sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu
Menu
Menu

2023

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

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

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

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

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

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

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

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

Legal Rights of Non-Tribals in Scheduled Areas: Supreme Court’s Verdict in Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India (2023)

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Legal Rights of Non-Tribals in Scheduled Areas: Supreme Court’s Verdict in Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India (2023) How Global Powers Reacted to the India-Pakistan Standoff: A Nuclear Flashpoint in Focus Supreme Court: No Promotion for Posts Meant for Direct Recruitment – Nitu Kumari & Jyostnamayee Mishra Case Analysis Jharkhand High Court: GST Refund of Pre-Deposit Can’t Be Denied Due to Limitation, Cites Violation of Article 265 Indian Consumer Courts Can Hear Complaints Against WhatsApp, Rules UP Consumer Forum Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Supreme Court Dismisses Noida Toll Company’s Appeal Against DND Flyway Toll Judgment: Highlights Public Interest Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025 Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump Legal Rights of Non-Tribals in Scheduled Areas: Supreme Court’s Verdict in Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India (2023) NITU KUMARI 12 May 2025 Explore the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India (2023), clarifying the rights of non-tribals in Scheduled Areas, the role of the Governor, and the applicability of state and union laws. Introduction: Understanding Scheduled Areas and Tribal Rights Scheduled Areas in India are designated under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution to safeguard the interests of Scheduled Tribes (STs). However, questions have long been raised about the rights of non-tribal communities, particularly concerning settlement, voting rights, and the applicability of state and union laws in these regions. This issue came to the forefront in the Supreme Court case: Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, decided on May 10, 2023. Case Background: Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India Facts of the Case In 1977, the President of India declared the entire Sundargarh district in Odisha as a Scheduled Area under Clause 6(2) of the Fifth Schedule. The petitioner, a society advocating for tribal rights, argued that only Scheduled Tribes should have the right to reside and vote in these areas. It also claimed that unless the Governor issued a specific notification under Clause 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule, state or central laws could not be automatically applied to Scheduled Areas. The High Court of Orissa dismissed the petition, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. Legal Issues Raised Key Questions Before the Court: Can Union and State laws apply in Scheduled Areas without a Governor’s notification? Do non-tribals have the right to settle in Scheduled Areas? Can non-ST individuals vote or contest elections in Scheduled Areas? Supreme Court Judgment: Upholding Constitutional Rights Applicability of Laws The Supreme Court held that Union and State laws apply by default in Scheduled Areas unless the Governor issues a notification under Clause 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule. Right to Settle in Scheduled Areas Relying on Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution, the Court emphasized that every Indian citizen—including non-tribals—has the right to reside and settle anywhere in the country. Voting and Electoral Rights The Court ruled that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs voting rights and does not restrict non-tribals from voting in Scheduled Areas. Reservations for STs apply only to specific constituencies, as per Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act, 2002. Governor’s Powers vs. Fundamental Rights While the Governor has special powers under the Fifth Schedule, these powers cannot override Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. The Court cited the precedent of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reiterating that: All Union and State laws remain applicable unless the Governor states otherwise. The Governor’s authority must comply with constitutional provisions and fundamental rights. Conclusion: A Balanced Approach to Tribal and Non-Tribal Rights The Supreme Court’s ruling promotes a balanced governance approach in Scheduled Areas. It affirms: The constitutional rights of non-tribal communities. The limited and regulated use of the Governor’s discretion. The importance of inclusive democracy respecting both tribal interests and individual freedoms. Key Takeaways Scheduled Areas are governed by state and union laws, unless modified by the Governor. Non-tribals have a constitutional right to live and vote in Scheduled Areas. The Governor’s powers under the Fifth Schedule are not absolute and must align with Fundamental Rights. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Legal Rights of Non-Tribals in Scheduled Areas: Supreme Court’s Verdict in Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India (2023) Legal Rights of Non-Tribals in Scheduled Areas: Supreme Court’s Verdict in Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India (2023) Sada Law • May 12, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court: No Promotion for Posts Meant for Direct Recruitment – Nitu Kumari & Jyostnamayee Mishra Case Analysis Supreme Court: No Promotion for Posts Meant for Direct Recruitment – Nitu Kumari & Jyostnamayee Mishra Case Analysis Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court: GST Refund of Pre-Deposit Can’t Be Denied Due to Limitation, Cites Violation of Article 265 Jharkhand High Court: GST Refund of Pre-Deposit Can’t Be Denied Due to Limitation, Cites Violation of Article 265 Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Legal Rights of Non-Tribals in Scheduled Areas: Supreme Court’s Verdict in Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India (2023) Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Uttarakhand High Court Flags Misuse of ST Certificates Based on Residency in Tribal Areas Jharkhand Government Launches Health Insurance Scheme for Advocates and Families Delhi High Court Directs NLU Consortium to Ensure CLAT Access Is Not Denied Due to Language Barriers India to Conduct Largest Civil Defense Drill Since 1971 Amid Rising Tensions with Pakistan Supreme Court Mandates Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims in Landmark 2025 Ruling: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India Supreme Court on Unlawful Arrest: Vihaan Kumar Case and the Right to Be Informed of Grounds of Arrest Adultery and the Armed Forces: Applicability of the Joseph Shine Verdict Post-Decriminalization Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery NITU KUMARI 07 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India ruled that courts must prioritize a child’s right to privacy and legitimacy before ordering DNA tests in divorce cases alleging adultery. Learn how this landmark judgment shapes family law and children’s rights in India. Overview of the Case In a landmark judgment dated February 20, 2023, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of a child’s right to privacy and legitimacy, ruling that DNA testing should not be ordered frivolously in divorce proceedings involving allegations of adultery. Case Title: Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun FirodiaCitation: Civil Appeal No. 1308/2023 | 2023 INSC 146Judges: Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B. V. Nagarathna Background of the Case The husband, amid an ongoing divorce case, requested a DNA test to dispute the paternity of the second child born during the marriage, alleging extramarital relations. Both the Family Court and the Bombay High Court approved the request. The wife challenged the decision before the Supreme Court of India. Key Legal Issue Can a DNA test be ordered during divorce proceedings solely to prove adultery? Supreme Court Ruling: Child’s Right to Privacy Is Paramount The Supreme Court ruled that ordering a DNA test in this context violates the child’s right to privacy and legitimacy. The Court emphasized that genetic identity is a sensitive and private matter, protected under broader privacy rights and that a child’s identity should not be arbitrarily questioned in court. “The child’s welfare, dignity, and psychological well-being must take precedence over proving claims of adultery.” Relevant Legal Provisions Cited Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Presumes legitimacy of a child born during a lawful marriage unless non-access is proven. Section 114, Illustration (h): Allows courts to draw adverse inferences when a party refuses to answer questions. Children’s Rights Under International Law The Court referenced Article 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes the child’s right to preserve their identity, including nationality, name, and family relations. Conclusion: Protecting the Child’s Best Interests This decision is a significant step in reinforcing child welfare principles in Indian family law. It highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to balance the rights of parents with the psychological and emotional well-being of the child. According to Justice Ramasubramanian, the child’s perspective must be considered before ordering intrusive procedures like DNA tests, especially when the child’s identity and legitimacy are at stake. 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 Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Mandates Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims in Landmark 2025 Ruling: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India Supreme Court Mandates Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims in Landmark 2025 Ruling: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India Sada Law • May 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Read More »

Adultery and the Armed Forces: Applicability of the Joseph Shine Verdict Post-Decriminalization

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Adultery and the Armed Forces: Applicability of the Joseph Shine Verdict Post-Decriminalization Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Nationality Under the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Md. Rahim Ali vs. State of Assam (2024) Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment: States’ Power to Sub-Classify Scheduled Castes for Reservations Pakistan’s War Readiness in Crisis: Artillery Shortage Limits Combat Capability to Four Days Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment AIMPLB Challenges WAQF Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court Affidavit Highlights Risks of De-registration Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Adultery and the Armed Forces: Applicability of the Joseph Shine Verdict Post-Decriminalization NITU KUMARI 06 May 2025 Explore how the Supreme Court’s decriminalization of adultery in the landmark Joseph Shine case affects members of the Indian Armed Forces, and whether military personnel remain subject to disciplinary action under the Army, Navy, and Air Force Acts. Introduction In 2018, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, declaring it unconstitutional. The judgment in the Joseph Shine v. Union of India case marked a significant step towards gender equality. However, a legal ambiguity remained: does this ruling apply to personnel in the Indian Armed Forces? Facts of the Case On January 31, 2023, the Supreme Court addressed this issue through Miscellaneous Application No. 2204 of 2020 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 of 2017. The Union of India sought clarification on whether the decriminalization of adultery affected military personnel governed by the Army Act, 1950, Air Force Act, 1950, and Navy Act, 1957. These laws contain provisions for disciplining service members for “unbecoming conduct,” which includes acts of adultery. The central question was whether the protections under the 2018 ruling extended to armed forces personnel, or if military law remains distinct from civilian law in this context. Key Legal Issue Does the 2018 Supreme Court judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, which declared Section 497 of the IPC unconstitutional, also apply to individuals in the armed forces? Supreme Court Judgment The Constitution Bench, including Justices Kuttiyil M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and Chudalayil T. Ravikumar, clarified that the 2018 judgment did not address the applicability of the Army, Air Force, or Navy Acts. Under Article 33 of the Indian Constitution, Parliament has the authority to modify the application of fundamental rights to members of the armed forces. The Court accepted the Union’s argument that the military operates under independent codes separate from the IPC. Therefore, the decriminalization of adultery does not restrict military authorities from disciplining personnel for such conduct. The Court emphasized that the 2018 ruling only invalidated Section 497 of the IPC and Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had limited the right to file complaints to aggrieved husbands. It did not examine or impact military-specific laws. Conclusion The 2023 judgment provides critical clarity: the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 497 of the IPC does not extend to military personnel governed by the Army, Navy, or Air Force Acts. The Court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings in the armed forces can continue independently of civilian laws. While the Joseph Shine ruling was a milestone in upholding women’s dignity, autonomy, and equality, it does not alter the separate legal framework under which India’s armed forces operate. This distinction ensures discipline within the military while also respecting the broader constitutional values established in civilian life. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Adultery and the Armed Forces: Applicability of the Joseph Shine Verdict Post-Decriminalization Adultery and the Armed Forces: Applicability of the Joseph Shine Verdict Post-Decriminalization Sada Law • May 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Sada Law • May 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Nationality Under the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Md. Rahim Ali vs. State of Assam (2024) Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Nationality Under the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Md. Rahim Ali vs. State of Assam (2024) Sada Law • May 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Adultery and the Armed Forces: Applicability of the Joseph Shine Verdict Post-Decriminalization Read More »

Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment AIMPLB Challenges WAQF Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court Affidavit Highlights Risks of De-registration Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment NITU KUMARI 05 May 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court of India can grant divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, bypassing HMA procedures. Learn more about the landmark Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan case and its implications on family law in India. Introduction: Evolving Judicial Powers in Divorce Matters In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of its powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, enabling it to grant divorces by mutual consent—bypassing the procedural requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). This significant judgment in Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan highlights the Court’s commitment to delivering complete justice in family law cases, especially in instances of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Background of the Case Case Details: Case Name: Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan Case Citation: 2023 INSC 468 Date of Judgment: May 1, 2023 Bench: Constitution Bench of five judges Presiding Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari Case Facts: The petitioner sought the transfer of ongoing divorce proceedings to another state. During the hearing, both parties agreed to dissolve the marriage through mutual consent. Invoking Article 142(1), which empowers the Supreme Court to deliver “complete justice,” the parties requested the Court to grant them a divorce directly. Previously, a two-judge bench had recognized the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and referred the matter to a larger bench due to the recurring nature of such cases. Key Legal Issues Addressed 1. Can the Supreme Court grant a mutual consent divorce under Article 142, bypassing Section 13B of the HMA? Yes. The Court affirmed that it can use Article 142 to grant divorce by mutual consent without enforcing the statutory waiting period under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Can a divorce be granted under Article 142 even if one party objects? Yes. The Court held that in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, it may grant divorce under Article 142 even if one spouse does not consent, provided the circumstances justify such intervention. The Supreme Court’s Judgment The Constitution Bench, authoring its opinion through Justice Sanjiv Khanna, held: The Supreme Court has the constitutional power under Article 142(1) to dissolve a marriage to render complete justice. It can override procedural constraints of the Hindu Marriage Act when warranted. The Court may quash connected civil or criminal proceedings between estranged spouses as part of its relief. Parties cannot directly approach the Supreme Court seeking divorce under Article 142. The Family Court remains the first forum for matrimonial matters. Significance of the Ruling This progressive judgment balances judicial discretion with the sanctity of marriage, ensuring that justice prevails without subjecting estranged couples to prolonged and emotionally draining litigation. By setting clear boundaries on when Article 142 can be invoked, the Court prevents misuse while still offering relief in compelling cases. Conclusion: A Shift Toward Practical Justice in Family Law The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 142 in matrimonial disputes marks a turning point in Indian family law. By acknowledging the reality of dead marriages and emphasizing practical legal solutions, the Court ensures that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of procedure. This judgment empowers the judiciary to act decisively in preventing unnecessary suffering in matrimonial disputes, aligning legal processes with human realities. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment Sada Law • May 5, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment Read More »

Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict on Free Speech and Right to Dignity

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict on Free Speech and Right to Dignity Pakistan’s Defence Minister Admits Terror Support, Blames India for Pahalgam Attack Amid Rising Tensions Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules on Husband’s Appeal for Divorce Amid Alleged Extramarital Affair Copyright Protection for Hindustani Classical Music Compositions and AR Rahman’s ‘Veera Raja Veera’ Dispute” Delhi High Court Suspends Medha Patkar’s Sentence in VK Saxena Defamation Case India Puts Indus Waters Treaty on Hold: Historic Decision Amid Rising Tensions with Pakistan Terrorist Attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir: 26 Dead, Several Critically Injured in Market Shooting Raj Kundra Moves Bombay High Court to Quash Look Out Circular in Pornographic Film Racket Case Ramdev Agrees to Remove ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Videos After Court Rebuke Over Rooh Afza Remarks Deadly Terrorist Attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir: 28 Tourists Killed in Bloodiest Incident Since Article 370 Repeal Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict on Free Speech and Right to Dignity NITU KUMARI 26 Apr 2025 Explore the landmark Supreme Court of India judgment in Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh, where the balance between free speech and the right to dignity was carefully examined. Understand its impact on Indian constitutional law and future legal interpretations. Introduction: A Landmark Ruling on Free Speech and Dignity In the pivotal case of Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court of India addressed a delicate constitutional dilemma: balancing the right to free expression with the right to dignity.Decided by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and V. Ramasubramanian, this judgment has lasting implications for India’s legal system and democracy. The Background of Kaushal Kumar’s Legal Battle The case arose from a speech made by a minister in Uttar Pradesh that contained remarks perceived as insulting towards a minority community.Kaushal Kumar, feeling deeply aggrieved, filed a complaint seeking to defend personal dignity against the misuse of freedom of speech. This was not just a personal legal fight but a broader call to protect individual dignity in democratic discourse.The journey to the Supreme Court became a test of constitutional values and evolving societal norms, challenging the judiciary to define the boundaries of fundamental rights. Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court The Core Question: Freedom of Speech vs Right to Dignity At the heart of the case was a vital constitutional query:Where does the right to free expression end, and the right to dignity begin? The Court faced the complex task of ensuring that the freedom to express opinions does not overshadow the fundamental respect owed to every citizen. Recognizing that both rights are essential strands of the Indian Constitution, the Court emphasized that freedom of speech must coexist with the obligation to respect human dignity. Supreme Court’s Verdict: Balancing Rights with Responsibility In a nuanced decision, the Supreme Court ruled that while free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, it carries with it a corresponding responsibility. The Court found that the minister’s remarks crossed the line of legitimate discourse and violated the petitioner’s inherent right to dignity. By reinforcing that expression must be tempered with empathy and respect, the Court set a crucial precedent:Freedom of speech is not an absolute license and must not infringe on another’s self-worth. The Right to Dignity: A Fundamental Constitutional Value The Court’s analysis highlighted that dignity, although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is deeply embedded within the rights to life and personal liberty under Article 21. It asserted that dignity involves more than just physical well-being — it encompasses respect for one’s identity, self-worth, and equality in all spheres of life. This ruling strengthens the constitutional fabric by emphasizing that safeguarding dignity is essential for nurturing a just, equitable, and democratic society. Impact on Future Jurisprudence The Kaushal Kumar judgment is set to become a guiding light for future cases where freedom of speech and dignity intersect. Courts across India are likely to refer to this precedent when addressing disputes involving personal insult, hate speech, or defamation. Moreover, the ruling urges policymakers, scholars, and citizens to promote a culture of respectful dialogue while preserving the vibrancy of free speech. Public Reaction and Scholarly Analysis The judgment has ignited passionate discussions among human rights activists, legal scholars, and free speech advocates. While many hail it as a milestone for protecting human dignity, others express concern about its potential chilling effect on free expression. Nevertheless, the debate it sparked underscores its significance in shaping future legal discourse and societal values. Conclusion: A New Chapter in India’s Constitutional Journey The Supreme Court’s decision in Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms India’s commitment to both freedom and fairness.It stands as a testament to the judiciary’s role in carefully balancing competing rights and guiding society towards respectful coexistence. As citizens and legal enthusiasts, staying informed about such landmark rulings enriches our understanding of India’s evolving democratic values. Watch and Learn More 🎥 Watch the detailed video on the Kaushal Kumar Case References Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh Case Summary – iPleaders Justice System and Rule of Law – Gray Group Intl Commitment to Rule of Law – Faster Capital Safeguarding Justice and Upholding Rule of Law – Legal Service India Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict on Free Speech and Right to Dignity Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict on Free Speech and Right to Dignity Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained Sadalaw Publications • April 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India: Supriyo vs Union

Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict on Free Speech and Right to Dignity Read More »

Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts Supreme Court Upholds Validity of IPC Section 498A, Rejects Misuse Claims Under Article 14 Supreme Court Deems Tamil Nadu Bills Approved Without Governor’s Assent in Historic Ruling Kerala High Court Declares GST on Club Services to Members Unconstitutional: Major Relief for Associations Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India: Supriyo vs Union of India Case Explained A Creative’s Guide to Intellectual Property: Protecting and Profiting from Your Work Murshidabad Waqf Bill Protest: Families Mourn Loved Ones Amid Violent Clashes and Police Inaction Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained MAHI SINHA 18 Apr 2025 Supreme Court of India Pushes for Clarity in Royalty Calculation: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explore the key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, addressing royalty calculation anomalies under MCR 2016 and MCDR 2017. Learn how this case may reshape mineral royalty norms in India. Introduction: A Landmark Case in Mining Royalty Disputes In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed long-standing concerns about the calculation of mining royalties under two central laws—MCR, 2016 and MCDR, 2017. The case, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 715 of 2024), raised critical questions about the “royalty on royalty” effect and its impact on the average sale price of minerals. Background: The Legal Challenge The petitioner, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., challenged the legality and fairness of the methodology used for estimating royalties. The challenge centered on: Rule 38 (Explanation) of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 The main contention was the cascading effect of applying royalty on previously taxed royalties, which distorted the calculation of ASP and increased the financial burden on mining companies. Supreme Court’s Observations: Royalty Calculation Is a Policy Matter The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan (not available on Wikipedia), acknowledged the existence of an anomaly in the current royalty framework. However, the Court reiterated that: Policy formulation—especially in technical and economic matters like royalty—is the sole domain of the executive branch. Courts will not interfere with such decisions unless they are arbitrary, unconstitutional, or made in bad faith. Key Directives and Timelines Despite dismissing the petition, the Court issued clear directives to the Union Government: Initial Order: The Union was given two months to review the royalty calculation process and address the cascading effect. Extension Granted: Following a request for more time, the Court granted an additional two-month extension, considering the ongoing public consultation process. Rejection and Resistance: The proposed amendments were reportedly rejected by the Ministry of Finance (India) and mineral-rich states of India, further delaying progress. Final Warning: In light of continued delays, the Court recently issued a final warning, directing the Cabinet Secretariat of India to draft a new proposal within four weeks and submit it to the Union Cabinet. The Court emphasized that appropriate action would follow if the Secretariat failed to comply. Why This Case Matters This ruling is a critical development in India’s mining sector, as it: Recognizes the financial impact of flawed royalty mechanisms Pushes for transparent and fair mineral pricing Upholds the principle of executive accountability in policy enforcement The outcome of this directive could have far-reaching consequences for mining companies in India, affecting both regulatory frameworks and investor confidence. Conclusion: A Call for Policy Reform in Mining Royalties While the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the executive’s authority over royalty rules, it has also underscored the need for responsible policy action. The ball is now in the Union Government’s court to address systemic issues in royalty computation and ensure a balanced, industry-friendly framework going forward. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sanoj kumar paul. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained Read More »

Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India: Supriyo vs Union of India Case Explained

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India: Supriyo vs Union of India Case Explained Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India: Supriyo vs Union of India Case Explained A Creative’s Guide to Intellectual Property: Protecting and Profiting from Your Work Murshidabad Waqf Bill Protest: Families Mourn Loved Ones Amid Violent Clashes and Police Inaction Bombay High Court Acquits Father in Minor Daughter’s Rape Case: Legal Loopholes vs Child Protection Lily Thomas vs Union of India: Landmark Supreme Court Verdict That Transformed Indian Election Law Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Tamil Nadu Laws Enacted Without Governor’s Assent for the First Time in India Karnataka High Court: Professors Not Public Officers, Quo Warranto Writ Inapplicable in Academic Appointments Bombay High Court Overturns 36-Year-Old Pollution Conviction Against Gujarat Petro Chem Executives Allahabad High Court Sparks Outrage by Granting Bail in Rape Case, Blaming Victim for Her Actions Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India: Supriyo vs Union of India Case Explained NITU KUMARI 15 Apr 2025 SUPRIYO @ SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY vs UNION OF INDIAOn 17 October 2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONWrit Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. …PetitionerVersusUnion of India …Respondent Date Of Judgment: October 17, 2023Case citation: 2023 INSC 920Presiding judges:Chief Justice (Dr.) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,Justice Sanjay K. Kaul,Justice Shripathi R. Bhat,Justice Hima Kohli,Justice Pamidighantam S. Narasimha Factual Background Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, two same-sex couples petitioned the Supreme Court of India for legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Because it discriminates against same-sex couples and denies them the fundamental advantages of marriage, the petitioners claimed that Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (“SMA”), which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was unconstitutional. This covers advantages under insurance policies and succession rules as well as options like adoption and surrogacy. The petitioners argued that the government was violating their fundamental rights to equality, freedom of speech, and human dignity by refusing to recognize same-sex marriage. The Union of India (Respondents) argued that marriage is a social institution which flows from tradition, personal law and religion and needs social acceptability, and only heterosexual marriages have such acceptability. The Union of India argued that the Constitution of India does not recognize a fundamental right to marry. Further, the SMA is not discriminatory, as Parliament never contemplated including non-heterosexual unions during its enactment. Further, the Union argued that interpreting the SMA to cover non-hetrosexual couples would lead to absurd and unworkable results and impact various other statutes related to adoption, succession, surrogacy, and maintenance which all contemplated as a union between a man and a woman. Only Parliament has the authority to bring about such a change. Issue Of the Case (i) Are people who identify as LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex) entitled to marriage? If so, is it possible for the Indian Supreme Court to issue a ruling to that effect?(ii) Does the Special Marriage Act of 1954‘s exclusion of LGBTQIA+ weddings constitute unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?(iii) Does the State have an obligation to legally recognize civil unions formed by members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and do they have the right to do so? Judgment The Constitution Bench (five judges) wrote four opinions. All five Judges found that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. All five Judges further held that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 allows marriage only between a male and a female and cannot be interpreted to cover non-hetrosexual marriages as this would amount to an extensive re-writing of the law beyond the role of the Court. However, the Court did not strike down the SMA as unconstitutional. A majority of three judges (Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justice Bhat, and Justice Kohli) expressly stated that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships as well as Intersex persons who identify as either male or female have the right to marry under existing law. The Supreme Court ruled by a majority of 3:2 that non-heterosexual couples are not entitled to a civil union unless the statutes are changed by the legislature. Additionally, this 3:2 majority ruled that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”) does not grant unmarried couples—including queer/non-heterosexual couples—the ability to jointly adopt a child. The opinions of Justice Bhat (joined by Justice Kohli) and Justice Narasimha formed the majority opinion of the Court on these issues. The minority found that non-hetrosexual couples have a right to enter into a civil union. The minority concluded that Article 15 of the Constitution would be violated if civil unions were not recognized. The minority further interpreted Section 57 of the JJ Act to allow unmarried couples to adopt and consequently struck down Regulation 5(3) of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (“CARA”) Adoption Regulation, which limits adoption only to single individuals and married couples who are in a stable marital relationship. The opinions of Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul constituted the minority opinion of the Court. The Supreme Court acknowledged that members of the LGBTQIA+ community faced a variety of legal disadvantages and directed the Union Government to constitute a committee chaired by the Union Cabinet Secretary to set out the rights and benefits queer couples in civil unions would be entitled to. A) Ratio Decidendi No fundamental right to marry SMA cannot be interpreted to cover same-sex marriages No legal recognition for civil unions of LGBTQIA+ couples No right for unmarried or non-hetrosexual couples to adopt Transgender persons in hetrosexual relations can marry Conclusion The Supreme Court of India ruled that same-sex marriage is not a basic freedom guaranteed by the Constitution in the case of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs. Union of India. The court did stress, however, that queer couples have the right to union or partnership, which stems from their autonomy, choice, and privacy rights. Additionally, the court ordered the Union Government to form a powerful committee to look into LGBT couples’ rights, including

Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India: Supriyo vs Union of India Case Explained Read More »

Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty.

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act What it implies signifies Sam Altman claims that OpenAI’s GPUs are “melting” over Ghibli-style AI art Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Gurminder Singh, Punjab Advocate General, Steps Down Over 3 Crore Cases Disposed of in First National Lok Adalat of 2025; Settlement Value Crosses ₹18,212 Crore AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF CSR IN THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 On April 14, the center announces a day off in honor of Ambedkar’s birthday anniversary. The Supreme Court requires a preliminary investigation before filing a formal complaint for some speech and expression-related offenses. Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty.                                                            NITU KUMARI 03 Apr 2025 SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICEOn 21 March 2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAINHERENT JURISDICTIONReview Petition (Crl.) Nos. 159-160 of 2013INCriminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011 Sundar @ Sundarrajan … Petitioner versusState (India) by Inspector of Police … Respondent Date Of Judgment:- March 21, 2023Case citation:- 2023 INSC 324Presiding judges:-Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (Chief Justice)Hima Kohli Factual Background On 27 July 2009, the Petitioner kidnapped a seven-year-old child in Kammapuram, Tamil Nadu. He made two calls to the victim’s mother, demanding a ransom of Rs 5 lakhs. On 30 July 2009, the police raided the house of the Petitioner and arrested him and a co-accused. The Petitioner confessed to strangling the child and disposing of his body in a tank. On the basis of the Petitioner’s confession, the police recovered the victim’s body from the tank. The petitioner was convicted by the Cuddalore Trial Court of kidnapping and killing the child. In accordance with Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, he was found guilty of kidnapping and murder and given the death penalty. The co-accused was found not guilty of any charges. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his conviction before the Madras High Court. Additionally, a Supreme Court of India appeal heard by a Division Bench consisting of two judges was denied. The conviction and the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court were maintained by both appellate courts. In Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2014 INSC 590, the Supreme Court ruled that applications seeking a review of death penalty sentences have to be heard in public. The petitioner contended that because his conviction contained judicial mistakes, it should be reviewed. He maintained that even if his guilt were proven, his sentence should be mitigated because the courts had not taken into account mitigating circumstances when they sentenced him to death. The State of Tamil Nadu argued that the claimed mistakes did not justify the Supreme Court’s limited review authority. Issue Of the Case (i) Should the conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder (under Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) be reviewed by the Supreme Court?(ii) Was it appropriate to give the petitioner the death penalty? Judgment The Supreme Court upheld the petitioner’s conviction for kidnapping and murder. However, it came to the conclusion that neither the Trial Court nor the appellate courts had considered mitigating circumstances while determining whether to execute the Petitioner, which was only appropriate in very rare situations. The Supreme Court changed the petitioner’s sentence to life imprisonment for at least 20 years with no chance of parole. The court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Chandrachud. a. Ratio Decidendi No errors apparent on the face of the record The prosecution‘s case was supported by compelling witness testimony and documentary evidence, and the court determined that the petitioner had failed to cast a reasonable doubt on it. The conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which was satisfied with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, the High Court, and its Division Bench. Examining both aggravating and mitigating conditions The Supreme Court determined that before imposing the death penalty, the Trial Court had not given the Petitioner a proper hearing on sentencing. Neither the Trial Court nor the appellate courts had sincerely attempted to take into account mitigating factors that would indicate the Petitioner’s potential for reform or rehabilitation. Rather, the punishment was enforced and validated based only on the heinousness of the offense. The Supreme Court’s Division Bench concluded that the Petitioner’s choice to kill a family’s sole son, who would have continued the family line, constituted an aggravating circumstance. Conclusion The Supreme Court of India modified the petitioner’s death sentence to life imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years without mercy or remission in the case of Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector of Police. Although the court took into account the mitigating circumstances and determined that the death penalty was not justified, it affirmed the petitioner’s conviction for the kidnapping and murder of a 7-year-old boy. Additionally, the court directed the Registry to register a suo motu contempt proceeding against the Inspector of Police for concealing material information regarding the petitioner’s conduct in prison. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case laws Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 3, 2025 • Case law, Live cases • No Comments Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 1, 2025 • Case law • No

Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote