess the quantum of damage or compensation since the same requires adjudication by leading evidence for which the appropriate forum is else.”
Case Title: Shipra Tewary V. M/s Coal India Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 149
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that denial of employment to a female candidate only on the basis of gender is against the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
The court noted that in exceptional cases, where there is no male nominee, the proposal for female employment was being considered by the Eastern Coalfields Limited and, as such, on the basis of gender, the company was denying employment.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “denial of employment to the female candidate is against the provision made in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The Court further finds that in paragraph 30 of the counter affidavit itself, it is stated that in exceptional cases where there is no male nominee, the proposal for female employment was being considered by the Eastern Coalfields Limited and, as such, on the basis of gender, denying the employment is against the mandate of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India is the fountain of the statute and this aspect has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and others (supra).”
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 179
The Jharkhand High Court in a recent judgement, has directed the State to regularise the services of an appellant who had been engaged as a Computer Operator on a daily-wage basis since 2008 and later on a contractual basis.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed, “We are of the opinion that utilizing the services of the appellant from 2008 (though under nomenclature of a 'daily wage' employee initially and later from 2013 as a 'contractual appointee,' which appointment was in fact done through a selection process adopted by the State with the Deputy Commissioner as the head of the Interview Committee), is practically indistinguishable from an appointment in a permanent post of clerk who is also engaged in doing typing on computer and data entry.”
Case Title: Union of India and Anr vs M/s Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL)
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 177
While hearing a plea seeking exercising of power under Article 227 of Constitution and for passing interim orders till fresh orders are passed by the concerned court, the Jharkhand High Court reiterated that power under the provision is to be used sparingly and cannot be used to correct "mere errors".
In doing so the court further observed that if the power is used in this manner, then it will lead to accelerating the error committed. The high court was hearing a plea moved by the Union of India against Coal Bearing Tribunal's order issuing status quo in Adani's plea for restraining the Union from taking any coercive steps in view of the allegation that Adani did not seek the necessary approvals with regard to the Gondulpara Coal Block
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sanjay M Peerapur & Another & Union of India & Others.
Case No: Writ Petition No 62966 OF 2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has struck down the expression "if woman" found in Section 6 of the Indian Military Nursing Services Ordinance, 1943 as unconstitutional. By this expression, 100 percent recruitment was reserved for women in the cadre of 'nursing officers'.
A Single judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the plea filed by Sanjay M Peerapur and said “Women are justifiably considered to be a separate class under the Constitution. However, it does not mean that there can be hundred percent reservations in employment for women to the exclusion of all others when the classification is solely based on the sex without having any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
Case Title: Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath AND Ganesha & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 543 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has said that Grama Panchayat cannot dismiss an employee only if a criminal case is registered against him. Dismissal from service can be ordered only after holding an enquiry, it added.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath challenginging a Single Judge's order whereby one Ganesha's dismissal from service was set aside with a direction to reinstate him in the position forthwith. The court said, “In a society like ours, job more often than not happens to be the predominant source of livelihood and therefore snatching away a job (in public employment), like the one that has happened in the case at hand, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of the employee. That offends the pith & substance of fundamental right to life & liberty constitutionally guaranteed under Article 21.”
Case Title: XXX AND The Registrar General & Others
Case N0: Writ Petition No 25557 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High Court while directing the registry to mask the name of an accused in the cause title of the case found in the records of the court has observed that “even an accused who has been discharged or acquitted honourably by a competent Court of law has a right to live with dignity.”
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said that Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with law.
Case Title: C Girish Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 7893 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the State Human Rights Commission can only recommend and not pass directions to the Government to act against policemen.
A Division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice CM Poonacha partly allowed the petition filed by C Girish Naik who works as Inspector of Police and said “The report dated 12.3.2020 issued by the fourth respondent [Karnataka State Human Rights Commission] shall not be treated as a direction but as a recommendation.”
Case Title: Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 21705 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on an Assistant Professor, by the Executive Council of the Visvesvaraya Technological University.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr.Yogananda A and said, “The impugned penalty of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed. The respondent No.3-Disciplinary Authority is hereby directed to adhere to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra and also take cognizance of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India and shall issue a fresh show cause notice.”
Case Title: KIKKERI KRISHNA MURTHY And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WP 19801/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition questioning the State government's order prescribing that the State Anthem—Jayabharatha Jananiya Thanujathe be sung for two and half minutes, in a tune composed by Mysore Ananthaswamy.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while rejecting the petition filed by Kikkeri Krishna Murthy, held “Government has done it in executive power, as long as it does not affect you (petitioner) it is always open for the government to do it. As far as students are concerned there are provisions in the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 which I have construed as empowering the government to prescribe a particular raga. Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.”
Case Title: Stone Hill Education Foundation AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18486/2012
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 215.
The Karnataka High Court has recently declared as 'unconstitutional' para 83 introduced in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and para 43A in Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, which covered international workers under the scheme irrespective of the salary drawn by them with effect from 01.10.2008.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha noted that the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act prescribes a ceiling amount of Rs.15,000/- per month salary as a threshold for an employee to be a member to the scheme. However, the Scheme had unlimited threshold for international workers while denying the same benefit to Indian workers.
Case Title: Neetha G AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11827 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by a wife seeking parole leave for her husband who is a life convict on the ground that she is deprived of her right of progeny.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition of the woman in part and granted general parole for a period of 30 days to the convict which would become operational from 05.06.2024 to 04.07.2024.
Case Title: H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors
Case No.- WRIT PETITION NO.5016 OF 2024 (S-R)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 254
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum in the case of H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors has held that Leave encashment cannot be viewed as discretionary bounties but as legal rights enforceable under the Constitution of India
Case Title: Master Shamant P & Others AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No. 1305 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 468
The Karnataka High Court has said that priority in admission to school cannot be construed to be a vested right and priority provided in the previous academic year cannot be enforced as a legal right for continuation of such quota.
A Division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by grandchildren of serving/retired employees of Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.
Case Title: ABC And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.14909 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 525
The Karnataka High Court as an interim measure directed the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) to provide a reservation of 0.5% to transgender persons (half the percentage of reservation provided for TGs in employment in State) with fee waiver, until it implements the 2014 directions of the Supreme Courts by formulating a reservation for transgender candidates.
In 2021 the State government provided a 1 per cent (horizontal) reservation to Transgender candidates in government jobs to be filled through the direct recruitment process. The reservation is applicable to transgender candidates in each category of General merit, SC,ST and in each of the OBC categories.
Justice Ravi V Hosmani directed, "NLSIU is directed to implement directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in NALSA's case (NALSA v. Union of India) by formulating reservation along with measures for providing financial aid to TGs in education before commencement of admission process for next academic year. Until then to provide a reservation of 0.5% (half the percentage of reservation provided for TGs in employment under State) as interim reservation with fee waiver and for which NLSIU may apply to State/Central Government for appropriate grant".
KERALA HIGH COURT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
Case title: Rohith Giri v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court held that the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked seeking blanket general directions against the police for the prevention of registration of crimes.
“Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to issue blanket directions against registration of a crime. Time and again, the Supreme Court as well as this Court have deprecated the practice of issuing general directions, especially with respect to investigation and registration of FIRs. Each FIR will have to be appreciated on the basis of the allegations therein” , stated Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Title: Welfare Association of Kitco Employees (Wake) & ors v. Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (Kitco) & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court has held that KITCO (Kerala Industrial & Technical Consultancy Organisation) qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that large majority of shares of the company are held by instrumentalities of the Central Government. Even the State government has a "decisive representation" in the Board, it noted.
"It is clear from a reading of the Articles of Association and the documents produced in the writ petition and in this writ appeal that the State and Central Governments themselves specifically consider the 1st respondent [KITCO] as a Central Government company. It is also discernible that the accounts of the 1st respondent are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India treating it as a deemed Government company. It is recognised as an accredited Government agency for the purpose of public works in the State," the bench added.
Case Title: Nikson v. Samkutty
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea on a land dispute matter on the premise that the petitioner was yet to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order.
The court added that the parties can seek an order under Article 227 of the Constitution, directing the Execution Court to issue a certified copy of the impugned order and grant an order of injunction in their favour to enable the tenant to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings.
Case title: Abdul Kabeer P.U v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
The Kerala High Court has held that though the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a substitute to the remedy of bail under Section 438 or 439 of CrPC, the same may be invoked in exceptional cases for securing liberty.
Justice K Babu observed, “While seeking a relief of bail in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has to exercise its power conscious of the fact that the petitioner has an alternate remedy and in exceptional cases like this a party can seek relief to secure his liberty in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Case Name: Jebin Jospeh v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
The Kerala High Court today permitted a queer man to attend his deceased live-in partner's last rites, given that the said partner's bereaved family does not object to it.
“This court certainly has little doubt that the constitutionally protected and guaranteed right of every individual to dignity and fair treatment specially under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be construed to cease with death; but continues much beyond, or at least as such time as the mortal remains are dealt with the respect it commands.”
The petitioner had approached the Court stating that his partner passed away on February 3 after falling from his flat. The mortal remains were however being maintained by Aster Medicity hospital, allegedly over failure to clear the medical bills. Petitioner was also told that he is not recognized to have any right qua the deceased under any legislative or customary laws.
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Execution Of Decree: Kerala High Court
Case title: Teresa Mary George v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the execution of a decree when there is an alternative effective remedy to approach a competent civil court by filing an execution petition.
The petitioner had approached the High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for fixation of survey marks on the boundaries of a property allegedly in dispute.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
Case title: K Mohandas v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has stated that encroachers of government land are not entitled to any equity and there is no public interest to assign a property when there is an admitted encroachment. It stated that even if the encroachment was decades back, the state should work to repossess the land unless there is any legal impediment to it.
The petitioners are social workers from the landless tribal community in Wayanad district and have approached the Court seeking direction to the government for facilitating the allocation of residential and agricultural lands to tribal families of Wayanad.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
Case title: State of Kerala v Sudheer Kumar
The Kerala High Court had upheld the decree of compensation granted to a man who got injured in an explosive attack before the Sub Jail. It observed that the State has a reasonable duty to take necessary precautions when notorious criminals involved in gang rivalry are brought into or taken out of jail.
The State had preferred an appeal against the decree of the Trial Court granting five lakh rupees as compensation to the plaintiff who suffered fifty per cent disability in an explosion at the Attakulangara Sub Jail.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
Case title: Vishnunaryanan v The Secretary & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the notification issued by the Devaswom Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the years 2017-18, 2021-22 for appointment of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom. The challenge was against the eligibility criteria given in the notifications that the applicant shall only be a 'Malayala Brahmin'.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar relying upon the Apex Court decision in Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1985), Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) stated that Archakas are temple priests who perform essential poojas or ceremonies (Agamas) and it was considered as integral and essential religious practise protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
Case Title: Jayakumar and ors. v. Union of India
The Kerala High Court has stated that Unit Run Canteens do not come within the definition of 'state' as provided under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
“Merely because the Unit Run Canteens works under the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) and the CSD are founded by the consolidated fund of India, it cannot be said that the Unit Run Canteens is directly controlled and financed by the Government of India, they have an independent stand and are working on separate SOPs, issued from time to time” observed Justice Basant Balaji.
The court was hearing a petition by the employees of a Unit Run Canteen functioning in Pangode Army Headquarters challenging an order to replace these employees with contract workers.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
Case Title: Dr. M. Ganeshkumar v. State of Kerala and ors.
The Kerala High Court has held that a nativity clause which disqualifies non-resident medical officers from applying under the service quota of the Kerala Medical Officers' Admission to Post Graduate Courses Under Service Quota Act is invalid and unconstitutional, adding that the State cannot include any clause in the prospectus that prevents a medical officer under the Act from being considered under any service quota for admission to the Medical Post Graduate Degree Courses based on nativity alone.
“The nativity clause in the instant case discriminates between persons born in the state of Kerala and those born outside the State, and such discrimination falls foul of Article 15(1) of the Constitution” observed the Justice Mohammed Nias.
Case title: Renjith Kumar V K v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 199
The Kerala High Court stated that the right to be enlarged on bail is an indefeasible part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be denied by imposing stringent or unreasonable conditions.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that excessive bond amounts cannot be imposed for denying bail since bail bonds only intend to secure the presence of the accused before the court. It stated that the amount fixed in bail bonds does not determine the sufficiency of surety and does not depend on the amount involved in criminal cases.
Case title: K M Habeeb Muhammed v The Managing Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
The Kerala High Court stated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to re-appreciate the evidence in a domestic enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authorities.
The Court was considering a writ petition filed by a workman of the State Bank of Travancore who was removed from service pursuant to departmental enquiry for fraud committed on the bank.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan relied upon the Apex Court judgement in Union of India v. H C Goel (1964) to state that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to consider sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to arrive at a particular conclusion in an enquiry by the disciplinary authorities.
Case title: St. Antony's Forane Church v District Police Chief (Rural)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
The Kerala High Court has stated that the Writ Court cannot intervene in the manner of conducting rituals in church under Article 226 of the Constitution especially when civil proceedings were pending between the parties.
“It is thus obvious that, on issues relating to the conduct of rituals in the Church, this Court cannot intervene, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the parties are already litigating it before the competent Civil Court”, stated Justice Devan Ramachandran.
Case Title: Maffiya MK v. Union of India and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
The Kerala High Court has issued guidelines relating to the forwarding of representations of detainees. A division bench consisting of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice M. A. Abdul Hakhim clarified that the representations shall be forwarded by all jail superintendents in the following manner:
1. Jail superintendents shall forward e-mail copies both in the e-mail address of the detention authority as well as central government. The sponsoring authority immediate on detention order shall forward the relevant e-mail IDs of the concerned to the jail superintendent. Immediately on forwarding the e-mail copies physical copies also shall be forwarded all the authorities concerned.
2. The court directed that necessary instructions shall be issued by the DGP of the prison to all jail superintendent in the Jail. DGP shall direct that if any laches on the part of the jail superintendent in following the guidelines in the directions as above will entail in disciplinary actions against such officers.
The court was hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by the wife of the detenu challenging his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974.
Case Title: Anand Joseph v The District Collector
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 254
The Kerala High Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against the Ernakulam District Rifle Association which is a society registered under a society registered the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. The Court stated that a writ petition is not maintainable against a Society registered under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin, Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955.
Justice Easwaran S. relying upon Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) and Shabajit Tewary v Union of India (1975), held that a society need not necessarily come under 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
“….only if the control of the State over such body is deep and pervasive, the same would come within the definition of State. On the other hand, if the control is merely regulatory whether under the Statute or otherwise then it would not serve to make the body a State. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the affairs of the 3rd respondent is not maintainable”, stated the Court
Case Title: XXXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282
The Kerala High Court has held that a rape victim cannot be forced to give birth to a child of a man who sexually assaulted her. The Court thus permitted a sixteen-year-old rape victim, studying in standard 11th to medically terminate the pregnancy which reached 28 weeks of gestation.
Justice Kauser Edappagath held that denying permission to terminate an unwanted pregnancy would equate to imposing forced motherhood and deprivation of the right to life with dignity, constituting a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Sindhu B S v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285
The Kerala High Court has held that the correctness of an answer key cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the India since it is a purely academic matter.
Justice T R Ravi stated that the High Court would not sit over in an appeal against the decision of an expert committee that evaluated the correctness of an answer key prepared by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
“The question regarding the correctness or otherwise of an answer key is a purely academic matter which is not an aspect that can be reviewed in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had on the earlier occasion directed consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and others, and pursuant to the judgment of this Court a committee of experts had been appointed to go into the question. t is thereafter that Ext.P1 report has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the expert body.”
Case Title: The Plantation Corporation Of Kerala Limited v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 317
The Kerala High Court has held that the construction of illegal religious structures and buildings in government lands by Hindus, Christians, Muslims or any other religion cannot be permitted since that would lead to religious disharmony in the State.
The Court referred to the Preamble of the Constitution to state that religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution does not mean that citizens could encroach upon government land to construct religious structures and disrupt religious harmony.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan issued directions for the identification and eviction of unauthorized and illegal religious structures from government or public lands to uphold communal harmony and to strengthen the country as a 'SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC' as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Geetha v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
The Kerala High Court held that authorities are expected to act diligently in matters relating to preventive detention since that involves curtailment of the fundamental rights of citizens.
In the present case, the representation was submitted by the detenu to the government on February 15, 2024, against the detention order. It was considered only on April 08, 2024, after receipt of the report from the Advisory Board on March 19, 2024.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu held that lethargy, lapses, negligence, delay and callousness on the part of the authorities in considering representations in preventive detention cases violates Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: M/S. Krishna Holiday Village v The Deputy Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 328
The Kerala High Court has held that the Writ Court has the power to grant instalments, extending beyond the instalments granted by the assessing authority for clearing tax dues under Rule 30 B of the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST), 1963.
As per Rule 30B of the KGST Rules, the assessing authority can permit payment of tax in not more than six monthly instalments based on the request of the dealer.
Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that the writ court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has the power to grant instalment facilities extending beyond instalments granted by the assessing authority under Rule 30B of the KGST Rules.
Case Title: Althaf J. Muhammed v The District Police Chief and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
“Parental love or concern cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married,” the Kerala High Court has observed.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. M. Manoj made the observation while deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman's partner.
The Court referred to Supreme Court judgment, Shafin Jahan v Asokan K. M. and observed that the role of the Court is to see that the detenu is produced before it, find about his/her independent choice and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. The choice of an individual should be conferred with the status that the Constitution guarantees, provided that the said choice does not transgress any valid framework, it added
Case Title: Sujith T. V. v Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
The Kerala High Court has declared that an employee's messages in a private WhatsApp group regarding the safety of the company do not give rise to the charge of harming the reputation of the company. Justice Satish Ninan said that a charge to such effect infringes on the employee's right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The petitioner is an employee of Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT). It was submitted that he sent messages to a private WhatsApp group of the technicians of the company regarding the safety concerns related to ammonia handling.
Case Title: Muhammed Sahir v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
The Kerala High Court held that the Trial Court's denial of issuing summons to defence witnesses, as requested by the accused during a criminal trial should be an exception and to be used sparingly.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the right of the accused to enter defence evidence and adduce witnesses is essential to ensure fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Kishore Kumar J V Additional Chief Secretary & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that there is no fair process of enquiry if unexplained delay has occurred in initiating disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee, since it causes him significant prejudice.
The Court further stated that the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, which should be ensured not only in criminal cases but also in all cases where procedures are required to indict an individual.
In the facts of the case, a charge memo was filed against an officer in 2022, alleging dereliction of duty in the investigation of a crime he had investigated in 2001, during which he wrongfully arrested innocent persons.
Case Title: Anu George v The National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
The Kerala High Court has held that denial of opportunity to seek public employment forever to a particular class of students because they were unable to obtain an equivalency certificate due to being compelled to complete an impossible task is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In this case, petitioners were denied an equivalency certificate by the Kerala Agricultural University to apply for PSC exams stating that their University did not have ICAR accreditation during their period of study.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. relying upon the 'Doctrine of Impossibility' stated that students cannot be compelled to perform an impossible task. In this case, petitioners were the first batch of students from their University and practically their University could only apply for ICAR accreditation after the successful completion of the course by the first batch of students.
Case Title: Mammen Varghese v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
The Kerala High Court has held that cartoonists, being a part and parcel of the Press and Media, are entitled to Freedom of Expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.
The Court thus quashed proceedings initiated against the Printer and Publisher, Editorial Director, Managing Editor, Editor and Chief Editor of Kerala news daily 'Malayala Manorama', under Section 2 of Prevention of Insult To National Honour Act, 1971 for allegedly insulting the National Flag.
The specific case was that Malayala Manorama, in connection with the 70th Independence Day celebrations, published a caricature depicting Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian flag, with the top side of saffron portion of the flag outlined with a black line.
Kerala High Court Says It Lacks 'Supervisory Jurisdiction' Over NCDRC
Case Title: DR. Valsamma Chacko v Leelamma Joseph
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
The Kerala High Court has held that it can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution only over Courts and Tribunals falling within its territorial jurisdiction.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu stated that NCDRC falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court and dismissed the petition as not maintainable under Article 227. “….a close reading and comprehensive analysis of the precedents leads us to the conclusion that this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 only over those courts and tribunals situated within the territorial limits of this Court. Hence, over the NCDRC, falling falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, this Court has no supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.”
Case Title: The Director v Sajeed V M & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
The Kerala High Court has ruled that if a Credit Information Company such as TransUnion CIBIL Limited fails to update the credit ratings of its borrowers promptly, it would infringe upon their fundamental rights.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that borrowers reputation is protected under right to dignity and privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental human right for the accused. The Court stated that even if a specific statute provides an exception that presumes the guilt of the accused, it must adhere to the standards of reasonableness and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
While allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellants, the Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish observed that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court has held that an aggrieved person can challenge the decision of a Sessions Court issued under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) by way of a Criminal Revision Petition.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Sessions Court which had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner's wife had moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court under Section 12 of the DV Act and had obtained a maintenance order against the petitioner. A challenge against this order was dismissed by the Magistrate.
Case Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court has held that there is almost an an absolute bar on challenging the final order or judgment passed by a Sessions Court in appeal, under Article 227 of the Constitution. Article 227 deals with the superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals in its territory.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions which held that a person cannot approach the High Court under Article 227 when there is an alternate remedy available. The High Court held that a person has the remedy of criminal revision petition to challenge the final order of Sessions Court in an appeal made under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.
Case Title: Spices Board v The Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Spices Board stands on a different footing than the Central Government and so the properties and buildings of the board cannot claim exemption from building tax by virtue of Article 285(1) of the Constitution.
A single-judge bench of Justice Basant Balaji referred to Section 19 of the Spices Board Act which deals with the Power of the Central Government to supersede the Board.
Case Title: Mani C Kappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
The Kerala High Court ordered that the trial involving MLA Mani C Kappan be moved to a different courtroom, for one day, to accommodate his counsel, Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai.
