0

Sanjay Kundu IPS reinstated as DGP after Supreme Court overturns Himachal Pradesh High Court decision: Supreme Court of India

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors

Case No: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 550-551 2024

Decided on:   12th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA DR D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J B PARDIWALA AND HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Facts of the Case

Sanjay Kundu appealed to the Supreme Court after the Himachal Pradesh High Court, on January 9, 2024, rejected his plea to reconsider a directive removing him from the position of Director General of Police (DGP). The removal stemmed from allegations that he had attempted to exert influence on a businessman claiming to have received threats from his partners. In a setback for both Kundu and Kangra SP Shalini Agnihotri, the high court recently dismissed their petition to reconsider its December 26, 2023 order mandating their transfer to prevent any impact on the ongoing investigation. The high court also rejected their plea for a CBI inquiry and instead ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), comprising officers of the inspector general level, to oversee the investigations within a two-week timeframe.

On January 3, the Supreme Court temporarily halted the order for Kundu’s removal as DGP, instructing him to submit a recall application to the high court. The proceedings in the high court were initiated based on an email from Nishant K Sharma, a resident of Palampur, submitted to the Chief Justice on October 28, 2023. The complainant alleged physical assault, a phone call from the DGP office, and messages from the SP and SHO of Palampur. The complainant claimed that the DGP wanted to speak with him and asked him to visit Shimla.

Issue

The case centers around the removal of Sanjay Kundu, Himachal Pradesh’s DGP, over allegations of pressuring a businessman. The Supreme Court temporarily halted his removal and considered related issues, including the rejection of a petition to reconsider the transfer order and the choice of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) over a CBI probe.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court has overturned the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had ordered the relocation of State Director General of Police (DGP) Sanjay Kundu based on allegations made by a businessman from Palampur. The businessman had claimed threats to himself and his family. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized the gravity of transferring an IPS officer and stated that such an order should not be issued without giving the concerned party an opportunity to present their case. The court suggested that the appropriate action for the High Court, when dealing with a recall order, should have been to set it aside and allow both parties to present their perspectives before making a decision.

The Supreme Court observed that, in reviewing Sanjay Kundu’s recall application, the High Court heavily depended on status reports previously presented and cited in its earlier directive. “The procedure adopted by the High Court is fundamentally flawed, as any order with significant repercussions must adhere to the principles of natural justice,” stated the bench led by Chief Justice of India.

“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

High Court’s do not have the power to make rules regarding post retirement benefits: SC

Blog

Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos 23-24 of 2024 Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8575-8576 of 2023

Dated on: 3.1.2024

Corum:  HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI

Facts of the case

 The present case Is a civil appeal before the supreme court of India involving contempt of court by some of the officials of the Uttar Pradesh Government. The officials present in the court, including the Secretary (Finance) and Special Secretary (Finance) were taken into custody and bailable warrants were issued against the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance).   The current case arose over pension and other benefits of the retired judges of the Allahabad HC which the state government was directed to grant by the supreme court. Through the merits the Supreme court realised that the state government failed to comply with the orders of Supreme court and without a valid reason filed the state government filed for a recall application. It was observed by the supreme court that the Allahabad HC had erred in initiating criminal and taking them into custody in the contempt proceeding as there was no evidence of scandalous or obstructive conduct on their part. The Supreme Court also issued some guidelines for the High Courts to follow while directing the personal presence of government officials in court proceedings, such as giving due notice, recording reasons, and allowing video conferencing.

Legal provision

In this present case Article 229 of the Indian Constitution deals with the appointments, conditions of service, and expenses of the officers and servants of the High Courts. It also gives the Chief Justice of the High Court the power to make rules for the purpose, subject to the approval of the Governor of the State. Article 229 is mentioned in the case because it is the main legal issue involved in the case. The Supreme Court has to decide whether the High Court was justified in invoking Article 229 to frame rules for the post-retiral benefits of its former judges, and whether the State government was bound to comply with them. Therefore, the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226 by frequently summoning officers to expedite the consideration of the Rules and issuing directions to notify the Rules by a fixed date, under the threat of criminal contempt.

Court analysis and judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in ordering the State of Uttar Pradesh to notify the Rules pertaining to the post-retiral benefits of former High Court judges because the Chief Justice lacked the authority to make such rules under Article 229 of the Constitution. The High Court did not have the authority to order the notification of the Rules that the Chief Justice had proposed. The Chief Justice’s proposed Rules go beyond the provisions of the Constitution. The Chief Justice’s proposed Rules, according to the Supreme Court, go beyond the bounds of the Constitution because they attempt to grant former High Court judges benefits that are not permitted by any legislation passed by the Union government or Parliament and that run counter to the values of judicial accountability and independence.

“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- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view the judgement

0

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Allowances Recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission for Judicial Officers.

Blog ,

Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643 of 2015

Decided on:   4th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA DR D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J B PARDIWALA AND HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Facts of the Case

The States, Union Territories, and Union Government argued that implementing the revised rates or new allowances would impose a greater financial burden and expenditure. They insisted on following the rules governing allowance payments set by each State for their administrative establishments. Additionally, they emphasized the need for judicial officers’ benefits to be comparable to those provided to other government officers.

Issue

The primary issue in this case is the approval of allowances for judicial officers and retired judicial officers, as recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC). It involves ensuring uniform service conditions, and establishing oversight committees for implementation.

Court’s analysis and decision

In a writ petition addressing the allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC), a three-Judge bench comprising Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ, accepted the recommendations of SNJPC. The bench instructed the formation of a ‘Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary’ in each High Court to supervise the implementation of SNJPC’s recommendations. Additionally, it mandated that the calculations and disbursements of arrears for salary, pension, and allowances owed to judicial officers, retired judicial officers, and family pensioners should be completed and distributed by February 29, 2024.

The Court observed that the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) recommended certain changes in allowances, introducing two new allowances and incorporating two additional components into an existing allowance. These changes include Children Education Allowance, a Furniture and Air conditioner allowance as part of the House Rent Allowance, and Risk Allowance. The SNJPC proposed discontinuing the City Compensatory Allowance and rejected the demand for a Robe Allowance.

The Court emphasized the state’s responsibility to ensure that the working and post-retirement conditions for judicial officers align with the requirement for maintaining dignified working conditions. It stated that the state has an obligation to guarantee dignified work conditions for its judicial officers and cannot cite financial burden or expenditure as a defense.

The Bench highlighted that the allowances recommended by the SNJPC are fundamental and comparable to those available to officers in All-India Services performing executive functions. Expressing concern, the Court noted that while officers in other services experienced revisions in their service conditions since January 1, 2016, similar issues for judicial officers are still pending a final decision even after eight years. Some judges have retired, and the resolution is awaited, including for family pensioners of those who have passed away.

Ensuring consistency in the service conditions of judicial officers nationwide is imperative. The Court emphasized that it would be inappropriate to draw parallels between judicial service and the service of other state officers. The roles, responsibilities, limitations, and obligations during and after service are unique for members of the judicial service.

The Court emphasized the need for establishing a framework within each High Court to institutionalize the implementation of its orders regarding the service conditions of the district judiciary and the recommendations of the SNJPC.

Consequently, the Court directed the formation of a ‘Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary’ in each High Court to oversee the implementation of SNJPC recommendations. The Committee’s composition would include:

  • Two Judges of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice, with one having prior experience in the district judiciary.
  • The Law Secretary/Legal Remembrancer.
  • The Registrar General of the High Court, serving as the ex officio Secretary of the Committee.
  • A retired judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge nominated by the Chief Justice, acting as a nodal officer for day-to-day grievance redressal.

The senior Judge nominated by the Chief Justice would chair the Committee, with the option to co-opt officers of the State Government, including Secretaries in relevant departments, for discussions on pertinent issues. The Committee could also invite the Accountant General at its discretion to ensure the proper implementation of SNJPC recommendations and consult with representatives of Judges’ Association or Retired Judges’ Association.

The Court outlined the principal functions of the Committee and directed the formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with specified timelines for claims and disbursal of allowances, including arrears of salary and pension. The SOP would cover various aspects such as the nodal agency for disbursement, reimbursement procedures, contact details, publication on the High Court’s website, and maintenance of a database of retired Judges and family pensioners in the district judiciary.

The Court further instructed that the Committees for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJs), established based on previous directions, should monitor compliance. Each Committee working under the High Court was mandated to submit its report to the Court through the Registrar General by April 7, 2024.

“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

NGT Should Not Impose Stringent Procedures of CPC When Citizens Seek Redressal for Grievances: Supreme Court

Blog , ,

Case Title: Nabendu Kumar Bandyopadhyay v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Case No: Civil Appeal Diary No. 9637 of 2023

Decided on:  4th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN 

Facts of the Case

An application alleging the filling up of a waterbody/pond was summarily dismissed without conducting any inquiry. The NGT based its decision solely on certain photographs, a move criticized by the Apex Court.

The appellant submitted specific photographs along with the application. However, in its contested order, the NGT argued that these images failed to demonstrate the presence of a waterbody, as water was not apparent in them.

Issues

What approach is to be contemplated by NGT when a citizen approaches the NGT with a grievance that a water body is being filled in?

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) handling of a case. It has noted its discontent with the NGT’s approach, emphasizing that when a citizen brings forward a grievance regarding the filling of a water body, a more nuanced approach is expected from the NGT. The court emphasized that the NGT should not rigidly adhere to the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in such environmental matters. Instead, it should adopt a different approach that takes into account the unique nature of environmental concerns and citizen complaints.

The Supreme Court clarified, stating that if a water body has already been filled in, it is evident that water would not be visible in the photographs. The court emphasized the need to consider the context and recognize that the absence of water in the images does not negate the possibility that a water body had existed and had been filled in.

Considering the presented facts and circumstances, the Court expressed the view that the National Green Tribunal had not fulfilled its responsibility. Consequently, the Court decided to send the matter back to the Tribunal. In this remittance, the Court directed the Tribunal to initiate a new inquiry into the aforementioned application.

Before concluding, the Supreme Court made it clear that the remarks provided are specifically confined to the remand order and should not be construed as the court’s definitive findings on the matter.

“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 allows the development plan of the State of Himachal Pradesh upon consideration of expert analysis

Blog , , , ,

TITLE : The State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Yogendra Mohan Sengupta and Anr

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Milind N. Jadhav

DATE :  6th January 2024

CITATION : Civil Appeal no 5348-5349 of 2019

FACTS

The Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 was enacted by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1977. In exercise of powers conferred upon the state by Section 87 of the TCP Act, enacted the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Rules, 1978. A development Plan was initiated by the state government for the period of 1979-2001. In the process, a survey was done with the green belt. The restricted area of the core land for development was called as the “green belt”. A case challenged the said development as the government was misusing the forest property without any prior permission from the forest. An expert committee was constituted to look into the matter and then the NGT banned all sorts of new construction in the area of green belt. Furthermore, it also gave instructions on how to install a development plan sustainably. The state challenged the banning and argued the legality of such a development plan.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 13 of the TCP mentions the planning area. It states that the State government has the power to constitute a planning area via a notification. It also has the power to amalgamate, divide, alter or declare the planning area ceased to be called as such. 

ISSUES

Whether the development plan by the State of Himachal Pradesh was in accordance with the law?

JUDGEMENT

The apex court held that the constitution of India restricts the court from ordering or directing the executive branch of the country in the matters of policy. It held that it’s the legislature’s job to do such act.

The court observed that the state has taken into consideration the suggestions given by the NGT in implementing the draft development plan. The court figured that the development plan would not affect the green belt area as no new construction would take place but rather a reconstruction. Further, construction would only be done in the areas where there is no green trees.

The court held that the development plan has taken due care of the environmental aspects but also stated that it doesn’t fully approve of the plan. If any person is aggrieved by any provision, they are welcome to challenge the same.

The court stated that the development plan has been finalized after taking the recommendation of various expert committees and studies. It states :

“In our view, the development plan, which has been finalized after taking recourse to the statutory provisions and undergoing the rigors thereto, cannot be stalled in entirety thereby putting the entire developmental activities to a standstill.”

For the matter pertaining to compensation for green belt land owners, the court held that the issue needs to be addressed as a specific issue and beyond the scope of the current proceeding.

“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- Sanjana Ravichandran

click here to view judgement

1 … 22 23 24 25 26 … 29