Professional Documents
Culture Documents
May Judgments
May Judgments
OBITER DICTA-
The Court observed, “There remains no shadow of doubt that a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance
was not and is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and
generosity. It is a tangible right against the property, which flows from the spiritual relationship
between the husband and the wife. The said right was recognized and enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu
Law, which existed even before the passing of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 or the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Those Acts merely gave statutory backing recognizing the position as was
existing under the Shastric Hindu Law.”
1
(1977) 3 SCC 99.
2. Raghubar Singh & Ors vs Gulab Singh & Ors.2- In this case the observations made in
Tulasamma case were reiterated were the Court.
RELEVANT PROVISION-
The main issue before the Court was related to the application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 which states that-
“14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property-
(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property
acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or
arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her
marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner
whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the
commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or
under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award
where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a
restricted estate in such property.”
CASE: GURUKANWARPAL KIRPAL SINGH v. SURYA PRAKASAM & ORS. , 2022 SUPREME
COURT
PARTIES’ NAMES-
Petitioner- Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh
Respondent- Surya Prakasam & Ors.
BENCH-
Hon’ble Justices Indira Banerjee & C.T. Ravikumar
FACTS OF THE CASE-
A company called Ramkey issued tender inviting bids for recycling of plastics and complainant
Gurukanwarpal submitted his bid through his company called JK. Later, complainant lodged FIR
against the directors of the Ramkey Company under Sections 285, 406, 420 and 427 read with
Section 34 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 alleging that the accused sent some composite material
2
(1998) 6 SCC 314.
which contained injurious, hazardous and volatile sulfuric chemicals for recycling. The accused then
filed a petition before Bombay High Court for quashing of such FIR which was allowed by the
Hon’ble Court on the ground that on prima facie analysis of the allegations, the essential ingredients
necessary to constitute the offence are absent. Against High Court decision, a Special Leave Petition
was then filed by complainant Gurukanwarpal before Supreme Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision of quashing the FIR and held as
follows-
a) With respect to the offence of criminal breach of trust the Court upheld the observations made
by the High Court that Section 406 IPC is attracted only when the accused person had been
entrusted with the property and such property had dishonestly been misappropriated or
converted by him to his own use. The provision would also be attracted if the accused person
dishonestly used or disposed of such property in violation of any direction of law. Thus, for
application of Section 406, entrustment of property to accused is a sine qua non. Since, there
was no entrustment in the present case no charge under Section 406 is made out.
b) The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 416 and 420 of the IPC are
deception on the part of the accused or dishonest inducement by him, resulting in any person
delivering any property to such accused or alteration or destruction of whole or any part of
valuable security. In the present case, the court found these ingredients to be absent.
c) For offence of Section 285 IPC the accused must have done something with fire or any
combustible matter in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life. However, in the
present case, nothing shows that the accused did anything with fire or any combustible matter
as the act of recycling plastic waste or its supply cannot be said to be an act done with fire or
any combustible matter.
3
(2009) 14 SCC 696.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS-
In this case the charges were framed under Sections 406, 416, 420 and 285 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Section 405- Criminal breach of trust-
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property,
dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or
disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching
the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach
of trust”.
Section 406 prescribes its punishment.
Section 416- Cheating by personation-
A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by
knowingly substituting one person for or another, or representing that he or any other person is a
person other than he or such other person really is.
Section 420- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property-
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to
any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
Section 285- Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter-
Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger
human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently
omits to take such order with any fire or any combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to
guard against any probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
CASE: BUDHADEV KARMASKAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS., 2022 SUPREME COURT
PARTIES’ NAMES-
Appellant- Budhadev Karmaskar
Respondent- State of West Bengal and Ors.
BENCH-
Hon’ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna
FACTS OF THE CASE-
In 2010, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by appellant Budhadev Karmaskar against
his conviction for murdering a sex worker in a red light area in Kolkata by battering her head
repeatedly against the wall and the floor of a room. The Court on one hand dismissed his appeal and
on the other suo motu converted the case into a PIL in order to address the problems of sex
workers in the country. Pursuant to such conversion, a Panel was constituted by the Court with Mr.
Pradip Ghosh as the Chairman of the Panel, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior counsel, Usha Multipurpose
Co-operative Society through its President/Secretary, Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee
through its President/Secretary, and Roshni through Ms. Saima Hasan for making observations on
the condition of sex workers in the country. The terms of reference for the Panel for making
observations were-
a) Prevention of trafficking
b) Rehabilitation of sex workers who wish to leave sex work and
c) Conditions conducive for sex workers who wish to continue working as sex workers with
dignity which was eventually modified to conditions conducive to sex workers to live with
dignity in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The panel submitted its report in 2016, and the Court was informed by the Centre that draft
legislation is under consideration on the basis of the recommendations made by the Panel. Given
that, the drafting has not yet been completed by the Parliament, the Supreme Court in exercise of its
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution passed certain guidelines in this matter.
RATIO DECIDENDI-
Until now, the Hon’ble Court has passed following orders in the case-
1) The Court has directed all the States to provide dry rations to sex workers, who are identified
by National Aids Control Organization (NACO), without insisting on any proof of identity.
2) The Court has also directed the Government to issue sex workers voter IDs and ration cards.
3) The Court has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to issue Aadhaar
Cards to sex workers on the basis of a proforma certification submitted by a Gazetted Officer at
NACO or the Project Director of the State Aids Control Society. While doing so, the Court said,
“There shall be no breach of confidentiality in the process, including assignment of any code in
the Aadhaar enrolment numbers that identify the card holder as a sex worker.”
4) The Court has directed that the police should treat sex workers with dignity and should not
abuse them, verbally or physically.
5) The Court has also directed that media should not publish pictures or reveal their identity of sex
workers while reporting rescue operations and stated that the offence of voyeurism under
Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code should be enforced if media publishes the pictures of sex
workers with their clients. The Court has directed the Press Council of India to issue
appropriate guidelines in this regard.
The Court has also ordered the States and Unions to act in strict compliance with the following
recommendations made by the panel:
a) “Any sex worker who is a victim of sexual assault should be provided with all facilities available
to a survivor of sexual assault, including immediate medical assistance, in accordance with
Section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with "Guidelines and Protocols:
Medico-legal care for survivor/victims of sexual violence", Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare (March, 2014).
b) The State Governments may be directed to do a survey of all ITPA Protective Homes so that
cases of adult women, who are detained against their will, can be reviewed and processed for
release in a time-bound manner.
c) The police and other law enforcement agencies should be sensitised to the rights of sex workers
who also enjoy all basic human rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all
citizens. Police should treat all sex workers with dignity and should not abuse them, both
verbally and physically, subject them to violence or coerce them into any sexual activity.
d) Measures that sex workers employ for their health and safety (e.g., use of condoms, etc.) must
neither be construed as offences nor seen as evidence of commission of an offence.
e) The Central Government and the State Governments, through NLSA, SLSA & DLSA should carry
out workshops for educating the sex workers about their rights vis-a-vis the legality of sex
work, rights and obligations of the police and what is permitted/ prohibited under the law. Sex
workers can also be informed as to how they can get access to the judicial system to enforce
their rights and prevent unnecessary harassment at the hands of traffickers or police.”
OBITER DICTA-
While exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution the Court observed, “In a catena of
decisions of the Court, this power has been recognized and exercised, if need be, by issuing necessary
directions to fill the vacuum till such time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive
discharges its role.”
Reiterating the importance of dignified life which is guaranteed to every individual by virtue of
Article 21 irrespective of their profession, the Court also observed, “right to life goes beyond the
protection of limb or faculty to include the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along
with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and also the
right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the
human-self. Needless to say, this basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers
and their children, who, bearing the brunt of social stigma attached to their work, are removed to the
fringes of the society, deprived of their right to live with dignity and opportunities to provide the same
to their children.”
4
(1978) 1 SCC 248.
5
(1981) 1 SCC 608.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS-
The Court in the present case has issued directions in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution which enables the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is
necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. According to Article
142, “The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such
order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any
decree so passed order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such
manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that
behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.”
The Court has identified the right to live with dignity of sex workers under Article 21 of the
Constitution which states- “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty. except
according to procedure by law.”
PARTIES’ NAMES-
Appellant- Chandrapal
Respondent- State of Chhattisgarh
BENCH-
Hon’ble Justices Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud & Bela M. Trivedi
OBITER DICTA-
Since, in the present case, the entire prosecution case was based on the formation of chain of
circumstantial evidences the Court held that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should be’
established and not ‘may be’ established so that conclusion of guilt of accused can be drawn from
them for his conviction.
In the case, the prosecution gave evidence on the basis of last seen together theory, on which the
Court observed that, “in absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the accused
cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "Last seen together", even if version of the prosecution
witness in this regard is believed.”
6
(1973) 2 SCC 793.
7
(1984) 4 SCC 116
b) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused
c) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
d) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
e) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused
3. State of M.P. Through CBI & Ors. v. Paltan Mallah & Ors.8- in this case it was stated that, “an
extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a
corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the
extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there
cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused.”
Observations similar to that of Paltan Mallah case were made in Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of
Tamil Nadu9, Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab10, S.K. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal11 and Pancho
v. State of Haryana12.
RELEVANT PROVISION-
The Court in this case is concerned with relevancy of confession of accused against co-accused with
respect to which Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act states-
“when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by
one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take
into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who
makes such confession.”
8
(2005) 3 SCC 169.
9
(2012) 6 SCC 403.
10
(2012) 11 SCC 768.
11
(2011) 11 SCC 754.
12
(2011) 10 SCC 165.
CASE: NANJUNDAPPA & ANR. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 SUPREME COURT
PARTIES’ NAMES-
Appellant- Nanjundappa & Anr.
Respondent- The State of Karnataka
BENCH-
Hon’ble CJI N.V. Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli
RATIO DECIDENDI-
The Supreme Court acquitted both the accused and held that for conviction under Section 304A of
the Indian Penal Code prosecution must first prove negligence of the accused and then establish
direct nexus between his negligence and the death of the victim.
The Court observed that the allegations against accused were of technical nature and no proper
enquiry or inspection was conducted by any technical expert to identify the true cause and to check
the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint and also there was no eye witness to
conclusively proof that the accused were in fact executing the work at the place where accident
occurred.
The Court referring to its decision in Syad Akbar13 case held that doctrine of on the basis that
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case as its applicability in an
action for injury by negligence is well known.
13
1979 CriLJ 1374.
OBITER DICTA-
Making observations regarding application of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu when case is
based on circumstantial evidence, the Court stated, “In case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk
of jumping to conclusions in haste. While evaluating such evidence the jury should bear in mind that
inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference from the facts. That is why the doctrine does
not apply in such case.”
RELEVANT PROVISION
The case involves the conviction of accused persons under Section 304A of the IPC which states-
Causing death by negligence-
14
Ibid.
15
1972 CRI.L.J.511 (SC).
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to
culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
CASE: MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, 2022 SUPREME COURT
PARTIES’ NAMES-
Appellant- Manoj & Ors.
Respondent- State of Madhya Pradesh
BENCH-
Hon’ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela. M. Trivedi
RATIO DECIDENDI-
While commuting their death sentence to life imprisonment for a minimum term of 25 years, the
Court made observations regarding the role of the public prosecutor, and trial court, in arriving at
the truth of the case before deciding on conviction or acquittal of the accused person.
The Court held, “the role of the public prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated to conducting a fair trial,
and not for a ‘thirst to reach the case in conviction’”. The court observed that a public prosecutor
who is appointed under Section 24 CrPC occupies a statutory office of high regard, and rather than a
part of the investigating agency, they are instead, an independent statutory authority who serve as
officers to the court. Thus, he shall furnish the list of even those statements, documents, material
objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer.
The Court also held “the omission of some of the prosecution witnesses to mention a particular fact
which is deposed by other witnesses does not ipso facto favor an accused. What is important is
whether the omission to depose about a fact is so fundamental that the prosecution version becomes
shaky and incredulous and unless it is shown that the omission to examine a witness, who had
previously participated during the investigation and whose statement was recorded by the police,
undermines the prosecution case, or impacts on it significantly, the foundation of the fact or facts
which are sought to be proved, remains unshaken as long as that fact is deposed to or spoken about by
other witnesses, whose testimonies are to be seen in their own terms.”
OBITER DICTA-
Since, the case of prosecution was based testimony of chance witness, the Court observed, a chance
witness is one, who appears on the scene suddenly. Such witnesses have the habit of appearing
suddenly on the scene when something is happening and then of disappearing after noticing the
occurrence about which they are called later on to give evidence. The Court, thus, sounded a note of
caution about dealing with the testimony of chance witnesses.
In the case TIP was conducted and the Court observed, “A popular and widely used method of
accused identification, by witness, in criminal trials, is the identification parade. TIP procedures are
used, where witnesses who claim to have seen the accused at, or about the time of occurrence to
identify such accused from the midst of other individuals, who bear physical attributes similar to
them, without any aid or other source. TIPs are meant to test witness veracity and their capability
to identify unknown persons. TIPs should normally be conducted at the earliest possible time to
eliminate the chance of accused being shown to witnesses before the identification parade, which
might otherwise affect such witnesses’ memory.”
16
(2010) 6 SCC 1.
17
(2021) 10 SCC 598.
3. Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab18- In this case the Court held that, “the evidence of a chance
witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately explain
his presence at the place of occurrence.”
4. Malkhan Singh v. State of MP.19- it was held that there is no provision of law enabling an accused
to claim test identification parade as a matter of right.
CASE: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ANR., 2022 SUPREME COURT
PARTIES’ NAMES-
Petitioner- Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association & Anr.
Respondent- Union of India & Anr.
BENCH-
Hon’ble Justices K.M. Joseph & Hrishikesh Roy
RATIO DECIDENDI-
The Court while examining the power of judicial review and Article 32 and 226 of the Indian
Constitution along with Section 14 and 22 of the NGT Act held that, “nothing contained in the NGT
Act either impliedly or explicitly, ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227
18
(2009) 9 SCC 719.
19
(2003) 5 SCC 746.
and the power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act. The prerogative of
writ jurisdiction of High Courts is neither taken away nor it can be ousted, as without any doubt, it
is definitely a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The High Court’s exercise their
discretion in tandem with the law depending on the facts of each particular case.”
With respect to the second issue the Court observed that, with the low case load, if the NGT Benches
are set up in all 28 States and 8 union territories as is suggested by the petitioners, the judges and
other members in these forums might be left twiddling their thumbs.
On third issue, the Court held, “even when a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is provided by the Act
against the decision of a tribunal the remedy under Article 226 or 227 before the High Court remains
un-extinguished. Moreover, the Appeal under Section 22 of the Act is limited to the grounds under
Section 100 of the CPC and the Supreme Court does not function as a regular first appellate Court.
However, under Article 226 or 227, remedies on issues of jurisdiction and also under the principles set
out in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation20 are available for an
aggrieved party. Subject to discretion being exercised, the affected litigants can move High Court
under Article 226 or 227 and in such cases, a SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution could also be
maintained to the Supreme Court from the High Court’s verdict.” The Court, thus, stated with such
choices being available for a party no rational justification is found for striking down Section 22 of
the Act which provides for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
With respect to last issue, the Court held that, the operation of NGT is closely monitored by the
Supreme Court. It is further seen that the Union Government is to specify the ordinary place of
sitting of NGT and its territorial jurisdiction under Section 3 being mindful of the demand for
environment litigation within a particular territorial area. The Government is also guided by the
objects of the Act and also the directions given by the Supreme Court from time to time. Since, the
Government is acting according to the guidance of this Court, and the Government is obliged to
follow the objectives of the NGT Act, Section 3 of the NGT Act is therefore not a case of excessive
delegation of the Union Government.
20
[1948] 1 KB 223.
21
1995 SCC (1) 400.
2. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd22- in this case the implication of the Supreme Court
being conceived as the first appellate forum was considered and Centre was directed to do a
study on the effect of direct appeals to the Supreme Court and place the resultant report
before Parliament. But, the Supreme Court had no occasion to say that direct appeals to the
Supreme Court is constitutionally impermissible as n that issue is within the policy domain
of the legislative wing of the State.
RELEVANT PROVISION-
Since the case challenges the constitutionality of Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010,
the Section states-
Establishment of Tribunal. -The Central Government shall, by notification, establish, with effect
from such date as may be specified therein, a Tribunal to be known as the National Green Tribunal
to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on such Tribunal by or under this Act.
PARTIES’ NAMES-
Petitioner- SP Velumani
Respondent- Arappor Iyakkam & Ors.
BENCH-
CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli
22
( 2020) 6 SCC 1.
Corruption (DVAC) to submit within ten weeks, the final report/ charge sheet in corruption probe
against the minister. The Court also rejected his request stating that the law must be allowed to
take its own course and that in any case, the investigation has almost come to an end and the
charge-sheet or final report, if any, will be filed within next ten weeks. If any charges will be framed
on the basis of preliminary report after final submission then in accordance with Section 207 CrPC
the petitioner will be supplied a copy of the report. He then approached the Supreme Court filing a
SLP and challenging the said order of the Madras High Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI-
The three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the High Court has committed a patent error
in not taking the matter to its logical conclusion and directed the Madras High Court to spply the
copy of preliminary report to the petitioner along with other documents submitted with the report.
The Court further stated that, “the contention of the State may be appropriate under normal
circumstances wherein the accused is entitled to all the documents relied upon by the prosecution
after the Magistrate takes cognizance in terms of Section 207 of CrPC. However, this case is
easily distinguishable on its facts. Initiation of the FIR in the present case stems from the writ
proceedings before the High Court, wherein the State has opted to re-examine the issue in
contradiction of their own affidavit and the preliminary report submitted earlier before the High
Court stating that commission of cognizable offence had not been made out. It is in this background
we hold that the mandate of Section 207 of CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause
serious violation of the rights of the petitioner as well as to the principles of natural justice.”
The CJI while referring the matter as ‘regime revenge’ came down heavy on the Madras High Court
decision to not supply copy of preliminary report to the petitioner. The Court stressed on the
importance of Investigating Agencies to be fair without being influenced by the party in power. It
emphasized that prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the
right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It was further observed, when the initial PIL was filed in Madras High Court seeking investigation
against the petitioner, investigation was conducted by a police officer appointed in this behalf by
the Madras High Court and preliminary report was submitted which suggested no misdemeanor on
part of the petitioner. The report was then accepted by the vigilance department which stated that
no further action would be taken against petitioner as there was no material in allegations and it
was only for political vendetta. But, later when the government changed, FIR was filed against him
and when he applied to High Court for supply of copy his request was rejected without any real
reason.
OBITER DICTA-
On the actions of Madras High Court, the Supreme Court observed, “Without considering the
material before it, and by merely relying on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
State, the High Court has made sweeping observations. It was the High Court which had ordered
that a preliminary enquiry be conducted and a report be submitted by the special investigating
officer. However, once the enquiry was completed, the High Court failed to even peruse the said
report. Rather, the High Court left the decision completely in the hands of the State
Government. Such an approach, as adopted by the High Court in the present matter, cannot be
countenanced in law.”
RELEVANT PROVISION-
Right of accused under Section 207 of CrPC to obtain copy of police report and other documents is
referred in this case. Section 207 states-
In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall
without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub- section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the
prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which
a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub- section (6) of section
173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police
report under sub- section (5) of section 173:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in
clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy
of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be
furnished to the accused: Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document
referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy
thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in
Court.
CASE: VEERENDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, 2022 SUPREME COURT
PARTIES’ NAMES-
Appellant- Veerendra
Respondent- State of Madhya Pradesh
BENCH-
Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheswari and C.T. Ravikumar
RATIO DECIDENDI-
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of the accused and held that the Trial Court as
well as the High Court has failed to apply the ‘crime test’ and the ‘criminal test’ in awarding and
affirming death penalty of the accused. The Court held that is cases of death penalty, the statutory
requirement under Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. need to be fulfilled. Court stated, “the Trial Court did not
give proper attention to the tests enunciated and even though the brutal and heinous nature of the
crime is an aggravating circumstance, but the mitigating circumstances like, the appellant had no
criminal antecedents, he hails from a poor socio-economic background, his unblemished conduct
inside the jail, he was 25 years old at the time of offence, cannot be ignored.”
With respect to the relevancy of expert opinion of doctor under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence
Act and the post-mortem report the Supreme Court held that, the expert opinion of the doctors like
other evidence also requires proper appreciation and corroboration by the Courts. The Court held
though the opinion of the doctor with the post- mortem report is entitled to get great weight, it
cannot be taken out of the ambit of judicial scrutiny.
The Court further observed that, omission or delay in carrying out DNA profiling of accused under
Section 53A of CrPC is not fatal to shake the prosecution case in rape cum murder offences and
acquittal only on account of such a flaw or defect in the investigation will be prejudicial to the
interest of the case.
The Court also held that, the reason that witness is related to the deceased gives no justification to
court to discard the testimony of such witness. In this case the chance witness saw the accused
coming out from the place of occurrence. Court held his testimony to be res gestae and thus
relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS-
1. Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with examination of person accused of
rape by medical practitioner. It provides for a detailed examination according to Explanation
(a) to Section 53A Cr.P.C. of a person accused of an offence of rape or attempt to commit rape,
by a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or by a local
authority and in the absence of such a practitioner within the radius of 16 kilometers from the
place where the offence has been committed, by any other registered medical practitioner.
2. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the doctrine of res gestae. The essence of the
doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to
form part of the same transaction" that it becomes relevant by itself.
23
(2013) 5 SCC 546.
24
(2017) 4 SCC 393.
M.P. High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 433 OF 2012;
MAY 18, 2022
Issue:
1. The remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires
the Constitution of India.
2. It must be borne in mind that the operationalization of the NGT, including the location of its
Benches, was closely monitored by the Supreme Court. Therefore, Section 3 of the NGT Act is
not a case of excessive delegation.
3. The location of the Bench to the extent possible, should be convenient and accessible to
litigants of all three States. Here the respondents project that Bhopal is centrally located in
relation to Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, & Chhattisgarh.
Orbiter: Seat of the NGT benches can be located as per exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them
in every State.
Provisions: Section 3 of the NGT Act, Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 14 & 22 of
the NGT.
Judgement: Section 3 of the NGT Act is not a case of excessive delegation of power to the Central
Government. Section 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article
226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The remedy of direct appeal to
the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of India. It cannot be
seen as denial of access to justice to the litigants in the field of environmental law. The seat of the NGT
benches can be located as per Page 37 of 37 exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every
State. Prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur is unmerited and is rejected. The role of the NGT
was not simply adjudicatory, but it also had the equally vital role which is preventive, ameliorative, or of
the remedial category. The power of judicial review under Articles 226, 227, and 32 are part of the basic
structure of our constitution and the same is inviolable. Even when a direct appeal to the Supreme Court
is provided by a statute against the decision of a tribunal, the remedy under Article 226 or 227 before
the High Court remains unextinguished.
Manoj v. State of M.P. CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 248-250 OF 2015; May 20, 2022
Coram: Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi
Issue: Whether prosecution in all criminal cases should furnish list of statements, documents, material
objects & exhibits not relied upon by investigating officer.
Ratio: As per Draft Criminal Rules of Practice, 2021, the prosecution, in the interests of fairness, should
as a matter of rule, in all criminal trials, furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and
exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer.
Orbiter: The presiding officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with such rules.
Provisions: Section 24, Section 235(2) CrPC, Draft Criminal Rules of Practice, 2021, Circumstantial
evidence Circumstantial evidence.
Cases Referred:
Collection and Preservation of Evidence- DNA may be more useful for purposes of investigation but
not for raising any presumption of identity in a court of law.
1. R v Dohoney & Adams, Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of UP, District Attorney's Office for the Third
Judicial District v. Osborne, Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Evidence relating to footprints- evidence of an expert relating to presence of a footprint, at the best is
of a weak nature.
3. Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 et al, Hanumant v. The State
of Madhya Pradesh, Tufail v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra.
Capital punishment- Bachan Singh laid down the foundational principle of ‘rarest of rare
Judgement: The role of the public prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated to conducting a fair trial, and not
for a "thirst to reach the case in conviction”. A public prosecutor (appointed under Section 24 CrPC)
occupies a statutory office of high regard. Rather than a part of the investigating agency, they are
instead, an independent statutory authority who serve as officers to the court. The state, must, for an
offence carrying capital punishment at the appropriate stage, produce material which is preferably
collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of
the accused. Information regarding the accused's jail conduct and behaviour, work done (if any),
activities the accused has involved themselves in, and other related details should be called for in the
form of a report from the relevant jail authorities. Public opinion neither an objective circumstance
relating to crime, nor the criminal, and the courts must exercise judicial restraint and play a balancing
role. According to Section 235(2) CrPC, the sentencing hearing, is not confined merely to oral hearing
but intended to afford a real opportunity to the prosecution as well as the accused, to place on record
facts and material relating to various factors to show mitigating circumstances to impose a lesser
sentence or aggravating grounds to impose death penalty. Test identification parade should normally be
conducted at the earliest possible time to eliminate the chance of accused being shown to witnesses
before the identification parade, which might otherwise affect such witnesses' memory. The need to
ensure quality in the testing and eliminate the possibility of contamination of evidence, being an
opinion, the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to case.
Nanjundappa v. State of Karnataka CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2017; MAY 17, 2022
Issue: Whether 'res ipsa loquitur' under section 304A IPC stricto sensu apply.
Ratio: According to Section 304A IPC, doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a
criminal case. For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and
then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim.
Cases Reffered:
1. Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka- doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to
a criminal case as its applicability in an action for injury by negligence is well known.
2. S.L.Goswami Vs. State of M.P- the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always
upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused.
Judgement: In case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk of jumping to conclusions in haste. While
evaluating such evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt should be the only
reasonable inference from the facts. In the present case however, the conviction of the accused persons
seems wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence adduced. Perusal of the record reveals that
out of various witnesses arrayed by the prosecution, there are no eye witnesses. Any evidence brought
on record is merely circumstantial in nature. The Appellants therefore are entitled to be given the
benefit of doubt; more so, when there is no report of a technical expert to corroborate the prosecution
story.
Issue: Whether certificate U/Sec 65B(4) Evidence Act mandatory for production of electronic evidence.
Ratio: According to Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872, Certificate under Section 65B(4) is a
mandatory requirement for production of electronic evidence. Oral evidence in the place of such
certificate cannot possibly suffice.
Cases Referred:
1. Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR, Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, Earabhadrappa @
Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., Balwinder Singh @ Dalbir
Singh v. State of Punjab, Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. - Where a case rests squarely
on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.
2. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal- Oral evidence in the place of such
certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.
Judgement: Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be
justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is
drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with
the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India/Editors Guild of India v. Union of India WPC 682/2021
Ratio: According to Section 124A IPC, that deals with sedition, all pending trials, appeals and
proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance.
Orbiter: Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the
opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused. If any fresh case is registered under Section
124A IPC, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief.
Issue:
1. ‘Whether the consideration of domestic incident report is mandatory before initiating the
proceedings under the D.V. Act in order to invoke substantive provisions of Sections 18 to 20
and 22 of the said D.V. Act?’
2. ‘Whether it is mandatory for the aggrieved person to reside with those persons against whom
the allegations have been levelled’
3. ‘Whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and
the person against whom the relief is claimed’.
Ratio:
Issue 1- Domestic Incident Report received by a Magistrate from the Protection Officer or the service
provider as the case may be in which case, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to consider the report. But,
if no such report is received by the Magistrate then the Magistrate is naturally not to consider any such
Domestic Incident Report before passing any order on the application
Issue 2- It is held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with
those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief.
Issue 3- A subsisting domestic relationship encompass not only a subsisting domestic relationship in
presentia but also a past domestic relationship.
Cases Referred:
Interpretation of Section 2 DV Act.
1. Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another
2. V.D. Bhanot vs. Savita Bhanot
3. Krishna Bhattacharjee vs. Sarathi Choudhury and Another
4. Saraswathy vs. Babu
5. Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada
6. Ajay Kumar vs. Lata alias Sharuti and Others
7. Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja
8. S.R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra
9. Harbhajan Singh vs. Press Council of India
10. Smt. Bharati Naik vs. Shri Ravi Ramnath Halarnkar and Another
11. Vandhana vs. T. Srikanth and Krishnamachari
Relationship in the nature of marriage.
Issue: Whether duomatic principle in Company Law applicable even in Indian context.
Ratio: Duomatic Principle applicable even in the Indian context - Strict adherence to a statutory
requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated otherwise on facts, if the same is consented by
all members. Principle is only applicable in those cases wherein bona fide transactions are involved.
Provisions: Section 196 of Companies Act, 2013, Schedule V, Section 397 of Companies Act, 1956,
Section 10-F of Companies Act, 1956.
Cases Referred:
1. Salmon’s case- a company is bound in a matter intra vires by the unanimous agreement of its
members.
2. Bowthorpe Holdings Ltd. v. Hills- Fraud is a clear exception to application of these principles, be
it Duomatic Principle or Doctrine of Indoor Management.
3. Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad- A dispute as regards right of inheritance
between the parties is eminently a civil dispute and cannot be said to be a dispute as regards
oppression of minority shareholders by the majority shareholders and/or mismanagement.
1. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. Ramesh Chander Agarwal- the jurisdiction of the civil court is not
completely ousted by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Hanuman Prasad Bagri v. Bagress Cereals (P) Ltd. the same principle has been reiterated.
Judgement: According to Section 196 of Companies Act, 2013, Schedule V, no person shall be eligible to
be a whole-time Director of a Company after attaining the age of 70 years unless such appointment is
approved by a special resolution of the Company. According to Section 397 of Companies Act, 1956, an
order could be made on application made under sub-section (1), if the Court is of the opinion that (i) the
Company's affairs are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner
oppressive of any member or members, and; (ii) the facts would justify the making of a winding up order
on the ground that it was just and equitable that the Company should be wound up, and; (iii) the
winding up order would unfairly prejudice the Petitioners - An application for relief can be brought by
any member who complain that the 25 affairs of the Company are being conducted in a manner
prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or members. The intention of the
legislature is that majority shareholders who oppress the minority shareholders and conduct the affairs
of the company prejudicial to public interest may invoke the jurisdiction of CLB. According to Section 10-
F of Companies Act, 1956, re-appraisal of entire evidence by the High Court is not permissible. It has to
restrict its determination to the purported questions of law arising from the order of CLB.
Surendran v. State of Kerala CrA 1080 of 2019
Issue: Whether wife's dying declaration can be used to prove cruelty even if husband is acquitted of
charges relating to her death.
Ratio: In some circumstances, the evidence of a deceased wife with respect to cruelty could be
admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498A of the IPC under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act,
subject to meeting certain necessary pre-conditions.
Provisions: Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 306 of IPC.
Cases Referred:
1. Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa- If a statement which otherwise is covered by the hearsay
rule does not fall within the exceptions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be
relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused.
2. Inderpal v. State of MP, Bhairon Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Kantilal Martaji Pandor
v. State of Gujarat, Gananath Pattnaik case- once the Court has acquitted an accused of the
charge relating to the death of an individual, the evidence of the deceased would not be
admissible to prove the charge under Section 498A of the IPC simpliciter as then the case would
no longer relate to the death of the deceased.
3. Queen v. Bissorunjun Mookerjee- Section 32 of the Evidence Act refers to a statement made by
a deceased in a rape case which may be admitted under the section.
4. Lalji Dusadh v. King-Emperor- upheld the admissibility of statements made by the deceased in a
case concerning charges under Sections 302, 392 and 397 of the IPC.
5. Parmanand Ganga Prasad v. Emperor- mere fact that a charge of murder failed and was not
brought home to the accused would not make the statement inadmissible for the purposes of
other offences which were committed in the course of the same transaction.
6. Pakala Narayana Swami v. King-Emperor- The circumstances must be circumstances of the
transaction : general expressions indicating fear or suspicion whether of a particular individual
or otherwise and not directly releated to the occasion of the death will not be admissible.
7. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra- Court summarized the principles of Section
32(1) of the Evidence Act, including relating to “circumstances of the transaction”.
Judgement: The evidence of a deceased wife with respect to cruelty could be admissible: (1) That her
cause of death must come into question in the matter - For instance, matters where along with the
charge under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution has also charged the accused under Sections 302,
306 or 304B of the IPC - As long as the cause of her death has come into question, whether the charge
relating to death is proved or not is immaterial with respect to admissibility. (2) Prosecution will have to
show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also
relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death. The cause of death must come into question
in that case, regardless of the nature of the proceeding, and that the purpose for which such evidence is
being sought to be admitted should be a part of the 'circumstances of the transaction' relating to the
death. The evidence tendered by the related or interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground
alone.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India Miscellaneous Application No.709 Of 2022 In Writ Petition
(Civil) No.454 Of 2015
Coram: Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Issue: How many marks should be allocated to a counsel who has put in between ten to twenty
years of practice.
Ratio: For the Senior Advocate Designation, instead of ten marks to be allocated to a counsel who
has put in between ten to twenty years of practice, the marks be allocated commensurate with the
standing of the person at the Bar, that is to say, one mark each shall be allocated for every year of
practice between ten to twenty years.
Judgement: We, therefore, clarify the situation and direct that instead of ten marks to be allocated
to a counsel who has put in between ten to twenty years of practice, the marks be allocated
commensurate with the standing of the person at the Bar, that is to say, one mark each shall be
allocated for every year of practice between ten to twenty years. Prayer (c) made in the application
is, therefore granted. This modification shall be effective from the date of this order.
Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Civil Appeal Nos. 29352938 Of 2022
Issue: Whether the High Court can terminate the mandate of arbitrator in application under section
11(6) of arbitration act.
Ratio: A dispute/controversy on the mandate of the arbitrator being terminated on the ground
mentioned in section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be decided on an
application filed under section 11(6) of the Act.
Judgement: If the challenge to the arbitrator is made on any of the grounds mentioned in section 12 of
the Act, the party aggrieved has to submit an appropriate application before the Arbitral Tribunal itself.
Whenever there is a dispute and/or controversy that the mandate of the arbitrator is to be terminated
on the grounds mentioned in section 14(1)(a), such a controversy/dispute has to be raised before the
concerned "court" only and after the decision by the concerned "court" as defined under section 2(e) of
the Act, 1996 and ultimately it is held that the mandate of the arbitrator is terminated, thereafter, the
arbitrator is to be substituted accordingly, that too, according to the rules that were applicable to the
initial appointment of the arbitrator. The termination of the mandate of the arbitrator and/or
termination of the proceedings mentioned in other provisions like in section 15(1)(a) where he
withdraws from office for any reason; or (b) by or pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the dispute
need not be raised before the concerned court.
Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited And Anr. Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 38 Of 2020;
06.05.2022
Coram: Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana; Justices Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna
Ratio: Group of Companies doctrine needs a re-look at the doctrinal ingredients concerning the group of
companies doctrine.
1. Chloro Controls India Pvt. Limited v. Seven Trent Water Purification Inc., Cheran Properties Ltd.
v. Kasturi And Sons Ltd., Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Canara Bank, Reckitt Benckiser
(India) (P) Ltd. v. Reynders Label Printing (India) (P) Ltd. (2019) 7 SCC 62 and Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.- he inconsistencies that exist in
terms of the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court regarding the underlying basis for the
Group of Companies Doctrine.
2. Dow Chemical France, the Dow Chemical Company v. Isover Saint Gobain- doctrine originated
3. Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya- under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, that
causes of action cannot be bifurcated in an arbitration, and non parties to an arbitration
agreement cannot be included in the same arbitration.
4. Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi And Sons Ltd.- scope of the doctrine was expanded further.
5. Mahanagar TelephoneNigam Ltd. v. Canara Bank- group of companies doctrine can be utilized
to bind a third party to an arbitration, if a tight corporate group structure constituting a single
economic reality existed.
Judgement: It may be noted that the doctrine, as expounded, requires the joining of non-signatories
as 'parties in their own right'. This joinder is not premised on non-signatories 'claiming through or
under'. Such a joinder has the effect of obliterating the commercial reality, and the benefits of keeping
subsidiary companies distinct. Concepts like single economic entity are economic concepts difficult to be
enforced as principles of law.
Ms. P. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another Criminal Appeal No. 740 Of 2022 [Arising Out of
SLP (Crl.) No.3564 Of 2022]
Issue: Whether the High Court or Sessions Court have a wide discretion in deciding an application for
bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Ratio: High Court or Sessions Court have a wide discretion in deciding an application for bail under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. However, the said discretion must be exercised after due application of the judicial
mind and not in a routine manner.
Cases Referred:
1. Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Others and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and
Another- While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the
accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the
nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
2. Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Another- aspects relevant for consideration at the time of
granting bail, namely: (1) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment (2)
reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or complainant, and (3) prima facie
satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
3. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav And Another- same as Chaman Lal.
4. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee And Another- it is equally incumbent upon the High
Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic
principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point.
5. Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another- Liberty of a person accused of an offence would
depend upon the exigencies of the case.
6. Ash Moham mad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu And Another- The individual liberty is
restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law.
7. Dolat Ram And Others v. State of Haryana- bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner.
8. Prakash Kadam and Others v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Another- there is no absolute
rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of
misuse of the bail.
9. Ranjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others- same as Prakash Kadam.
10. Abdul Basit alias Raju And Others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary And Another- the concept of
setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is different from the concept of cancellation
of a bail.
11. Imran v. Mohammed Bhava and Another- once bail has been granted it would require
overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation.
Judgement: Circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439 (1) of the Cr.P.C. can be
cancelled discussed. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue
indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where
a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the
administration of criminal justice system…” Thus, while considering cancellation of bail already granted
by a lower court, would indeed require significant scrutiny at the instance of superior court, however,
bail when granted can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its
societal impact have not been considered by the lower court. In such instances, where bail is granted in
a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside.
Ratio: Policy of the Union Government on COVID-19 vaccination policy is reasonable and restricted
emergency use approvals had not been granted to COVISHIELD and COVAXIN in haste, without thorough
review of the relevant data.
Judgement: it is made clear that subject to the protection of privacy of individual subjects and to the
extent permissible by the 2019 Rules, the relevant data which is required to be published under the
statutory regime and the WHO Statement on Clinical Trials shall be made available to the public without
undue delay, with respect to the ongoing post-marketing trials of COVAXIN and COVISHIELD as well as
ongoing clinical trials or trials that may be conducted subsequently for approval of other COVID19
vaccines / vaccine candidates. Bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated. Judicial review of executive decisions based on expert
opinion - Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy
can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Courts cannot
take judicial notice of facts stated in a news item published in a newspaper. A statement of fact
contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence.
State of Bihar And Ors. v. Shyama Nandan Mishra Civil Appeal No 7364 of 2014 | 05 May 2022
Issue: Whether State can deviate from substantive legitimate expectation induced by it in the absence
of compelling public interest.
Ratio: Where the substantive legitimate expectation is not ultra vires the power of the authority and the
court is in a position to protect it, the State cannot be allowed to change course and belie the legitimate
expectation.
Cases Referred: Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi- validity of an order by
a statutory functionary must be judged by the reasons mentioned therein and supplementary reasons in
the shape of affidavits must be excluded.
Judgement: Abuse of power is one of the criteria for testing whether a public body could resile from a
prima facie legitimate expectation. If the government authority induced an expectation which was
substantive, the upsetting of that expectation, through departure from the expected course of action in
the absence of compelling public interest, would be so unfair, that it would amount to abuse of power.
Where the substantive legitimate expectation is not ultra vires the power of the authority and the court
is in a position to protect it, the State cannot be allowed to change course and belie the legitimate
expectation. Regularity, Predictability, Certainty and Fairness are necessary concomitants of
Government's action. Failure to keep commitment would permit the State's action to be interdicted.
The Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department And Ors. v. James Varghese And Ors. Civil
Appeal No. 6258 of 2014
Issue: Validity of Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998.
Ratio: The Act is liable to be held unconstitutional on the ground of encroachment upon the judicial
powers of the State. The Act has the effect of annulling the awards which have become “Rules of Court”,
is a transgression on the judicial functions of the State and therefore, violative of doctrine of “separation
of powers”.
Provisions: Arbitration Act, 1940, Entry 13 of List III of Seventh Schedule in Constitution of India, 1950,
Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998
Cases Referred:
1. G.C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa and MP Rural Road Development Authority And Anr. v. L.G.
Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors- Entry 13 of the Concurrent List deals with arbitration.
2. Mohan Rao and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu And Ors.- in cases of repugnancy between State and
Central Legislations, Central law would prevail under Article 254(1), however when State law
received assent of the President, it would prevail in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of
India.
3. State of West Bench v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors. - if the State is competent to legislate
on the subject, any incidental encroachment on any entry in List I would not affect the State
Legislation.
4. State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala- three-fold test of 'separation of powers' elucidated.
Judgement: Entry 13 of List III of Seventh Schedule in Constitution of India, 1950 provides that the
subject of arbitration is in the Concurrent List, the State can also make a law with regard to the same.
The only requirement is that to validate such a law, it is necessary to reserve the same for consideration
of the President of India and obtain his assent. When such an assent is obtained, the provisions of the
State Law or Act so enacted would prevail in the State concerned, notwithstanding its repugnancy with
an earlier Parliamentary enactment made on the subject. - The powers exercised by the court under the
provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 are judicial powers and that the power to make an award “Rule
of Court” is not a mechanical power. When the legislative competence of a State Legislature is
questioned on the ground that it encroaches upon the legislative competence of the Parliament, since
some entries are bound to be overlapping, in such a situation, the doctrine of pith and substance has to
be applied to determine as to which entry does a given piece of legislation relate to.