MLA Kappan has approached the High Court seeking permission to allow the trial to be held in a courtroom with lift facility for the convenience of his counsel, Senior Advocate Raman Pillai, rather than on the 1st floor which has no lift facility.
Justice B Jayachandran held that shifting of court premises is a matter within the administrative realm of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Case Title: S T Sadiq v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
The Kerala High Court has struck down Section 3A of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 amended by the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 6A which was inserted by the 2015 Amendment as unconstitutional and arbitrary.
Justice Gopinath P passed the order by relying upon the Apex Court decision in S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala and others (2015) which had struck down Section 6 of the Act as unconstitutional.
Case Title: Shanid @ Shani v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 601
The Kerala High Court recently refused to interfere with a Special Court's decision to refuse a 32-year-old man accused of committing human and drug trafficking, permission to travel abroad, adding that the order stands the "test of constitutionality".
A single judge bench of Justice K Babu in its order observed, "The genuine apprehension that the presence of a citizen of India in a foreign country is not in the public interest and is likely to prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country is a ground to refuse passport and related travel documents to him. Such a restriction is just and reasonable and not arbitrary or oppressive".
Case Title: Abdul Noushad @ Noushad Ahsani v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 620
The Kerala High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated against a man under Section 153 of the IPC (giving provocation with intent to cause riot) and Section 119 (a) (punishment for atrocities against women) of the Kerala Police Act, who made allegations against a Muslim girl that she committed adultery and violated Shariat Law by shaking hands with the former Finance Minister of the State.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan stated that the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to follow religious practices in their own way and it is their personal choice. The Court stated that there are no compulsions in religion, especially in Islam. The Court further stated that one person cannot impose or compel another person to follow religious practices.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
The Kerala High Court quashed an order of Child Welfare Committee (CWC) giving the custody of a one-year child to the father observing that the Committee did not even consider that the child was being breastfed by the mother. Justice V. G. Arun gave the custody of the child to the mother.
The Court noted that the order of CWC violated the right of the mother to breastfeed the baby and right of the baby to be breastfed which is protected under the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further said that breastfeeding is implicitly supported by the Constitution as the Constitution imposes a duty on the State to raise the level of nutrition.
Financial Constraints Cannot Override Constitutional Right To Equal Pension Benefits: Kerala HC
Case Title: K. Vijayadharan Pillai @ K. V. Pillai & Others v Union of India & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 676
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon ruled that pre-2006 Assam Rifles retirees are entitled to revised pension benefits on par with post-2006 retirees. The court rejected the Union of India's financial constraints argument, holding that monetary considerations cannot justify violation of fundamental rights. Following Supreme Court precedents, the court found the 2006 cut-off date arbitrary and violative of Article 14, as pension is a continuing right that cannot be differentiated based solely on retirement date.
Case Title: Babu K Korah v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 687
The Kerala High Court has declared Section 28 (2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Society Amendment Act, 2023 as illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of co-operative member control. Section 28 deals with the constitution of the Committee for the management of the affairs of the Society.
Section 28 (2A) states that no member of a credit society shall be eligible for election to the committee for more than three consecutive terms. Section 28 (2A) was introduced by Act 9 of 2024 and it was notified and published in the Kerala Gazette on June 07, 2024.
Justice N Nargaresh observed that Co-operative Societies that function in rural and urban areas depend upon the trustworthiness of their members and have to function democratically. The court held that the General body can incorporate conditions in the bye-laws of the Society on elections, but the State cannot impose arbitrary restrictions that affect the autonomy of Co-operative Societies.
Case Title: Dejo Kappan V Deccan Herald & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 701
The Kerala High Court held that any expression by the media on the guilt or innocence of an accused in an ongoing criminal case would not be protected under the right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court stated that only an adjudicatory authority can pronounce on the guilt or innocence of an accused.
A Five Judge Bench comprising Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Kauser Edappagath, Justice Mohammed Nias C. P., Justice C. S. Sudha and Justice Syam Kumar V. M, held that when an accused feels his right to reputation is infringed by the media, he can approach any constitutional court to prevent such act or demand compensation.
Case Title: P.S.Sreedharan Pillai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 737
The Kerala High Court quashed a case registered under Section 505 (1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC against former State BJP President and present Goa Governor P.S. Sreedharan Pillai for allegedly making statements supporting the Thantri's decision to deny entry of women at Sabarimala Temple, against the Apex Court decision in Young Indian Lawyers Association case.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan quashed the case against Sreedharan Pillai on finding that he was inaugurating a meeting of the BJP's Youth Wing, Yuva Morcha Samsthana Samithi, and that the event was only accessible to a private or exclusive group of people and not the general public.
The Court further observed that Sreedharan Pillai, as the Governor of Goa, is immune from criminal proceedings under Article 361 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Adv. M. Baiju Noel v Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 738
While ordering further investigation into the allegedly insulting remarks made by Minister for Fisheries, Culture and Youth Affairs Saji Cherian, the Kerala High Court observed that post the 2003 amendment to Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, even disrespect shown to the Constitution by words either spoken or written or by acts can amount to conduct falling foul of the Act.
Perusing through the language of the provision Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in its order noted that it indicated that the words “otherwise shows disrespect to” were not part of the statute initially.
Case Title: Manohari R v The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 783
The Kerala stated that there is distinction between entertainability and maintainability of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court explained that the jurisdiction of a writ court is not generally invoked when there is an alternative remedy available, and in such cases, the Court may decline to entertain the petition. The Court stated that having an alternative remedy cannot be used as a ground to hold that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Here, writ appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of a writ petition as not maintainable.
The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu observed thus: “Even if alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner, that cannot be a ground to hold the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an administrative authority as “not maintainable”. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised even if there exists an alternate remedy, however, it is in restricted circumstances, within well-defined parameters. As a matter of settled judicial practice, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised if there is an alternative efficacious remedy available and in such circumstances, the writ court may decline to “entertain” the writ petition. There is, therefore, a difference between maintainability and entertainability of a writ petition.”
Case Number: M Shibu v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 791
The Kerala High Court has said that it is well-established that the High Court can under Article 226 of the Constitution consider the legality of orders passed by Tribunals, adding that it has ample powers to issue directions even when such reliefs are not specifically sought in the plea before the Tribunal.
In the facts of the case, OP (KAT)'s are filed by the employee as well as the State challenging the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which ordered that disciplinary proceedings against the employee can be finalised in two months. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee since a criminal case was registered against him. However, the High Court ordered that the disciplinary authority could wait for the conclusion of the criminal trial before complying with the order of the Tribunal to finalize the disciplinary proceedings.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) a Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar said:
“Therefore, this court has ample powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue the direction as above, even if it is not specifically sought in the petition filed before the Tribunal, if it is found necessary.”
Case Title: xxx v xxx
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 796
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment observed that that a woman's choice of dress should not be subject to moral policing or judgment, especially by the courts.
The Court cautioned that the Judge's personal opinions should not be incorporated into judgments. The Division Bench comprising of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha reminded that the Constitution grants everyone equal rights irrespective of gender.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Title: Monu Upadhyay v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 11
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior had laid down that merely casting a doubt upon the conduct of free and fair Legislative Assembly elections via a social media post cannot attract the offence under Section 505(2) of IPC ('statements conducing to public mischief').
The petitioner in this case, a correspondent, had made a social media post raising doubt in relation to conduct of free and fair election in Lahar Legislative Assembly Constituency. Treating the said post as derogatory and amounting to public mischief, an FIR was registered against the petitioner by Naib Tahsildar alleging the commission of offence under Sections 505(2) and 188 ('Disobedience to Order duly promulgated by public servant') of IPC
Finding the social media post of the petitioner to clearly fall within the ambit of 'Freedom of Speech and Expression' under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, Justice Anand Pathak observed,
"Article 19 of the Constitution provides Freedom of Speech and Expression and if the post allegedly made by the petitioner is taken into consideration, then from the said post no derogatory comment or public mischief is reflected. Conducting free and fair elections in the Legislative Assembly particularly in Bhind/ Chambal area is always a paramount consideration and if doubt is raised by anybody in relation to conduct of free and fair election, then by no stretch of imagination it constitutes offence under Section 505(2) of IPC as the social media post of petitioner is not creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill -will between different classes of the society and further no public mischief as provided in Section 188 of IPC is caused by the petitioner".
Title: Dilip Sharma & Anr v. State of MP & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 58
Madhya Pradesh High Court had deprecated the practice of availing police protection indefinitely on flimsy grounds without making payments, with the sole intention of "basking in the glory of position and power".
The single judge bench of Justice Anand Pathak underlined that providing police security uninterruptedly when there is no source of threat against the applicants is contrary to the constitutional spirit and undermines 'the well-being quotient of society at large'.
“…Director General of Police, Bhopal and Superintendent of Police, Gwalior are directed to immediately remove the police security given to the petitioners and take appropriate steps for recovery of due amount from petitioners for services rendered in accordance with law including treating dues as arrears of land revenue”, Justice Pathak noted in the order with regards to over 2.5 crores of arrears till 2018 due from the petitioner businessmen, who are siblings, hailing from Gwalior.
After these businessmen were threatened with extortion in 2005, the son of Sanjay Sharma (petitioner no.2), Managing Director, Heeralal Estate and Constructions Private Limited Company, was killed by miscreants. Afterwards, the petitioners continuously sought police protection with the promise of payment despite having licensed weapons of their own. All of the accused were convicted back in 2007 and 2018 vide two separate judgments. Later, when the granted police protection was removed, the petitioners approached the High Court and secured a favourable interim order in 2012.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 66
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while granting protection to a young live-in couple - both the boy and the girl aged 19 years- sounded a word of caution about youngsters getting into relationships and leaving their families at an early stage of life.
Since the petitioners had attained the age of majority and affirmed that they were acting out of free choice, the Court (Indore Bench) granted them protection. At the same time, the bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “Having held so, this Court must record its concern on the choices, the youngsters are making these days. Although there is much to ponder over this subject but it must be remembered that even though certain rights have been conferred by the Constitution, it is not necessary to enjoy, and enforce them as well.”
The petition filed by the petitioners, both of whom are aged 19 years sought that the respondents no.2 and 3 i.e., the Sanawad Dist. Khargone (Madhya Pradesh) and the Station House Officer P.S. Sanawad Dist. Khargone (Madhya Pradesh) be directed to give proper protection and help against the respondent no.4 to 6 and their associates.
Both the petitioners also sought that they be given full protection and security and a false case should not be registered against the petitioner no.2
In view of the aforesaid, the Madhya Pradesh Court allowed the petition as despite the fact that, “both the petitioners are 19 years old only, and the petitioner no.2 has not even completed 21 years, since he is a major, he is entitled to reside as per his own will, and if he so decides, his choice needs to be protected from external forces.”
Case Name: Bhaskardutt Dwivedi v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Panchayat Development Secretary, And Rural Department & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 112
Madhya Pradesh High Court had come down heavily on the government officials for citing the lack of legal knowledge as an excuse to trample on the constitutional rights of its citizens.
The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia imposed Rs 25,000/- cost on the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, for flouting the court's erstwhile instruction to stop the use of private land as a government road. The court also expressed its disbelief about the executive engineer not even paying heed to the office of the Advocate General, though the latter duly informed the official about the court's interim order not to encroach upon the private land for road construction.
“If the State is of the view that their officers have no legal knowledge, then it is a high time for the State to consider as to whether such officers are to be retained in the service or not? How the State can promote the violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens of the country only on the ground that their officers have no legal knowledge?”, the court had raised these questions after the State tried to justify the stance of the executive engineer who dodged the court's query as to whether the interim order to stop the usage of private land had been complied with or not.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 122
The Madhya Pradesh High Court came down heavily on the investigating officer and the treating doctor after they failed to duly inform family members of a minor rape victim about the right to terminate pregnancy within 22 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
The single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar emphasised that most of the rape cases occur in remote areas where the victims or their families would probably be unaware of the safeguards granted by the Act of 1971. Indisputably, it is incumbent upon the treating doctor as well as the officer of the police station concerned to inform the victim/ victim's family about the right to terminate pregnancy before 22 weeks, the bench sitting at Indore observed.
“…This court is of the considered opinion that non-disclosure of such information to the victim infringes upon her right to live with dignity as enshrined under Art.21 of the Constitution of India, and at the same time it also defeats the very purpose for which the Act of 1971 was enacted”, Justice Abhyankar added.
The court termed the conduct of the doctor and the officer as 'apathetic' and 'deplorable' and censured them for their outight failure to inform the petitioner's father about the risks involved in continuing his minor daughter's pregnancy and the necessity of getting it terminated immediately.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 129
Case Title: Maruti Sondhiya v. Union Of India Through Special Secretary, Ministry Of Law And Justice & Ors
The Madhya Pradesh High Court had observed that though the collegium system owes it's existence to "Judge-made law", it is binding on every court, executive and the legislature as per Article 141 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) thus dismissed the plea moved by a lawyer to quash the appointments made to the office of High Court judges last November. The court refused to entertain the writ by reasoning that the grounds taken were insufficient and contrary to constitutional provisions.
It emphasised that the post of a High Court judge cannot be compared to that of an executive civil post. The post of High Court judge is a constitutional office and the appointments are made by solely adhering to the procedure prescribed in the constitution, the court added.
“…No statute or statutory rule or executive instruction can supplant or for that matter supplement the procedure prescribed in the Constitution for appointment of High Court Judge…”, the court reasoned why there is no requirement of issuing advertisements or conducting selection tests in such matters.
The Constitution does not prescribe any representation or proportionate representation for all categories in appointments, and hence, the argument put forth by the petitioner-advocate about the excess of forward class representation wouldn't hold ground, the court held. Similarly, the Constitution and the judge-made law are silent about SC/ST, OBC or EWS reservations in appointments.
Case Title: Purushottam Gupta v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 145
In a plea filed by a retired government servant seeking permission to join RSS, the Madhya Pradesh High Court came down heavily on the previous office memorandums issued by the Union of India that listed the organization in the banned category.
The Division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh held that executive-framed official memorandums cannot possibly impose a moratorium on joining RSS since these memorandums are not the law of the land under Article 13(3)(a).
Case Title: A Minor Through Her Grandmother v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2024 Live Law (MP) 153
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently allowed a writ appeal filed by the grandmother of a minor rape victim whose pregnancy duration had reached 28 weeks.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf said that though the pregnancy was over 28 weeks, the same was a result of an alleged offence of rape. The court then referred to X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809 to emphasise the right to reproductive autonomy of a woman.
Case title: M/S Himalaya Traders (A Partnership Firm) Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 166
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the State's directive for the relocation of a liquor shop does not violate the shop owner's right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as sale and consumption of liquor is not a fundamental right but a privilege, regulated by the State.
Case Title: Smt. Saroj Versus Aashish Yadav
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 172
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench has addressed the issue of the admissibility of electronic evidence recorded illegally in matrimonial disputes.
Justice Gajendra Singh set aside a previous order by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, which allowed the inclusion of an illegally recorded conversation as evidence. It was held that unauthorized recording breaches privacy rights.
Case title: Manish @ Virendra @ Saroj Rai Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 185
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has addressed the legality of an automatic cancellation clause in bail orders. The case revolved around the applicant's plea to recall an earlier order that dismissed his request for modifying the terms of his bail.
The question before the court was whether a condition that mandates the automatic cancellation of bail without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard violates fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court stated unequivocally that any condition leading to the automatic cancellation of bail without due process and opportunity of hearing infringes upon the fundamental right to personal liberty.
Case title: Harcharan Singh Bhatia Versus Union Of India And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 186
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a landowner seeking inclusion of her land in the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957.
The petition was primarily based on the grounds that the exclusion of her land from acquisition violated her constitutional right and would render her property valueless.
Case Title: Rakesh Singh Bhadoria Vs State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 308
In what comes as a relief to around six thousand law graduates, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (November 27) directed the State Bar Council to provisionally enrol lawyers within a two-week time, subject to the verification to be done by the Council. The process was halted for almost 4 months.
On November 11, a PIL was filed by Rakesh Singh Bhadoria, former Joint Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association at Indore alleging non-enrolment of lawyers since four months.
Case Title: Pramod Kumar Versus Govt. Of India And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 317
The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court while deciding a batch of public interest litigation pleas issued comprehensive guidelines to be followed for safety and and protection of children traveling in school buses until the State Government amends the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994.
The guidelines includes that school buses will be painted in yellow, will have grills on windows, will have first aid kits and that none of these buses will be more than 12 years old. It also states that institutions shall not employ drivers who has been challaned "even once" for over speeding, drunken driving and dangerous driving.
Case Title: Ahmed Almakki Alias Ahmed Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 330
While considering the case of a man–born in Saudi Arabia and claiming to be a Rohingya refugee–the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court said that his detention in the city's Central jail after completion of his sentence for allegedly having a foreign passport violated his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It further directed that till the man's nationality is adjudicated and he is deported back to his country, he be kept in a detention centre in Assam.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: G.Shanugam v. Tmt.P.Amudha, I.A.S
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
While issuing guidelines to the Police and the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) for permitting and holding route marches in the future, the Madras High Court commented that men in power should not attempt to prevent an individual's right of thought and expression.
Justice G Jayachandran also added that men in power should not be biased while permitting citizens to express their views and any restriction must pass the test of reasonable restriction.
Case Title: Annavelu v State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
Quashing a criminal case registered against a man for conducting a demonstration against the arrest of DMK Youth Wing Secretary, the Madras High Court observed that every person had a democratic right to raise his voice against the government demanding legal action and when such a right was exercised, it could not be said to be “unlawful” or “illegal”
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench observed,
“The petitioner along with others simply made agitation. It is a democratic right of every person to raise voice against the political or Government demanding legal action. Such a right has been exercised by the petitioner. So, that cannot be construed as 'unlawful or illegal',” the court observed.
Palani Temple Not A Picnic Spot, Cannot Allow Entry Of Non-Hindus Beyond Flagpole: Madras High Court
Case Title: D Senthilkumar v Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
While directing the state government to install boards indicating that non-Hindus are not permitted entry into the Palani temple beyond the flag pole situated at the entrance of the temple, the Madras High Court today emphasized that temples are not covered under Article 15 of the Constitution and hence restriction of entry for non-Hindus could not be said to be improper. The court also directed the authorities to maintain the temple as per Agamas, customs and practices.
The court said temples are not tourist spots and even if one wanted to admire the architecture of the temple, entry should be restricted to the “kodimaram” or flag pole situated at the entrance of the temple.
Case Title: Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank v K Marimuthu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
The Madras High Court recently held that the lawyers empanelled by the banks to represent them in cases do not hold a civil post and thus the laws of reservation will not be attracted during their appointment.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus set aside an order of a single judge made last year where the single judge had observed that the right to be considered for appointment was a fundamental right and had directed the banks to review their existing procedures for empanelment of lawyers.
The division bench, however, held that the relationship between the banks and the empanelled lawyers was purely professional and not that of a master and servant. The court observed that the empanelled lawyers were not covered by any service laws and their services were purely on a contractual basis. The court added that the banks had their procedures for empanelment of lawyers and providing reservation in the same would be “stretching Article 16”.
Case Title: S Gurumoorthi v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court held a special sitting on Sunday to hear the anticipatory bail plea of an undertrial arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, seeking to attend his father's funeral.
Though the court firmly objected to granting bail or interim bail to the prisoner, the court observed that the Right to attend the funeral was part of Article 25 of the Constitution and thus paved way for the undertrial to attend his father's funeral.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that Article 25 could be invoked by any person and did not make any distinction between free persons and prisoners. The court also noted that the prisoner, being a Hindu had to discharge certain religious obligations. The judge also added that courts must have due regard in matters of religion. Thus, the court invoked its inherent powers to allow the man to attend the funeral and the 16th Day ceremony.
Case Title: G Bhagavath Singh v The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Madras High Court recently allowed a lawyer to go on a hunger strike demanding to make Tamil an official language of the High Court. The court thus allowed the lawyer to conduct the indefinite fasting near Rajarathinam, stadium from February 28th 2024.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the lawyer had only intended to express himself strongly and there was nothing illegal in the objective.
The court also made it clear that of any leader wanted to extend support to the fasting and speak by arranging a meeting near the venue of fasting, prior intimation should be given to the jurisdictional police and permission be taken.
Case Title: The Secretary to Government and Others v Regina
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
The Madras High Court recently observed that though neither the Court nor the State have any authority to question the discretion of a minority school to run with just two students, the State does have the authority and right to decline public grant to such school.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice C Kumarappan added that an institution, just because of its minority status could not manage their affairs contrary to the instructions of the Government.
Case Title: J Sheena v. TNPSC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to cancel the provisional list for the recruitment of 245 civil judges in the State.
Asking the TNPSC to prepare a revised provisional list within two weeks, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that the impugned provisional list was prepared without applying Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conditions of Service Act 2016.
The court agreed with the petitioners and held that the methodology adopted by the Commission was in violation of the scope of Section 27(f) and the interpretation of the Apex Court. The court also said that this erroneous application had resulted in denial of opportunity to other candidates, who would have been otherwise eligible either under the general category or the reserved category.
Case Title: D Bright Joseph v Church of South India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the Church of South India performs public functions when it is engaged in the running of schools, colleges, hospitals, etc and if any action taken by the CSI is detrimental to this public duty, a writ petition against the same would be maintainable.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian, Justice PT Asha, and Justice N Senthilkumar also emphasized that when the CSI was performing functions outside the above public duty, ie, when it was engaged in discharging the functions of the clergy, such functions would be outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: K Mariappan v The Government of Tamil Nadi and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking reservation to a differently abled person for promotion to the post of District Judge per Section 34 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar noted that the present service rules only provided for providing 4% reservation in direct recruitments and not while considering promotions. Thus, in the absence of service rules, the court was not inclined to grant the relief prayed for.
The court also noted that the petitioner, K Mariappan, had already availed the benefit of the reservation during direct recruitment. The court thus noted that claiming the inadequate presence of Persons with Disabilities in the cadre of District Judges was unfounded and would only result in unjust acceleration of seniority.
