Supreme Court Weekly Digest July 14 - 20, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 693 to 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 730Advocates Act, 1961 - High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019- Rule 6(9)- Suo moto power to the full court of High Court to designate an advocate as 'Senior Advocate'- the 2019 Rules were formulated in the backdrop of the Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India (2017)- High Court held Rule 6(9) to be ultra vires and not in lines with the Indira Jaisingh judgement- Held- that suo moto designations by Full court are upheld as they adhere to the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency and objectivity- Courts are not expected to grant this status arbitrarily or as favour- process for designation must be merit based, transparent and fair- conferment of Senior Advocate status is a privilege, not an entitlement- Set aside order passed by the High Court on its judicial side is set aside and designation as senior advocates is held to be valid. [Concur with Jitender @Kalla v. State (Govt.) NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2025); Para 17, 18] Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2025 INSC 839Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 16(2) - Senior and other advocates - this provision recognizes power of a High Court to confer the distinction of Senior Advocate, by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law- standards of designation of Senior Advocates must be significantly higher than those applicable to other advocates. [Para 9] Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2025 INSC 839Central Bank of India (Employers') Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 33 - Compulsory Retirement Pension - Interpretation of 'may' in Regulation 33(1) and conjoint reading of Regulation 33(1) and 33(2) - Issue - the disciplinary inquiry against appellant was continued under Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Central Bank of India (Officer's) Service Regulations, 1979 even after his superannuation on November 30, 2014 and pension was reduced without consultation - the Supreme Court clarified that the word “may” in Regulation 33(1) does not grant discretion to superior authority to award less than two-third of full pension - It signifies that a compulsorily retired employees is not entitled to pension if they are not otherwise eligible for it on superannuation (e.g. not completing “qualifying service”). The Court held that Regulation 33(1) and 33(2) must be read conjointly - In all cases where the full pension is admissible to a compulsorily retired employee is reduced, prior consultation with Board of Directors is directory - Prior consultation with the Board of Directors, the highest authority of the Bank is a mandatory safeguard before an employee's constitutional right to pension is curtailed - a post-facto approval cannot substitute the requirement of prior consultation. [Relied Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Association, U.P. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1993) Supp (1) SCC 730; Paras 16, 18, 19, 21] Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 713 : 2025 INSC 848Central Bank of India (Employers') Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 33 - Compulsory Retirement Pension - 'Competent Authority' - must be superior to the delinquent and not an officer holding rank lower than scale IV officer - Competent authority can award pension in exercise of not only original but also appellate or reviewing powers - Term 'competent authority' cannot be restricted to disciplinary authority alone. [Paras 15] Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 713 : 2025 INSC 848Child Custody - Welfare of child – Issue - Permanent Child custody - Respondent became aware of Petitioner's remarriage and her intention to relocate the child to Malaysia and also the child's religion had been changed from Hindu to Christian, respondent filed for permanent custody of child - Trial Court granted permanent custody to the mother and extended visitation rights to father - High Court reversed Trial Court order and granted permanent custody to father-respondent citing that relocation to Malaysia would not be in the child's best interest - Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner's appeal, confirming custody with the father - Petitioner filed review petitions on ground that the new of the child's imminent separation from his mother caused immense negative impact on his health – Held - that Clinical Psychologist's Report was filed revealing the minor child was exhibiting anxiety and fears, with a high risk for separation anxiety disorder - Report recommended avoiding separation from his current family and conducting regular psychotherapy session – Held - that child's deteriorating mental health and the psychological assessment reports constituted new evidence, which was a post-decision development and not known at the time of appeal - child's custody is paramount in custody matters and changing permanent custody would disrupt child's stable environment - child has been with mother since he was ...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest July 14 - 20, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags