Search Judgments

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 14 – The appellant, initially penalized with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for allegedly deserting his family, challenged the order after a delay of 425 days. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his application for condonation of delay, a decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The initial charge stemmed from his wife’s complaint, which she later withdrew, stating a misunderstanding. Despite this, an inquiry proceeded, finding him guilty of desertion but not of living with another woman.

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) – Section 9, 9B, 9C, 13, 18; Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (MCR, 2016) – Rule 38, 39, 42; Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 (MCDR, 2017) – Rule 45; Article 14, 32 of the Constitution of India

This case involves a challenge to the validity of certain Explanations in the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 38 of the MCR, 2016 and Rule 45(8)(a) of the MCDR, 2017. These Explanations stipulate that royalty payments, along with contributions to the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET), should not be deducted when computing the ‘Sale Value’ for calculating royalty.

The petitioners argued that this leads to a “compounding” effect, where royalty is effectively charged on royalty, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They further contended that this anomaly has been acknowledged by the government, which issued a notice for public consultation to amend the MMDR Act to address the “cascading impact of royalty on royalty.”

The respondents, however, contended that the petitioners are challenging the economic policy.

Kerala Water Authority (Administrative, Ministerial and Last Grade) Service Rules, 2011; Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 – Rule 10(a)(ii) – This case concerns the recruitment process for Lower Division Clerk (LDC) positions in the Kerala Water Authority, initiated by a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) on 16.07.2012.

The primary issue revolves around the acceptance of candidates with Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) or higher qualifications when the notification prescribed a “Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation” from specific or equivalent government-approved institutions.

Initially, the KPSC refused to consider DCA as an equivalent qualification, a decision upheld by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. However, the KPSC later altered its stance, including candidates with DCA in the ranked list.

Finance Act, 1994 – Section 65(33a) – This case concerns the levy of service tax on Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) in credit card transactions. The Revenue contended that the acquiring bank should pay service tax on the MDR minus the interchange fee, while the issuing bank should pay service tax on the interchange fee.

The court upheld the judgment of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, stating that Section 65(33a) intended to broaden the scope of taxable credit card services.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) – Section 4, 17 & 101 – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court order directing Ultratech Cement Ltd. (the Appellant) to pay compensation determined in a supplementary award related to land acquired for Jaypee Associates Limited (JAL). The land was acquired to create a safety zone for JAL’s cement project.

The core issue revolves around the interpretation of a Scheme of Arrangement between the Appellant and JAL, sanctioned by the NCLT, which delineated the transfer of business assets and liabilities.

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.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 and 25 – This appeal arises from a wife’s challenge to the High Court’s order, which upheld the Appellate Court’s decision to remand the husband’s application under Section 25 of the Act. The husband sought to set aside the initial maintenance order and reclaim the paid amount, alleging that the wife misrepresented her employment status.

The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 25(2) of the Act, which allows for the alteration, modification, or revocation of orders due to a change in circumstances. The court clarifies that this provision applies to circumstances arising after the initial order and cannot be used to retroactively challenge the order’s validity or seek a refund of previously paid maintenance.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 197 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 323, 452, 506, 427, 384, 440, 166, 148, 149 read with Section 34 and Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – The case revolves around a complaint filed against the appellant, who was the District Town Planner (Enforcement), for allegedly demolishing a college building with mala fide intentions due to non-payment of a bribe. The complaint alleged offences under various sections of the IPC. The appellant challenged the summoning order and the complaint itself, arguing the lack of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, which requires prior government sanction to prosecute a public servant for actions taken in the discharge of their official duty.

The High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition, stating that a detailed inquiry was needed to determine whether the act required sanction.

Article 32 of the Constitution of India – This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to implement a Central Information Commission (CIC) decision, take cognizance of a Supreme Court judgment, and annul clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, arguing it violated Article 14 regarding the fundamental rights of disabled persons.

The petitioner argued that Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning deductions for maintenance and medical treatment of dependents with disabilities, should be retrospectively amended to benefit subscribers of policies predating 2014. He wanted the benefit of discontinuing the policy at age 60 to apply to existing policies.

The respondents argued against retrospective application, stating that the policies are designed to benefit disabled persons after the caregiver’s death, and the terms of these commercial contracts should not be altered retroactively.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – This case involves an application filed by Brijnandan @ Brajesh Sharma, seeking release from jail based on juvenility at the time of the offence (17.01.2002), for which he was convicted under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Initially convicted by the Trial Court, acquitted by the High Court, and subsequently convicted again by the Supreme Court in 2022, Brijnandan filed this application claiming he was a juvenile on the date of the incident. Discrepancies in his date of birth across different documents prompted the Court to order an inquiry by the Sessions Court, Bhind.

The Sessions Court’s report confirmed Brijnandan’s date of birth as 04.10.1984, making him 17 years, 3 months, and 13 days old on the date of the offence.