Supreme Court Weekly Digest March 2025 [March 10 - 16, 2025]

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 298 to 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 310Administrative LawCompliance with Court Orders - Delay and Obstination - Harassment of Daily Wage Workers - The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union Territory, observing that the case presented a "glaring and textbook example of obstination" by state officials who took 16 years to comply with a High Court order. The Court expressed shock at the delay and the repeated harassment of poor daily wage workers through cryptic orders that disregarded the spirit of the 2007 High Court order. While the Court considered imposing exemplary costs and recommending disciplinary action against the delinquent officers, it refrained from doing so as contempt proceedings were pending before the Single Judge. The Court directed the Single Judge to expedite the contempt proceedings on a weekly basis to uphold the majesty and sanctity of law. (Para 2 – 4) Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Abdul Rehman Khanday, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 303BailParameters for granting and setting aside bail –The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals, setting aside the High Court's order granting bail to the accused in a case involving alleged compromise of a public recruitment examination. The Court distinguished between setting aside an order of bail and cancellation of bail, emphasizing that setting aside challenges the legality of the grant order itself, while cancellation addresses misuse of bail or supervening circumstances. The Court reiterated that while granting bail, factors like the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, and prima facie involvement of the accused are crucial. The Court stressed the importance of maintaining the sanctity of public examinations and the impact of such offenses on society's faith in public administration. The High Court erred in granting bail based on factors like lack of criminal antecedents and period of custody, without adequately considering the gravity of the offense and its societal implications. The Court directed the accused to surrender and clarified that its observations were limited to the bail matter and should not be construed as remarks on the merits of the case. The court allowed the accused to reapply for bail before the trial court after the examination of material witnesses. [Referred: Ansar Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 974; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 392 and Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278] (Para 8, 11 & 14) State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 300Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Cancellation of Power of Attorney - Commencement of Limitation - Where a plaintiff seeks to challenge sale deeds executed under a power of attorney, limitation for such a challenge commences from the date of knowledge of the sale deeds, not from the date of cancellation of the power of attorney. Cancellation of a power of attorney does not affect prior conveyances made under the valid power conferred, nor does it create a new cause of action to challenge those conveyances. The High Court erred in holding that limitation commenced from the cancellation of the power of attorney, which was executed long after the sale deeds in question. The Supreme Court affirmed the Trial Court's rejection of the plaint, holding that the suit was barred by limitation. (Para 8 & 9) V. Ravikumar v. S. Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 301Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 227 – Penal Code, 1860; Section 304 Part II - Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder - Accidental Death due to Electrocution - Absence of Intention or Knowledge - Appeal against rejection of discharge applications - Where two employees, engaged in decorating a shop, died due to electrocution and a fall from a height while working on a signboard using an iron ladder, and the appellants, who were the contractor and store operation manager, were charged under Section 304 Part II IPC for not providing safety equipment, held, no prima facie case of culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC was made out. There was no intention to cause death or knowledge that the act would likely cause death. The absence of intention and knowledge, crucial ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC, warranted the discharge of the appellants under Section 227 CrPC. At the stage of discharge, the focus is on whether there are sufficient grounds to initiate a criminal trial, not on a threadbare analysis of evidence. Consequently, the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court rejecting the discharge applications were set aside, and the appellants were discharged. [Distinguished: Keshub Mahindra v. State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 129] (Para 16 - 18) Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 304DisabilityEducation Law - Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Appointment of Special Teachers - Non-compliance with prior judicial orders -...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest March 2025 [March 10 - 16, 2025]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags