sadalawpublications.com

June 11, 2025

Supreme Court Mandates “Support Persons” for Child Victims Under POCSO Act in Bachpan Bachao Case

Trending Today Mumbai EOW Arrests IPS Officer’s Husband in ₹7.2 Crore BMC Fraud Case Over Redevelopment Scam Nestlé India’s Bonus Share Proposal Reflects Confidence, Strong Governance, and Shareholder Commitment China’s Rare-Earth Export Curbs Disrupt Indian Industries: Push for Self-Reliance Gains Momentum Bihar’s Biggest Crackdown: ₹Crores in Properties Seized from 52 Criminals Under PMLA Madras High Court Halts ED Proceedings Against Film Producer, Cites Lack of Jurisdiction and Orders Return of Seized Items CLAT PG Candidate Challenges ₹30,000 Counselling Fee in Delhi High Court, Cites Financial Hardship Bombay High Court Pushes for Swift Resolution in Sony vs Tata Play Licensing Dispute Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LAWKARI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JURIDICA SOLUTION Supreme Court Mandates “Support Persons” for Child Victims Under POCSO Act in Bachpan Bachao Case REHA BHARGAV 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India’s 2023 judgment in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India mandates the appointment of support persons for child victims under the POCSO Act, reinforcing the constitutional duty to protect children’s rights during legal proceedings. Introduction: Strengthening Child Protection Under the Law In a landmark judgment dated October 18, 2023, the Supreme Court of India in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India took a significant step toward ensuring child-friendly legal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The ruling emphasized the mandatory role of “support persons” to assist and protect child victims of sexual abuse throughout the legal process. By reinforcing the constitutional and statutory obligations of the State, the Court aimed to prevent further trauma to vulnerable child victims and ensure justice is accessible, empathetic, and child-centric. Case Background: Bachpan Bachao’s Fight for Children’s Rights The petitioner, Bachpan Bachao Andolan, a prominent child rights NGO, filed the petition to address serious gaps in the implementation of the POCSO Act—specifically the underuse of support persons as outlined in the POCSO Rules, 2020. A 2019 Supreme Court Registrar report revealed that support persons were appointed in only 4% of POCSO cases, highlighting a concerning lack of structured support for child victims. A particularly shocking case from Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh, involving the alleged gang rape of a 13-year-old girl, prompted urgent judicial intervention. Key Legal Issue Is the Appointment of Support Persons a Legal Obligation? The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the State is constitutionally and statutorily obligated to provide a support person for child victims during the investigation and trial process under the POCSO Act, and what mechanisms must be put in place to ensure uniform enforcement. Arguments Presented Petitioner’s View (Bachpan Bachao Andolan) The petitioner argued that Section 39 of the POCSO Act requires the mandatory appointment of support persons for child victims. They emphasized that leaving the appointment to the discretion of parents or guardians undermines the purpose of the Act. Lack of uniform implementation leads to revictimization and emotional trauma for children navigating the legal system. Support persons play a critical role in offering psychological, emotional, and logistical support to the child. Respondent’s View (Union of India & State of Uttar Pradesh) The respondents agreed on the importance of support but claimed the appointment should be discretionary, based on guardian consent. They cited administrative challenges such as lack of trained personnel, remuneration issues, and infrastructure limitations. Concerns were also raised about potential privacy breaches and the risk of misuse of the support person’s role. Judgment Summary: A Mandate for Child Justice Supreme Court’s Verdict on October 18, 2023 The Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of support persons is not optional, but a constitutional duty of the State. The Court underscored that this duty stems from the need to ensure a fair trial, emotional support, and dignity for child victims. Key Directives Issued: The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) must draft model guidelines for the appointment, training, and remuneration of support persons. These guidelines must be implemented uniformly across all States and Union Territories. Authorities must inform parents or guardians about the availability and rights associated with support persons. Impact of the Judgment: Toward a Child-Centric Legal System This landmark ruling strengthens child rights under the POCSO Act, ensuring that support persons become a standard practice in cases involving minors. The judgment aims to: Prevent secondary trauma for victims during legal proceedings. Promote a child-friendly and sensitive judicial environment. Reinforce that child protection is a legal obligation, not a policy choice. Conclusion: A Milestone for Child Welfare in India The 2023 Supreme Court judgment in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India marks a crucial step in making India’s criminal justice system more supportive and humane for child victims. By mandating the appointment of support persons under the POCSO Act, the Court has reaffirmed that protecting children’s dignity and rights is not just desirable—it’s constitutionally essential. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Mandates “Support Persons” for Child Victims Under POCSO Act in Bachpan Bachao Case Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Business Closure Under Article 19(1)(g): Harinagar Sugar Mills Case Explained

Trending Today LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ULTRATECH CEMENT LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT POOJA ENTERTAINMENT LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT IKIGAI LAW LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT AMM LAW OFFICES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT VIS LEGIS LAW PRACTICE, ADVOCATES JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV HUMERA NIYAZI Supreme Court Mandates “Support Persons” for Child Victims Under POCSO Act in Bachpan Bachao Case Supreme Court Upholds Right to Business Closure Under Article 19(1)(g): Harinagar Sugar Mills Case Explained Supreme Court Rules Section 6A Unconstitutional with Retrospective Effect in CBI v. R.R. Kishore Judgment Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) Supreme Court Upholds Right to Business Closure Under Article 19(1)(g): Harinagar Sugar Mills Case Explained PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 11 June 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court of India affirmed the constitutional right to business closure under Article 19(1)(g), highlighting the landmark case involving Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and the interpretation of the Industrial Disputes Act. Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Down Business Under Article 19(1)(g) In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution grants individuals not only the right to operate a business but also the right to shut it down. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. However, this right remains subject to reasonable restrictions aimed at protecting employees and ensuring compliance with labor laws and statutory procedures. Background of the Case: Harinagar Sugar Mills vs. Bombay High Court Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (HSML), which operated a biscuit division under exclusive Job Work Agreements (JWAs) with Britannia Industries Limited (BIL) for over 30 years, faced a critical change when BIL terminated the agreement in 2019. As a result, HSML applied for closure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on August 28, 2019, by submitting Form XXIV-C as required under the Maharashtra Rules. However, the application was rejected by the Deputy Secretary of the Maharashtra Government as “incomplete,” leading to delays and further conflict. Government and Union Resistance Despite additional information provided by HSML, the Industrial Tribunal allowed the workers’ union to oppose the closure. HSML argued that the 60-day deemed approval period had lapsed in October 2019 and that the closure should be recognized as valid from the original submission date. They also contended that the Deputy Secretary lacked the authority to reject or alter the application—stating only the Minister had jurisdiction in such cases. Meanwhile, the government cited the incomplete nature of the application and emphasized the need to protect workers’ rights. Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling The Supreme Court confirmed that while businesses have a constitutional right to close under Article 19(1)(g), this right is regulated by Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court ruled: The closure application dated August 28, 2019, was complete and initiated the 60-day statutory window. The Deputy Secretary was not the “appropriate Government” as per Section 25-O. The Minister failed to independently evaluate the application, making the delegation of authority improper. All communications from the Deputy Secretary were legally invalid. The court referenced previous landmark cases like Excel Wear and Orissa Textile and Steel, reaffirming the interplay between business rights and labor regulations. Final Verdict and Compensation Award The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court‘s decision and upheld the deemed closure as valid. It found procedural lapses in how the Maharashtra Government handled the case and concluded that HSML had no viable business options after the JWA termination. In a significant move, the Court directed that compensation awarded to employees during the dispute would not be recoverable. Additionally, it ordered HSML to pay an extra ₹5 crores in compensation to workers—payable within eight weeks. Conclusion: Balancing Business Freedom and Worker Protection This judgment reaffirms the delicate balance between the right to trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) and the legal safeguards designed to protect workers. While entrepreneurs have the liberty to close operations, such decisions must comply with applicable laws and respect due process. The Harinagar Sugar Mills case serves as a precedent on how constitutional freedoms and industrial regulations intersect in a rapidly evolving business environment. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Upholds Right to Business Closure Under Article 19(1)(g): Harinagar Sugar Mills Case Explained Supreme Court Upholds Right to Business Closure Under Article 19(1)(g): Harinagar Sugar Mills Case Explained Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Business Closure Under Article 19(1)(g): Harinagar Sugar Mills Case Explained Read More »

