sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu
Menu
Menu

2023

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

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

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

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

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)

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

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

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

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)

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

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

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

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 »

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 »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote