sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

June 8, 2025

Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information NISHA KUMARI 08 June 2025 In Kishan Jain Chand v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court mandates virtual hearings and digital portals for State Information Commissions to enhance public access to information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Introduction The landmark case Kishan Jain Chand v. Union of India addresses crucial reforms for the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India highlights the challenges faced by citizens, particularly those in rural and remote areas, in accessing State Information Commissions (SICs). The Supreme Court directed modernization of SIC procedures, including virtual hearings and online filing systems, to promote transparency and facilitate easier access to justice. Facts of the Case The petitioner sought judicial intervention to improve the functioning of State Information Commissions (SICs), statutory bodies established under the RTI Act to adjudicate appeals and complaints related to information requests. Currently, most SICs are headquartered in state capitals and conduct hearings only in person, which creates significant hardships for applicants from distant regions due to travel costs and logistical difficulties. Additionally, unlike the Central Information Commission (CIC), many SICs lack online portals for filing RTI complaints or appeals, limiting accessibility. The petitioner urged the Court to mandate digital infrastructure improvements and virtual hearing options to ensure the RTI Act’s objectives of affordable and easy access to information are fulfilled. Notable procedural updates: The Court issued a notice in April 2021, followed by hearings in April and July 2023, leading to the present judgment. Issue of the Case The Supreme Court examined the following issues: Should SICs be required to provide both physical and virtual hearings for RTI complaints and appeals, supported by adequate financial and technical resources from State Governments? Should SICs establish fully functional digital portals allowing: Online filing of RTI complaints and appeals Tracking of case statuses Uploading of daily orders and judgments Publication of cause lists Submission of annual reports under Section 25 of the RTI Act Should SICs adopt strict timelines, ideally resolving complaints within four months? Should there be guidelines on the minimum daily case resolution targets for Information Commissioners? Should SICs ensure imposition and collection of penalties on Public Information Officers violating RTI provisions under Section 20(1)? Judgment The Supreme Court, led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered the judgment on 9 October 2023 with key directives: 1. Virtual Hearings for SICs The Court recognized that in-person hearings at SICs in state capitals pose financial and logistical barriers for many citizens. It held that virtual hearings must be provided as an alternative to ensure fair, effective access to justice under the RTI Act. 2. Online Filing and Digital Portals Acknowledging that electronic submission of RTI applications is permitted by the RTI Act, the Court ordered all SICs to develop user-friendly online portals similar to those operated by the Central Information Commission, facilitating appeals and complaints filing. 3. Judicial Oversight for Implementation The Court directed all High Courts’ Registrars General to draft and implement necessary rules under Sections 2(e)(iii) and 28 of the RTI Act to enable virtual hearings and online filing at district and High Court levels, ensuring timely and uniform compliance. Conclusion The Supreme Court underscored the fundamental importance of accessible information commissions as pillars of the right to information, which is intertwined with constitutional rights such as: Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty The Court mandated that all State Information Commissions must implement hybrid hearing options (both physical and virtual), with virtual links clearly listed in daily cause lists by 31 December 2023. This ruling is a major step toward digital empowerment and ensuring that RTI rights are accessible to all citizens irrespective of geography or economic status. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Read More »

Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release REHA BHARGAV 08 June 2025 The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar (2023) sets crucial guidelines for remission of life convicts, emphasizing a holistic assessment beyond judicial opinions. Learn how this decision shapes premature release and criminal justice reforms. Introduction The case of Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar addresses the important legal question of premature release or remission of a life imprisonment convict. Convicted in 2001 for the murder of three individuals including two police officers, the petitioner’s applications for early release were rejected primarily based on adverse opinions from trial judges. The Supreme Court of India in its August 2023 judgment emphasized the need for a comprehensive and reformative approach towards remission, focusing on rehabilitation and conduct rather than just the original crime. Facts of the Case Rajo (also known as Rajwa or Rajendra Mandal) was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2001 for the brutal killing of three persons during a village festival in Bihar, including two police officers. Over two decades, he filed multiple applications for remission, supported by positive conduct reports from jail authorities and probation officers. However, these were repeatedly denied by the Remission Board citing unfavorable opinions from the original presiding judges. The petitioner challenged this denial, arguing that the remission process should prioritize reformation and current behavior rather than being solely based on past judicial views. Issue of the Case The central legal issue was: Should the Remission Board reject premature release applications based primarily on adverse judicial opinions from the time of conviction, or should it adopt a holistic evaluation considering the convict’s conduct, rehabilitation prospects, health, age, and other relevant factors? Petitioner’s Arguments The petitioner presented several key points: Completion of Minimum Sentence: Having served over 24 years, Rajo surpassed the statutory minimum 14 years required under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for life convicts. Positive Behavior in Custody: Reports from the Probation Officer and Jail Superintendent highlighted exemplary conduct and genuine efforts towards rehabilitation. Excessive Reliance on Judicial Opinions: The adverse remarks of the presiding judges, formed over 20 years ago, were outdated and did not reflect current reformative progress. Holistic Assessment Required: The remission process should include all relevant factors such as age, health, family circumstances, and risk of recidivism. Reformatory Aim of Imprisonment: The fundamental purpose of incarceration is reformation, and denying remission purely on judicial opinions contradicts this principle. Respondent’s Arguments The State of Bihar and other respondents countered with: Seriousness of Crime: The gravity of the premeditated murders, especially of police officers, warranted denial of remission. Weight to Judicial Opinions: The trial court and Sessions Court judges had first-hand knowledge and their opinions deserved significant weight. Discretion of Remission Board: The board exercised its powers judiciously after reviewing all materials, including conduct reports. Public Interest & Deterrence: Premature release might undermine public confidence and reduce the deterrent effect of severe sentences. Compliance with Procedures: The remission process was conducted as per statutory guidelines and the petitioner’s applications were duly considered. Judgment On 25 August 2023, the Supreme Court bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the Remission Board to reconsider the application with the following key observations: Holistic and Balanced Approach: Remission decisions should weigh not only the original offense but also present conduct, age, health, and reform prospects. Avoid Mechanical Rejection: Overreliance on adverse judicial opinions formed decades ago undermines the rehabilitative purpose of remission. Reformation as Ultimate Goal: Even life convicts demonstrating genuine behavioral change deserve a chance for premature release. The Court ordered a fresh, reasoned consideration of the petitioner’s remission request, preferably within three months, emphasizing fairness and rehabilitation in criminal justice. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar reinforces a compassionate and reform-oriented approach to remission, particularly for life convicts. While recognizing the seriousness of heinous crimes, the judgment insists that decisions on premature release must consider current behavior, rehabilitation, and social reintegration potential rather than rely solely on outdated judicial opinions. This ruling marks an important step towards balancing punishment with fairness and humanity in India’s criminal justice system. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case ED Cannot Invoke PMLA

Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Read More »

Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Mob Lynching in Moradabad: Will Shahedeen’s Family Get Justice or Just Sympathy? Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases REHA BHARGAV 08 June 2025 In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India issued 12 critical directions to combat civil litigation delays, while addressing legal heirship disputes in the case of Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi. Introduction The Supreme Court’s decision in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and Others addresses the chronic issue of delay in Indian civil litigation. Originating in 1982, the case centered around a legal heirship dispute following the death of the plaintiff, Urmila Devi, and highlighted the need for procedural efficiency and the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Facts of the Case In 1982, Urmila Devi filed a civil suit to void specific sale deeds and reclaim property. After her death in 2007, Yashpal Jain claimed succession rights as her adopted son, while Manoj Kumar Jain claimed inheritance through a registered will from 1999. The trial court initially substituted Manoj as the legal representative. However, this was contested by Yashpal, leading to a reversal by the District Judge, only to be overturned again by the High Court. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court of India. Issue Before the Court Who qualifies as the rightful legal representative under Order XXII of the Civil Procedure Code? How can procedural reforms ensure a timely civil trial and uphold the constitutional right to speedy justice? Petitioner’s Arguments (Yashpal Jain) Adopted Son Status: Asserted his right as the adopted son under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Questioning the Will: Challenged the legitimacy of the 1999 will, arguing that a legatee cannot substitute a deceased plaintiff unless the will is probated. Trial Court Error: Accused the lower court of premature substitution without proper estate representation. Litigation Delay: Highlighted 16 years of delay caused by the substitution dispute. Substantive Justice: Urged the Court to prioritize fairness and efficient trial proceedings. Respondents’ Arguments (Manoj Kumar Jain & Others) Will-Based Claim: Claimed rightful substitution as per a registered will executed by Urmila Devi. Denial of Adoption: Dismissed the adoption claim, citing insufficient proof. Support for Trial Court’s Order: Defended initial substitution as legally sound. High Court Ruling Validity: Cited the High Court’s restoration of his substitution as affirmation. Proper Procedure Followed: Asserted that legal norms were duly observed by his side. Supreme Court Judgment Highlights Yashpal Jain Restored: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and reinstated Yashpal Jain as Urmila Devi’s legal representative. Substitution Rule Clarified: Under Order XXII CPC, a legatee whose claim is disputed cannot be treated as a legal representative unless the will is proven. Severe Criticism of Delay: The Court denounced the 41-year case pendency and emphasized judicial failure to ensure timely justice. 12 Procedural Directives Issued: Time limits for written statements Faster framing of issues Promotion of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Day-to-day trials Active case management by judges Strict compliance with Order V Rule 1 CPC Curbing unnecessary adjournments Time-bound disposal of applications Mandating witness availability Ensuring effective pre-trial scheduling Regular review of trial progress Prioritization of long-pending cases Conclusion The Supreme Court’s judgment in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi not only settled the dispute over rightful legal representation but also marked a turning point in Indian civil procedure reform. By laying down actionable guidelines and emphasizing the fundamental right to speedy justice, the Court signaled an urgent call for judicial efficiency and accountability. This landmark ruling strengthens procedural discipline and enhances faith in the Indian legal system. It stands as a model precedent for future civil litigation across the country. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases Read More »

ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Mob Lynching in Moradabad: Will Shahedeen’s Family Get Justice or Just Sympathy? Blackbuck, Bollywood & the Battle for Justice: Salman Khan’s Saga Returns to Court ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case REHA BHARGAV 08 June 2025 The Supreme Court ruled in Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be invoked using Section 120B IPC unless the alleged conspiracy links directly to a scheduled offence. Learn the legal impact of this landmark decision. Introduction The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Pavana Dibbur v. The Directorate of Enforcement (delivered on 29 November 2023) clarifies the boundaries of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). At the heart of the case was whether a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code could trigger PMLA proceedings, even if it wasn’t linked to a scheduled offence under the Act. The Court’s verdict underscores the legal necessity of a predicate or scheduled offence before invoking PMLA, marking a significant development in India’s criminal jurisprudence relating to economic offences and procedural safeguards. Facts of the Case Pavana Dibbur, a former Vice-Chancellor of Alliance University, purchased properties in 2013 and 2019 worth ₹13.5 crore and ₹2.47 crore respectively. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that these transactions were linked to a criminal conspiracy involving misappropriated university funds. The ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in 2020 and initiated proceedings under the PMLA based on FIRs that invoked Section 120B IPC. However, there was no direct connection to any offence listed in the schedule of PMLA. Despite this, the Special Court took cognizance, leading Pavana Dibbur to approach the Supreme Court of India. Legal Issue Key Question:Can the Enforcement Directorate invoke the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) solely based on criminal conspiracy under IPC Section 120B when it is not connected to a scheduled offence? Petitioner’s Arguments No Predicate Offence: Dibbur argued that PMLA cannot apply unless a predicate (scheduled) offence is established. Section 120B IPC alone does not qualify unless tied to such an offence. Unlawful Attachment: The attachment of her assets was arbitrary, violating PMLA requirements and her constitutional rights. Violation of Natural Justice: She was not granted a fair opportunity to present her case, breaching natural justice principles. Excess of ED’s Powers: The ED overstepped its legal authority by acting without foundational legal grounds. Strict Proof Required: Serious allegations like money laundering demand strict evidentiary standards, which were not met. Respondent’s Arguments PMLA Justified: The ED claimed that the alleged criminal conspiracy was linked to fund misappropriation, qualifying as money laundering. Grounds for Attachment: Assets were allegedly purchased using proceeds of crime, satisfying PMLA conditions. Preventive Action: PMLA enables early intervention to prevent dissipation of illicit assets. Due Procedure Followed: The ED maintained that it had complied with all legal and procedural norms. Public Interest Priority: The ED emphasized the need to deter economic crime and safeguard public interest. Judgment Summary The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, ruled that: Section 120B IPC alone does not qualify as a predicate offence under PMLA unless tied to a scheduled offence listed in the Act. Since no scheduled offence was established in Dibbur’s case, invoking PMLA was unlawful. The attachment of properties and initiation of proceedings lacked legal justification. The Court quashed the complaint under PMLA, reaffirming the need for strict adherence to statutory provisions and constitutional protections. This decision places clear limits on ED’s powers and emphasizes that criminal conspiracy alone cannot trigger PMLA without direct linkage to a scheduled crime. Conclusion The ruling in Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement strengthens due process and reinforces that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be misused in the absence of a clear predicate offence. The judgment protects individuals from arbitrary enforcement, ensuring that economic laws are used responsibly and within constitutional bounds. By insisting on a direct link to scheduled offences, the Supreme Court has set a vital precedent for fair investigation and restraint in the use of draconian provisions under PMLA. This decision is a major step toward balancing the fight against economic crime with the fundamental rights of individuals. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case Read More »

Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Mob Lynching in Moradabad: Will Shahedeen’s Family Get Justice or Just Sympathy? Blackbuck, Bollywood & the Battle for Justice: Salman Khan’s Saga Returns to Court Supreme Court Cancels Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni’s Bail in BJP Worker Murder Case Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling REHA BHARGAV 08 June 2025 The Supreme Court rules that women on fixed-term contracts are entitled to full maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961—even if the leave period exceeds the contract term. A major step forward in women’s employment rights. Introduction In the landmark case Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of granting full maternity benefits to a contractual employee, even if her contract ends during the maternity leave period. This case sets a critical precedent regarding the application of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to women employed on fixed-term contracts. This ruling ensures that temporary or contractual status cannot be used as a tool to deny statutory maternity rights, promoting greater gender equality and protection of women’s workplace rights. Facts of the Case Dr. Kavita Yadav, a Senior Resident in Pathology at Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital (under the Government of NCT of Delhi), was appointed on a contract beginning 12 June 2014, which was extended until 11 June 2017. She applied for 26 weeks of maternity leave starting 1 June 2017, just days before her contract was set to expire. However, her employer only granted 11 days of leave, up to the end of her tenure. Her appeal to the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court was dismissed, prompting her to seek redress from the Supreme Court. Legal Issue Can a woman employee on a fixed-term contract be denied maternity leave simply because her contract ends before the completion of the leave period? Petitioner’s Arguments Maternity Leave as a Statutory Right:The Maternity Benefit Act applies equally to all women employees, whether permanent or contractual. Purpose of the Act:The Act aims to protect the health and dignity of pregnant women; restricting its scope due to contractual tenure defeats its purpose. Notional Extension of Employment:For the purpose of availing maternity benefits, her employment should be considered as notionally extended beyond the contract term. Violation of Constitutional Rights:Denial of benefits based on contract expiration violates Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15(3) (special provisions for women). Precedent Cited:In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), 2000, even daily wage workers were granted maternity benefits. Applicability of 2017 Amendment:The amendment enhancing maternity leave to 26 weeks must apply to all eligible women, regardless of job nature. Respondent’s Arguments Fixed-Term Employment:Dr. Yadav’s employment legally ended on 11 June 2017. Post that, there was no employer-employee relationship. No Renewal Possible:The contract had already run its maximum three-year term. No further renewal was legally possible. No Obligation Post-Expiry:Maternity benefits can only be claimed during the subsistence of employment, not after its lawful termination. No Gender-Based Discrimination:The denial was based solely on contract terms, not her gender or maternity status. Support from Lower Courts:Both the CAT and Delhi High Court upheld their decision based on prevailing contract law. Judgment of the Supreme Court On 17 August 2023, a Bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar ruled in favor of Dr. Kavita Yadav. Key Highlights: Maternity leave is a legal entitlement, not dependent on the length of employment contract. Introduced the concept of “notional extension”—employment is deemed to continue solely for the purpose of granting maternity benefits. The Act does not differentiate between permanent and contractual employees. Denying maternity benefits due to contract expiration amounts to gender-based discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution. The Court directed the hospital to grant Dr. Yadav full salary and maternity benefits for the entire 26-week period. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Kavita Yadav’s case marks a significant advancement in the rights of women in contractual employment. By affirming that maternity benefits cannot be denied on account of a contract’s expiration, the ruling strengthens labour rights, ensures compliance with the spirit of the Maternity Benefit Act, and prevents gender discrimination in the workplace. This judgment now serves as a guiding precedent for both public and private sector employers, emphasizing that temporary employment should not translate into temporary rights. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Read More »

Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Mob Lynching in Moradabad: Will Shahedeen’s Family Get Justice or Just Sympathy? Blackbuck, Bollywood & the Battle for Justice: Salman Khan’s Saga Returns to Court Supreme Court Cancels Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni’s Bail in BJP Worker Murder Case BBC Journalist Gets Passport Relief from Allahabad High Court in Mosque Demolition Case Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable REHA BHARGAV 08 June 2025 In Secunderabad Club v. CIT, the Supreme Court ruled that interest earned by clubs on fixed deposits in banks is taxable income. The Court rejected the application of the principle of mutuality, stating that club-bank relationships are not mutual in nature. Introduction This landmark case addresses the taxability of interest income earned by clubs such as Secunderabad Club on fixed deposits (FDs) with banks. The central issue before the Supreme Court of India was whether such income falls under the exempt category due to the principle of mutuality or charitable status of these clubs—or whether it is taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The matter came before the Supreme Court due to divergent rulings by tax authorities and lower courts. The judgment provides authoritative clarity on whether clubs can claim tax exemptions on interest earned from external financial instruments like FDs in banks. Facts of the Case The appellants, including Secunderabad Club, had invested substantial amounts in bank fixed deposits, which generated considerable interest income. They contended that these funds, being pooled from members and deposited with banks (some of which were corporate members of the clubs), fell under the principle of mutuality—meaning the income should not be treated as taxable profit. However, the Income Tax Department taxed these earnings under “Income from Other Sources”, arguing that the depositor–banker relationship did not constitute mutuality. Issue of the Case Is the interest income earned by clubs on bank fixed deposits exempt from tax under the principle of mutuality or charitable status, or is it taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Petitioner’s Arguments The clubs argued that since the banks were corporate members, and the funds were meant for members’ benefit, the interest earned should be treated as non-taxable under the principle of mutuality. They claimed that the income was not a “profit” but merely a recycling of members’ funds. The petitioners also highlighted their non-profit and charitable objectives, asserting that taxing such income would undermine the very purpose of these clubs. Respondent’s Arguments The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) countered that the relationship with banks was purely commercial, with the clubs acting as regular depositors. Since the interest came from external sources (banks, not members), mutuality did not apply. They emphasized that charitable or non-profit status doesn’t automatically exempt income earned from transactions with non-members, especially financial institutions. They cited judicial precedents to argue that such interest is income from other sources under the Income Tax Act and thus taxable. Judgment On 17 August 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the interest income earned by clubs on fixed deposits is taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held: The principle of mutuality does not apply to the interest income earned from banks, even if the banks are corporate members of the club. The relationship between the club and the bank is that of a depositor and banker, not a mutual association. Income arising from external commercial transactions is distinct from the internal dealings among members and is liable to tax. The claim of charitable or non-profit status does not cover such non-mutual income. This judgment established that such earnings qualify as “income from other sources” and must be taxed accordingly. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in Secunderabad Club v. CIT sets a definitive precedent: interest income earned by clubs on bank fixed deposits is taxable, regardless of the non-profit status or mutual nature of their internal affairs. By distinguishing between internal member transactions and external income sources, the Court clarified that the principle of mutuality has limited applicability. The ruling ensures that non-member-based income, even if incidental to a charitable or social objective, is not shielded from taxation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision will significantly impact clubs, societies, and non-profit institutions in India, urging them to re-evaluate their financial strategies and compliance with income tax regulations. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Read More »

Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Mob Lynching in Moradabad: Will Shahedeen’s Family Get Justice or Just Sympathy? Blackbuck, Bollywood & the Battle for Justice: Salman Khan’s Saga Returns to Court Supreme Court Cancels Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni’s Bail in BJP Worker Murder Case BBC Journalist Gets Passport Relief from Allahabad High Court in Mosque Demolition Case Supreme Court Urges Indian Railways to Adopt Technology for Preventing Freight Disputes Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts REHA BHARGAV 08 June 2025 In Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that a B.Ed. degree is not valid for primary school teacher posts (Classes I–V). The Court emphasized that the Right to Education includes the right to quality education delivered by appropriately trained educators. Introduction In Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India examined whether a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree qualifies a candidate for the role of primary school teacher (Classes I to V), or whether only a Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) is valid under the law. The issue arose after the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued a notification on 28 June 2018, expanding eligibility to include B.Ed. holders for primary teaching posts. Devesh Sharma, a B.Ed. degree holder, challenged this notification, seeking judicial validation of his eligibility for a primary school teaching position in Rajasthan. Facts of the Case The petitioner, Devesh Sharma, held a B.Ed. degree and applied for a teaching position for Classes I to V. However, according to the NCTE’s 2018 notification, the essential qualification was the D.El.Ed.—a diploma tailored specifically for elementary education. Sharma challenged the notification, arguing that B.Ed. programs also include pedagogical training, and that many such degree holders had already been employed in primary schools. This conflict between qualification standards and past appointments led the matter to the Supreme Court for resolution. Issue of the Case Does a B.Ed. degree meet the eligibility criteria for appointment as a primary school teacher (Classes I to V), or is a D.El.Ed. mandatory under NCTE norms? Petitioner’s Arguments: The B.Ed. curriculum includes pedagogical methods suitable for teaching young children. Excluding B.Ed. holders is arbitrary and discriminatory, especially given their history of employment in primary roles. The NCTE’s decision undermines employment rights and lacks practical realism considering the scarcity of D.El.Ed. candidates in some regions. Respondent’s Arguments: The D.El.Ed. is the only valid qualification for primary education under the NCTE’s statutory powers. B.Ed. programs are designed for secondary and higher secondary education, not elementary-level instruction. Upholding D.El.Ed. as the exclusive qualification promotes specialized and age-appropriate training, ensuring quality foundational education under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Judgment On 11 August 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment. Key takeaways: Only D.El.Ed. holders are eligible for teaching Classes I to V. B.Ed. is not sufficient. The 2018 NCTE notification was struck down for lacking proper academic consultation and being procedurally flawed. The Right to Education (RTE) Act not only guarantees access but also ensures quality education, which requires appropriately trained teachers for young learners. B.Ed. training is not structured for the developmental needs of children aged 6–10, while D.El.Ed. focuses specifically on this. Clarification (8 April 2024): The decision has prospective effect only. Appointments of B.Ed. holders made before 11 August 2023 will remain valid. Any appointments after that date without a D.El.Ed. will be considered invalid. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s ruling in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India clarifies a vital aspect of teacher qualification norms in India. By affirming that D.El.Ed. is the essential qualification for primary teaching, the Court reinforced the principle that educational quality must begin at the foundational level. This verdict ensures that children in primary schools are taught by professionals specifically trained for early childhood education, aligning teacher qualifications with the developmental needs and learning capacities of young students. Moreover, by giving the ruling prospective effect, the Court struck a balance between legal certainty and employment fairness, avoiding disruption for already employed B.Ed. teachers while preventing future violations. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Read More »

Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Mob Lynching in Moradabad: Will Shahedeen’s Family Get Justice or Just Sympathy? Blackbuck, Bollywood & the Battle for Justice: Salman Khan’s Saga Returns to Court Supreme Court Cancels Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni’s Bail in BJP Worker Murder Case BBC Journalist Gets Passport Relief from Allahabad High Court in Mosque Demolition Case Supreme Court Urges Indian Railways to Adopt Technology for Preventing Freight Disputes Manipur in Crisis: Curfew Imposed as Arambai Tenggol Protests Escalate Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR NISHA KUMARI 08 June 2025 In Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court emphasized the need to carefully examine FIRs for misuse of law but refused to quash charges of criminal intimidation related to a serious sexual assault case. Introduction In the case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court addressed an appeal to quash an FIR under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with criminal intimidation. The complainant, Husna, alleged that she was threatened by the appellant and others to withdraw a previous FIR involving gang rape and assault under Sections 376D, 323, 120B, and 452 IPC. The High Court had refused to quash the FIR, leading the appellant to move the Supreme Court, invoking precedents such as: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra The case raises important concerns about the balance between protecting victim rights and preventing misuse of legal processes. Facts of the Case FIR No. 175/2022 was lodged on August 11, 2022, in Mirzapur Police Station, Saharanpur, under Section 506 IPC. The complainant, Husna, claimed she was being threatened to withdraw her earlier complaint (FIR No. 122/22) involving serious charges like gang rape and criminal conspiracy. Accused: Khursheed, Farooq, Maharaj (wife of Farooq), and Suleman Kabadi—allegedly acting on behalf of Iqbal @ Balla, a known criminal. Husna stated she was shown a pistol and warned of grave consequences if she did not drop the rape case. Issue of the Case Should the FIR filed under Section 506 IPC be quashed with respect to the appellant? Judgment The Supreme Court ruled against quashing the FIR for the following reasons: The informant never claimed to have paid any money under duress, making Section 386 IPC (extortion) inapplicable. However, the threats to withdraw a gang rape complaint did constitute a serious offense under Section 506 IPC. The Court reiterated the Bhajan Lal principles, underlining that FIRs should be quashed only in rare cases where: The allegations are absurd or inherently improbable. No offense is disclosed even if the allegations are accepted at face value. Given the gravity of the original allegations (gang rape), threats to withdraw such a complaint could obstruct justice and silence victims. Thus, the Court refused to quash the FIR and allowed the investigation to proceed. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh reinforces the principle that while courts must safeguard against false or malicious FIRs, they must also protect victims of serious crimes like sexual assault from being intimidated into silence. By declining to interfere with the ongoing investigation, the Court upheld: The integrity of the judicial process The importance of examining motive and context in FIRs The need to prevent misuse of Section 482 CrPC as a shield against legitimate prosecution This judgment serves as a strong precedent against attempts to derail sexual assault investigations through threats and coercion. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Read More »

Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Mob Lynching in Moradabad: Will Shahedeen’s Family Get Justice or Just Sympathy? Blackbuck, Bollywood & the Battle for Justice: Salman Khan’s Saga Returns to Court Supreme Court Cancels Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni’s Bail in BJP Worker Murder Case BBC Journalist Gets Passport Relief from Allahabad High Court in Mosque Demolition Case Supreme Court Urges Indian Railways to Adopt Technology for Preventing Freight Disputes Manipur in Crisis: Curfew Imposed as Arambai Tenggol Protests Escalate Supreme Court Upholds ITBP Constable’s Dismissal for Theft: ‘Guardian Became Looter’ Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization NISHA KUMARI 08 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India in Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) mandates comprehensive court security upgrades including CCTV installation and digitization of court proceedings to enhance transparency, safety, and accountability across judicial premises. Introduction The 2017 case Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India evolved into a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2023 focused on court security and judicial transparency. The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding the installation of CCTV cameras and modern digital tools within courtrooms nationwide. The Court balanced the need for transparency and judicial independence, establishing a roadmap to improve safety and technology integration in India’s justice system. Facts of the Case This PIL, ongoing since 2015, gained urgency after serious incidents, including: Multiple shootings inside court premises in Delhi over the past year, raising concerns about judge and public safety. The suspicious death of a judge in Dhanbad, Jharkhand (2021), originally deemed accidental but suspected foul play, underscoring security vulnerabilities even outside court buildings. These events exposed critical lapses in court security infrastructure. Issues Presented Can courts function as pillars of justice if security is compromised? How can litigants trust the judicial process when judges and lawyers face safety threats? What systemic reforms are required to safeguard court premises and stakeholders? Judgment Highlights   1. Mandatory Court Security Measures State-wise Security Plans: High Courts must develop detailed security protocols with State Home Departments and Police forces covering all court levels. Permanent Security Units: Establish trained, armed/unarmed personnel dedicated to court security with specialized training and incentives. 2. CCTV Installation Courts must implement district-specific CCTV surveillance plans. CCTV to be mandatory in all new court constructions. High Courts to supervise privacy and data protection protocols related to CCTV usage. 3. Enhanced Entry and Exit Controls Deployment of police and security personnel. Mandatory frisking, metal detectors, biometric entry passes, and baggage scanners. Regulation of footfall and access with court-specific passes. 4. Emergency Preparedness Ensure ambulance access, fire safety, and on-site medical facilities. 5. Vendor and Commercial Activity Regulation Strict oversight of commercial vendors operating within court complexes. 6. Digitization of Courts Adoption of audiovisual (AV) and video conferencing (VC) systems to record testimonies, especially in criminal cases. Enable live streaming of hearings for greater public transparency. Establish e-SEWA Kendras to assist citizens digitally. Prioritize tech upgrades for district courts lacking facilities. Assign implementation to Court Management Committees or special judicial-administrative bodies. Conclusion The Supreme Court emphasized that installing CCTV cameras alone is insufficient. A comprehensive, coordinated approach is necessary to safeguard judicial premises and modernize the justice delivery system. High Courts and State authorities must enforce the guidelines promptly to prevent security lapses and enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024) Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024) Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Read More »

Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Mob Lynching in Moradabad: Will Shahedeen’s Family Get Justice or Just Sympathy? Blackbuck, Bollywood & the Battle for Justice: Salman Khan’s Saga Returns to Court Supreme Court Cancels Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni’s Bail in BJP Worker Murder Case BBC Journalist Gets Passport Relief from Allahabad High Court in Mosque Demolition Case Supreme Court Urges Indian Railways to Adopt Technology for Preventing Freight Disputes Manipur in Crisis: Curfew Imposed as Arambai Tenggol Protests Escalate Supreme Court Upholds ITBP Constable’s Dismissal for Theft: ‘Guardian Became Looter’ JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SAIKRISHNA & ASSOCIATES Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Kashish Jahan 08 June 2025 Odisha’s Assistant Executive Engineer recruitment controversy leaves thousands of young engineers stuck amid legal battles over GATE score eligibility and deadline extensions. What does this mean for fairness in public service hiring? The High Hopes of Odisha’s Aspiring Engineers In the diverse landscape of Odisha, thousands of engineering graduates eagerly awaited recruitment into the state’s public engineering services. With rigorous preparation for the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) exams and relentless effort, candidates anticipated a transparent recruitment process through the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC). The Recruitment Announcement and GATE Score-Based Selection In October 2023, Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) released 621 vacancies for Assistant Executive Engineers (AEE): 580 positions for Civil Engineers 41 positions for Mechanical Engineers Departing from traditional exams, OPSC decided to shortlist candidates based on GATE scores from the past three years (2021, 2022, and 2023). The Deadline Extension and Resulting Controversy Initially, the application deadline was fixed. However, the Orissa High Court intervened following a petition, ordering an extension of the deadline to 8 May 2025 to include candidates with older GATE scores. This last-minute extension, while seemingly inclusive, disadvantaged many aspirants who deferred applying, planning instead to use their GATE 2025 scores, expecting recruitment to follow the usual cycle. The Petitioners’ Challenge in the Supreme Court Feeling aggrieved by the shifting timelines, some aspirants filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court of India, arguing that: Changing rules mid-process undermines fairness and transparency Candidates who followed the original schedule were unfairly penalized The recruitment process needed to be paused for a fairer chance Supreme Court’s Interim Order: A Delicate Balance In May 2025, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Vikram Nath, declined to stay the entire recruitment but issued a protective order: OPSC must reserve one seat for each petitioner Final recruitment results remain subject to the Court’s future verdict Full hearing scheduled for July–August 2025 This ruling provides some relief but leaves many candidates anxious about their futures. Broader Implications for Recruitment Policy and Governance This case raises critical questions for public recruitment and governance in India: Should recruitment deadlines and eligibility criteria be altered mid-way? How can administrative flexibility be balanced against candidate fairness? What is the appropriate level of judicial intervention in public service recruitment? With thousands of engineers facing uncertain careers, these questions strike at the heart of transparency and trust in government hiring. Conclusion: Deferred Dreams, Pending Justice Odisha’s young engineers now wait, not just on exam scores, but on legal outcomes that will determine their career paths. Their situation highlights the complex intersection of administrative policy, judicial oversight, and individual aspirations. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the full case, the verdict will be a crucial benchmark for fair and timely public recruitment — not just in Odisha, but across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Mob Lynching in Moradabad: Will Shahedeen’s Family Get Justice or Just Sympathy? Mob Lynching in Moradabad: Will Shahedeen’s Family Get Justice or Just Sympathy? Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote