Supreme Court Weekly Digest August 18 - 24, 2025

A.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015; Section 13(7) - Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology Act , 2021 - Section 11(10) - Appointment of Vice-Chancellor - Supreme Court forms Search Committee headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia (Chairperson) for Kerala University Vice-Chancellor appointments - The chairman is authorized to constitute separate or joint committees - including 2 members from Chancellor's list and 2 from the State's list - Held that Chairperson must be paid an honorarium of Rs. 3 lakhs for every day of proceedings of Search-cum-Selection Committee - Supreme Court laid down appointment process - i. Committee's recommendations endorsed by Chairperson, will be submitted to CM of Kerala; ii. CM can recommend shortlisted names in order of preference, if he believes a candidate is unsuitable their remarks and supporting materials must be sent to Chancellor; iii. The Chancellor will appoint VC from empanelled names, following CM's order of preference; iv. If Chancellor has any reservations against the names or CM's remarks, they can record their opinion with supporting reasons; v. any file where the CM & Chancellor have a disagreement will be sent to SC for a final decision - While this process in underway, Chancellor can issue fresh notifications to continue the current temporary VC in office in accordance with 6 month limit stipulated by Section 13(7) and 11(10) of the respective acts. [Paras 10-22] Chancellor, Apj Abdul Kalam Technological University v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 815Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 195 - Supreme Court laid down following principles to be followed while dealing with a category of offences that fall within the protective sphere of Section 195 CrPC - i. Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC bars Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188, IPC, unless there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned - Without a complaint from said persons, the Court would lack competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences; ii. It is not open to Court to undertake the exercise of splitting them up and proceeding further against the accused for the other distinct offences disclosed in the same set of facts - it would depend upon the facts of each case; iii. Severance of distinct offences is not permissible when it would effectively circumvent the protection afforded by Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC, which requires a complaint by a public servant, offences against public justice - Focus should be on whether the facts in substance, constitute an offence requiring a public servant's complaint; iv. Court must apply twin tests - 1st - Courts must ascertain having regard to nature of allegations made in FIR and other materials on record whether the other distinct offences not covered by Section 195(1)(a)(i) have been invoked only with a view to evade mandatory bar of Section 195 IPC - 2nd whether the facts primarily and essentially disclose an offence for which a complaint of the court a public servant is required; v. Where an accused is alleged to have committed some offences which are separate and distinct from those contained in Section 195; Courts should ascertain whether such offences form an integral part and are so intrinsically connected so as to amount to offences committed as a part of the same transaction, in which case the other offences also would fall within the ambit of section 195 CrPC; vi. Section 195(1)(b)(i)(ii) & (iii) and section 340 CrPC respectively do not control or circumscribe the power of the police to investigate under CrPC - Once investigation is complete then embargo in section 195 would come into play and the Court would not be competent to take cognizance - Court could then file a complaint for the offence on the basis of FIR and material collected during investigation, provided procedure laid down in Section 340 CrPC is followed. [Para 59] Devendra Kumar v. State (Nct of Delhi), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : 2025 INSC 1009Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 372 Proviso - 'victim' - Right to appeal - Substitution of legal heir – Held, expression 'victim' is not limited to the person who has suffered a loss or injury, but also includes their guardian or legal heir - Proviso to Section 372 CrPC grants a victim the right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation - This right to appeal is a statutory right - It is a fundamental right under Article 14 & 21 for a victim - 'Right to prefer an appeal' also includes the 'right to prosecute an appeal' - If a victim who filed an appeal dies, their legal heir can be substituted to continue prosecuting the appeal - Parliament's amendment to Section 372 CrPC aimed at giving an independent right to victims, separate from the State or a complainant - Legal heir of a deceased victim is permitted to pursue an appeal that was originally filed by...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest August 18 - 24, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags