Explore : Judgments

Summary of Judgment  In this case the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment regarding the validity of certificates obtained by candidates belonging to reserved categories. The Court addressed the issue of whether certificates acquired after the date of application or the last submission date mentioned in the advertisement should be considered valid. The Court unequivocally stated that candidates applying under a reserved category must possess the relevant certificate on the date of their application to demonstrate their eligibility. Certificates obtained after the application or submission date cannot be deemed valid. This principle was particularly emphasized in cases where candidates apply under categories like Other Backward Class-Non Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) or Economically Weaker Section (EWS), as these categories are dynamic and subject to change based on the candidate’s economic status. The Court rejected the argument that certificates produced during the interview should be accepted as valid if there is no fixed date specified in the advertisement or if the Rules are silent on the matter. To support its position, the Court cited previous cases that stressed the importance of possessing the necessary certificates, degrees, or marksheets to establish eligibility qualifications. It also highlighted the need for producing certificates to avail of reservation benefits or weightage. Importantly, the Court observed that none of the appellants had raised the contention that they had applied on time, and any delay in obtaining certificates was due to the competent authorities. Additionally, the Court noted that the appellants did not provide the required affidavits as per the relevant circulars. In conclusion, the Court held that in the absence of a specified date in the advertisement and when the rules are silent, the last date fixed for submitting applications should be considered for scrutinizing candidates’ eligibility. The Court referred to previous judgments and firmly established

Summary of Judgment In this case, the Honorable Supreme Court of India rendered a significant judgment pertaining to the interpretation and application of land acquisition laws in the state of Uttarakhand. This decision, pronounced on  18 May, 2023, resolved a contentious dispute concerning the acquisition of land for public purposes and the compensation to be awarded to affected parties. The central issue in this case revolved around the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Uttarakhand Acquisition of Property by Government for Public Purposes Act, and the quantum of compensation payable to landowners whose lands were acquired. The Supreme Court meticulously examined the legislative intent and statutory provisions to arrive at its verdict. The Court observed that the acquisition of land for public purposes is a crucial aspect of governance, necessitating a harmonious balance between the needs of development and the protection of individual rights. It held that the impugned provisions of the Act, which provided for a lower rate of compensation than the prevailing market value, were violative of the fundamental right to property guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the Court underscored the importance of fair and just compensation for landowners whose lands are acquired. It held that the principle of ‘just and reasonable’ compensation must be adhered to, and the compensation awarded should be commensurate with the market value of the acquired land, considering factors such as location, potential use, and the livelihoods of affected individuals. In its ruling, the Supreme Court directed the State of Uttarakhand to revise its land acquisition policies in line with the principles enunciated in the judgment. It emphasized the need for transparency, public participation, and a comprehensive assessment of the social and economic impact of land acquisition projects. This judgment of the Supreme Court not only clarified the constitutional validity of the

  Summary of Judgment In this case the Supreme Court of India rendered a judgment regarding the rejection of the appellant’s bail application. The appellant was charged with offenses under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and had been held in custody for nearly three years. The impugned order pertained to the appellant’s second bail application, as the initial application had been denied earlier. The reason for rejecting the bail application was the fact that a co-accused, who had been released on bail, had not surrendered. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning to be flawed and not a justifiable ground to deny bail to the appellant. After careful consideration of the arguments put forth by both the appellant’s counsel and the State, the Supreme Court held that the failure of the co-accused to surrender should not be the sole determinant in refusing bail to the appellant. Thus, the impugned order was set aside, and the Court directed the High Court to reconsider the bail application in light of the case’s specific circumstances. Additionally, the Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the disposal of the case and render a decision on the application within a period of two months from the date of the order’s production. This judgment underscores the importance of individualized consideration when evaluating bail applications and establishes that the non-surrender of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for denying bail. The Supreme Court’s decision seeks to ensure fair and just treatment for the appellant, emphasizing that bail decisions should be based on the merits of each case and the particular circumstances surrounding it. The Court’s directive to the High Court to expedite the proceedings reflects the need for timely resolution of cases and the preservation of the appellant’s rights

  Summary of Judgment In this case the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment quashing the criminal case registered against the appellants. The appellants had challenged the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had dismissed their petition seeking the quashing of the FIR registered against them. The Supreme Court analyzed the facts presented in the impugned FIR and found that there were no allegations against the appellants of any conspiracy or connivance in the sale of the land. After a careful examination of the FIR and the facts of the case, the court held that no case was made out against the appellants. It concluded that allowing the trial to proceed would amount to an abuse of the court’s process, particularly when a civil suit challenging the sale deed had already been filed prior to the registration of the FIR. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal case registered against the appellants and all subsequent proceedings related to them. This summary provides a concise overview of the key aspects and outcome of the judgment while maintaining the style and tone of a lawyer. For a complete understanding of the case, it is advisable to refer to the full judgment. If you don’t see the Judgment please Login to Your Account or Create Your Free Account to View Full Judgments!

