Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [22nd February to 28th February 2021]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Ossification Test Conducted On An Accused Aged Around 40-55 Years Cannot Be Conclusive To Declare Him As A Juvenile On The Date Of The Incident: Supreme CourtCase: Ram Vijay Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh [Cr. A 175 OF 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 117The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Hemant Gupta and BR Gavai observed that ossification test conducted on a person aged around 40 to 55 years cannot be conclusive to declare him as a juvenile on the date of the incident."When a person is around 18 years of age, the ossification test can be said to be relevant for determining the approximate age of a person in conflict with law. However, when the person is around 40-55 years of age, the structure of bones cannot be helpful in determining the age." The bench held.In this case, the accused-appellant relied on an ossification test report to contend that he was juvenile at the date of incident (20.7.1982). It was contended that, even considering the maximum age as 55 years as per the Medical Report now submitted, the accused would still be less than 18 years on the date of incident. 2. Wife Levelling Allegations Affecting Career & Reputation Of Husband Amounts To Mental Cruelty Against Him For Seeking Divorce: Supreme CourtCase: Joydeep Majumdar Vs Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar [CA NOS. 3786-3787 OF 2020] Citation: LL 2021 SC 116 The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy observed that wife levelling allegations which affects career and reputation of husband is mental cruelty against him for the purpose of seeking divorce."The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party." The bench observed.In this case, the husband, an army officer, in his divorce petition, alleged that he was subjected to numerous malicious complaints by the wife which have affected his career and loss of reputation, resulting in mental cruelty. The Family Court granted him divorce, but the High Court reversed it. In appeal before the Apex Court, the husband submitted that the wife filed a series of complaints against him before the superior officers in the Army upto the level of the Chief of Army Staff and to other authorities and these complaints have irreparably damaged his reputation and mental peace.3. Admission & Fee Regulatory Committee Has To Ensure That Fee Charged By Private Medical Colleges Are Neither Excessive Nor Exploitative: Supreme CourtCASE: Najiya Neermunda vs. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust [Civil Appeal Nos . 606 - 616 of 2021] CITATION: LL 2021 SC 115 The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed that the regulation of fee for MBBS students in private self-financing medical colleges is within the domain of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee which has to ensure that the fee is non-exploitative and reasonable.The State had approached the Apex Court aggrieved with the Kerala High Court direction to the Committee to examine the audited balance sheets only for the purpose of considering whether the expenditure that is shown by the managements should be excluded or not. It contended that the directions given by the High Court are contrary to Section 11 of the 2017 Act, which refers to factors that have to be taken into account by the Committee for fee fixation. The bench observed thus: 4. Salaries & Pensions Are Rightful Entitlements Of Government Employees; Appropriate Interest Must Be Paid For Delayed Payment: Supreme CourtCASE: State of Andhra Pradesh vs.Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari [Civil Appeal No 399 of 2021]CITATION: LL 2021 SC 113Division bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that salaries and pensions are rightful entitlements of Government employees and the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate.The Andhra Pradesh High Court had allowed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a former District and Sessions Judge and directed the (i) payment of the deferred salary for the months of March-April 2020 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and (ii) payment of deferred pension for the month of March 2020 with a similar rate of interest."Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State." the...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [22nd February to 28th February 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags