Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court cautioned that AI may assist adjudication but can never be substituted for adjudication, setting aside a ₹425.27 crore Customs penalty after reliance on dubious AI-generated case laws.
The Court held that communication of the Section 69, CGST Act order may be made electronically, in addition to the modes permitted under BNSS and other legally permissible modes of communication.
The Court particularly disapproved of the manner in which the High Court had examined the disputed questions “as if it were an expert of experts” and concluded that the directions flowing from such examination were “clearly indefensible”.
Supreme Court held that while frequent phone calls alone cannot establish criminal conspiracy, a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including recoveries admissible under Section 27, Evidence Act, and the accused’s conduct was sufficient to uphold the husband’s conviction for the premeditated murder of his wife.
The Court stated that the 2016 Amendment to the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 had created a legal fiction operating prospectively and did not affect proceedings instituted before its enactment.
“The RTE Act is a child centric legislation and must be read so. Service of teachers cannot come at the cost of educational future of the children.”
The Court observed that witnesses, particularly victims of heinous offences and sensitive crimes, cannot be expected to repeatedly appear before courts to face cross-examination.
Initiation of administrative proceedings for disciplinary action against the appellant, we unhesitatingly hold, was bad in law and non est.
The Supreme Court set aside the direction allowing an absentee to appear in the next round of recruitment process.
“The concept commonly termed as “deemed forest” has evolved during the proceedings arising out of this case, reflecting the understanding that ecological protection cannot be restricted merely to areas that have undergone formal statutory notification.”
“Appellants secured admission based on tribe certificates, which have since been cancelled, is not in doubt. Nonetheless, sight cannot be lost that their tribe certificates were invalidated after they had graduated.”
“Despite all the latitude that is shown to a “State”, we are of the clear opinion that 10 the cause sought to be shown here by the State of Odisha is not an explanation but a lame excuse. No case for exercise of discretion has been set up.”
Justice Dipankar Datta served as a Judge in the Calcutta High Court, and as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, prior to being sworn in as Supreme Court Judge on 12-12-2022.
The NGT is empowered to quantify environmental compensation on the basis of project cost or scale of operations in order to enforce the polluter pays principle where construction is carried out in violation of environmental laws.
A litigant cannot be placed in a worse position merely for having approached the court.
The Court stated that since Section 175(4) BNSS merely provides an additional protective layer in cases involving public servants, all mandatory procedural requirements governing the exercise of power under Section 175(3), must necessarily be complied with.
“It appears that approximately 1.40 crore individuals have been issued notices for the purpose of document verification.”
“The judiciary would do well to remain circumspect of these practical realities, and interpret service rules in a manner that furthers the very object of a selection process, that is, the selection of the most suitable candidates from suitable candidates for appointment in a timely manner.”
“Constitutional safeguards for Judges cannot come at the cost of paralysing the removal process itself. The first proviso must, therefore, be construed to balance prescribed protection with the effective functioning of the mechanism for removal of a Judge from office triggered by the peoples’ representatives, and not to frustrate it altogether.”
Supreme Court granted liberty to the appellants to institute a civil suit with entitlement to claim exemption from limitation under Order VII Rule 6 CPC read with the Limitation Act, 1963.