Supreme Court Rules Section 6A Unconstitutional with Retrospective Effect in CBI v. R.R. Kishore Judgment

Trending Today Mumbai EOW Arrests IPS Officer’s Husband in ₹7.2 Crore BMC Fraud Case Over Redevelopment Scam Nestlé India’s Bonus Share Proposal Reflects Confidence, Strong Governance, and Shareholder Commitment China’s Rare-Earth Export Curbs Disrupt Indian Industries: Push for Self-Reliance Gains Momentum Bihar’s Biggest Crackdown: ₹Crores in Properties Seized from 52 Criminals Under PMLA Madras High Court Halts ED Proceedings Against Film Producer, Cites Lack of Jurisdiction and Orders Return of Seized Items CLAT PG Candidate Challenges ₹30,000 Counselling Fee in Delhi High Court, Cites Financial Hardship Bombay High Court Pushes for Swift Resolution in Sony vs Tata Play Licensing Dispute Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LAWKARI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JURIDICA SOLUTION Supreme Court Rules Section 6A Unconstitutional with Retrospective Effect in CBI v. R.R. Kishore Judgment NISHA KUMARI 11 June 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court of India’s 2023 judgment in CBI v. Dr. R.R. Kishore declared Section 6A of the DSPE Act unconstitutional and applied the ruling retrospectively, reshaping corruption investigations in India. Introduction: A Landmark Ruling in Anti-Corruption Law On 11th September 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of CBI v. Dr. R.R. Kishore, significantly impacting how corruption cases involving senior public officials are investigated. The Court held that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946—which required prior approval from the Central Government to investigate senior officers—was unconstitutional and applied this ruling retrospectively. Background: What Was Section 6A of the DSPE Act? Section 6A mandated that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) obtain government approval before investigating officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above for corruption. Introduced to safeguard senior officials, the provision was often criticized for hindering independent investigations. Case Origin and Legal Context Who Filed the Petitions? Two writ petitions were initially filed by: Dr. Subramanian Swamy Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) Both challenged the validity of Section 6A, arguing it violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. Previous Related Case: Subramanian Swamy v. CBI In this earlier case, a Constitution Bench had already declared Section 6A unconstitutional. However, the retrospective applicability of that judgment remained unclear—until now. Facts of the CBI v. R.R. Kishore Case In 2004, the CBI registered an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and laid a trap to catch an accused accepting a bribe. The accused argued the investigation was invalid due to lack of government sanction under Section 6A. The CBI court rejected the discharge request, but the High Court allowed reinvestigation—only if approval was granted. The CBI challenged this order, and the matter remained pending until the 2023 Supreme Court verdict. Key Legal Issues Considered 1. Is prior sanction mandatory for prosecuting public servants under Section 197 of CrPC and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?   2. Was the High Court justified in quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC?   3. Is there enough prima facie evidence to proceed under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?   Supreme Court Judgment: Section 6A Is Void from the Start Key Highlights of the Judgment The Court ruled that any law declared void under Article 13(2) is invalid from its inception. As Section 6A was added after the Constitution came into effect, it is considered null and void from the date of its creation (2003). Section 6A was a procedural provision, and its removal does not violate Article 20(1), which protects against retrospective criminal punishment. The judgment empowers the CBI to act without prior government approval in such cases. Implications for Corruption Investigations in India Impact on Public Servants The Court clarified that no one can claim protection under a law that has been declared unconstitutional. This decision removes artificial safeguards that previously shielded senior officials from anti-corruption probes. Reinforcing the Rule of Law By striking down Section 6A, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of equal accountability under rule of law and empowered independent investigations. Conclusion: A Victory for Transparency and Accountability The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in CBI v. R.R. Kishore marks a turning point in India’s anti-corruption framework. By holding Section 6A unconstitutional with retrospective effect, the Court enhanced the powers of investigative agencies, removed administrative barriers, and promoted equal justice under law. This ruling serves as a precedent for future corruption cases and highlights the Court’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and constitutional integrity. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Rules Section 6A Unconstitutional with Retrospective Effect in CBI v. R.R. Kishore Judgment Read More »

Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023)

Trending Today Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) REHA BHARGAV 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court ruled in CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) that default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is not absolute and can be cancelled after filing a chargesheet in serious non-bailable offences. Learn about this landmark decision balancing bail rights and justice. Introduction: Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Default Bail In a significant judgment on January 16, 2023, the Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy that default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not an unassailable right. The Court clarified that such bail can be cancelled on merits after the filing of a chargesheet, especially in cases involving serious non-bailable offences like murder. This decision arose from the high-profile murder case of Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy, shedding light on the legal balance between individual liberty and the interests of justice. Case Background: Facts and Timeline The Crime and Initial Investigation Victim: Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy, former legislator and Member of Parliament Incident Date: March 2019 Initially registered under Section 174 CrPC (unnatural death), the case was later upgraded to Sections 302 and 120B IPC (murder and criminal conspiracy). Arrest and Default Bail Accused: T. Gangi Reddy Arrest Date: March 28, 2019 Due to delay in investigation, the accused was granted default bail on June 27, 2019, under Section 167(2) CrPC, which mandates bail if a chargesheet is not filed within 60 days. CBI Takes Over and Files Chargesheet The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the case and filed a detailed chargesheet on October 26, 2021, implicating Gangi Reddy. CBI then moved to cancel the default bail, citing seriousness of the offence and strong prima facie evidence. Legal Issue: Can Default Bail Be Cancelled After Chargesheet? The central legal question before the Supreme Court was: Can an accused who has secured default bail due to delay in investigation lose that bail once a chargesheet is filed in serious, non-bailable cases? Arguments Before the Court CBI’s Arguments (Petitioner) Default bail is conditional, not absolute—it’s granted only because of a procedural delay. Once a chargesheet is filed, especially in heinous crimes like murder, the court has discretion to cancel bail based on the merits of the case. Continued bail poses a risk to the investigation, including potential tampering with evidence or witnesses. Respondent’s Arguments Default bail under Section 167(2) is a statutory right and should not be revoked merely because the investigation later concluded. Cancelling default bail would undermine the intent of Section 167(2), which aims to prevent indefinite pre-trial detention due to investigative delays. Supreme Court Judgment: Bail is Not Absolute Key Observations by the Court Presiding Judges: Justice M. R. Shah and Justice C. T. Ravikumar Date of Judgment: January 16, 2023 The Court held that default bail is not an absolute or indefeasible right. Once a chargesheet is filed with strong evidence in a serious offence, courts can cancel such bail. The ruling emphasized the gravity of the crime, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the interests of justice. Impact of the Judgment This judgment reinforces that procedural safeguards like default bail are not meant to protect offenders indefinitely, especially when strong evidence emerges post-investigation. Conclusion: Balancing Liberty and Justice The Supreme Court’s ruling in CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy sets a critical precedent in Indian criminal law. It affirms that while the right to default bail safeguards against undue detention, it does not override the need for justice in serious criminal cases. Courts retain the discretion to cancel bail once substantial evidence surfaces, ensuring the integrity of the judicial process. Key Takeaways Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is not permanent. Courts can cancel bail after a chargesheet, especially in serious, non-bailable offences. The judgment upholds a balanced approach between personal liberty and public interest.