#SupremeCourt Archives

15 Nov

The Supreme Court decision on the appellant finding guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149.

Blog #Challenge, #JUSTICE, #law, #seekingjustice, #SupremeCourt

The Supreme Court decision on the appellant finding guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149.

Title : BALARAM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Case no. : C .A No. 2300/2009

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Chandrachud

Date : 8 Nov 2023

Introduction

This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.276 of 1995 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant as well as Rameshwar (since deceased) and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge and Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind passed in Sessions Trial No.70 of 1984.

Fact of the Case

The prosecution case that Rameshwar (since deceased), appellant-Balaram, Uma Charan and Munna had come there after ten minutes of stopping of the cart, accused-Rameshwar fired the first shot and it hit Ashok in his chest. Thereafter, another shot was fired by accused Uma Charan, which hit Ashok as a result of firing, Ashok had become unconscious and was brought to Mau on cart. Pannalal reported the in the arms and thereafter, the third shot was fired which hit Ramkali (PW.5) in her right thigh. incident to the police based on which an FIR came to be lodged initially for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). Following the death of Ashok, the case was converted to one under Section 302 of the IPC.

Judgment and Analysis

Shri Chandrachud submits that, on the basis of evidence, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted four accused persons. He further submits that, though the evidence of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand has specifically attributed a gunshot to Uma Charan, their evidence has been disbelieved insofar as Uma Charan is concerned. However, on the basis of the very same evidence, the appellant-Balaram has been convicted. It is submitted that, from the testimony of the other witnesses it would be clear that the appellant-Balaram was not even present at the spot and he has been falsely implicated.

The order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Special Judge and Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind and the order of the High Court are quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges charged with. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other 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 Nimisha Sunny

14 Nov

Merely Because Some Of The Witnesses Are Interested Or Inimical Witnesses, Their Evidence Cannot Be Totally Discarded: Supreme Court Of India

Prime Legal

Blog #law, #Legal News, #Report, #SupremeCourt

Title: Madan v State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1790 Of 2017

Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai

Decided On: November 09, 2023.

Introduction:

These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 22nd February 2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Capital Case Nos. 3359 and 3520 of 2015 with Reference No. 9 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No. 3519 of 2015, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by appellant Madan and another accused Ishwar; whereas, it allowed in part, the appeal filed by appellant Sudesh Pal. By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31st July 2015 passed by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 09/2005 with Sessions Case No. 838 of 2005 and 10/2005, in respect of appellant – Madan, while commuting the sentence of capital punishment to life imprisonment in respect of appellant – Sudesh Pal.

Facts:

The incident took place at 5.30 PM and the FIR came to be registered on the same day at 7.40 PM. According to the FIR, Smt. Vimla Devi, who was the mother of Ram Kishan, cousin of Lokendra (PW-1), was a candidate in the election for Gram Pradhan; whereas the wife of one Arshad was the opposing candidate. On the one hand, Lokendra (PW-1) supported the candidature of Vimla Devi; whereas, the family of appellant Madan and Ram Bhajan supported the candidature of the wife of Arshad. When Vimla Devi came to be elected as Gram Pradhan along with Lokendra (PW-1), who also came to be elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat, appellant Madan and his family members bore a grudge with Lokendra (PW-1) and others on account of the feeling of jealousy.

The FIR states that on 14th October 2003, at about 5.30 PM, when Satendra, the real brother of Lokendra, his nephew Sunil, cousin Ram Kishan s, Sukhpal Singh and his father Jai Singh were going to the house. and had reached the house of Rashid s/o Mustafa, appellant Madan along with Rajveer, Ram Bhajan, Ramveer, and Kanwar Pal who were the sons of Ishwar along with Ishwar himself, who was the brother-in-law (sala) of appellant Madan, also known as Pahalwan, appellant Sudesh Pal, who was the real brother-in-law (sadu) of appellant Madan along with Neetu, who was the nephew of appellant Madan, armed with licensed guns, rifles and country-made pistols came from behind and started firing indiscriminately. As a result of the said firing, Satendra and Sunil fell down on ‘Khadanja’.

Rizwan, Rihan and Masooq Ali succumbed to their injuries and died on the way and their bodies were accordingly kept in their houses. Lokendram1) also reached the place of the incident and witnessed the incident with his own eyes and requested to register the report and take legal action.

Court’s Judgement and Analysis:

It can thus be seen that merely because some of the witnesses are interested or inimical witnesses, their evidence cannot be totally discarded. The only requirement is that their evidence has to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. In the present case, both the High Court and the trial court have meticulously scrutinized the evidence and found the testimony of the eye witnesses trustworthy and reliable. Court found that merely because there are certain inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded.

Court found that the present case is not a case wherein it can be held that imposition of death penalty is the only alternative. The evidence of witnesses would show that the role attributed is that all the accused persons including both the appellants herein had fired shots and indiscriminately indulged in the said firing.

The trial court imposed capital sentence on appellants Madan and Sudesh Pal. However, insofar as accused Ishwar is concerned, though the evidence against him is on similar lines, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court, on the basis of the same evidence, though confirmed the death penalty insofar as appellant Madan is concerned, partly allowed the appeal of Sudesh Pal and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

11 Nov

Caste-Based Reservations and Affirmative Action: A Legal Outlook

Prime Legal

Articles # Caste, #law, #reservation, #SupremeCourt

Abstract

Caste-based reservations and affirmative action policies have been pivotal in addressing historical social inequalities in countries like India. This article provides a legal overview of the topic, focusing on the Indian context as a case study. Examining the constitutional framework, landmark Supreme Court judgments, and ongoing debates, the article explores the delicate balance between rectifying historical injustices and promoting meritocracy. As reservations evolve to include economic criteria and confront intersectionality, the legal landscape continues to shape the contours of affirmative action, necessitating ongoing dialogue and nuanced perspectives.

Introduction:

Caste-based reservations and affirmative action policies have been the subject of significant legal discourse and societal debate in many countries, particularly in the context of addressing historical social inequalities. This brief legal article aims to provide an overview of the legal aspects surrounding caste-based reservations and affirmative action. Caste-based reservations and affirmative action are social policies aimed at addressing historical inequalities and promoting inclusivity. Particularly prominent in countries like India, these measures involve preferential treatment for historically marginalized communities. Rooted in constitutional frameworks, the legal aspects surrounding these policies play a crucial role in shaping social dynamics and opportunities. This brief explores the legal landscape and societal implications of caste-based reservations and affirmative action.

Legal Framework in India:

In India, the Constitution provides for affirmative action measures through various provisions, most notably Articles 15(4) and 16(4), which empower the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. The concept of reservations was initially introduced to uplift the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) who had historically faced social discrimination.

Over time, the scope of reservations expanded to include Other Backward Classes (OBCs) as well, as per the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. However, the implementation of reservations has faced legal challenges, with arguments centred around issues of equality, meritocracy, and the perpetuation of caste-based identities[1].

Legal Challenges and Supreme Court Judgments:

The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the contours of caste-based reservations. Several landmark judgments have addressed the constitutional validity of reservation policies. In the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservations but imposed a cap of 50%, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of the reserved and unreserved categories.

The ‘creamy layer’ concept, introduced through subsequent judgments, aimed to exclude economically advanced individuals within reserved categories from the benefits of reservations, addressing concerns related to perpetuating social and economic disparities. The Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50%.[2]

The Indian judiciary has significantly influenced the landscape of caste-based reservations through landmark judgments. In the pivotal case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional validity of reservations while imposing a crucial limitation by capping it at 50%. This cap underscored the Court’s emphasis on striking a balance between the interests of reserved and unreserved categories.[3]

Subsequent judgments introduced the innovative ‘creamy layer’ concept, a mechanism designed to exclude economically affluent individuals within reserved categories from reservation benefits. This concept directly addresses concerns about perpetuating social and economic disparities within these communities. As a result, the judiciary has played a key role in refining reservation policies, ensuring they align with constitutional principles and promote a more equitable distribution of opportunities.

Ongoing Debates and Emerging Challenges:

While caste-based reservations have undoubtedly contributed to social upliftment, ongoing debates focus on the need for a more nuanced and dynamic approach. Critics argue that a static reservation system may perpetuate caste identities and hinder merit-based selection processes. Proponents, on the other hand, emphasize the historical injustices faced by certain communities and the continuing need for affirmative action.

The emergence of new challenges, such as intersectionality and the inclusion of economically backward sections, adds complexity to the debate. Striking a balance between rectifying historical injustices and promoting a meritocratic society remains a persistent challenge for policymakers and the judiciary. In the realm of caste-based reservations, the undeniable positive impact on social upliftment is countered by ongoing debates calling for a more nuanced and dynamic approach. Critics argue that a static reservation system risk perpetuating caste identities and potentially hindering merit-based selection processes. On the opposing side, proponents underscore the historical injustices faced by specific communities, asserting the ongoing necessity for affirmative action.