Case Title: S Dhinakaran v The Commissioner of HR and CE and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
Criticizing a litigant for filing pleas objecting to the handing over of a sceptre to a widow during the Pattabhishekam day in Chitra Festival in the Meenakshi Amman Temple, the Madras High Court recently observed that there was no embargo in handing over the Sengol or the Sceptre to a woman or a widow.
Justice C Saravanan added that even if such sanctions were operating in ancient times, these prejudicial and discriminatory practices had to give way in modern times after the adoption of the Constitution. The court also added that objecting to the handing over of the Sceptre to a woman was an affront to equality guaranteed and enshrined under the Constitution.
Case Title: S Sahana Priyanka and Others v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
The Madras High Court recently remarked that Doctors, who undergo postgraduate studies at low cost by utilizing taxpayer's money should serve the poor and needy in the State.
Justice SM Subramaniam also remarked that doctors, who refused to work in government hospitals after completing the PG course, were infringing the fundamental rights of the poor and needy patients who were undergoing treatment in the government hospitals.
The court added that if the attitude of the doctors were allowed, it would encourage an attitude of not paying attention to poor people at whose expense they were educated which was unacceptable. The court also noted that in many cases, the candidates violated the bond period which already led to a considerable shortage of Doctors in Government Medical Institutions.
Case Title: Safai Karamchari Andolan v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
Lamenting over the persistence of manual scavenging in today's day and age, the Madras High Court has issued a slew of guidelines to eradicate manual scavenging and to ensure compliance with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad remarked that though there might have been a need for manual scavenging in an age of absence of technology, continuing the practice in today's age with technological advancements was nothing but State sanctioned casteism which was against the constitutional ethos.
The court added that lack of funds could not be a justification to continue the practice and the Court, being the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights could not be a mute spectator and allow generational condemnation of the oppressed class to a life of poverty, ill-health, and indignity in complete disregard to their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the constitution.
Case Title: P Naveen Kumar v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court recently observed that if the right to privacy includes one's sexual and gender orientation, it would also include one's spiritual orientation and thus allow a person to perform such religious practices as one deemed fit.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus observed that a man had every right to perform Angapradakshinam, a ritual where one rolls over the plantain leaves left behind by other devotees after eating. The court noted that his right to perform the practice was protected under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution.
Looking into the earlier judicial pronouncements regarding religious practices, the court said that the petitioner had a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution to carry out the religious vow undertaken by him when he believed that such an act would confer a spiritual benefit on him.
The court noted that the matter was also covered by the right to privacy. The court added that one's personal choices governing the way of life were intrinsic to privacy and that privacy was not lost or surrendered merely because the individual was in a public place.
Case Title: PK Manimandram Others v State Human Rights Commission
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court has observed that a person discharging his official duty cannot be held up for violation of Human Rights based on false and frivolous allegations.
The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar thus set aside an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission directing the Central and State governments to compensate a former Junior Clerk of the Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture (CIBA).
The bench was hearing petitions filed by the Director and the Administrative Officer of the CIBA and a petition filed by the Inspector of Police, CB-CID challenging an order of the SHRC.
Case Title: Rakshika Raj v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court has struck down a Government Order issued by the Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes & Minorities Welfare (BCC) Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu including transgender persons under the Most Backward Class community for providing reservation.
Justice GK Ilanthraiyan noted that the State had failed to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Nalsa case properly. The court noted that by bringing transgender persons into the Most Backward Class community, the state was treating gender as a caste which was against the judgment of the Supreme Court. The court added that only horizontal reservation could be granted to the community for complying with the order of the Apex Court.
Case Title: G Karthikeyan v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
The Madras High Court recently declared illegal, a Government Order (GO) reserving compassionate appointments in the Noon Meal Scheme to females.
Noting that the GO was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that it not only affected the male children of female employees but put the female employees a par below to that of their male counterparts.
The court noted that if 100% of the vacancies in a particular department are reserved for women, the applications for compassionate appointment could be forwarded to the District Collector or to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to be considered under the general pool for being appointed in other suitable posts.
Case Title: Thameem Sindha Madar v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court has allowed the conducting of Muharram ceremonies with the beat of drums, santhanakoodu, and Kuthirai pancha processions in the Ervadi Town in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.
Justice GR Swaminathan emphasized that the right to conduct a religious procession was protected under Article 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Constitution and it was not open for members of fundamentalist Thowheed Jamath to dictate how other members should conduct the festival. The court also added that when one's fundamental rights were under threat, the administration had a duty to uphold the rights but it was unfortunate that the administration had succumbed to the threats held out by the Thowheed Jamath members.
The court also remarked that like language, religion was not the same everywhere, and if the people in Ervadi believed in Music, the beat of drums, horse, and chariot processions, to expect them to conform to Saudi Arabian practice was nothing short of a Talibanic outlook.
Case Title: Kandasamy v The District Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
While asking the state to consider a representation by the Bharatiya Janata Party to conduct a protest, the Madras High Court highlighted that the right to expression is an essential part of democracy.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that in a democratic country, every political party had a right to conduct an agitation, and a peaceful protest could deepen a democracy's reach and improve its chances of survival.
Case Title: Karthikeyan and Others v Thangapandian
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
The Madras High Court has made it clear that no prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is needed to prosecute police officers below the rank of Inspector of Police.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar observed that though Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteed the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, it could not be misconstrued to apply against the hierarchies in the administrative aspects.
The court was answering a reference made to it on whether the term “removable by government” could be interpreted in a broad perspective to include police officers from the rank of Constable to Inspector of Police.
The court noted that the legislation, in its wisdom, had restricted the scope and application of the provision with a reasonable differentia. The court added that if the word “any person” in Article 14 of the Constitution was assumed to have exempted and excluded classification and restriction in all enactments, no statute with any reasonable differentia could ever be implemented.
Case Title: V Senthil v The Secretary, Bar Council of TN & Puducherry
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court recently observed that a bar association was not empowered to restrict a lawyer from appearing in court. The court observed that the right to practice law was a fundamental right and such a right could not be taken away by the Bar Association by suspending lawyers.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan further added that an advocate was expected to maintain a cordial relationship with the members of the Bar Association to ensure that the court proceedings are not obstructed.
The court noted that even the Apex Court had observed that boycotts should be used as a last resort by the Bar Association and there could not be continuous boycotts by lawyers affecting the rights of litigants and the justice delivery system.
Case Title: Manohar Thangaraj v Rt.Rev.ARGST Barnabas and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Madras High Court recently held that while minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions, the appointment in these institutions if aided by the government, could not be limited to a particular religious denomination.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that when the institution was receiving funds from the state exchequer, the principles of secularism demanded that the appointment process be open to all.
The court observed that the right of the institutions to receive grant from the government is coupled with the obligation to appoint competent teachers and this obligation could be discharged only if there is a wide choice of candidates. The court thus held that the appointment of candidates from the diocese list would not be good for the administration.
Case Title: Mohammed Saifullah v Reserve Bank of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that the investigating agency cannot order freezing the entire bank account of a person involved in a financial fraud without quantifying the amount involved in the fraud.
Justice G Jayachandran ruled that such orders freezing the entire amount would be construed as a violation of the fundamental right of trade and business as well as a violation of livelihood. The court added that though the statute empowers investigation agencies to request banks to freeze accounts, it was a looming question whether this power was being exercised properly.
The court added that the freezing of accounts was an issue faced by many citizens of the country and the citizens were often taken by surprise by orders of freezing their accounts. The court added that in many cases, by the time the account holders come to know of the purpose for which their accounts are frozen, enough damage would have been caused to their financial life since their business itself gets affected by the unilateral orders.
Case Title: Karthik Parthiban v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
The Madras High Court recently stayed a lookout circular issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation against a Seychelles citizen. The court thus permitted the man to travel to Malaysia.
Justice N Seshasayee noted that when Article 21 of the Constitution extended to non-citizens, it would also include the dignified existence of a foreign national facing a criminal charge in India.
The court also opined that the object of the criminal justice system was only to secure the presence of the accused at the trial and it should not be taken as a license to interfere with the personal life of the accused. The court remarked that the criminal justice system was best administered when the inconvenience to the personal life of the accused was the least.
Case Title: R v B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
The Madras High Court has observed that the fundamental right of privacy includes spousal privacy. The court noted that the law could not permit or encourage snooping by one spouse on another. The court thus observed that the evidence that was obtained by invading the privacy of the partner was inadmissible in the court.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus came to the rescue of a wife against the order of the Paramakudi Subordinate Court refusing to reject the call records of the wife that was submitted by the Husband during the trial of a marital dispute. The court noted that the husband had stealthily obtained the information pertaining to the call history of his wife and thus had breached the wife's privacy.
Case Title: The Union of India v The Registrar, CAT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 419
A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order directing the regularization of contract Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who had served in Puducherry for nearly two decades. Despite objections from UPSC regarding Article 320 requirements, the Court found that the unique circumstances—including chronic vacancies and essential service requirements—justified regularization. The Court distinguished this case from the Umadevi judgment, noting that the appointments were not “backdoor” entries but were based on sanctioned posts and urgent needs.
Case Title: Bharathiya Janata Party v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
The Madras High Court recently asked the State to return a Bharatha Matha statue that was seized from the Bharathiya Janata Party's office in Virudhanagar East.
Though the authorities claimed to have removed the statue to maintain peace and harmony in the society, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that no person in their right mind would contend that the expression of one's patriotism would imperil the interest of the State or any community.
The court went on to add that the installation of the statue on a private property was deeply personal and symbolised the individual's reverence for the motherland. The court remarked that honouring Bharatha Matha by erecting a statue was an expression of love and pride and served as a reminder of the values and sacrifices associated with one's heritage. The court said that the statute was like a personal shrine that embodied hope, unity and respect for the land and invited ideals of freedom, resilience and cultural identity that Bharatha Matha represents.
Case Title: A Suhail v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
The Madras High Court recently held that a self-financing institution which is run by a temple would not come within the purview of Article 16(1) and Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh thus observed that only Hindus would be eligible for appointment in such institutions as it is covered under Article 16(5) of the Constitution. The court highlighted that as per Section 10 of the Hindu religious and Charitable Endowment Act, only a person professing the Hindu religion could be appointed to the colleges and he shall cease to hold office when he ceases to profess the religion.
Case Title: Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v The National Medical Commission
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
The Madras High Court has recently made it clear that linguistic minority self financing medical colleges are bound by the National Medical Council's 50% seat sharing rule. As per the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, medical colleges were to surrender 50% of the seats in PG Medical Courses to the State/Union Territory.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that only when the States and Union Territories had control over some seats, they could implement the reservation policies in its full effect. Thus, the court highlighted that seat sharing was unavoidable and was a sine-qua -non for the implementation of reservation policy.
Case Title: Amudha v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
Dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by AIADMK's State Deputy Secretary of the Women's Wing- Amudha, the Madras High Court highlighted that though the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right of speech and expression however this right cannot be taken advantage of to cross the limits of decency.
While doing so, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira also noted that the petitioner had used derogatory statements against the former Chief Minister, present Chief Minister and his family members, uttering "unethical, filthy and unparliamentary" words.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Seemarani Pandab v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 15
The Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi reiterated that married daughters cannot be denied of benefits under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, after death of their fathers while in service. It held such denial to be derogatory of Articles 14, 15 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India and observed –
“A daughter after her marriage doesn't cease to be daughter of the father or mother and obliged to maintain their parents and daughter cannot be allowed to escape her responsibility on the ground that she is now married, therefore, such a policy of the State Government disqualifying, a 'married' daughter and excluding her from consideration apart from being arbitrary and discriminating is a retrograde step of State Government as welfare State, on which stamp of approval cannot be made by this Court.”
Case Title: B v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 20
The Single Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho granted bail to a man accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 observing that his living with dignity, a right under Article 21 of the Constitution, in a congenial environment is not possible behind bars as he suffers from HIV-AIDS. The Court further highlighted the objective with which the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 was enacted by the Parliament which sought to protect the human rights of persons affected by the said virus and syndrome.
Case Title: All Odisha Bharati Infratel Contractual Technicians Union (AOBICTU) BBSR v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 34
The Single Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra dismissed a writ petition against a private company based on the reason that private companies do not classify as 'State', as the term is defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. The employees were set at liberty to pursue the matter in the appropriate forum.
Woman Attaining Motherhood Through Surrogacy Entitled To 'Maternity Leave': Orissa High Court
Case Title: Supriya Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 56
In a landmark decision, the Orissa High Court held that a woman employee who attains motherhood through 'surrogacy' is also entitled to avail the benefit of maternity leave as it is not only beneficial for the concerned woman but also needed for a healthy rearing of a new-born. Granting judicial sanction to the vital right of female employees, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held –
“…right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to motherhood and also, the right of every child to full development. If the Government could provide maternity leave to an adoptive mother, it would be wholly improper to refuse to provide maternity leave to a mother who had begotten a child through surrogacy procedure…”
PATNA HIGH COURT
Case Title: State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Vikas Bank Samiti, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 238 of 2021
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 8
The High Court of Patna has held that no dispute can be referred to arbitration by a Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution when there is no agreement between the parties.
The bench of Justice Partha Sarthy held that the remedy of arbitration is the creature of a contract and the same cannot be utilised in absence of a written agreement between the parties as provided under Section 7 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Association of Independent Schools Bihar & Anr vs. The State of Bihar & Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 20
In a landmark verdict, the Patna High Court has affirmed the constitutionality of Bihar's Private Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2019, dismissing the writ application filed by the Association of Independent Schools Bihar.
While rejecting the writ application, the High Court stated that the government can regulate fees to prevent profiteering, and directed the state government to adopt the provisions of Rajasthan's Fees Regulation Act.
Notably, Fee Regulation Act, 2019, prohibits all private and unaided schools from increasing their fees above 7% of that collected in the previous academic year.
Case Title: Munmun Kumari v The State of Bihar & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 107
The Patna High Court has reiterated that once it is found that there exists sufficient material supporting a particular policy decision and it falls within the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution, the power of judicial review does not extend to determine the correctness of that policy decision or finding out an alternative.
The above ruling came during the dismissal of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a mandamus to direct respondents to allot an MBBS seat to the petitioner.
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
XXX v. State of Punjab and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 79
Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that whenever the Court is "prima-facie" satisfied that relatives are unhappy with the relationship of a couple and can cause harm to them, the Courts are required to pass directions for their protection.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi thus directed the Punjab Police to consider representation for providing protection to a couple in a live-in relationship, wherein the boy was below marriageable age and the woman was already married.
Sanjeev Singh v. Rohit Hurria and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 75
Observing that "entire edifice of a public appointment rests on the principle of equality in employment", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the appointment of a Senior Manager who was selected in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation, without even applying for the post. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Vikas Suri said, "A person who has been able to obtain employment by a back door method ought to go out the same way. His appointment, therefore, cannot be protected, even if he has worked for several years. Since the appointment is illegal, the same cannot be saved."
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 83
Title: MOGA PERIPHERY PUMP ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that although the right of business and trade is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, it cannot be used to restrict anyone else's trade to stop competition in the business.
The Court refused the Petrol Pump Association's request to stop setting up new Petrol Pumps in the vicinity on the ground that it would wipe out pre-existing financial viability and the existing Pumps may suffer losses.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 105
Title: Sushil Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Haryana's land reform law, the "Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights Act, 2010)" (the Act), observing that it "recognised the rights of tillers of the land." Dholidar is a "kind of tenant" of the land and a trustee who gets the land as a deathbed gift for the purpose of social service. Butimar is also a tenant who clears the jungle and brings the land under cultivation. Bhondedar is granted land for some secular service such as duties of village watchman or messenger.
Title: M/S. DARSHAN SINGH & COMPANY, MOGA THROUGH ITS PARTNER, SH. SANJEEV KUMAR SAINI V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 121
Observing that the "right to trade of liquor is not a fundamental right", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea challenging Punjab Excise Policy 2024-2025's Clauses.
It was argued that as per the Excise Policy for the year 2024-2025, the application fee for the liquor vends has been increased to 75,000 which shall be non-refundable, which is unjustified as allotment of vends is by "draw of lots."
Title: Simran Kaur versus Union of India and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 126
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has referred the issue of whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution would be maintainable against the Army Welfare Society or against the Army Public School, to the larger bench. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "The language of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to issue a writ, order or direction to any person or authority, including any Government for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose."
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 151
Mahinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that "non-availability of some documents cannot become the ground" for depriving an employee of his pension. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri opined that "merely because of the inter departmental communication and non-availability of some documents cannot become a ground for depriving of an employee of his pension. Pension is a Constitutional Right of Property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No employee can be deprived of his right to property except with the authority of law."
Ms. Anita v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another
2024 LiveLaw (PH) 163
Observing that it is astonishing "how for more than 20 years a workwoman has been deprived to avail an appropriate legal remedy",the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Labour Court to decide a plea challenging the oral termination order passed in 2003. The petitioner approached three different forums, but she was left remediless each time. Justice Sanjay Vashisht said, "this Court cannot shut its eyes to ignore the beneficial legislations framed by the Legislatures for poor segment of the Society of the country. The basic backbone of the Constitution of India is that “no one can be left remedy less”."
Title: Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others
2024 LiveLaw (PH) 175
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that it is mandatory for holding inquiry before dismissing a police officer in accordance with Article 311 of the constitution. As per Article 311, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under it, shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.
ANURADHA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
2024 LiveLaw (PH) 232
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that there will not be a violation of the fundamental right of an employee if the Competent Authority has created or abolished a promotional post.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "A person has right to be considered for promotion against a post. If the Competent Authority has created or abolished a promotional post, the Court cannot hold that there is violation of fundamental right of the candidate to be considered for the said post."
Case Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 229
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that the right to marry a person of one's own wish is a fundamental right. The development came while hearing a protection plea of a couple who stated to have legally married each other and apprehended threats from their relatives. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari observed, “To marry a person of one's own choice, is the fundamental right of every citizen. No one is bestowed with any right or authority to interfere in the marriage preferences of independent adults.”
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Title: X v. State of Rajasthan Through P.P & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 6
In a habeas corpus plea filed by a transgender man, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the right of a cis-gender woman to live with her partner of choice.
Upon production of the woman before the Court, she stated that her father had been illegally detaining her in his house and torturing her.
The Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Bhuwan Goyal, after interacting with the woman, ordered that she may be taken to the place of her choice with police protection for aid.
Title: Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 10
Stating that a fully developed foetus has the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, Rajasthan High Court declined a plea for the medical termination of an 11-year-old rape survivor's advanced pregnancy.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also clarified that a foetus that is fully developed has the right to enter this world and live a healthy life without any abnormalities. Concurring with the report of the Medical Board, the bench sitting at Jaipur observed that termination of pregnancy is not advisable at all in a stage where the foetus has a fully formed brain and lungs, along with heartbeats.
Though the State and the petitioner urged the court to allow the delivery of the minor survivor immediately through the process of inducing labour, the court refused to grant such a relief.
Title - Asharam vs. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (RJ) 69
The Rajasthan High Court allowed self-styled godman Asaram Bapu to get ayurvedic treatment at 'Arogayadham Center' at Jodhpur in police custody.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur passed this order on a plea moved by Asaram while stating that the right to get appropriate treatment is his fundamental right and the same needs to be protected.
"We, therefore, dispose of the present application by directing that the applicant's treatment shall be carried out at 'Arogayadham Center' at Jodhpur, in police custody. It will be required of the Commissioner of Police or his nominated officer to first visit the Arogayadham Center and assess the situation more particularly in relation to security aspects," the bench directed.
Title: Phoolmati v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 73
Terming the incident where a mother lost her twins due to the inaction of staff posted at a Community Health Centre (CHC) as a 'death of humanity', the Rajasthan High Court has ordered State and Central Governments to jointly pay the woman Rs 4 lakhs as compensation.
“…In utter violation of the fundamental right of leading a healthy life, the petitioner was compelled by the respondents to give birth to twin children in middle of a market road, which highlights a situation of gross negligence and failure on the part of the respondents in discharging their duties and providing the bare minimum benefits of the various Schemes i.e. JSY, JSSY, etc. to the petitioner…”, the court held.
A single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has also directed the state and central governments to cooperate effectively in terms of the implementation of welfare schemes. The court also pulled up the Central Government for trying to escape from liability on the ground that 'Health is a State subject.'
Title: Suo Moto vs. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 95
Referring to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can't be invoked while exercising supervisory jurisdiction in the matter of dispute between the private parties.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that “while exercising supervisory jurisdiction in the matter of dispute between the private parties, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked”.
Case Title- Naresh Singhal v State of Rajasthan, Transport Department of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur & Ors.
Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 116
A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court noted that when a judgment was pronounced that affected rights of public at large, it should be treated as a judgment in rem. Irrespective of the aggrieved approaching the court, authorities were obligated to extend its benefits to all similarly situated persons.
The remarks were made while disposing off a bunch of writ petitions challenging blacklisting of their vehicles by the Transport Department on request of the Mining Department. While the petitioners in this case had sought the benefit of an earlier decided case, the respondent-authorities contended that the judgment passed in Zabir Khan was not in rem but in personam. Disagreeing, the Court noted that when a judgment was pronounced that affected rights of public at large, it should be treated as a judgment in rem. Irrespective of the aggrieved approaching the court, authorities were obligated to extend its benefits to all similarly situated persons.
Title: Rajesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 147
Rajasthan High Court directed reinstatement of a constable who was dismissed from service 24 years ago, ruling that imposing harsher punishment on a co-delinquent as compared to the other accused, when the charges against both the persons are same, violates right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena made reference to the Supreme Court case of Rajendra Yadav v State of Madhya Pradesh & Others in which out of the 3 constables and a head constable charged for same acts, 2 were exonerated while one was dismissed from service and other was imposed with compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of dismissal of service to maintain parity in punishment among the co-delinquents ruling that otherwise, there would be violation of Article 14.
“Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident… Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident.”
Title: Mukesh Kumar Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 152
Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the superintendent of police passed under Section 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“the Rules”) for being wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena also referred to the Supreme Court case of Union of India & Anr. v Tulsiram Patel in which powers under Rule 19(ii) were discussed in detail. In the case, it was held that Rule 19(ii) did not talk about absolute impracticability but that holding an inquiry was not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. It was further ruled that the disciplinary authority was not expected to dispense with the inquiry lightly or out of ulterior motives or merely to avoid an inquiry where the department's case was weak.
Title: Kailash Chand v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused charged for murder on the grounds of protracted trial. The court observed that right to have a speedy trial was guaranteed by the Constitution of India and it could not be taken away from the accused for the reason of seriousness or heinousness of the crime. It is imperative for the prosecution to adduce evidence at the earliest if the accused is languishing in jail, it added.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed,
“Looking to the snail's pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that a further more time will be consumed in completion of the trial. As on date, it cannot be speculated that how more time will be taken in completion of the judicial proceedings. This Court is of the view that an accused cannot be kept behind the bars in a pending trial for want of production of evidence against him.”
Title: Monika Kanwar Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 174
In a significant ruling by the Rajasthan High Court, the bench of Justice Farjnad Ali granted relief to a woman fighting to get the post of the geologist that she had secured based on merit but was denied by the government since she was considered 1 cm shorter than the minimum limit prescribed in some guidelines.
The Court held that when the service rules for the post did not prescribe any criteria in relation to height, rejecting a meritorious candidate based on certain non-mandatory instructions amounted to discrimination based on physical attributes and consequently a violation of fundamental rights of the aspirant.
Title: Suman Meena & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
Rajasthan High Court issued a SOP, taking note of multiplicity of pleas filed by major couples apprehending threats of extra-legal harassment and violence at the hands of their families or other social actors or groups and thus seeking police protection.
The Court highlighted that such threats are a direct attack on the constitutional rights of the major couples, especially under Articles 14 and 21. The Court further stressed upon the institutional role of police in safeguarding the constitutional rights of such couples. In this regard, the Court issued directions to be put in place by the State Government to strengthen the mechanism that could protect not only such couples but any other individual who might be facing extra-legal threats to their lives.
Title: Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
Rajasthan High Court ruled that the supremacy of fundamental rights seeking protection of life and liberty irrespective of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga directed the police to grant protection to a major couple, not of marriageable age, facing threats from family and held that regardless of whether a citizen was a minor or a major, it was the constitutional obligation of the State to treat right to human life on a much higher pedestal.
Rajasthan High Court Asks Police To Consider Protection Plea By Already Married Live-In Partners
Title: Maya & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 229
Rajasthan High Court directed the local Police to consider providing necessary protection to a man and woman living in a live-in relationship outside their respective wedlocks.
The bench referred to Kanti and another Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2023) where while dealing with similar facts as a puisne Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Monga had ruled that the key issue was not the legality of petitioners' relationship but whether they were entitled to protection in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was ruled that even though the relationship of the couple was prima facie adulterous in nature, in a nation governed by Rule of Law, fundamental right under Article 21 stood on a much higher pedestal and had to be protected irrespective of the legitimacy of relationship between the parties.
Mere Transcripts Not Proof Of Voice In Tape-Records: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates
Title: Babu Lal v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 235
The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that mere transcript of a tape record is not proof that the voice so recorded is of the accused.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar referred to the Apex Court decision in Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors. where it was held that the tape records of speeches fall under the category of “Documents” under the Indian Evidence Act, standing on no different footing than photographs, which could be admissible in evidence only on satisfying the certain conditions as mentioned therein.
Title: Poonam v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 236
Rajasthan High Court held that an NGO that was approved by the functionaries of the State and was given subsidy under a government scheme cannot be considered “State”.
The division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar opined that,
“The respondent No.4 is an NGO and cannot be treated as a State merely because it has been approved by functionaries of the State. As per “Mahila Suraksha Evam Salaah Kendra Viyaman Evam Anudaan Yojna”, the State is only giving subsidy to the NGOs for looking into grievances of the female. Be that as it may, learned Single Judge has rightly held that respondent No.4 – Sansthan is not a State…”
Title: Mohammed Sadeeque v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 249
The Rajasthan High Court granted permission to an accused charged for attempt to murder and under the Arms Act, to travel abroad to attend his daughter's engagement ceremony.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga set aside the order of Sessions Judge that had dismissed the application filed by the accused to this effect and held that despite being an accused, the petitioner still had the fundamental right to personal liberty which included the right to travel and participate in significant family events.
Title: Abhayjeet Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
Rajasthan High Court ruled that reducing the validity period of passport from prescribed 10 years to only 1 year for an under-trial person without cogent reasons amounts to arbitrary restriction on the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined under Article 21 and was violative of principles of justice, equity and fairness.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga also pointed out the absence of any such provision of reducing passport's validity period for under-trial individuals, under the Passport Act, 1967 or the Rules, and held that the act of the State Government lacked any statutory backing and was violative of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Title: Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC, to consolidate 259 FIRs filed against the chairperson of Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society (“Petitioner”) into different bunches based on the geographical locations of these FIRs and observed that in light of these many cases, the Petitioner was being shunted from one place to another without having any fair opportunity to fight his cases which was violative his right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further stated that even though it was aware of the potential inconvenience that such transferring of cases would cause to different complainants. when such inconvenience was compared to the right of the accused to be able to defend more than 250 cases properly, the scales of justice inclined in favour of the right of the accused.
Title: Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
Rajasthan High Court expressed shock over the State Government's decision to deny an Arms license to a renowned shooter, who had won many laurels for the country, on the grounds that there was every likelihood of the petitioner ending up in criminal activities since her family was also involved in criminal offences.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta opined that sports were like an occupation taken part in either for fame or pleasure, hence the act of the State Government of refusing the license was not only arbitrary but also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, denying such a license also impinged her rights under Article 14 since she was being discriminated against solely due to her family background.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 296
Title: Rohit Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that a judicial order permitting DNA profiling of an accused in a rape case does not by itself violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), because even after passing of such an order by the court, the choice would lie with the accused to refuse giving his blood sample.
Single-judge bench of Justice Arun Monga observed,
"...option/choice lies with the petitioner whether or not to give his blood sample for the contemplated DNA test. If he does not want not to give his blood sample for the contemplated DNA test, the petitioner can appear in the learned trial Court and make a categorical statement refusing to give his blood sample. Needless to say that in that case, he will bear the legal consequences of such refusal."
Title: Sapna Nimawat v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 304
Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR filed against a woman from a marginalized community for the alleged offence of creating chaos at the Mahakaleshwar Mahadev Ji Siddh Dham temple by trying to forcibly cut open the lock of the temple and enter forcefully.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that in the background of no evidence showing criminal intent on the part of the petitioner for the alleged offence, the FIR was an abuse of law initiated with ulterior motives, especially in light of the SC/ST background of the petitioner that might have caused some discomfort among the trustees of the temple.
“The petitioner's Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe background cannot be overlooked, especially in light of the fact that access to religious institutions has historically been restricted for marginalized communities. The denial of access to the petitioner, and the subsequent criminal complaint, could very well be an instance of caste-based discrimination.”
Title: Smt. Sunita Dixit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 316
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that withholding retirement benefits of an employee only on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings which had nothing to do with the official duties was unjustified and violative of right to life because these were the sources by which the employee arrange for their necessities post retirement.
“The pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits are the earnings of an employee for the services rendered by him/her with the department. Taking away or withholding such benefits after retirement amounts to depriving the petitioner from the right to life because the retrial benefits are the sources by which the petitioner and her family arrange for their bread and other necessities.”
After perusing the material on record, the Court aligned with the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and assessed Rule 90 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 which provides for provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending. The Court ruled that the words “judicial proceedings” in the Rule could not be treated as the proceedings unrelated to the official duties of functioning of the employee in his/her office.
Title: Amar Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 321
The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity as a human being which necessarily also entailed to act as a good husband in terms of marital vows taken during the saptapadi ceremony as per Hindu rituals.
Title: Yudhishter Singh Rajpurohit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 323
Rajasthan High Court ruled that Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also includes Right to live with dignity that encompasses attending once in a lifetime family rituals like right of a father to attend son's marriage.
“Right to life does not mean mere right to exist but to live with dignity. Such a right cannot be and ought not be curtailed on the ground that father of petitioner father is since an accused pending cases.”
The bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that the father of the petitioner was indeed required to be personally present at the time of marriage of his son not only to facilitate marriage arrangement but to also bless the newlyweds to upkeep his dignity with his family and society.
Title: Neeraj Saxena v Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 324
Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the pendency of departmental enquiry could not be a ground to deny permission to employees to travel abroad. Such rejection of permission amounted to a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution which could not be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also made a reference to a case decided by the Supreme Court of United States of America, Ken v Dulles (1958), in which it was held that freedom to go abroad had much social value and represented the basis human right of great significance. And such right to travel was part of “liberty” which could not be taken away from citizens without due process of law.
Title: Mohan Lal Sharma & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 339
Rajasthan High Court ruled that Rajasthan Government's decision to grant bonus marks in teacher selection exam to those opting for posting in the districts in which they were currently posted in government employment was not only against the statutory rules but also violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that such a rule created class of un-equals amongst equals which was not justified. State could not create artificial classification which results in discrimination between two equals and similarly situated persons. It amounted to impermissible discrimination since there was no rational basis for such preferential treatment.
It was highlighted that it was a settled principle that if there was a conflict between the terms and conditions of any advertisement and the Rules and Regulations of service and appointment, the provision contained under the Rules or Regulations shall prevail.
Title: Brijesh Kumar Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 341
The Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with competent authority's order rejecting a man's application for a second gun license which was sought on the ground that the first licensed gun that he possessed, a 12 bore gun, was too heavy for him to carry.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the right to bear arms was completely different in India as compared to this right in the United Stated of America (“USA”) and United Kingdom (“UK”). It was held that no one had a fundamental right to keep a weapon especially when in today's times its possession had become more of a “show off” and a “status symbol” rather than for self defence.
Title: Kanchan Kumawat v Union of India & Ors, and other related petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 344
Rajasthan High Court directed the Centre and the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) to consider the candidature of petitioners for allocation of collages based on their merits in NEET UG 2024 (“NEET”) which was rejected by the Centre on the grounds that the petitioners were not able to submit certain affidavit/ certificates in the prescribed format on time.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that firstly, the allocation process was conducted in between the period of holidays on account of Diwali, 2024 and in that too, the time period provided to the candidates for submitting the documents was very less. Secondly, it was opined that the merit scored by the petitioners should be the exclusive criteria for allocation of collages and the fundamental rights of meritorious petitioner ought not be frustrated due to technical formalities.
Title: Savitri Sharma v Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 371
Rajasthan High Court held that adverse police verification report per se could not dis-entitle a citizen from his legal right to have a passport.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the decision of issuing a passport or travel documents has to be taken by the Passport Authority alone and they cannot refuse such issuance without application of mind, solely because of an adverse police report.
