The Vohra Law Office Blog
Expert commentary on Indian law, case analysis, and legal guides
High Court Conducting Mini-Trial At Quashing Stage Exceeds Jurisdiction Under Section 482 CrPC : Supreme Court
The State of Karnataka filed appeals challenging the High Court's decision to quash six FIRs registered against police officers Prabhu Shankar and Niranjan Kumar C. under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders, holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial at the quashing stage instead of limiting its inquiry to whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence.
Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance Remains Alien To Environmental Jurisprudence : Supreme Court
Vanashakti filed writ petitions challenging the 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum that permitted ex post facto environmental clearance for projects violating prior EC requirement. The Supreme Court held the 2017 Notification valid as a narrowly tailored one-time measure but struck down the 2021 Office Memorandum as ultra vires for lacking a cut-off date and creating an open-ended regularisation regime.
NCSC Powers Are Recommendatory And Advisory Not Adjudicatory Under Article 338 : Supreme Court
Mumbai Port Authority challenged an order by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes directing payment of arrears to a demoted Scheduled Caste employee. The Supreme Court held that the NCSC exceeded its constitutional powers by issuing adjudicatory directions, as its role under Article 338 is limited to investigation, monitoring, and making recommendations to the Government, not passing binding orders.
Stamp Duty For Mining Leases Calculable On Anticipated Royalty Not Dead Rent : Supreme Court
Birla Corporation Limited challenged the Madhya Pradesh government's demand for Rs. 4,32,00,000 as stamp duty on a limestone mining lease, arguing it should be based on dead rent rather than anticipated royalty. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that for mining leases under Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act, stamp duty must be calculated on the anticipated royalty.
Fixation Of Cut-Off Marks By Selection Committee Without Authority In Rules Is Arbitrary : Supreme Court
Instructors in Government ITIs challenged Uttar Pradesh recruitment rules that downgraded a mandatory CITS certificate qualification to preferential status. The Supreme Court upheld estoppel against challenging rules when candidates participated without objection but found the Selection Committee acted arbitrarily by imposing cut-off marks not authorized under the Rules, resulting in unfilled vacancies despite eligible candidates being available.
TRAI Empowered To Issue Regulatory Directions But Cannot Adjudicate Disputes Between Service Providers : Supreme Court
TRAI issued directions and a show cause notice to an MSO for abruptly disconnecting cable television signals to LCOs. TDSAT held TRAI had no jurisdiction and the show cause notice was void. The Supreme Court set aside the TDSAT order and held that TRAI can issue directions for regulatory compliance but cannot adjudicate disputes between service providers.
Article 32 Maintainability Requires Fundamental Rights Violation Or Exceptional Circumstances; Mere Difficulty Not Sufficient : Supreme Court
The petitioner filed an Article 32 petition seeking quashing of multiple FIRs registered in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Odisha for alleged cyber fraud, or alternatively, their clubbing and consolidation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any fundamental rights violation or exceptional circumstances justifying direct invocation of Article 32, and that the FIRs relate to distinct transactions and cannot be clubbed.
Promotions Within Same Grade Pay In Cadre Hierarchy Must Be Counted For MACPS Entitlement : Supreme Court
A retired Railway Guard challenged the withdrawal of his MACPS benefits after the Railway Board issued clarifications counting his promotions within the Guard cadre. The Supreme Court held that promotions earned within a cadre carrying the same Grade Pay must be counted under Paragraph 8 of MACPS, and an employee who has traversed the promotional hierarchy to the terminal post has exhausted all financial upgradation slots.
No Liability Under Motor Vehicles Act When Causal Link Between Vehicle And Death Not Established : Supreme Court
Rajshri Agarwal and her children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Anand, alleging it occurred inside a vehicle driven by Dilip Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that mere involvement of a vehicle in circumstances leading to death is insufficient to attract liability under the Motor Vehicles Act without establishing a causal link between the vehicle and the death.
Right To Effective Legal Representation Is Fundamental To Fair Trial Even In Capital Cases : Supreme Court
Dr. Abdul Hameed was convicted for a 1996 Rajasthan bus bomb blast that killed 14 people. After 29 years of incarceration, he challenged his death sentence arguing inadequate legal representation and unreliable evidence. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction while acquitting several co-accused persons.
Victim's Deposition Recorded In Earlier Trial Against Co-Accused Is Admissible Against Absconding Accused Under Section 299 CrPC : Supreme Court
The State of West Bengal challenged a Calcutta High Court order that had rejected the admissibility of a deceased victim's deposition recorded during an earlier trial against the co-accused, in the subsequent trial of an absconding accused. The Supreme Court held that when an accused deliberately absconds, the victim's prior testimony can be admitted under Section 299 CrPC if the conditions precedent are satisfied, regardless of whether a formal order was passed before the deposition.
Mere Abusive Or Vulgar Language Does Not Satisfy Ingredients Of Obscenity Under Section 294(b) IPC : Supreme Court
The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC for assault and using abusive language during a land dispute altercation. The Supreme Court held that mere abusive or vulgar language does not constitute obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC, set aside the convictions under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, but maintained the conviction under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon.