Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020

Posted on April 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that, without eligibility for the post of District Judge, petitioners (who are subordinate judiciary) cannot claim stake for the post/continue in the post reserved for Advocates (25%) and hence they have to be reverted to their earlier posts.

From Para 48,

48. In the case of Dheeraj Mor and others cases, time to time interim orders have been passed by this Court, and incumbents in judicial service were permitted to appear in the examination. Though later on, this Court vacated the said interim orders, by that time certain appointments had been made in some of the States and in some of the States results have been withheld by the High Court owing to complication which has arisen due to participation of the ineligible in-service candidates as against the post reserved for the practising advocates. In the cases where such in-service incumbents have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from bar as we find no merit in the petitions and due to dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the judicial officers, as sequel no fruits can be ripened on the basis of selection without eligibility, they cannot continue as District Judges. They have to be reverted to their original post. In case their right in channel for promotion had already been ripened, and their juniors have been promoted, the High Court has to consider their promotion in accordance with prevailing rules. However, they cannot claim any right on the basis of such an appointment obtained under interim order, which was subject to the outcome of the writ petition and they have to be reverted.

Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC OnLine SC 213]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10432983/ or
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e52c0a93321bc1e173f86fc or
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/dheeraj-mor-versus-hon%E2%80%99ble-high-court-of-delhi or
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/practising-advocates-experience-gained-at-bar-injects-judicial-branch-with-fresh-perspectives-sc-152952 or
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/02/19/members-of-subordinate-judiciary-cant-claim-direct-recruitment-to-the-district-judge-post-under-quota-meant-for-practicing-advocates/ or
https://www.barandbench.com/news/breaking-judicial-officers-cant-be-considered-for-direct-recruitment-as-district-judges-under-quota-for-bar-sc

Mangayarkarasi Vs M Yuvraj on 03 March 2020

Posted on April 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court said that, acquittal from a false criminal case…

From Para 15,

15. It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegation has been made and the husband and his family members are exposed to criminal litigation and ultimately if it is found that such allegation is unwarranted and without basis and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in such circumstance if a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the marriage on that ground.

Mangayakarasi Vs M Yuvraj on 03 March 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39962638/

Index of Divorce Judgments here.

Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr on 16 December 1988

Posted on April 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Writ Petition filed by one Kehar Singh who was accused and convicted for the consipracy and murder of Indira Gandhi on the following questions.

1. Whether there is justification for the view that when exercising his powers under Art. 72 the President is precluded from entering into the merits of a case decided finally by this Court.
2. To what areas does the power to scrutinise extend?
3. Whether judicial review extends to an examination of the order passed by the President under Art. 72 of the Constitution.
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an oral hearing from the President on his petition invoking the powers under Article 72.

Supreme Courts answers as,

We are of the view that it is open to the President in the exercise of the power vested in him by Art. 72 of the Constitution to scrutinise the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the court in regard to the guilt of, and sentence imposed on, the accused. In doing so, the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record. The judicial record remains intact, and undisturbed. The president acts in a wholly different plane from that in which the Court acted. He acts under a constitutional power, the nature of which is entirely different from the judicial power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it. And this is so, notwithstanding that the practical effect of the Presidential act is to remove the stigma of guilt from the accused or to remit the sentence imposed on him.

and…

It is apparent that the power under Art. 72 entitles the President to examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and to determine for himself whether the case is one deserving the grant of the relief falling within that power. We are of opinion that the President is entitled to go into the merits of the case notwithstanding that it has been judicially concluded by the consideration given to it by this Court.

Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr on 16 December 1988

Citations: [1988 SUPP SCR 3 1102], [1989 SCC 1 204], [1989 SCALE 1 242], [1988 SCR SUPL 3 1102], [1989 MPJR SC 10], [1989 CRLJ SC 941], [1989 CRILJ 941], [1988 SCALE 2 1565], [1988 SCR SUPP 3 1102], [1989 AIR SC 653], [1989 CRIMES SC 1 238], [1989 PLJR 23], [1989 SCC CRI 86], [1988 JT 4 693]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152284/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aac9e4b014971140afa4

Disclaimer:

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Posted on April 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice A.K.Sikri in a 2-judge bench had held that, for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman (who is not a legally wedded wife), is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

From Para 25,

25. Thus, while interpreting a statute the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule, first propounded in Heydon’s Case[11] which became the historical source of purposive interpretation. The court would also invoke the legal maxim construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Citations: [2014 SCJ 2 779], [2014 CRILJ 1076], [2014 SCC 1 188], [2013 SCALE 12 681], [2014 CRLJ SC 1076], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 764], [2013 CTC 6 86], [2014 AIR SC 256], [2014 NCC 1 238], [2013 RLW SC 4 3670], [2013 AIOL 3407], [2013 AD SC 11 9], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 830], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 946], [2014 JLJR SC 1 78], [2014 LW CRL 1 646], [2014 SCC CIV 1 51], [2013 JCC SC 4 2765], [2014 LW 2 936], [2013 ACR 3 3010], [2014 MPHT 2 499], [2014 GLH 1 273], [2013 KERLT 4 367], [2013 ALR 101 704], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 616], [2013 SLT 9 543], [2013 DMC 3 518], [2014 ECRN 1 241], [2014 AIR SC 869], [2013 JT 13 570], [2013 AIC 132 108]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15901386/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af37e4b0149711415daf

Earlier Chanmuniya judgment is here.

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016

Posted on April 3, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

3-Judge Full Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (as he was at Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court) declared the following reference in affirmative,

“Whether writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by Power of Attorney holder?”

Safeguards

Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following:
(1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application;
(2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and
(3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge.

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016

Earlier Reference Order

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 02 December 2015

Citations: [2016 AWC 2 1525], [2016 LCD 34 373], [2016 AIR ALL 52]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114640689/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5811a4a5e691cb26fc4d9447

Sarwan Singh Lamba and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 May 1995

Posted on March 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

Para 17,

Normally even an obiter dictum is expected to be obeyed and followed.

TruePrint Version

TP_1995_4_scc_546_561_sandeeppamarati_gmailcom_20200320_233725

Citations: [1995 JT 5 386], [1995 AIR SC 1729], [1995 SCALE 3 457], [1995 SCC 4 546], [1995 SCC L&S 1064], [1995 ATC 30 585], [1995 BLJR 2 1295], [1995 SUPP SCR 1 427], [1995 SLJ SC 3 72], [1995 UPLBEC 2 1215]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538878/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acc5e4b014971140fb0f

Landmark Judgment of Kusum Ingots is here.

Kishansing Tomar Vs Municipal Corp of Ahmedabad and Ors on 19 October 2006

Posted on March 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment, Supreme Court held that State Election Commission (SEC) is a Constitutional body and invariably, State Governments should support State Election Commissioner in conducting free and fair Local body elections. It also held that State Commission shall not put forward any excuse based on unreasonable grounds and not yield to situations created by vested interests to postpone elections. It is stated that except in exceptional circumstances of man-made calamities such as rioting or breakdown of law and order, or natural calamities, Election Commission would be justified in delaying the Election Process.

In this direction, it is necessary for all the State governments to recognize the significance of the State Election Commission, which is a constitutional body and it shall abide by the directions of the Commission in the same manner in which it follows the directions of the Election Commission of India during the elections for the Parliament and State Legislatures. In fact, in the domain of elections to the Panchayats and the Municipal bodies under the Part IX and Part IX A for the conduct of the elections to these bodies they enjoy the same status as the Election Commission of India.

From the reading of the said provisions it is clear that the powers of the State Election Commission in respect of conduct of elections is no less than that of the Election Commission of India in their respective domains. These powers are, of course, subject to the law made by Parliament or by State
Legislatures provided the same do not encroach upon the plenary powers of the said Election Commissions.
The State Election Commissions are to function independent of the concerned State Governments in the matter of their powers of superintendence, direction and control of all elections and preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats and Municipalities.

Article 243 K (3) also recognizes the independent status of the State Election Commission. It states that upon a request made in that behalf the Governor shall make available to the State Election Commission “such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the
State Election Commission by clause (1). It is accordingly to be noted that in the matter of the conduct of elections, the concerned government shall have to render full assistance and co-operation to the State Election Commission and respect the latter’s assessment of the needs in order to ensure that free and fair elections are conducted.

Also, for the independent and effective functioning of the State Election Commission, where it feels that it is not receiving the cooperation of the concerned State Government in discharging its constitutional obligation of holding the elections to the Panchayats or Municipalities within the time
mandated in the Constitution, it will be open to the State Election Commission to approach the High Courts, in the first instance, and thereafter the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ directing the concerned State Government to provide all necessary cooperation and assistance to the State Election Commission to enable the latter to fulfill the constitutional mandate.

Kishansing Tomar Vs Municipal Corp of Ahmedabad and Ors on 19 October 2006

Citations: [(2006) 8 SCC 352], [2006 (9) JT 320], [2006 SCR SUPP 7 454], [2007 AIR SC 269], [2006 SCALE 10 438], [2007 BOMCR SC 4 414], [2006 AIOL 715]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1736371/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae35e4b01497114132f5

Couple of election-related judgments here and here.

MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001

Posted on March 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held the scope of 205 CrPC in this judgment as,

Second is that it is difficult, in the absence of other materials, to decide positively whether the order dated 28.4.2000 is an interlocutory order only.
The interdict contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) is that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, cannot be decided by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at the interlocutory stage. The safe test laid down by this Court through a series of decisions is this: If the contention of the petitioner who moves the superior court in revision, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If it would,then the order is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage.

And

Section 251 is the commencing provision in Chapter XX of the Code which deals with trial of summons cases by magistrates. It enjoins on the court to ask the accused whether he pleads guilty when the accused appears or is brought before the magistrate. The appearance envisaged therein can either be by personal attendance of the accused or through his advocate. This can be understood from Section 205(1) of the Code which says that whenever a magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.
17. Thus, in appropriate cases the magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel. The magistrate is empowered to record the plea of the accused even when his counsel makes such plea on behalf of the accused in a case where the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with. Section 317 of the Code has to be viewed in the above perspective as it empowers the court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused (provided he is represented by a counsel in that case) even for proceeding with the further steps in the case. However, one precaution which the court should take in such a situation is that the said benefit need be granted only to an accused who gives an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, and that a counsel on his behalf would be present in court and that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. This precaution is necessary for the further progress of the proceedings including examination of the witnesses.

“18. A question could legitimately be asked – what might happen if the counsel engaged by the accused (whose personal appearance is dispensed with) does not appear or that the counsel does not co-operate in proceeding with the case? We may point out that the legislature has taken care for such eventualities. Section 205(2) says that the magistrate can in his discretion direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings. The last limb of Section 317(1) confers a discretion on the magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. He can even resort to other steps for enforcing such attendance.
“19. The position, therefore, bogs down to this: It is within the powers of a magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations to him, and the comparative advantage would be less. Such discretion need be exercised only in rare instances where due to the far distance at which the accused resides or carries on business or on account of any physical or other good reasons the magistrate feels that dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused would only be in the interests of justice. However, the magistrate who grants such benefit to the accused must take the precautions enumerated above, as a matter of course. We may reiterate that when an accused makes an application to a magistrate through his duly authorised counsel praying for affording the benefit of his personal presence being dispensed with the magistrate can consider all aspects and pass appropriate orders thereon before proceeding further.”

Ms Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs Ms Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001

Citations: [2001 INSC 399], [2001 KHC 0 714], [2001 AIR SC 3625], [2001 UC 2 370], [2001 AD SC 6 612], [2001 SCC 6 339], [2001 AWC SC 4 2981], [2001 CRI LJ 4250], [2001 JIC 2 685], [2001 MPLJ 3 664], [2001 SUPREME 6 339], [2001 AIR SC 0 3413], [2001 JCC 2 127], [2001 ACR SC 3 2297], [2001 KERLT 3 307], [2001 JT SC 7 127], [2001 SCC 7 401], [2001 CRIMES SC 4 199], [2002 PLJR 4 95], [2002 MAHLJ 1 81], [2002 BOMCR CRI SC 190], [2002 BOMCR SC 2 265], [2002 ALT CRI 1 13], [2001 RCR CRI 4 137], [2003 JLJ SC 1 56], [2001 SCALE 5 503], [2001 CRLJ 0 4250], [2001 S SCR 2 219], [2001 SCC CR 0 1254], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 4 137], [2001 DCR SC 602], [2001 OLR 2 613], [2002 LJ 1 161], [2001 CCR 0 208], [2001 SRJ 8 415], [2001 CRLR SC 0 481], [2001 SCC CRI 0 1254], [2001 CALCRILR 0 481], [2001 SLT 6 120], [2001 CCR 3 208], [2001 ALLMR CRI 0 1961], [2001 SCJ 3 176], [2002 BCR 2 265], [2002 MHLJ SC 1 81], [2001 ALD CRI 2 530], [2002 BCR CRI 0 190]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1255592/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad9ce4b0149711411db4

Ankit Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 March 2020

Posted on March 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A landmark judgment, where in Full-bench (5-Judge) of Allahabad High Court held that, Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in matters of 438 CrPC (Anticipatory Bail) and that there is no rule that first option at Sessions Court ought to be exhausted before seeking audience at High Court, but can be done so under Special circumstances only.

Ankit Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 March 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links:

Prakash Singh and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 22 September 2006

Posted on March 1, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark decision from Supreme Court, seed for the following Police Reforms in India were sown by the Ex-DGP Uttar Pradesh Shri Prakash Singh ji.

Police Complaints Authority
District Level Police Complaints Authority
State Security Commission

Prakash Singh and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 22 September 2006

Citations: [2006 JT 12 225], [2006 SCR SUPP 6 473], [2006 SCC CRI 3 417], [2006 SCALE 9 444], [2006 AIOL 639], [2006 SUPREME 8 470], [2006 SCC 8 1], [2011 SCC CRI 1 1023], [2006 KERLT 4 482], [2006 KLT 4 482]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1090328/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae2de4b0149711413181

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Landmark Case

Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020

Mangayarkarasi Vs M Yuvraj on 03 March 2020

Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr on 16 December 1988

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016

Sarwan Singh Lamba and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 May 1995

Kishansing Tomar Vs Municipal Corp of Ahmedabad and Ors on 19 October 2006

MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001

Ankit Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 March 2020

Prakash Singh and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 22 September 2006