  Summary of the Judgment In this criminal appeal, the Union of India has challenged the order passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, allowing Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 21330 of 2022 and directing for the release of the respondent-accused on bail. The respondent-accused is alleged to be involved in Case No. 687/2021 arising out of Case No. 1/2021 under Sections 8/20/27-A/29/32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The main issue before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondent-accused, given that he was involved in an offence involving commercial quantity of narcotics, and whether the court had followed the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which lays down the conditions for granting bail in such cases. The Court observed that the respondent-accused had not participated in the investigation and had avoided his arrest for more than one year whereupon he was arrested from a restaurant in Raipur. The background facts of the case reveal that the respondent-accused is the kingpin and the organiser of the illicit trade in ganja. It was found that several cases were pending against him, and he had been involved in similar crimes in the past. The Court held that the High Court, in passing the impugned order of bail, had lost sight of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which provides that no person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless the twin conditions laid down therein are satisfied. Since the respondent-accused was involved in an offence involving commercial quantity of narcotics, the High Court was required to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely

  Grants bail to accused in Narcotics Case, emphasizes speedy trials and risks of Incarceration Summary of the Judgment In this case the Supreme Court of India directed the appellant to be enlarged on bail, subject to such conditions as the trial court may impose. The appeal was allowed in the above terms, with no costs. The court considered the deleterious effects of incarceration, particularly on those belonging to the weakest economic strata, such as immediate loss of livelihood, scattering of families, loss of family bonds, and alienation from society. They noted that imprisonment can also lead to the prisoner turning to crime, as “crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal.” The court emphasized the need for sensitivity to these aspects and speedy trials, especially in cases where special laws enact stringent provisions. They also recognized that in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable. The decision was based on Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for the release of a person who has undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offense, on their personal bond with or without sureties. The court considered the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-state, which argued against the appellant’s release on bail. Overall, the Supreme Court of India found that the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject to such conditions as the trial court may impose. The court considered the various orders and judgments cited in the case, and ultimately allowed the appeal. If you don’t see the Judgment please Login to Your Account or Create Your Free Account to View Full Judgments!

  High Court’s Bail Order for Accused in Land Dispute Murder Case Quashed by Supreme Court of India Summary of the Judgment In this criminal appeal the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment on March 28, 2023. The case involved Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 3082/2022, 201/2022, and 3078/2022, in which the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directed to release the accused on bail in connection with FIR being Case Crime No. 95/2021 for the offenses punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307, 302, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The present appeals were filed by the original informant/complainant, challenging the orders of the High Court releasing the accused on bail. The complainant contended that the High Court has materially erred in releasing the respondents-accused on bail, particularly when the offenses alleged were for the offenses under Section 302, which was a serious offense. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not properly appreciated the seriousness and gravity of the offenses committed by the accused. The Court noted that the land dispute between the father of the accused and the complainant side was the motive behind the offenses alleged in the FIR. The Court held that when the accused persons were facing trial under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, and other offenses of IPC, which could be said to be very serious offenses, the High Court ought to have given cogent reasons while releasing the accused on bail. The Court observed that the High Court had not given any independent reasons while releasing the respective accused on bail, except narrating the submissions made on behalf of the accused and the state. The Court held that the High Court failed to consider the seriousness and gravity of the offenses,

  Transparent and Merit-based Appointment process for Information Commissioners Summary of the Judgment In this case the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment. The case was a public interest litigation (PIL) that was filed by an NGO, seeking the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The main issue in the case was the appointment of Information Commissioners at the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs). The petitioner contended that the appointment process lacked transparency and was not in accordance with the RTI Act. The petitioner argued that the appointment process violated the principles of independence, impartiality, and expertise, which were essential for the functioning of the CIC and SICs. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, directed the Centre and States to strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act in the appointment process of Information Commissioners. The Court held that the appointment process must be transparent, objective, and based on the principle of merit. The Court further directed the Centre and States to make the appointment process public and to disclose the criteria for appointment. The Court also held that the search and selection committees must comprise of independent persons with impeccable integrity, and that the process of selection must be based on objective criteria. The Court emphasized that the search and selection committees must have a broad-based representation, and that civil society organizations must be included in the selection process. Furthermore, the Court directed the Centre and States to ensure that the tenure of Information Commissioners is not compromised in any manner, and that they are given adequate resources to carry out their functions effectively. The Court held that the CIC and SICs play a critical role in ensuring transparency and accountability in governance, and that their independence and impartiality