Service Law

Apex Court is in favour of disclosing marks of Main Exam before conducting viva-voce in Judicial Services-13/12/2019

Pranav Verma & Others Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & anr-As regards the petitioners’ plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered opinion that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism.As the written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post.

fundamental rights

Supreme Court declared the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g).

The restriction upon such fundamental rights should be in consonance with the mandate under Article 19 (2) and (6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality.An order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017. Suspension can be utilized for temporary duration only.

Crimes

Indian Supreme Court on Murder Cases

Supreme Court opinions on Murder Cases before it ..Facts ..Trial.. Evidence.. Punishment.. Aggravated and Mitigating circumstance .. Conversion of Death sentence to Life sentence ..Appeal against conviction and acquittal ..Revision ..Writ..Review.. Curative petition.. Bail granted , rejected and cancelled..Constitutional challenge..Rarest of the rare doctrine ..Law and order cases..Political assassination .. Terror attack ..Murder with rape… Claim of Juvenility..

CIVIL

Supreme Court Constitutional Bench Judgments of 2019 which impacted History and Politics

There is a need-based requirement to conduct ‘Judicial Impact Assessment’ of all the Tribunals referable to the Finance Act, 2017 so as to analyse the ramifications of the changes in the framework of Tribunals as provided under the Finance Act, 2017. Thus, we find it appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus to the Ministry of Law and Justice to carry out such ‘Judicial Impact Assessment’ and submit the result of the findings before the competent legislative authority.

Government of India

YEAR-END REVIEW 2019 MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS: Govt of India

Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 – focus on granting Indian Citizenship to persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities on ground of religious persecution in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Marathon deliberations held by Union Home Minister with various stakeholders from North East and their concerns against the CAB 2019 addressed in the final Amendment Act.

Load more posts

RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2020

No. RS 1/1/2020-L. The following Order by the President dated the 15th January 2020, is published for general information :— “In exercise of the powers conferred upon me by clause (1) of Article 85 of the Constitution, I hereby summon the Rajya Sabha to meet at New Delhi on Friday, the 31st January 2020 at 11.00 A.M.

Sd/- PRESIDENT” .

Dr. P. P. K RAMACHARYULU, Secy.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS UPDATES

• Jasmeet Kaur Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr-12/12/ 2019 - It was evident from the conduct of the parties that they had abandoned their domicile of origin i.e. India, had set up their matrimonial home in the U.S. and raised their daughter in that environment. When the Petitioner - wife decided not to return to the U.S. in January, 2016 she acted in her self-interest, and not in the best interest of her children.
• Saeeda Khatoon Arshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr-10/12/2019 - A protest petition had not been filed by the appellant when the report was submitted under Section 173 did not render the court powerless to exercise its powers under Section 319 on the basis of the evidence which had emerged during the course of the trial.
• State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Sudarshana Chatterjee-10/12/2019 - Summoning of officers to the court-The High Court, in our view, was not right in directing the Principal Secretary to appear in the court and explain the reason for passing the order dated 04.01.2019. Observing that merely because an order has been passed by the officer, it does not warrant the personal presence of the officer in the Court and summoning of officers to the Court and eventually affect the public at large
• Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dafadar Kartar Singh & Anr- 9/12/2019 - Summary Court Martial-The judgments of acquittal may be reversed or otherwise disturbed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. Very substantial and compelling reasons exist when the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc.
• ONGC LTD. & ORS. Vs CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS- 09/12/2019 - Consumer- whether any amount is being paid by the employees for contribution to the services rendered by the Trust, it is apparent that the service, if any, is being rendered by the Trust and not by the ONGC. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the claimants and the ONGC.
• THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Vs PHULPARI KUMARI- 06/12/2019 - Departmental Inquiry : It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of ‘no evidence’. Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review.
• Station House Officer CBI/ACB/Bangalore vs. B.A. Srinivasan – 05/12/2019 - Sanction u/s Section 197 CrPC when not required- From a perusal of the case law referred to supra, it becomes clear that for the purpose of obtaining previous sanction from the appropriate Government under Section 197 CrPC, it is imperative that the alleged offence is committed in discharge of official duty by the accused.
• State of NCT of Delhi Vs Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors – 05/12/2019 - Order of Discharge-Sections 120B, 302, 201 r.w. S.34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act- In the present case, on account of the inconsistency in framing charges by the Sessions Court against the six accused, the trial has got truncated. The trial with respect to three accused i.e. Sachin Bansal, Narendra Mann, and the alleged contract killer – Joginder Singh Sodhi has proceeded in the absence of the other three accused viz. Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Shailendra Singh.
• Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr-05/12/2019 - Cancellation of Bail -Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.
• BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Sh. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Anr-05/12/2019 - Pension Denied: Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not entitled to pensionary benefits.
• STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. VS MANJU NAIK- 04/12/2019 - Statutory Interpretation:a particular provision of the statute should be construed with reference to other provisions of the same statute so as to construe the enactment as a whole. It would also be necessary to avoid an interpretation which will involve conflict with two provisions of the same statute and effort should be made for harmonious construction. In other words, the provision of a Rule cannot be used to defeat another Rule unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
• P.Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement – 4/12/2019 - The instant appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 15.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No.2718 of 2019 impugned herein is set aside; The appellant is ordered to be released on bail if he is not required in any other case, subject to executing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two sureties of the like sum produced to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge; The passport ordered to be deposited by this Court in the CBI case shall remain in deposit and the appellant shall not leave the country without specific orders to be passed by the learned Special Judge. The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation in the course of further investigation as and when required by the respondent. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to intimidate or influence the witnesses;
• BHAWNA BAI VS GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS- 03/12/2019 - For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen.
• P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Versus State of Kerala and Anr. – 29/11/2019 - Whether the contents of the memory card/pen­drive submitted to the Court alongwith the police report can be treated as “document” as such.
• JAI PRAKASH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  AND OTHERS-28/11/2019 - Murder Conviction-Sections 302 IPC and 120-B IPC-The duty of the appellate court is to consider and appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and arrive at an independent conclusion. Like the trial court, the appellate court also must be satisfied of its conclusion.
• THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS VS PRANJAL KUMAR SARMA & ORS 28/11/2019 - Selection process-the norms existing on the date when the process of selection begins, will control the selection and the alteration to the norms would not affect the ongoing process unless the new Rules are to be given retrospective effect.
• KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS B. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC- 26/11/2019 - Criminal-Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- whether Commissioner of City Municipal Council and Chief Officers of City Municipal Council can be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1974”).
• Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd-26/11/2019 - ARBITRATION-In exercise of the power conferred by Section 11(6) of the Act, we appoint Dr. Justice A.K. Sikri, former Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to decide all the disputes arising out of the Agreement dated 22.05.2017, between the parties, subject to the mandatory declaration made under the amended Section 12 of the Act with respect to independence and impartiality and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration within the period as per Section 29A of the Act.
• Chaitu Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-20/11/2019 - RAPE-The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention. In the present case, the accused appellant pounced upon the complainant victim, sat upon her and lifted her petticoat while the complainant victim protested against his advancements and wept.
• State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Killu @ Kailash and Ors- 19/11/2019 - MURDER: Merely because the other three accused persons i.e. the present respondents had not used their weapons does not absolve them of the responsibility andContinue Reading

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8