Complete Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 [Part-3]

JudiciaryConstitution of India, Article 142 - Writ petition seeking guidelines for judicial recusal - Held, recusal is a matter of judicial discretion and Article 142 cannot be invoked to frame such guidelines. Chandraprabha v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 648Constitution of India - Referring to any court as a "Lower Court" or its records as "Lower Court Record" (LCR) is contrary to the ethos of the Constitution. The Supreme Court directed that Trial Court records be referred to as "Trial Court Record" (TCR), reiterating its order dated 8 February 2024 and the subsequent Registry circular dated 28 February 2024. (Para 25) Sakhawat v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 626 : 2025 INSC 777Court Managers - The concept of Court Managers was introduced by the 13th Finance Commission to assist judges in administrative functions and case management at district, sessions, and High Court levels, with similar recommendations from the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC). Despite prior directions in the same proceedings (judgment dated August 2, 2018) to frame rules for their service conditions, duties, and regularization, many High Courts and State Governments failed to comply, resulting in Court Managers continuing on contractual or ad-hoc basis, with some services discontinued due to funding shortages. Whether existing Court Managers working on contractual or ad-hoc basis should be regularized, and whether High Courts should frame rules for their recruitment and service conditions to ensure administrative efficiency in the judiciary. Held, the Supreme Court, expressing concern over non-compliance with prior directions, directed the regularization of all existing Court Managers (subject to suitability tests) with effect from their initial appointment, without entitlement to salary arrears. High Courts were mandated to frame/amend recruitment rules modeled on the Assam Rules of 2018, with State Governments required to approve them within three months. Court Managers were to be classified as Class II gazetted officers, working under specified supervision, with duties ensuring no overlap with those of Registrars. Directions: 1. All High Courts to frame/amend rules on recruitment and service conditions of Court Managers, using Assam Rules of 2018 as model, and submit to State Governments within 3 months (with liberty for suitable changes). 2. State Governments to approve rules within 3 months. 3. Minimum classification as Class II gazetted officers for pay, allowances, and benefits. 4. High Court-appointed Court Managers to work under Registrar General's supervision. 5. District Court-appointed Court Managers to work under Registrar/Superintendent of concerned courts. 6. High Court Rules Committees to ensure duties do not overlap with Registrars'. 7. Existing contractual/ad-hoc Court Managers' services to continue and be regularized subject to suitability test under rules. 8. Regularization effective from initial appointment date, entitling continuation of service but no arrears or salary differences. 9. Personal regularization to be completed within 3 months of rule approval. 10. Registrar Generals of High Courts to adhere to timelines. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 582 : 2025 INSC 713High Court Rules (Calcutta) - Rule 26 - Roster Allocation - Chief Justice's Power - Judicial Discipline - Division Bench of the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide a writ petition when the case was not allocated to it by the Chief Justice, who is the master of the roster. The Court reiterated that consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction, and any adjudication beyond the assigned roster is void. The impugned order of the Division Bench, which had allowed the writ petition, was set aside, and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration by a bench assigned by the Chief Justice. (Para 7) Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers v. GRSE Workmens Union, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 322 : 2025 INSC 363In-House Inquiry Committee Report – The Writ Petition sought a writ of mandamus to initiate action against the third respondent based on allegations and the In-House Inquiry Committee's report. The report and the third respondent's response were forwarded by the Chief Justice of India to the President and Prime Minister of India. The Court declined to entertain the petition, observing that the petitioners had not sought redressal by filing a representation before the appropriate authorities. Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 649Judges Protection Act, 1985 - Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against quasi-judicial officer merely on ground of passing wrong order. Mere "wrong orders" without allegations of corruption, extraneous influence, or dishonesty cannot justify disciplinary proceedings against the officer. (Para 9 & 16) Amresh Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 376 : 2025 INSC 417Judicial...

Complete Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 [Part-3]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags