Search Judgments

Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 – The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, after the Allahabad High Court declared it unconstitutional, stating that it violated the principle of secularism and Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution. The Act established a board to regulate Madarsa education in Uttar Pradesh, covering aspects like curriculum, teacher qualifications, and examinations.

The Supreme Court examined the Act’s objectives, historical context of Madarsas, and its alignment with constitutional principles of secularism, minority rights (Article 30), and the right to education (Article 21-A). It considered arguments regarding legislative competence, regulatory powers, and the potential conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India – These criminal original petitions were filed seeking directions to the police for further investigation, transfer of investigation, or filing final reports in cases reported as “Undetected” under Sections 380, 454 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The court noted a systemic failure in investigating property offences, highlighting that the State’s duty to investigate effectively is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21, encompassing the right to life, personal liberty, and protection of property. The court observed that investigations were often perfunctory, with critical steps being delayed or omitted. The court also referred to judgements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Law Commission of India reports emphasizing the concept of “victimology” and recognized that criminal jurisprudence must evolve to protect victims as rights-bearing participants.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Investigation – Fair Investigation – Suppression of Material Evidence: A criminal investigation must be fair and impartial. When eyewitnesses file affidavits contradicting their later trial testimonies and implicating other individuals, and the investigating agency fails to conduct further investigation into these affidavits or to explain their inconsistencies, it amounts to a failure of fair investigation and suppression of material evidence, rendering the prosecution’s case doubtful.

Evidence Act, 1872 – Credibility of Witnesses – Contradictions and Omissions: When the testimony of key prosecution witnesses at trial is contradicted by affidavits they previously filed (e.g., during bail proceedings), and the prosecution fails to adequately address or explain these contradictions, it casts serious doubt on the truthfulness and reliability of their oral evidence presented in court.

Final Decision:   The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction for murder and attempt to murder.

Tamil Nadu Medical Service Rules Clause 8(e) – These writ petitions were filed by Professors in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, General Surgery, and Orthopaedics, challenging their exclusion from promotion to the post of Dean due to G.O.(D) No.1044 dated 03.10.2024. The petitioners argued that they were deprived of promotion despite their seniority in the Civil Medical List (CML).

The official respondents contended that the petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria of five years of teaching experience as Professors as of the crucial date, 15th March 2024, as per the National Medical Commission (NMC) norms and Tamil Nadu Medical Service Rules. The delay in issuing their promotion orders as Professors in 2019 was attributed to court orders and the Model Code of Conduct.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 304-B & 498-A
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 2
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 162

This case concerns the conviction of the appellant by the Sessions Court under Sections 304-B (dowry death) and 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives) of the IPC, in connection with the suicide of his wife within seven years of marriage. The High Court upheld the conviction. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of the deceased’s mother (PW-6) and brother (PW-7), alleging dowry demands and harassment.

The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting significant omissions in the initial police statements of PW-6 and PW-7 regarding the alleged dowry demands.

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 Section 6(18) and 20 –  This case involves a dispute over the ownership of a property in Chennai, where a small room houses a deity, claimed by the plaintiff as their private property and by the defendants (HR&CE Department and its Fit Person) as a public temple property. The plaintiff, C.G.Gajapathy, filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership, possession, injunction, and damages. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, stating the property belongs to the temple and falls under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR&CE Act). The plaintiff then filed second appeals challenging the appellate court’s judgment.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 9 Rule 7 and Order 9 Rule 14 – This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) challenges the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Tiruppur in I.A.No.19 of 2024 in O.S.No.444 of 2014, which allowed the 1st defendant’s application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC to set aside an ex parte order. The petitioner, the 2nd defendant, argues that the 1st defendant’s application was wrongly allowed.

The 1st defendant, after initially being set ex parte in a partition suit filed by his children (the plaintiffs), sought to file a written statement and contest the suit, citing illness as the reason for his initial absence. The 2nd defendant, who had already filed a written statement asserting his rights based on a prior specific performance decree against the 1st defendant, was not made a party to the Order IX Rule 7 application.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12

Constitution of India – Article 129

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 41A, 197, 200, 202, 437

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Interim Protection – Police Custody Remand – Wilful Disobedience of Court Order – Torture in Police Custody – Private Complaint – Judicial Conduct – Contempt of Court

The petition alleges wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s interim anticipatory bail order dated December 8, 2023, which directed the petitioner’s release on bail in the event of arrest. Despite this order, the Investigating Officer sought, and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted, police custody remand of the petitioner. The core issue is whether the remand order constituted a contemptuous act, as the Supreme Court’s order did not explicitly permit seeking remand, and the petitioner was already on interim anticipatory bail. Additionally, the petition raises concerns about alleged torture in police custody and the subsequent summary dismissal of the petitioner’s private complaint by the Magistrate without following due procedure under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, an order which was later set aside by the High Court.

Challenge to Tender for Contractual Drivers/Conductors in Transport Corporations

 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Sections 12(3), 33), Constitution of India (Article 12) – This Intra Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge’s order that quashed an open tender issued by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Federation (appellant) for engaging temporary contract drivers and conductors. The tender aimed to address a staff shortage and ensure regular bus operations.

The appellant argued that the engagement of temporary contractual staff is a policy decision taken for public good and to meet administrative exigencies, especially as actions are underway to fill regular vacancies. They contended that the Single Judge erroneously applied the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to a government policy decision.

(Rent Arrears and Contractual Obligations)

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115 - This appeal, filed by the defendants (tenants), challenged a trial court's judgment to pay substantial rent arrears to the plaintiff (landlord). The plaintiff leased three building portions to the defendants since January 1998. Lease agreements explicitly stated that rent, and future enhancements, would be fixed by the Public Works Department (PWD).

Despite the lease expiring in January 2003, the defendants continued occupation. The plaintiff repeatedly sought rent re-fixation by the PWD, as per the contract.