2020 SCC Vol. 8 Part 3

Army Act, 1950 — Ss. 69 and 70: In this case there was conviction of appellant under S. 354 IPC for using criminal force on two women with intent to outrage their modesty by inappropriately touching their private parts during checkup. PW 13 Physician stated that touching of private parts and squeezing their nipples during examination was unnecessary. There was no motive for falsely implicating appellant. Hence held, conviction of appellant under S. 354 IPC was justified. [Union of India v. S.S. Bedi, (2020) 8 SCC 700]

Constitution of India — Art. 19(1)(g) and Arts. 29 & 30 r/w Arts. 25, 26 and 14, 47 and 51-A(j) — Admission to medical and dental courses (graduate and postgraduate): Validity of NEET, reaffirmed. Taking over of admission process by Government and statutory amendments prescribing transparent, merit-based common entrance test for eligibility and centralized admission process for all medical and dental colleges in India without any exception i.e. NEET, held, valid. The same are in the national interest, in the welfare of students and teachers, do not put the minority institutions to a disadvantage compared to other institutions and do not violate Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and Arts. 29 & 30 r/w Arts. 25 and 26. [Christian Medical College Vellore Assn. v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 705]

Constitution of India — Arts. 21, 39 and 41: Directions and observations passed regarding rights of elderly persons/senior citizens and their enforcement during COVID-19 Pandemic. [Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 808]

Constitution of India — Arts. 72 and 161 — Powers of commutation and remission of sentences exercisable by President and Governor under: Difference between such constitutional powers under Arts. 72 and 161 on the one hand, and similar powers under CrPC or other statutes on the other available to the appropriate executive Government, explained. Principles summarised regarding scope of judicial review of order of President or Governor under Art. 72 or Art. 161. Principles under S. 433-A CrPC are not applicable to exercise of constitutional power either under Art. 72 or under Art. 161. [Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana, (2020) 8 SCC 680]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 439 and 389: Principles summarized regarding distinction between Ss. 439 and 389. [Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 8 SCC 645]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 12(3) [as amended by S. 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019], providing inter alia for mandatory completion of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) within a period of 330 days: The general rule is that of an outer limit of 330 days. However, held, extension of time can be granted in exceptional cases. Exceptional cases would be cases where only a short period is left for completion of the insolvency resolution process beyond 330 days, and it would be in the interest of all stakeholders that the corporate debtor be put back on its feet and where the delay or a large part thereof is attributable to the tardy process of the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal itself. Further, where the grace period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the Amending Act of 2019 is exceeded, there again a discretion can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal to further extend time. The validity of amended S. 12(3), affirmed in its entirety except that the word “mandatorily” struck down, as being an excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable restriction being violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. [Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 366-A and 506: In this case of alleged procuration of minor girl and criminal intimidation, conviction of accused under Ss. 366-A and 506 was upheld by High Court. However, guilt of accused, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, conviction was reversed. [Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811]

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Ss. 2(i-a)(f), 16(1-A) and 16(1)(a)(ii): In this case, the accused was alleged to be selling adulterated haldi powder without licence. Acquittal of accused was reversed by High Court, convicting him under Ss. 2(i-a)(f), 16(1-A) and 16(1)(a)(ii). As benefit of doubt in favour of accused, was made out. Hence, acquittal of accused was restored. [Prem Chand v. State of Haryana, (2020) 8 SCC 677]

Service Law — CCS (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 — Rr. 3, 5(c) & (d) and 10 — Service association — Object of: The primary object of forming service association is to promote common service interest of its members and membership is restricted to government servants having common interest. Further held, for according recognition to service association it must represent minimum 35% of total category of employees with a rider that where there is only one association with more than 35% membership, another association with second-highest membership must be recognised if it commands at least 15% membership. Thus, intention is to avoid plurality of associations which may not be in overall interest of government servants in forming service association. [Union of India v. ISRO Drivers Assn., (2020) 8 SCC 657]

Service Law — Promotion — Criteria/Eligibility: In this case, claim for promotion to post of Junior Bailiff undisputed by Office Assistants (19 in no.) and Record Clerks (3 in no.) on basis of High Court order dt. 22-7-2009 and fact that vacancies in respect of which claim was laid arose before issuance of 2016 Act and hence, requirement of passing SSLC could not be insisted upon as eligibility for promotion, not sustainable. [R. Palanisamy v. High Court of Madras, (2020) 8 SCC 670]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.