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed REHA BHARGAV 11 June 2025 Supreme Court affirms the Union Government‘s power to abolish the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (OAT), ruling that the Odisha High Court can effectively handle transferred service matters. Explore the judgment, case facts, and its impact on administrative justice. Introduction to Orissa Administrative Tribunal Abolition Case The landmark case Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India & Ors., decided on March 21, 2023, addresses the constitutional validity of abolishing the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (OAT). Established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the OAT adjudicated service matters of Odisha state employees for over three decades. The Union Government, with Odisha’s concurrence, abolished the tribunal in 2019, transferring pending cases to the Orissa High Court. This decision triggered legal challenges based on concerns over access to justice, judicial independence, and the powers of the government under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Facts of the Case: Abolition of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal Establishment: OAT was formed in 1986 to resolve service disputes involving Odisha state government employees. Abolition Notification: In August 2019, the Union Government issued a notification abolishing OAT under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Case Transfer: All pending cases were transferred to the Orissa High Court. Challenge: The Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association contested the abolition in the Supreme Court, citing potential negative impacts on justice delivery. Legal Issues Considered by the Supreme Court Was the Union Government legally empowered to abolish the OAT? The Court examined if the Union of India had the authority under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and General Clauses Act, 1897 to revoke the tribunal’s establishment. Did abolition violate access to justice or judicial independence? The case questioned whether shifting service matters to the High Court hindered litigants’ rights or compromised judicial effectiveness. Was transferring cases to the Orissa High Court constitutionally valid? The Court evaluated the High Court’s capacity to handle specialized service matters originally under OAT jurisdiction. Arguments from Both Sides Petitioners’ Arguments The abolition was arbitrary and affected thousands of state employees relying on OAT for speedy, cost-effective resolution. The Orissa High Court is overburdened and lacks tribunal specialization. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act should not revoke a statutory tribunal without explicit legislative authority. Respondents’ Arguments The Union Government acted within its legal rights to abolish OAT under Section 21. Many states do not have separate administrative tribunals, yet their High Courts effectively manage service cases. Policy decisions on tribunal restructuring are executive prerogatives and not liable to judicial interference unless unconstitutional or arbitrary. Supreme Court Judgment: Upholding the Abolition On March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court delivered a decisive ruling affirming the constitutionality of abolishing the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, stated: Tribunals are statutory bodies without vested rights to exist permanently. Executive decisions to dissolve tribunals fall within legal policy discretion. The Orissa High Court is competent to handle service matters transferred from OAT. No violation of access to justice or judicial independence occurred by abolishing the tribunal. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association, validating the government’s action. Conclusion: Impact on Administrative Justice and Tribunal Restructuring This Supreme Court judgment underscores the Union Government’s power to restructure judicial forums, including abolishing state administrative tribunals like OAT, provided constitutional safeguards are maintained. It highlights that administrative tribunals are not permanent fixtures and their continuation depends on legislative and executive policies. The ruling reinforces that service matters can be effectively managed by High Courts, ensuring continued access to justice. It sets a significant precedent on the balance between executive discretion and judicial oversight in administrative justice reforms. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Read More »

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023)

Trending Today Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) REHA BHARGAV 11 June 2025 Explore the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023), where the Court upheld anticipatory bail post-charge-sheet and addressed the issue of mechanical judicial remand. Understand its impact on white-collar crime cases and personal liberty under Article 21. Introduction – Why This Case Matters In Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on March 20, 2023, concerning anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The case, involving alleged financial fraud, raised critical issues regarding personal liberty, judicial remand practices, and procedural fairness in economic offences. This ruling is particularly relevant for white-collar crime cases, where arrest isn’t always necessary for investigation, yet accused individuals face the risk of mechanical remand by trial courts. Background and Facts of the Case Key Details Petitioner: Mahdoom Bava Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR: RC 219/2019/E0006 Offence Alleged: Financial fraud and corruption Date of Judgment: March 20, 2023 Bench: Justice V. Ramasubramanian & Justice Pankaj Mithal The CBI filed a charge-sheet without seeking custodial interrogation. However, Mahdoom Bava, apprehensive of arrest and judicial remand, sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Allahabad High Court. He then approached the Supreme Court of India, which granted interim protection in January and a final order in March. Core Legal Issue Can anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC be granted after a charge-sheet is filed but before arrest, especially when there is a genuine apprehension of judicial remand and no custodial interrogation is sought? Petitioner’s Arguments Real Apprehension of Remand: Despite no request for custody, trial courts tend to remand accused upon appearance. Section 438 CrPC Still Applicable: Filing of a charge-sheet does not bar anticipatory bail if the individual hasn’t been arrested. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution: Arrest without need violates personal liberty. No Risk of Flight or Evidence Tampering: The petitioner fully cooperated with the investigation. Support from Judicial Precedents: Courts have historically interpreted anticipatory bail liberally, especially in economic offences. CBI’s Counterarguments Anticipatory Bail Not Valid Post-Charge-Sheet: CBI argued the remedy becomes infructuous after filing the charge-sheet. Seriousness of Offence: The gravity of alleged financial fraud warranted stricter custody norms. Judicial Remand Still Applicable: Even if custody isn’t sought, judicial remand can be ordered. Limiting Anticipatory Bail: Referred to prior rulings discouraging misuse of anticipatory bail to avoid due process. Supreme Court Judgment Highlights Key Takeaways from the Judgment Anticipatory Bail Is Maintainable Post-Charge-Sheet: The Court affirmed that anticipatory bail is valid even after the charge-sheet is filed if arrest hasn’t occurred. Criticism of Mechanical Remand: The Court warned against routine remand orders that ignore the context and necessity. Protection of Personal Liberty: Arrests must not compromise constitutional protections without solid grounds. No Justification for Denial of Bail: Since the CBI didn’t seek custody, judicial remand was unnecessary. Conclusion – Strengthening Individual Liberty in Criminal Justice The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI sets a crucial precedent. It affirms that anticipatory bail remains valid post-charge-sheet, provided the accused hasn’t been arrested and faces a legitimate threat of judicial custody. It challenges the mechanical remand practices and reiterates that personal liberty under Article 21 must not be sacrificed to procedural routine. This decision strengthens rights-based jurisprudence, especially in white-collar crime cases, ensuring that bail laws evolve in line with constitutional values. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Read More »

Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case

Trending Today Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case REHA BHARGAV 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi raises key questions on High Court jurisdiction over CAT orders. Learn how this case impacts service law, administrative justice, and whistleblower protection in India. Landmark Case: Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (2023) On March 3, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors., addressing a critical legal question:Can a High Court entertain a writ petition against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) when the tribunal is located outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction? The Supreme Court refrained from issuing a conclusive verdict and instead referred the matter to a larger constitutional bench, recognizing its wide-reaching implications on service law, jurisdictional clarity, and judicial review in administrative matters. Case Background: Who Is Sanjiv Chaturvedi? Sanjiv Chaturvedi is a 2002-batch Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer, well-known for his whistleblowing role in exposing corruption during his tenure. His efforts earned public attention, but also resulted in transfers and disciplinary actions, sparking a complex legal battle over inter-cadre deputation from Haryana to Uttarakhand. While the Uttarakhand Government supported his transfer, the Government of India opposed it, leading Chaturvedi to file a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Legal Issue: Territorial Jurisdiction of High Courts Over CAT Orders The primary legal question was: Does a High Court have jurisdiction to review an order passed by the CAT Principal Bench in New Delhi if the cause of action occurred in another state? This issue arose after the Uttarakhand High Court overturned the CAT’s decision to transfer Chaturvedi’s original application to Delhi. The Union Government challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction over CAT orders issued by its Principal Bench. Union of India’s Argument The Union of India asserted that: Only the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction since the CAT Principal Bench passed the order in New Delhi. Chaturvedi’s posting in Uttarakhand was irrelevant to jurisdiction. Allowing multiple High Courts to review CAT orders could lead to conflicting rulings and forum shopping. Sanjiv Chaturvedi’s Argument Chaturvedi countered that: The cause of action arose entirely in Uttarakhand, including the administrative decisions he challenged. Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, any High Court can exercise jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within its territory. Forcing all such reviews to Delhi would undermine access to justice and overburden the Delhi High Court. Supreme Court’s Judgment: Referred to Larger Bench Rather than resolving the jurisdictional issue, the Supreme Court—led by Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna—recognized its constitutional importance and referred it to a larger bench for an authoritative interpretation. The Court acknowledged that service-related cases often involve officers posted across the country, and inconsistency in jurisdictional rules would disrupt the uniformity of administrative justice. Key Legal Implications This case touches on broader themes critical to Indian jurisprudence: Judicial review of tribunal decisions under Article 226 Inter-cadre deputation rules for IFS and other All India Services officers Whistleblower protection in the Indian civil service Territorial jurisdiction and High Court powers in administrative law Conclusion: Awaiting Clarity on CAT Jurisdiction The Supreme Court’s approach in Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi underscores the need for a uniform legal standard on the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts over CAT orders. Until the larger constitutional bench delivers a final ruling, civil servants and legal professionals must navigate this gray area with caution. This case not only affects Sanjiv Chaturvedi but sets the stage for far-reaching implications across service law, judicial review, and the protection of honest public servants in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Women Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite 1986 Act Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Women Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite 1986 Act Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court granted two journalists interim protection from arrest in a Madhya Pradesh FIR case involving sand mafia reporting. Learn the full story, legal developments, and the court’s directive to seek relief from the High Court. Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists Accused in Madhya Pradesh FIR On June 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India provided interim protection from arrest to two journalists—journalists Shashikant Jatav and Amarkant Singh Chouhan—involved in a police FIR registered in Madhya Pradesh. The journalists alleged police assault following their investigative reports on the illegal activities of the sand mafia operating near the Chambal River. Journalists Accuse Police of Assault Linked to Sand Mafia Coverage The plea, filed by the journalists from Bhind, claimed they were physically assaulted by state police officials due to their reporting on illegal sand mining. The bench comprising Justice P.K. Mishra and Justice Manmohan heard the petition and acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations. Two-Week Interim Protection Granted by Supreme Court The Supreme Court granted a two-week window of protection from arrest, instructing the journalists to approach the jurisdictional High Court for relief. The bench observed: “Although we are not inclined to consider this petition under Article 32, given the nature of the allegations, the petitioners shall not be arrested for two weeks, during which time they may seek appropriate relief from the High Court.” Delhi High Court Earlier Approached—Clarification Provided The bench noted that the petitioners had earlier approached the Delhi High Court. However, Advocate Warisha Farasat, representing the petitioners, clarified that the current plea is limited to seeking protection from coercive action, a request not raised in the previous filing. State of Madhya Pradesh Alleges Extortion—Petitioners Deny Claims During the hearing, the counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh alleged that over 10 complaints had been made against the journalists for supposed extortion. Advocate Farasat firmly refuted these allegations, stating, “We are here because we are actually fearing for our lives.” Next Legal Step: High Court to Examine Petitioners’ Claims The Supreme Court emphasized that the matters raised—including police misconduct, extortion allegations, and press freedom—should now be taken up by the jurisdictional High Court. The interim relief ensures that the petitioners are not arrested before the High Court evaluates their request. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Read More »

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway

Trending Today Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ECONOMIC LAW PRACTICE Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India stays the Madras High Court’s order halting NHAI‘s toll collection on the Madurai-Tuticorin highway, citing the need for further review. Learn about the legal conflict, road maintenance concerns, and toll collection debate. Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order on NHAI Toll Collection in Madurai-Tuticorin On June 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a stay on the Madras High Court‘s directive to halt toll collection on the Madurai–Tuticorin Highway. This decision temporarily allows the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to resume toll collection while the matter undergoes further judicial review. Bench Grants Interim Relief to NHAI The ruling came during a hearing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the NHAI. The judicial bench comprised Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan, who allowed the interim relief. Representing the NHAI was N. Venkataraman, the Additional Solicitor General of India, who argued that the toll collection should continue until a full hearing is conducted. Opposition Terms Toll as ‘Daylight Robbery’ Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the respondents, fiercely opposed the stay. He called the toll collection “daylight robbery” given the highway’s poor condition. He argued that despite prior commitments, the NHAI had failed to repair the road, forcing commuters to pay tolls without receiving proper infrastructure services. Supreme Court Emphasizes Legal Procedure Despite Wilson’s concerns, the bench noted that the original writ petition filed in the High Court did not directly request a halt in toll collection. They emphasized due process and instructed Wilson to file a counter-affidavit. Justice Manmohan remarked, “Allow them to recover (toll) for now; then we can assess the situation.” High Court’s Initial Ban Based on Road Conditions On June 3, a division bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice A. D. Maria Clete of the Madras High Court halted toll collection, citing the NHAI’s failure to maintain the highway. The court highlighted that according to the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, toll collection is legally valid only if roads are properly maintained. Court Asserts Public Right to Well-Maintained Roads The High Court ruled that tolls should not be charged unless highways meet maintenance standards. “It is the duty of the National Highways Authority of India to ensure proper maintenance,” the order stated. Road users, the court emphasized, are entitled to quality infrastructure before being charged toll fees. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Read More »

Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute

Trending Today Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ECONOMIC LAW PRACTICE Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni in BJP Worker Yogesh Gowda Murder Case Over Witness Tampering Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court denied an urgent hearing for Tamil Nadu’s lawsuit against the Centre over Rs 2291 crore in educational funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme, citing no urgency. The case highlights tensions over NEP 2020 and PM SHRI Schools implementation. Supreme Court Denies Urgent Hearing in Tamil Nadu vs Centre Education Funds Dispute On June 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declined an urgent listing of a lawsuit filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against the Central Government of India. The suit demands the release of over Rs 2291 crore under the centrally-sponsored Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS). Key Judges Cite Lack of Urgency A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan declined to list the case during the court’s partial working days. The judges maintained that there was no immediate urgency in the matter, despite pleas from Senior Advocate P. Wilson, who stressed that the fund delay was affecting around 48 lakh students across government schools in Tamil Nadu. Impact on Students and the New Academic Year According to Wilson, the absence of funds is jeopardizing the implementation of the Right to Education Act in Tamil Nadu. The academic year had already begun on June 3, and the lack of financial support was impeding basic infrastructure and learning services in schools. When questioned by the bench on the timing of the issue, it was revealed that the State filed the suit on May 20, 2025, following non-allocation of the funds during the previous academic year. Centre’s Withholding Tied to NEP 2020 and PM SHRI Implementation Tamil Nadu alleges that the Centre is withholding funds because the state has not implemented the National Education Policy 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools initiative. Under Article 131 of the Constitution, Tamil Nadu’s original suit seeks a judicial directive mandating the Central Government to release the Rs 2291 crore plus interest. Constitutional Challenge to Conditional Funding The lawsuit also includes a demand for a formal declaration stating that linking the release of Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds to the implementation of NEP 2020 and PM SHRI Schools is “unconstitutional, illegal, unreasonable, and arbitrary.” Tamil Nadu argues that such conditional funding undermines cooperative federalism and adversely affects millions of students. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Read More »