Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court declined to issue directions either to declare the birth anniversary of Guru Gobind Singh Ji as a nationwide gazetted holiday or to frame uniform guidelines for declaration of holidays.
“The decision of the Government to fill the notified vacancies cannot be equated with creation of a right in favour of every candidate below the selected candidate to claim automatic substitution in the event of non-joining.”
“The State, as a model employer, cannot adopt artificial classifications to deny statutory benefits. Repackaging contractual engagements under a different nomenclature, while denying regularization, violates the equality mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court highlights a gap in how serious vaccine-related adverse events are addressed and calls for a No-Fault Compensation Policy.
Patna High Court had quashed criminal proceedings against the sister-in-law whereas father & mother-n-law were declined relief for similar allegations. The Supreme Court held that High Court erred in applying different standards to persons who stood on an identical footing insofar as the nature of the allegations against them was concerned.
“Continued underutilisation, despite availability of infrastructure, reflects a systemic indifference to deploy reformative mechanisms and warrants immediate corrective measures.”
“The rule of law constitutes the foundation of a well-governed society, and the shadow of bias or mala fides in the exercise of power concerning public 33 functions strikes at the very root of a regulated social order.”
The very grant of lease to the respondent for agricultural purposes was uncalled for because it led to devastation and deforestation of huge forest area admeasuring nearly 134 acres.
“The Court emphasized that the legal consequences of State Reorganisation Acts cannot override the specific requirements of the MSCS Act. A cooperative society must demonstrate, through evidence, that its objects, membership, and area of operation genuinely extend across multiple States. Mere territorial changes due to bifurcation or reorganisation are insufficient.”
The Executing Court’s role in enforcing a decree based on a Lok Adalat award under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is limited to execution alone. It cannot annul, set aside, or question the validity of the award, and objections in execution cannot serve as an alternative remedy to challenge the award.
The Court observed that the husband, being a judicial officer holding a responsible public position, owed a heightened duty of fair, adequate, and dignified financial security for his wife and daughter.
“It is a matter of deep regret that despite prolonged investigation, the identity of the actual perpetrator has not been established in a manner that meets the legal standards”.
The observations came in an appeal against the Bombay High Court ruling wherein the binding precedent in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 3 SCC 430 was not followed.
“A balance has to be struck to protect individual liberty of accused and to secure an environment that is free from any fear in the hearts of victims of the alleged perpetrators. Although grant of bail is a discretionary exercise, the courts must be cautious to exercise the discretion judiciously.”
Justice Vikram Nath, a fourth-generation legal luminary and sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India, joined the legal profession in 1987.
In a significant decision, a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court explored the contours of Article 32 of the Constitution to answer whether death sentence which has attained finality, can be revisited at all?
Karnataka High Court had granted bail to one accused after finding that he was associated with organisations not banned under UAPA; however, the 2nd accused person’s bail was rejected as he was involved with banned terror outfits.
“Ad-hocism thrives where administration is opaque and the State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial”.
The Court stated that though the appellant was illiterate, he was not irrational, as he had a plan in mind which he executed, thereby achieving his goal.
Since the offence was committed on 20-5-2019, the amended provision of Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 16-8-2019, could not have been applied to his case.