June 19, 2025

Supreme Court Judgment on SBI vs Rajesh Agarwal: Borrowers’ Right to Hearing Under SARFAESI Act and RBI Fraud Classification Guidelines

Supreme Court Judgment on Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan: Interpretation of Remand Date for Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC

Supreme Court Upholds Bar Council of India’s Power to Conduct AIBE; Overrules V. Sudeer Judgment

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Bar Council of India’s Power to Conduct AIBE; Overrules V. Sudeer Judgment Supreme Court Upholds High Court Verdict: Valid Selection Cannot Be Undone by New Tribunal Rules Supreme Court Rules ONGC’s Prolonged Land Occupation Unconstitutional Under Article 300A LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW CHAMBERS OF ROHIT BHARADWAJ LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT QUANTUM LEGAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT BAJAJ, HYDERABAD JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SONEPAT LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT AMS LEGAL, CHENNAI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT HER VOICE LAW Supreme Court Upholds Bar Council of India’s Power to Conduct AIBE; Overrules V. Sudeer Judgment REHA BHARGAV 19 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India affirms the Bar Council of India’s legal authority to mandate the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) for law graduates. This landmark 2023 ruling overrules the earlier V. Sudeer judgment and sets new standards for legal practice eligibility in India. Introduction The landmark Supreme Court case Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors. decided on February 10, 2023, settled a long-standing debate regarding the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and the regulatory powers of the Bar Council of India (BCI). The Court upheld the BCI’s authority to conduct the AIBE, making it a mandatory prerequisite for law graduates seeking to enroll as advocates and practice law across India. Background: The AIBE and Its Controversy In 2010, the BCI introduced the AIBE as a mandatory examination designed to assess the professional competence of law graduates before they could officially practice law. Several law colleges and graduates challenged this move, arguing that once a law degree was awarded, no further examination should be imposed. They claimed the BCI lacked statutory authority under the Advocates Act, 1961 to enforce such a test. Key Issues in the Case Does the Bar Council of India have the legal power under the Advocates Act to mandate the All India Bar Examination? Does the AIBE infringe upon the rights of law graduates who have fulfilled academic qualifications? Should the Supreme Court reconsider or overrule its earlier decision in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India (1999), which disallowed pre-enrollment exams or training? What is the scope of BCI’s rule-making authority under Sections 7 and 49 of the Advocates Act regarding enrollment conditions? Arguments Presented Petitioners’ Standpoint The repeal of Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act removed BCI’s authority to impose additional pre-enrollment qualifications. The 1999 V. Sudeer ruling invalidated such exams as ultra vires the Advocates Act. The AIBE restricts the fundamental right to practice law after earning a law degree. Legal education and university approval should suffice to grant enrollment eligibility without extra barriers. Respondents’ Defense BCI derives its authority from Section 49(1)(ag) to regulate legal education and professional competence. The AIBE acts as a quality control measure ensuring only competent law graduates enter the profession. The V. Sudeer case concerned training, not qualifying examinations, making AIBE a distinct and valid requirement. Regulatory oversight is necessary due to the rise of substandard law colleges. Reasonable restrictions like AIBE comply with constitutional provisions protecting public interest. Supreme Court’s Judgment The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bar Council of India, affirming that the AIBE is a constitutionally valid and necessary condition for enrollment as an advocate. The Court: Overruled the earlier V. Sudeer v. BCI (1999) judgment, emphasizing evolving educational standards. Confirmed BCI’s authority under Sections 7 and 49 of the Advocates Act to set minimum competence standards. Declared the AIBE a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, ensuring public confidence in the legal profession. Highlighted the importance of maintaining professional integrity amidst the proliferation of substandard legal education institutions. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant turning point in legal education and professional regulation in India. The Bar Council of India’s power to mandate the All India Bar Examination is legally upheld, reinforcing quality and competence in the legal profession. Law graduates must now clear the AIBE to gain enrollment and practice rights, ensuring only qualified advocates serve the Indian legal system. 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 Bar Council of India’s Power to Conduct AIBE; Overrules V. Sudeer Judgment Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds High Court Verdict: Valid Selection Cannot Be Undone by New Tribunal Rules Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules ONGC’s Prolonged Land Occupation Unconstitutional Under Article 300A Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Bar Council of India’s Power to Conduct AIBE; Overrules V. Sudeer Judgment Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Verdict: Valid Selection Cannot Be Undone by New Tribunal Rules

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds High Court Verdict: Valid Selection Cannot Be Undone by New Tribunal Rules Supreme Court Rules ONGC’s Prolonged Land Occupation Unconstitutional Under Article 300A LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW CHAMBERS OF ROHIT BHARADWAJ LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT QUANTUM LEGAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT BAJAJ, HYDERABAD JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SONEPAT LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT AMS LEGAL, CHENNAI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT HER VOICE LAW LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEXCLAIM Supreme Court Upholds High Court Verdict: Valid Selection Cannot Be Undone by New Tribunal Rules REHA BHARGAV 19 June 2025 The Supreme Court rules that selected candidates for Consumer Commissions cannot be denied appointments under the retrospective application of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021—reinforcing judicial independence and fair selection processes. Introduction In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the rights of legally selected candidates for Consumer Commissions, ruling against the retrospective application of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The case—The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Others—highlights critical issues surrounding judicial appointments, administrative law, and the separation of powers. Background: Understanding the Case Who Were the Parties Involved? Petitioner: The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs (Union of India) Respondents: Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and other selected candidates for consumer commission positions What Sparked the Dispute? The respondents had been lawfully selected as Presidents and Members of District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in Maharashtra. Their selection occurred under the existing rules before the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and its accompanying Tribunals Reforms (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 came into force. These new rules: Imposed a fixed four-year tenure Introduced new eligibility criteria Were applied retrospectively by the government to deny the appointments Key Legal Issues Raised Can Retrospective Rules Override Completed Selection Processes? The core legal question was whether the government could refuse appointments to candidates selected under the old legal framework by applying new rules retrospectively. Do the New Rules Violate Constitutional Principles? The Court examined whether the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and its Rules: Violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) Violated Article 21 (Right to Fair Procedure) Undermined judicial independence and previously established legal precedents Arguments Presented Union of India’s Standpoint Asserted the Tribunal Reforms Act brought uniformity and transparency Claimed no vested right to appointment existed without formal letters Argued the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by mandating appointments Respondents’ Counterpoints Selection was done lawfully under existing rules Retrospective denial was arbitrary and unjust Emphasized legitimate expectation and fairness in the process Argued the new rules could not nullify completed selections Supreme Court Judgment The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, affirming the Bombay High Court‘s decision. Key takeaways include: The selection process was valid under the previous legal framework Retrospective application of new eligibility criteria was unconstitutional Denial of appointment violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution Executive discretion cannot override the rule of law The State was directed to issue appointment letters Impact and Significance Strengthening Judicial Independence This judgment reinforces that governments must honor completed selection processes and cannot arbitrarily apply new legislative rules to undo them. It underscores the importance of: Separation of powers Judicial independence Administrative fairness What This Means for Future Tribunal Appointments Legal practitioners with 10 years of experience are now assured of fair consideration under stable legal standards. The ruling sets a significant precedent against retrospective denial of rights in quasi-judicial appointments. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s verdict in The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye is a decisive step in safeguarding constitutional values, judicial integrity, and due process in tribunal appointments. It sends a strong message: once a selection is validly made, it must be honored—regardless of future rule changes. 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 High Court Verdict: Valid Selection Cannot Be Undone by New Tribunal Rules Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules ONGC’s Prolonged Land Occupation Unconstitutional Under Article 300A Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Union of India vs Union Carbide Corporation (2023) | Bhopal Gas Tragedy Settlement & Legal Finality Sada Law • June 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Verdict: Valid Selection Cannot Be Undone by New Tribunal Rules Read More »

Supreme Court Rules ONGC’s Prolonged Land Occupation Unconstitutional Under Article 300A

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Rules ONGC’s Prolonged Land Occupation Unconstitutional Under Article 300A LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW CHAMBERS OF ROHIT BHARADWAJ LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT QUANTUM LEGAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT BAJAJ, HYDERABAD JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SONEPAT LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT AMS LEGAL, CHENNAI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT HER VOICE LAW LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEXCLAIM Supreme Court Judgment on Union of India vs Union Carbide Corporation (2023) | Bhopal Gas Tragedy Settlement & Legal Finality Supreme Court Rules ONGC’s Prolonged Land Occupation Unconstitutional Under Article 300A REHA BHARGAV 19 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India held ONGC‘s two-decade-long occupation of private land without acquisition illegal under Article 300A. Learn about the judgment, key legal issues, and its impact on land acquisition law in India. Introduction – Landmark Judgment on Right to Property in India In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad & Anr v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors (decided on January 20, 2023), reinforced the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. The case involved unauthorized land possession by ONGC for over two decades without formal acquisition or fair compensation. The judgment highlights that temporary acquisition cannot become permanent by default, and state authorities must comply with the law when using private land for public purposes. Case Background – Facts and Timeline Origin of the Dispute In 1996, ONGC temporarily acquired land measuring approximately 10,034 square meters in Village Vastral, Ahmedabad, for petroleum exploration. Over 20 years passed without formal acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Ownership Transfer and Legal Action The land was sold to Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad and another in 2005. After realizing ONGC’s continued occupation without legal backing, the appellants filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court in 2016. Though ONGC issued a notification under the 2013 Act, it later withdrew the process citing high compensation costs. Legal Issues Raised Central Legal Question Does long-term occupation of private land without lawful acquisition violate the constitutional right to property under Article 300A? Petitioners’ Arguments Violation of Article 300A: Continuous occupation without acquisition proceedings was unconstitutional. Inadequate Compensation: ONGC paid nominal rent (₹24/m²/year, later ₹30), while market value was over ₹1000/m²/month. De Facto Acquisition: ONGC’s extended “temporary” use became permanent without following due process. Delay and Deception: Petitioners accused ONGC of delaying formal acquisition despite assurances in court. ONGC’s Defense Consent-Based Possession: ONGC claimed initial consent and regular rent payments validated its occupation. No Immediate Need for Acquisition: Due to the temporary nature and compensation, acquisition wasn’t urgent. Financial Constraints: High compensation deterred ONGC from completing acquisition. Public Purpose Justification: The land was used for vital energy exploration, benefiting national interest. Supreme Court Judgment – Upholding the Rule of Law The Supreme Court of India condemned ONGC’s actions, emphasizing that no authority can hold land indefinitely without legal acquisition and fair compensation. The Court declared ONGC’s occupation a violation of Article 300A, reinforcing that the State cannot bypass constitutional protections. Key Directions by the Supreme Court Mandatory Acquisition: ONGC was directed to complete land acquisition under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act by April 30, 2023. Non-Compliance Clause: Failure to acquire would require ONGC to vacate and return the land. Rent Argument Rejected: Nominal rent payments do not substitute legal acquisition procedures. Constitutional Accountability: Public authorities are bound by constitutional law, regardless of the purpose. Conclusion – A Win for Landowners and Property Rights This landmark verdict reinforces the right to property and sends a strong message to public bodies: prolonged occupation without acquisition is illegal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s judgment ensures that landowners cannot be deprived of their property arbitrarily, and that fair compensation and due process are essential in any land acquisition case in India. Key Takeaways The right to property under Article 300A is constitutionally protected. ONGC’s 25-year occupation was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Public purpose cannot override due legal procedures. Government entities must comply with the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. The case sets a precedent for fair compensation and legal acquisition processes in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Rules ONGC’s Prolonged Land Occupation Unconstitutional Under Article 300A Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Union of India vs Union Carbide Corporation (2023) | Bhopal Gas Tragedy Settlement & Legal Finality Sada Law • June 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Judgment in Directorate of Enforcement vs M. Gopal Reddy (2023) Sada Law • June 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Rules ONGC’s Prolonged Land Occupation Unconstitutional Under Article 300A Read More »

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Tamil Nadu ADGP Arrested Following Madras High Court Order in Teenage Abduction Case Involving MLA

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT A. K. SINGH & ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ZIMYO, GURUGRAM

CALL FOR BLOGS BY LAWFUL LEGAL

Supreme Court Judgment on SBI vs Rajesh Agarwal: Borrowers’ Right to Hearing Under SARFAESI Act and RBI Fraud Classification Guidelines

Supreme Court Judgment on Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan: Interpretation of Remand Date for Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC

Supreme Court Upholds Bar Council of India’s Power to Conduct AIBE; Overrules V. Sudeer Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Verdict: Valid Selection Cannot Be Undone by New Tribunal Rules

Supreme Court Rules ONGC’s Prolonged Land Occupation Unconstitutional Under Article 300A

Editorial message

Quick links

Contact info