Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The appellants were deprived of their legitimate claim of admission against the UR-GS category due to an erroneous application of the methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation”.
The question of law which revolved around right of making representation being seriously jeopardized as detenus were supplied with various documents as parts of relied upon documents (‘RUDs’) which are illegible, incomplete and not readable violating Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 (3) of COFEPOSA Act, was kept open.
“It will be travesty of Justice if he has to be relegated to Trial Court again. Sisodia has been deprived of the right to speedy trial, which is a sacrosanct right”.
“Supreme Court said that it was constrained to take suo motu notice of the 17-07-2024 order as such orders intend to bring entire judicial machinery to disrepute and it also lowers dignity of the High Court as well and such observations were wholly unnecessary”
“The criteria for exclusion of the creamy layer from the SCs and STs for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes.”
The State of West Bengal had challenged the CBI’s action of registering Suo moto cases for offences that occurred within its territory without any direction from the competent court or prior consent by the State.
Last year, in October, the Allahabad High Court had acquitted Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher in the Nithari Killings matter and set aside their death sentences.
The State Government has been given exclusive power delegated by virtue of Section 22(1) of the NIA Act to constitute one or more Special Courts for trial of offences under any or all the enactments specified in the Schedule to the NIA Act
The Resolution dated 03-04-2024 was signed by two members of the Collegium as Justice B R Gavai was travelling out of Delhi. However, Justice Gavai verbally conveyed his agreement with the proposal.
In the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a body corporate was brought within the definition of ‘person’, indicating that the legislature realized the incongruity in the unamended provision and rectified the anomaly by including the word ‘company’ in the definition of ‘person’.
Justice BR Gavai explained that the power of judicial review is based on the basic principles of separation of power, being essential for a society governed by the rule of law, that every State organ has the power to act in its domain.
Supreme Court quashed and set aside the condition imposed by the Orissa High Court restricting involvement in political activities.
Supreme Court concluded that the instant matter was not one of ‘incorporation’ but a case of ‘reference’ and clarified that a general reference would not have the effect of incorporating arbitration clause.
“Dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the Court and the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.”
Supreme Court, while refusing to interfere with the acquittal order, also pointed out the fact that all 6 people had been acquitted twice by the different Benches of Bombay High Court.
The Court found glaring loopholes in the prosecution case regarding the preparation of the samples of the contraband and safe keeping of the samples.
A curative petition is a petition which requests the court to review its own decision even after a review petition is dismissed. It is considered as the last and final option available for redressal of grievances.
The Supreme Court opined that it is unjust on the part of Haryana Utilities to say that 70% of the installed capacity should be further bifurcated and the Change in Law benefit should be restricted only to 70% of the installed capacity.
Observing that performance of functions identical to those performed by medical practitioners by persons who do not possess the qualifications prescribed under the Central Act, could have dangerous consequences, the Supreme Court held that Rural Health Practitioners enlisted under the Assam Act, are underqualified to perform functions similar to those performed by medical practitioners registered in accordance with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Court, however, upheld the constitutionality of the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015 that was enacted to give continuity in service to the practitioners in question.
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and that the Madras High Court ‘could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.