Title: Suo Motu: In the Matter of Right to Health and Well Being of Everyone
The Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the deteriorating condition of public health care system including gross negligence on part of hospitals in the State and has called upon the Union as well as State Ministry to submit a report on effective steps being taken for improving the present health care system.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that even though Fundamental Right to Health was not officially recognized by the Constitution of India, Right to Dignity which was included in the Right to Life under Article 21 extended to Right to Health and medical aid. Furthermore, various Articles in the Constitution were included as DPSPs like Article 38, 41 and 47 indicating Government's constitutional obligation to provide health care facilities to the general public at large.
Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr. v Ranjan Tak & anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for rejecting the candidature of a person with disability, who was otherwise declared meritorious in the selection process, certifying him as medically unfit for suffering 30% visual impairment.
In doing so the court observed that candidate's rejection merely because he suffered disability lower than minimum degree of disability of 40% i.e. benchmark disability was an illegal action by ONGC.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that once a post was declared to be suitable for a particular kind of disability, a candidate suffering from such disability could not be declared medically unfit, if otherwise, s/he was meritorious, just because s/he was disentitled for claiming reservation since their percentage of disability was lesser than the benchmarked percentage for claiming reservation.
Title: Badri Prasad v Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected petition
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 379
Rajasthan High Court ruled that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India only states that accused could not be compelled to be a witness against himself and not that the accused could not be compelled to be a witness at all.
Consequently, asking the accused to furnish his/her voice samples did not amount to self-incrimination when the incrimination was contingent on comparing that voice sample with the recordings available.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain further observed that under Section 349 of BNSS, the Legislature had explicitly empowered the Class-I Magistrate to direct individuals, including the accused to furnish voice samples for investigation.
Title: X v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 384
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed a habeas corpus plea filed by the father of a minor child was born and earlier residing in the US, was brought to India by his mother in 2018 and had not returned even after expiration of his visa, ruling that the child shall be considered an illegal migrant in India.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta further observed that in light of a prior final custody order passed by the US Court in favour of the petitioner, based on the Doctrine of Comity of Courts, the Family court in India had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Guardians and Wards Act filed by the mother of the child.
On the question of the welfare of the minor child, the Court said:
“As an illegal migrant child...is not entitled to many of the Constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and would always be treated as an illegal migrant and would not even be treated as second class citizen as he is not even holding an Overseas Citizenship of India Card. Thus, the welfare of the child is in returning to the place of his birth i.e. United States of America, where all the rights would be available to him.”
Title: Sunny Jain & Anr. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 394
Rajasthan High Court has directed the quashing of Look Out Circular and standing arrest warrant issued against the petitioner, who was not found to be involved in the alleged offence by the police, ruling that when the police itself was not interested in prosecuting her, continuation of the LOC would amount to violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held,
“It is the settled proposition of law that the LOC can be opened against the accused person who is deliberately evading arrest and not appearing in the trial Court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures. Coupled with either of these conditions, should be a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade the trial/arrest. None of these conditions exist in the instant case qua the petitioner No.2…Neither any investigation is pending against her nor any charge-sheet has been submitted against her and the Investigating Officer himself has submitted an application for recalling of her standing arrest warrant”
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
While rejecting the application for termination of 30 weeks pregnancy by an alleged rape victim, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that a fully developed foetus also has the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The medical report indicates that fetus is gaining weight and fat and is closure to its natural birth. Vital organs, like brain and lungs are almost fully developed, preparing for life outside the womb. The fetus has, in fact life with heart beats, hence termination of pregnancy, at this stage, is not adviseable and possible. The fully developed fetus also has right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to enter in this world and live a healthy life without any abnormalities.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the report by the Medical Board indicated that at such an advanced stage termination was not safe as it presented the risk of premature delivery which was likely to affect the neurotic development of the unborn child apart from exposing the petitioner's life to danger.
Title: Shamboo Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
While terming it one of the most glaring cases of insubordination, the Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition filed against the suspension of a Government teacher for hurling slogans and using unparliamentary language against the Education Minister, burning his effigies and also raising hoarding belittling him, ruling that such unruly behaviour could not be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta opined that such behaviour amounted to misconduct, calling for a disciplinary inquiry against him. The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Government Teacher (“petitioner”) against the order of the District Education Officer vide which he was suspended.
Title: Pankaj Bhootra v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 420
Dismissing a petition against suspension of a government employee in contemplation of the departmental enquiry against him, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the scope of interference in matters of suspension was very limited.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said, “In matters of suspension, the exercise of extraordinary power of judicial review vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Scope of consideration is limited to the extent of examining the competence of the authority who places an employee under suspension; arbitrary exercise of power; selective suspension; allegations are frivolous/ technical in nature; suspension was wholly unwarranted; and there was no application of mind. In matters of suspension, each case has to be examined in the factual back ground of given case.”
Title: Suo Motu: In the matter of Dignity, Respect & Honour Girls and Women
Rajasthan High Court took suo-moto cognizance of the lack of sanitary and hygienic public washrooms for women, making them prone to several health issues.
“The facilities as are available to women walking on the street are almost negligible and in no way proportionate to the existing facilities vis-a-vis the women population. Not only are the basic infrastructure/facilities lacking, but even those provided are far from satisfactory. Infact, they are sub-standard.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined failure on part of Central and State Governments in discharging their duty of providing better public toilet facilities for women and directed issuance of show cause notices to the relevant departments of both the Central as well as the State Government seeking report on effective steps being taken by them in solving the issue.
Title: Chandra Shekhar v State of Rajasthan
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court pulled up the State Government for persistent delays in completion of “critical infrastructure projects” at AIIMS Jodhpur including a trauma centre and expressed its inclination to impose a cost of Rs. 50 crore as well as initiate action for criminal negligence against erring officials.
The court however went on to grant one last opportunity to the state to file an affidavit in the matter, in the interest of Justice.
While hearing a plea concerning infrastructural issues at AIIMS Jodhpur division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman in its order said:
“But even though this Court is of the firm opinion that the present case is that of criminal negligence and requiring imposition of a cost of Rs.50 crores upon the State, as indicated above, but in the interest of justice, before issuing any direction in this regard, one last opportunity is given to the learned AAG to file an affidavit before the next date, which will enable the Court to conclude its directions regarding the cost and actions for complete failure in public duty.”
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
P. Krishna Sai Prasad VS. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd of Telangana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 12
The Telangana High Court has upheld a press note issued by the Election Commission of India, notifying the conduct of bye-elections to the vacant seats in the Telangana State Legislative Council.
This was challenged by the National Spokesperson of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS). The main contention of the petitioner was that the press note was not passed in consonance with Article 171 (4).
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti noted that the procedure as stipulated under Article 171 is for vacancies that arise at the end of the term and not casual vacancies which are guided by the provisions of Section 151 of the Representation of People Act, 1950. It said:
“Section 151 of the RP Act, inter alia, provides that when before the expiration of the term of office of a member elected to the Legislative Council of a State becomes vacant or is declared vacant or his election to Legislative Council has been declared void, the Election commission shalt by notification in the official gazette elect a person for the purpose of filling the vacancy so caused. Section 151 of the Rp Act envisages issuance of a separate notification for filling up the vacancies. The press note dated O4.OI.2O24 is in consonance with Section 151 of the Rp Act. Therefore, the contention that the press note is in violation of Article I7l(4) of the Constitution of India does not deserve acceptance.”
Pareekshith Reddy Pesarikayala vs. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 43
The Telangana High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 38(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act) and Rule 5.7.1 of the Election Commission of India's Handbook for Candidates (the Handbook).
The provisions and the rule which is analogous to it, state that a list of validly nominated candidates is to be prepared giving priority in the order of arrangement to the candidates from recognised parties following candidates from registered parties, and others.
Nossam Mohammed Yunus vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
The Telangana High Court has held that the right to remain silent is a fundamental right safeguarded under the constitution, and the investigating authority cannot file a second application for an extension of police custody owing to the fact that the accused was silent and did not give satisfactory answers. It said:
“It is relevant to note that with regard to the contention of the respondent/Investigating Agency that during interrogation the appellant could not give satisfactory reply towards the transactions and he was silent, it is apt to note that to remain silent during the investigation is a fundamental right guaranteed to the appellant/A.31 as per Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondent/Investigating Agency cannot contend that the appellant could not give satisfactory reply towards certain transactions and he was silent.”
Telangana Urdu Working Journalists Union vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 123
The High Court of Telangana has addressed the issue of media accreditation based on language by examining the validity of G.O.Ms.No.239 dated 15.07.2016, which allocated Accreditation Cards to working journalists based on the language of their newspapers.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, held that the language-based criteria for media accreditation were indeed arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the language of a newspaper, irrespective of a number of pages or number of copies in circulation, cannot furnish reasonable and just criteria for extending the benefit of accreditation.
Kuna Pandu Vivekanand Versus The State of Telangana, WP 11098/2024 (and connected matters)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 147
While directing the Telangana Assembly Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing to decide the disqualification pleas pending against the defecting BRS MLAs within four weeks, the High Court expressed disagreement over the argument made by the defecting MLAs and State that the Speaker cannot be directed to decide the disqualification petition within a certain time.
“If the contention of the learned Advocate General and other learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that this Court can never give directions to the Speaker to decide disqualification within a time frame, is to be accepted, then the question that would arise is “how long the inaction or indecision of the Speaker to be tolerated by this Court.”, the bench comprising Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy asked.
The Telangana Legislative Assembly v/s Alleti Maheshwar Reddy and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 173
The Telangana High Court on Friday (November 22) set aside a September order of the single judge which had directed the Secretary of the legislative Assembly to place the disqualification pleas pending against MLAs–who defected from Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS)–before the Assembly Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing within four weeks.
In doing so the high court said that Speaker of the Assembly exercises power under the Tenth schedule (which pertains to disqualification on ground of defection) to the Constitution which is subject to judicial review. It added that while the Speaker is required to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable time, but what would be this time depends on facts of each case. In the present matter the high court asked the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable time while keeping in "mind the concept of reasonable time"
NORTH EAST HIGH COURTS
Meghalaya High Court:
Case Details: Smti Naphibanmer Laso & Anr. Versus Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Megh) 23
Recently, the Meghalaya High Court upheld the appointments of three judicial officers who were appointed over and above the advertised vacancies.
It is a settled position of law that no appointment could be made beyond the stipulated number of vacancies prescribed in the recruitment advertisement. However, a deviation is permissible in exceptional circumstances where an appointment could be made over and above the number of vacancies prescribed in the recruitment advertisement, it said.
Manipur High Court:
Case Title: The State of Manipur & Ors. v. Shri Laishram Sushil Singh
Recently, the Manipur High Court upheld the reinstatement of the Sub-Inspector of Police who was dismissed from the service because of his alleged links with the banned organization the People's Liberation Army/Revolutionary People's Front (PLA/RPF).
Affirming the Single Bench decision, the bench led by Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul and comprising Justices Ahanthem Bimol Singh and Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui objected to the Governor's sanction to the respondent's (sub-inspector) dismissal order under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution which allows termination without inquiry in the interest of state security.