Insights
A significant constitutional question has arisen before the Supreme Court of India concerning the personal courtroom appearance of a sitting Chief Minister in proceedings filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The controversy stems from West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally appearing and making submissions in her writ petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State.
In a significant ruling protecting the rights of students and employees, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed a crucial legal principle: degrees obtained from a university while it was legally recognized cannot be invalidated merely because the university was later declared defunct or unconstitutional.
In a significant reaffirmation of the evidentiary safeguards governing criminal trials, the Supreme Court recently clarified the scope and applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court held that a disclosure statement leading to recovery of material evidence is admissible only when made while the accused is in police custody. Any such disclosure made outside custody falls outside Section 27 and cannot be used to sustain conviction.
In a significant ruling underscoring the importance of procedural discipline and statutory limitation, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and lies entirely within the discretion of the Court.
In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional protections against misuse of criminal procedure, the Supreme Court held that the successive registration of FIRs merely to keep an accused in custody after grant of bail constitutes a clear abuse of the legal process. The ruling came in BINAY KUMAR SINGH & ANR. V. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS., where the Court also reiterated that it will not hesitate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 when a prima facie violation of fundamental rights is established.
In a significant order aimed at preserving the effective functioning of environmental adjudication in India, the Supreme Court recently permitted three Judicial Members of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to continue in office beyond their retirement dates as a temporary stopgap arrangement. The Court recognised that imminent vacancies in judicial positions could severely disrupt the Tribunal’s functioning across multiple locations and adversely impact litigants seeking environmental justice.
In a significant reaffirmation of personal liberty under criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail should not ordinarily be restricted to a fixed duration such as till the filing of a chargesheet. The ruling in Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another strengthens the principle that once granted, anticipatory bail generally continues unless special reasons justify limitation or cancellation.
In a significant ruling delivered on Wednesday 11 February, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal distinction between Central Government employees governed by statutory pension rules and employees covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court held that retired personnel of the Heavy Water Plant (HWP), Tuticorin, functioning under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), cannot claim gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act because they are Central Government servants governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
