{"id":291382,"date":"2023-05-06T09:00:19","date_gmt":"2023-05-06T03:30:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=291382"},"modified":"2023-05-10T09:56:41","modified_gmt":"2023-05-10T04:26:41","slug":"not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","title":{"rendered":"Does everything said by a Judge while giving judgment constitute a precedent? Supreme Court explains"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/b> In a special leave petition against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. while dismissing the petition, reiterated that it is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding as a legal precedent is the principle upon which the case is decided and, for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the obiter dicta.<\/p>\n

The Bench remarked judgment in Vidya Drolia<\/i> v. Durga Trading Corpn.<\/i>, (2021) 2 SCC 1<\/a> did not examine and decide the issue of effect of unstamped or under-stamped underlying contract on the arbitration agreement. As this issue and question has not been decided in Vidya Drolia<\/i> (supra), thus, the decision is not a precedent on this question.<\/p>\n

Its reference to the decision in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd.<\/i> v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd.<\/i>, (2019) 9 SCC 209<\/a> was made to interpret the word ‘existence’, and whether an ‘invalid’ arbitration agreement, can be said to exist? This examination was to decide “who decides existence of an arbitration agreement” in the context of Sections 8<\/a> and 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While examining the distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi, the Court took note of State of Gujarat<\/i> v. Utility Users’ Welfare Assn.<\/i>, (2018) 6 SCC 21<\/a>, wherein “the inversion test” to identify what is ratio decidendi in a judgment was applied. To test whether a particular proposition of law is to be treated as the ratio decidendi of the case, the proposition is to be inversed, i.e. to remove from the text of the judgment as if it did not exist. If the conclusion of the case would still have been the same even without examining the proposition, then it cannot be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the case.<\/p>\n

Further, the Court also took note of Jayant Verma<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, (2018) 4 SCC 743<\/a>, wherein it was stated that it is not the findings of material facts, direct and inferential, but the statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts, which is the vital element in the decision and operates as a precedent. Even the conclusion does not operate as a precedent, albeit operates as res judicata.<\/p>\n

[Career Institute Educational Society v Om shree Thakurji Educational Society, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 586<\/a>, order dated 24-04-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For Petitioner(s): Senior Advocate Rajive Bhalla, Advocate Amit Aggarwal, Advocate Sumeir Ahuja, Advocate Deepak Samota, Advocate Yajur Bhalla, Advocate Jaisurya Jain, Advocate. Ashish Vajpayee, Advocate Akansha Gulati, Advocate Ragini Sharma, Advocate-On- Record Shubham Bhalla;<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s): Advocate Pinki Aggarwal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court said that the distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi in a judgment, as a proposition of law, has been examined by its several judgments.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":291422,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[57391,34809,45557,46697,43686,5363],"class_list":["post-291382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-binding-precedent","tag-obiter-dicta","tag-precedents","tag-ratio-decidendi","tag-slp","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNot everything said in a judgment constitutes precedent: Supreme Court | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court explained what constitutes precedent and reiterated the distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Does everything said by a Judge while giving judgment constitute a precedent? Supreme Court explains\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court explained what constitutes precedent and reiterated the distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-05-06T03:30:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-05-10T04:26:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-precedent.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Does everything said by a Judge while giving judgment constitute a precedent? Supreme Court explains\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\",\"name\":\"Not everything said in a judgment constitutes precedent: Supreme Court | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-precedent.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-06T03:30:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-05-10T04:26:41+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court explained what constitutes precedent and reiterated the distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-precedent.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-precedent.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"supreme court precedent\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Does everything said by a Judge while giving judgment constitute a precedent? Supreme Court explains\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Not everything said in a judgment constitutes precedent: Supreme Court | SCC Blog","description":"Supreme Court explained what constitutes precedent and reiterated the distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Does everything said by a Judge while giving judgment constitute a precedent? Supreme Court explains","og_description":"Supreme Court explained what constitutes precedent and reiterated the distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-05-06T03:30:19+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-05-10T04:26:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-precedent.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Does everything said by a Judge while giving judgment constitute a precedent? Supreme Court explains","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","name":"Not everything said in a judgment constitutes precedent: Supreme Court | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-precedent.webp","datePublished":"2023-05-06T03:30:19+00:00","dateModified":"2023-05-10T04:26:41+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Supreme Court explained what constitutes precedent and reiterated the distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-precedent.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-precedent.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"supreme court precedent"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/06\/not-everything-said-in-a-judgment-constitutes-precedent-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Does everything said by a Judge while giving judgment constitute a precedent? Supreme Court explains"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-precedent.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":252414,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/09\/doctrine-of-precedent\/","url_meta":{"origin":291382,"position":0},"title":"Doctrine of Precedent","author":"Editor","date":"August 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Sunil\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-82.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-82.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-82.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-82.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-82.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":287420,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":291382,"position":1},"title":"[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud","author":"Simranjeet","date":"March 21, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court upheld Single judge's decision to set aside ICC Award of $562.5 million in favour of Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. for a failed satellite agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd., on the grounds of fraud and being in conflict with the public policy of India.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259850,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/11\/obiter-dictum-not-legally-binding-as-precedent\/","url_meta":{"origin":291382,"position":2},"title":"CESTAT | \u201dobiter dictum\u201d not legally binding as precedent; jurisdictional commissioner cautioned for filing frivolous applications","author":"Editor","date":"January 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) dismissed an appeal which was filed in response to the order passed by this Tribunal for rectification of mistake on the ground that the order to the extent of availment of service of outdoor catering was not\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":249421,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/08\/ori-hc-an-officer-who-substantially-holds-a-lower-post-merely-to-discharge-the-duties-of-a-higher-post-cannot-be-treated-as-a-promotion-only-eligible-for-a-charge-allowance\/","url_meta":{"origin":291382,"position":3},"title":"Ori HC |\u00a0An officer who substantially holds a lower post merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion; Only eligible for a \u2018charge allowance\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"June 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S K Sahoo and S Panda, JJ.,\u00a0 allowed the review petition and held the opposite party is entitled to get the Headmaster scale of pay from 01.10.2001 onwards i.e. the period in which he has been functioning as in-charge Headmaster in Sikshya Niketan\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":245539,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/14\/tale-of-two-judgments\/","url_meta":{"origin":291382,"position":4},"title":"In an interesting pursuit \u2015 Tale of two judgments","author":"Editor","date":"March 14, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Kajol A. Punjabi*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Supreme-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Supreme-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Supreme-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Supreme-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Supreme-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":242887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/27\/no-sexual-assault-if-no-skin-to-skin-contact-supreme-court-stays-bombay-high-courts-dangerous-precedent-on-pocso-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":291382,"position":5},"title":"No sexual assault if no ‘skin to skin’ contact? Supreme Court stays Bombay High Court’s “dangerous precedent” on POCSO Act","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Attorney General for India K. K. Venugopal brought to the Court\u2019s notice that the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has passed a judgment dated 19.01.2021 is likely to set \u201ca dangerous precedent\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=291382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291382\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/291422"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=291382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=291382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=291382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}