0

Supreme Court Issues New Guidelines and Principles for Environmental Bodies

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union Of India And Ors.

Case no.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995

Decided on: 31.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Central Empowered Committee’s institutionalisation and reconstitution are the subject of the current writ petition. On May 9, 2002, this Court issued an order mandating the CEC’s formation. The CEC functioned as a body ad hoc.

In accordance with Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change subsequently published a Notification on September 5, 2023, creating the CEC as an ongoing entity.

The court stated that the CEC would continue to operate in accordance with any orders and directives that it may issue from time to time, even as it approved the Notification.

In Part I of the ruling in this case, the court described the CEC’s establishment, purpose, and institutionalisation. The court endeavoured to formulate new principles in Part II for the efficient oversight of diverse entities, establishments, and authorities instituted to safeguard our woodlands, fauna, surroundings, and ecosystem.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court directed the CEC to take the necessary actions to advance institutional accountability, efficiency, and transparency in its operations:

  • Guidelines for its operations and internal meetings will be developed by the CEC. Operating procedures outlining the responsibilities of the CEC Secretary and its members must be developed by the CEC.
  • The CEC must create guidelines for public meetings, publish agendas on its website in advance, maintain meeting minutes, and establish rules for notice to parties.
  • The CEC will create guidelines for site visits and may conduct public hearings with affected parties.
  • The CEC will establish guidelines for setting time limits for site visits and report preparation, as well as the method of preparation.
  • The court ordered that these guidelines/regulations be easily accessible to all. They will be made available through the CEC’s official website.

In order to effectively oversee the numerous organisations, committees, and authorities set up to safeguard our forests, wildlife, ecosystem, and environment, the court issued some guidelines. The following institutional characteristics must be present in the organisations, authorities, regulators, and executive offices charged with environmental duties:

  • Clarify the composition, qualifications, tenure, appointment, and removal procedures for these authorities. Furthermore, appointments must be made on a regular basis to ensure continuity, and these bodies must be staffed with individuals who possess the necessary knowledge, technical expertise, and specialisation to function efficiently.
  • Authorities and bodies require adequate funding and clear financial transparency.
  • Clearly define the mandate and roles of each authority and body to avoid overlap and duplication of work. Establish a method for constructive coordination among institutions.
  • It is imperative for authorities and bodies to publish rules, regulations, and guidelines on their website, preferably in regional languages. In place of office memos, the authority or body may issue comprehensive guidelines in a standardised format and notify those in place of having the authority to create rules or regulations.
  • These bodies must establish detailed rules and regulations, as well as procedures for granting permissions, consents, and approvals.
  • The bodies and authorities are required to announce procedures for public hearings, the decision-making process, the right of appeal prescription, and deadlines.
  • By outlining the precise division of tasks and responsibilities among their officers, these bodies must specify the accountability mechanism.
  • The way these authorities operate needs to be frequently and methodically audited

The court concluded by saying that it is the responsibility of constitutional courts to guarantee that these environmental bodies have the resources and strong infrastructure necessary to carry out their duties. The constitutional courts will supervise these organisations’ operations, making sure that the ecology and environment are not only preserved but also improved.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

0

A penalty of Rs 25 lakhs has been imposed on the complainant for employing ‘unscrupulous litigation tactics’: Supreme Court

Blog ,

Case Title: Dinesh Gupta v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Case No: S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022

Decided on: 11th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Facts of the Case

In the current scenario, the respondent lodged an FIR against, among others, the promoters of three companies, alleging forgery and cheating. According to the complainant, their company was persuaded to provide short-term loans to the accused companies. The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gautam Budh Nagar issued the summons. Disputing this, the accused individuals/appellants sought relief from the High Court, which, upon dismissal, led to the filing of the current appeal.

Issue

The central issue in this case involves the appeal against the summoning order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in response to an FIR filed by the respondent, alleging forgery and cheating in connection with short-term loans extended to the accused companies.

Legal Provision

As per the Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court strongly criticized a litigant for abusing the legal system by filing a false and frivolous complaint without disclosing essential facts. The Court rebuked the respondent for engaging in forum shopping and filing an FIR against the appellants despite the commercial nature of the dispute. Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, constituting a Division Bench, imposed a cost of ₹25 lakhs on the respondent, condemning such abuse of power.

The Court, expressing disdain for unscrupulous litigants, emphasized the need to prevent them from evading accountability. Addressing the issue of false jurisdiction, the Supreme Court pointed out that the FIR was registered in Noida, while the registered offices of the involved companies were in Delhi. The Court characterized this as a manipulative form of forum shopping, raising serious doubts about the complainant’s credibility.

The Court criticized the Trial Court’s order, stating that it lacked thoughtful consideration while taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused. It noted the complainant’s concealment of material facts and the fabrication of a false narrative of document forgery, attributing it to a criminal act. The Court recorded its disapproval, stating that the respondent had opted for criminal charges with a motive for personal vengeance rather than seeking genuine justice.

The Court highlighted the conversion of a civil matter into a criminal case, stressing that it not only burdens the criminal justice system but also violates principles of fairness and proper legal conduct. The Court expressed concern about the damage to trust in the legal system and the potential harmful precedent set by such misuse of criminal proceedings.

Additionally, the Court noted that a short-term loan given in 2010 remained unaddressed until the filing of the FIR after 8 years and 7 months. It opined that these circumstances revealed the malicious intentions of the complainant, deliberately causing substantial delay for opportune moments to initiate baseless litigation.

Concluding that it was a clear case of malicious prosecution, the Court dismissed the FIR against the appellants.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

0

Internal notations and in-principle approvals lack the power to confer vested rights, and a non-diligent litigant cannot invoke the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Blog ,

Case Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Hello Home Education Society

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3659-3660 of 2023

Decided on:  11th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Facts of the Case

The Hello Home Educational Society intended to establish a Junior High School in Jasola, New Delhi, backed by an Essentiality Certificate and Sponsorship Letter. However, due to an error, a recommendation incorrectly favored land allotment in Vasant Kunj. A complaint prompted a CBI inquiry, and despite receiving in-principle approval, no allotment took place. The DDA, invoking a policy change, insisted on auctioning educational plots.

The Single Judge, in response to the Society’s appeal, directed allotment, but the Division Bench upheld the policy change as non-retrospective. The Review Petition clarified certain aspects but maintained the essence of the main order. Appeals challenging these decisions, along with an interim stay, were filed, and as of now, no allotment has been granted.

The DDA filed appeals challenging the High Court’s judgment, which favored the Society as per the Single Judge’s decision. The challenge also extended to a Review Petition, where the main order was clarified regarding the substitution of ‘Jasola’ with ‘Vasant Kunj.’

Issue

The key issue in this case revolves around the erroneous recommendation for land allotment in Vasant Kunj instead of Jasola for the Hello Home Educational Society’s Junior High School, leading to legal disputes and challenges.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court has reiterated that simply having internal notations in a departmental file and in-principle approvals do not grant a vested right. In an appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the Court upheld the denial of land allotment to a society aiming to establish a school in Vasant Kunj.

The Court underscored the necessity for the State to transfer land through public auction or tender invitation, as per the 2006 amendment to the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (Act).

Highlighting that the society was ineligible under the original rules due to the absence of a required sponsorship letter, the Bench, consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal, remarked that “unless the decision recorded in the file is transformed into a final order for communication and proper service to the concerned party, no rights are vested in that party. Mere notations and in-principle approvals do not bestow a vested right.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the relief granted to the society was in serious error.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

0

The supreme court issues new guidelines for the bail application procedure.

Blog, blog , , , , ,

Case title: Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2024

Decided on: 19.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal is for bail for the accused, who has been in custody in connection with exclusive and conscious possession of the substance of Ganja.

Application for release on bail pending trial was denied. The appellant filed his first bail application in the High Court after being dissatisfied with  rejection his bail application. However, the appellant’s bail application was dismissed in high court.

The appellant filed the SLP before this Court, expressing his dissatisfaction with the situation. On 06.12.2023, the appellant’s counsel stated that while the current matter was pending before this Court, the High Court granted bail to the appellant in another bench of the high court by order dated 11.10.2023.

He presented with a soft copy of the High Court’s order. On a reading of the aforementioned order, the Court found that it made no mention of the appellant’s second bail application or the SLP’s pending before this Court, for which notice had already been issued.

The appellant filed a second bail application, in which he was granted bail by the High Court via an order dated 11.10.2023. The Court received the original record of this bail application, along with a report dated 08.12.2023 from the High Court and a note from the Hon’ble Judge who heard the case and issued the order on 11.10.2023.

The judge who granted the bail stated in his comments that at the time of hearing the second bail application, the court was not aware of the factum of the SLP’s pending before this court.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court noted that the appellant made no mention of the High Court’s decision on his earlier bail application, as well as the filing of the SLP in this Court. Though, just below the names of the parties, the appellant mentioned the number of his previous bail application. The appellant has notably refrained from discussing the High Court’s decision to reject his previous bail application and his filing of the SLP with this Court, even within the body of the bail application.

During the course of this case, a new bail application was filed not only before the Trial Court but also before the High Court. The appellant was even granted bail by the High Court.

The appellant did not specify that this was his second bail application in the one he filed with the High Court.

The court has established the following mandatory guidelines in an effort to streamline the proceedings, prevent anomalies with regard to bail applications filed in cases pending trial and even for sentence suspension, and to clear up any confusion going forward:

  • Information about the case and copies of the orders issued in the petitioner’s prior, already-decided bail application(s).
  • Information regarding any bail application(s) that the petitioner has filed, which are pending in any court either the court below the one in question or the higher court or, in the event that none are pending, express notice to that effect.
  • A report generated by the system regarding the approved or pending bail application(s) in the relevant criminal case should also be annexed by the court registry. Even in the case of private complaints, the same procedure must be followed because, even in the absence of a FIR number, every case filed in trial courts is given a unique number (CNR No.).
  • The Investigating Officer and any other officers supporting the State Counsel in court should be responsible for informing the State Counsel of any orders, if any, issued by the court regarding various bail applications or other proceedings related to the same criminal case. Additionally, the solicitors representing the parties must behave themselves genuinely as court officers.

The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant’s bail was not cancelled. The court ordered a cost of ₹10,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the Orissa High Court.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

0

Former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s Plea Results in Split Supreme Court Verdict, Judges Differ on the Applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Blog , ,

Case Title: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v.  State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 

Case No: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.12289 of 2023

Decided on: 16th  January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI 

Facts of the Case

Nara Chandrababu Naidu, president of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, was arrested in connection with a skill development scam. The state crime investigation department claims evidence of his involvement in embezzling around Rs 371 crore from the Andhra Pradesh Skill Development Corporation during the TDP’s rule from 2014 to 2019. Naidu is the 37th accused in a 2021 FIR related to the multi-crore scam. He was arrested on September 9 and remains in custody, with his judicial remand extended until October 5. The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed Naidu’s plea to quash the FIR in September 2023, stating that prior sanction for investigation was not necessary as the alleged misuse of public funds for personal gain did not constitute an official duty. Naidu has challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court.

Issue

The main issue revolves around the retrospective application and interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the case of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court has referred the plea of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, seeking to quash an FIR in the skill development scam case, to a larger bench. Naidu was arrested in connection with the case by the state crime investigation department (CID) and remained in custody until interim medical bail was granted. The bench, comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi, issued separate judgments. Justice Bose emphasized the need for prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stating that Naidu could not be prosecuted without such approval. However, Justice Trivedi disagreed, arguing that Section 17A should not be applied retrospectively.

In the dispute over Section 17A, Justice Trivedi asserted that the provision’s protection should not extend to acts outside the official duties of a public servant. She dismissed Naidu’s appeal, stating that the absence of prior approval should not be a ground for quashing the FIR or ongoing proceedings, especially when additional charges under the Indian Penal Code are involved. Due to the divergence in interpretation, the matter will be referred to a larger bench. Meanwhile, Naidu’s plea for anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case is pending, and the Supreme Court directed him to refrain from discussing sub judice matters in the public domain during the state government’s challenge to his regular bail in the skill development scam case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

1 … 91 92 93 94 95 … 1,687