
Supreme Court issues notice in former IPS Sanjiv Bhatt’s appeal against conviction in 1990 custodial death case
The victim’s family alleged that was in police custody for nine days but after being released on bail, he had died of renal failure.
The victim’s family alleged that was in police custody for nine days but after being released on bail, he had died of renal failure.
In the matter at hand, the Division Bench of High Court upheld a detention order, which was quashed by a coordinate Bench of the same High Court, based on same grounds and material relied.
The Court emphasised that every State organ, and particularly the wings of the Government associated with environment protection, such as the CECB, must be even more diligent in ensuring timely compliance with the directions of the NGT.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on suit for specific performance, dating back to the year 1953.
The victim was allegedly gangraped by Narain and other co-accused persons when she approached them for a job.
Hailing from Kangra district’s Garli, the first heritage village of India, Justice Sanjay Karol served his parent High Court of Himachal Pradesh as Acting Chief Justice and High Courts of Tripura and Patna as Chief Justice before his elevation as a Supreme Court Judge on 06-02-2023.
by Aditya Mukherjee* and Jayati Sinha**
In the earlier order, the Supreme Court directed CBI to file a status report on the progress in the investigation of the crime at RG Kar Medical College Hospital on 22-08-2024. The State of West Bengal was also directed to file a status report by 22-08-2024 on the progress of the investigation on the acts of vandalism which took place at the Hospital in the aftermath of the incident.
Supreme Court said that the reservation for the Persons with disabilities has been treated as Horizontal Reservation i.e. the reservation under Clause (1) of Article 16, and not the Vertical reservation i.e. the reservation under Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court took serious note of distortions in the chargesheet vis-a-vis attributing certain statements to the protected witness, which he did not make, stating that NIA owes an explanation, and the investigating machinery must be fair.
“In the event, the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the main examination conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination in terms of this order, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts.”- Supreme Court’s direction
“The applications before the High Court, seeking permission to travel abroad shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously.”
The High Court advised the female adolescent, to control sexual urge/urges as in the eyes of society she is the looser when she gives in to enjoying the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes.
Supreme Court said that as more and more women join the work force, the nation cannot wait for another rape for things to change on the ground.
Supreme Court clarified that if there is any attempt by the parties to obstruct the revenue authorities or the local police from complying with our directions, suitable action will be taken against them.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on related eyewitness, dating back to the year 1953.
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.
The newly designated Senior Advocates have been designated with effect from 14-08-2024.
Justice PV Sanjay Kumar is a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India. He has formerly served as the Chief Justice of Manipur High Court and as Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as Andhra Pradesh High Court.
On 25-07-2024, the Supreme Court in 8:1 majority held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna gave a dissenting opinion.