Adding complexity to the discourse are emerging challenges, such as the consideration of intersectionality and the inclusion of economically backward sections within the reservation framework. Achieving a delicate equilibrium between rectifying historical injustices and fostering a meritocratic society stands as a persistent challenge for both policymakers and the judiciary. As the dialogue unfolds, the need for a comprehensive and adaptable approach to affirmative action becomes increasingly apparent in navigating these intricate issues.

Conclusion:

Caste-based reservations and affirmative action are complex issues with far-reaching legal implications. While the legal framework in India acknowledges the need for affirmative measures, ongoing debates and legal challenges underscore the evolving nature of this issue. Achieving a delicate balance between social justice and meritocracy requires continual dialogue and a nuanced understanding of the diverse factors at play. Caste-based reservations and affirmative action, critical for addressing historical inequalities, pose complex challenges with profound legal implications. In India, the legal framework recognizes the imperative for affirmative measures, yet ongoing debates and legal challenges highlight the dynamic nature of this issue. Caste only cannot be the basis for reservation.[4]

Striking a delicate balance between social justice and meritocracy demands sustained dialogue and a nuanced understanding of diverse factors. Navigating this evolving landscape necessitates ongoing legal and societal discourse to ensure effective, fair, and adaptive policies.

“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 falls 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: Gauri Joshi

[1] SCC Online

[2] Indian Kanoon- Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others

[3] Indian Express

[4] Case Mine

10 Nov

Supreme Court Leaves Law Unresolved If PIL Is not at all Maintainable in Service Matters

Prime Legal

Blog #PIL, #SupremeCourt

Title: Pratap Singh Bist v. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Decided on: 03 November, 2023

+ Diary No. 41779/2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court expressed skepticism about the Delhi High Court’s ruling that a PIL is “not at all” maintainable in Service Matters, referring to the matter as a “debatable issue” and hearing an appeal stemming from it. As a result, the Court has left the matter open, and the proper case will decide this.

Facts of the Case

In this instance, a writ petition contesting the appointments of respondents (no. 5 to 17) to the position of teacher was brought in 2017 as a Public Interest Litigation by one Pratap Singh Bist (Petitioner). These appointments were made in 2008 through the New Delhi-based Directorate of Education. They were accused of lacking the necessary credentials to be employed as teachers. Nonetheless, the Delhi High Court declined to intervene in relation to these contested nominations in its contested ruling. After reviewing the respondent’s comprehensive affidavit, the court determined that the necessary qualification was there. It was decided that the respondents, who ranged from 5 to 17, qualify for the position.

Courts analysis and decision

The respondent numbers five through seventeen have already served for nearly fifteen years, the highest court emphasized. Based on this forecast, the Court declined to intervene in the nomination process. It did, however, have concerns about PIL’s unmaintainability in terms of service issues. The court went on to say that, in light of this Court’s ruling in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others vs. Jintendra Kumar Mishra and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 273, the second reason given by the High Court—that “PIL is not at all maintainable in service matters”—is a contentious matter that should be investigated further in a suitable case.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

10 Nov

Even Factories Not Associated With Schedule 1 Industries May Be Subject To The EPF Act: Supreme Court Turns Down Umbrella Manufacturing Unit’s Appeal

Prime Legal

Blog #providentfund, #SupremeCourt

Title: Thankamma Baby v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Decided on: 07 November, 2023

+ Civil Appeal No. 4619 of 2010

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the Central Government may issue a notification to factories operating in any industry not listed in Schedule I under clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Top Court was debating whether the EPF Act may apply to a factory that isn’t included in Schedule 1 of the Act.

Facts of the Case

The Apex Court was considering an appeal in which the appellant was involved in the production, distribution, and manufacturing of umbrellas. In 1997, the Appellant received a notice from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (the Respondent before the Apex Court), claiming that the Act applied to them. The Respondent contended that the establishment qualified as a commercial enterprise because the Appellant was in the business of assembling umbrellas and selling them in her own store. The appellant was accused of operating a business that qualified as a “trading and commercial establishment” according to a 1962 notification from the Central Government, which was made in accordance with clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the 1952 Act. The High Court affirmed the PF authority’s conclusions. The Appellant contested this at the Apex Court.

Courts analysis and decision

The Appellant’s establishment was primarily engaged in commercial activity, according to the Apex Court’s observation. In light of this, the Top Court determined that the Appellant’s company would be classified as a “trading and commercial establishment,” as defined by the Center’s 1962 notification. The Court stated that as a result, the aforementioned notification would regulate the appellant’s case. In light of this, the Court denied the appeal.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

1 2