sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Case law

Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today 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 Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director NITU KUMARI 04 May 2025 In a landmark 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Senthil Balaji under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), emphasizing the primacy of Article 21 and the right to a speedy trial over stringent statutory bail conditions. Case Overview – Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Date of Judgment: September 26, 2024Case Citation: 2024 INSC 739Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of IndiaBench: Abhay S. Oka Augustine G. Masih This criminal appeal addressed a critical question: Can constitutional courts override strict statutory bail restrictions when prolonged detention infringes on fundamental rights under Article 21? Factual Background Allegations and Arrest Senthil Balaji, a former Minister for Transport in Tamil Nadu, was accused in a massive recruitment scam. FIRs were registered under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, and under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, treating the IPC offenses as scheduled offenses. Timeline of Legal Proceedings July 29, 2021: ECIR filed by ED. June 14, 2023: Senthil Balaji arrested. February 28, 2024: Madras High Court denied bail. September 26, 2024: Bail granted by the Supreme Court of India. Key Legal Issues Does prolonged detention violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21? Can constitutional courts override stringent bail requirements under Section 45 of the PMLA? Is there a real risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if bail is granted? Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling The Court stressed that constitutional protections under Article 21 cannot be denied due to statutory bail hurdles when there is a clear violation of the right to a speedy trial. Key Findings (Ratio Decidendi) Excessive pre-trial detention is a breach of Article 21. Courts must prioritize constitutional guarantees over procedural limitations when trials are indefinitely delayed. Statutory bail conditions under PMLA must be balanced with personal liberty and justice. Bail Conditions Imposed ₹25 lakh bail bond with two sureties. Surrender of passport to the Special Court under PMLA. No contact with witnesses. Mandatory appearance twice a week at the ED office in Chennai. Bail subject to cancellation if witness tampering or delay tactics are attempted. Obiter Dicta The Court observed that stringent laws should not be misused to extend pre-trial incarceration, and courts must prevent legal provisions from turning into instruments of punishment. Significance for Indian Bail Jurisprudence This judgment reinforces the idea that bail is the rule, jail is the exception, especially under prolonged trial conditions. It confirms: The supremacy of constitutional rights over stringent statutory conditions. Judicial discretion remains crucial in ensuring fairness and liberty. Even under tough laws like the PMLA, courts can intervene to protect individual rights. Conclusion In Senthil Balaji vs ED, the Supreme Court of India made it clear that constitutional courts have the inherent power to grant bail in exceptional cases, even where laws like the PMLA impose stringent conditions. This case sets a critical precedent for maintaining the balance between national interest and personal liberty.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws 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 Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Read More »

Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act NIA Raids Across Six States Uncover Pakistan-Backed Khalistani Smuggling and Radicalization Network Justice Surya Kant Highlights True Measure of Justice at NALSA’s 30th Anniversary Celebration in Gujarat Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” 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” Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act MAHI SINHA 26 Apr 2025 Explore how the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified the authority of Special Courts under the POCSO Act in the Tsewang Thinles case, focusing on the determination of a victim’s age during sexual assault proceedings. Introduction In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reinforced the authority of Special Courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) to determine not only the accused’s age but also the victim’s. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar, reshaped the course of proceedings in the controversial Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh case. Background of the Case In 2019, a young woman filed a formal complaint against Tsewang Thinles, the President of the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA). She accused him of sexually assaulting her multiple times at various locations, including her home and Thinles’ workplace. The victim, caring for her ill mother at the time, was allegedly exploited due to her vulnerable condition. The complaint led to charges under Sections 9(l)/10 of the POCSO Act and Sections 354, 354-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). Thinles initially evaded investigation, prompting the issuance of general warrants. Although he secured anticipatory bail, it was later revoked when the trial court found, based on a school certificate, that the prosecutrix was under 18 years old at the time of the incidents. Key Legal Issues: Dispute Over Victim’s Age Thinles challenged the trial court’s finding, arguing that a 2005 police charge sheet incorrectly recorded the prosecutrix’s age, indicating she was actually born in 2000, not 2002. He sought bail and contested the age determination based on this earlier record. Justice Dhar clarified that under Section 34 of the POCSO Act, Special Courts have full jurisdiction to decide on the age of both victims and offenders whenever the issue arises—whether during bail applications, inquiries, or trials. Court’s Analysis: Authority of Special Courts Under POCSO Justice Dhar referred to several precedents, including: Longjam Pinky Singh v. State of Manipur (2018 CriLJ 1673): Affirmed that Special Courts can determine the victim’s age. P. Yuvaprakash v. State (AIR 2023 SC 3525): Emphasized following Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 when determining age, prioritizing: School certificates Municipal birth certificates Medical tests like ossification studies (if documents are unavailable) The Court criticized the trial court for relying solely on a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya school certificate without verifying its authenticity through school records or administrative witnesses. Problems Identified by the Court The trial court failed to thoroughly verify the school certificate. Previous case records from 2005, citing a different age, were ignored without a detailed inquiry. The court emphasized that while old records may not be fully reliable, due diligence in verifying current documentation is mandatory. Outcome of the Appeal Given the seriousness of the allegations, including multiple sexual assaults and positional abuse, and Thinles’ history of evasion, the Court denied his bail request. Justice Dhar noted the potential risk of the accused influencing the prosecutrix if bail was granted. However, the ruling that determined the prosecutrix’s age was set aside. The trial court was directed to conduct a fresh inquiry by summoning school officials and authentic records to accurately establish the victim’s age. Conclusion The Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh case underscores the crucial responsibility of Special Courts under the POCSO Act to fairly and thoroughly determine a victim’s age. The ruling highlights the importance of verifying documentary evidence and the need for cautious handling of sensitive sexual assault cases, ensuring justice for vulnerable victims. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Read More »

Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” 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 Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds NITU KUMARI 26 Apr 2025 The Jharkhand High Court ruled that denying a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit under the GST Act based on the statute of limitations violates Article 265, emphasizing that the refund is a right vested in the assessee. Introduction In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court ruled that it is legally untenable to deny a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit made under Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act on the grounds that it was submitted after the two-year statute of limitations under Section 54(1) of the GST Act. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated, “There is no dispute to the effect that once refund is by way of statutory exercise, the same cannot be retained neither by the State, nor by the Centre, that too by taking aid of a provision which on the face of it is directory, inasmuch as, the language couched in Section 54 is ‘may make an application before the expiry of 2 years from the relevant date.’” Background of the Case The petitioner, M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited, is a registered dealer under the Goods & Services Tax Act and engages in the loading, unloading, and transportation of coal into tippers. A Show Cause Notice under Section 74 of the JGST Act, 2017 was issued in January 2021, claiming a discrepancy between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the month of September 2019. An ex-parte order was issued on August 31, 2021, imposing a liability of Rs. 16,90,442/-, which included tax, interest, and penalty, among other things. To maintain the appeal, which was later granted, the petitioner, who was offended, filed an appeal within the allotted time and made a statutory pre-deposit of 10% of the contested tax amount under Section 107(6)(b) of the Act. The petitioner then requested a refund of the pre-deposit amount, which was determined to have exceeded the time frame specified in section 54(1) of the Goods & Services Tax Act due to a Deficiency Memo. Disappointed, the petitioner then filed a case in the High Court. Court’s Observations and Verdict In their counter-affidavit, the respondents defended the Department’s actions allegedly in accordance with Section 54 and cited a circular from the Government of India’s Ministry of Finance, GST Policy Wing, which declared the application to be time-barred and further stated that the Jurisdictional Officer lacked the authority or discretion to excuse the delay. Rejecting the same, the Court stated, “It is not even a case that there is any unjust enrichment on the part of the assessee, inasmuch as, the pre-deposit has been made from the own pocket by an assessee and by restricting the refund in reading the word ‘may’ as ‘shall’ would be unreasonable and would otherwise be arbitrary and in conflict with the Limitation Act, 1963.” The Court concluded, “It is held that the action of the respondents in rejecting the refund application considering it as time barred has no legs to stand in law and accordingly, the rejection order by way of Deficiency Memo dated 06.11.2024, is hereby, quashed and set-aside.” As a result, the Court granted the writ petition and instructed the Department to process the refund within six weeks, including any applicable statutory interest. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 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 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Read More »

Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” 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 Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout NITU KUMARI 26 Apr 2025 The Allahabad High Court in Arun Kumar Mishra vs State of UP highlights the concerning trend of criminalizing emotional fallout after breakups, emphasizing that not all immoral acts warrant legal action. Introduction In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has raised serious concerns about the growing trend of failed romantic relationships leading to criminal cases, particularly rape allegations. In Arun Kumar Mishra vs. State of UP, Justice Krishan Pahal observed that not all ethically or socially questionable actions warrant legal intervention. Background of the Case The case involved a 42-year-old man accused of raping a woman he was in a consensual relationship with. The woman alleged that the accused had recorded their intimate moments and later blackmailed her. She also claimed that he promised marriage but eventually reneged. The man’s defense highlighted that their relationship was consensual, and the victim was aware of his prior marital history. Furthermore, it was argued that while the actions might be immoral, they did not amount to a criminal offense. Key Observations by the Court   Rise of Criminalizing Emotional Discord The Court remarked that personal fallout from failed relationships is increasingly being given a criminal character through the invocation of penal laws. Consent and Awareness The victim, a 25-year-old well-educated woman, consciously chose to be in a relationship with the applicant, who was significantly older and had a complicated marital history. Modern Relationship Dynamics The Court noted a cultural shift wherein the solemnity and sanctity once associated with intimate relationships have diluted, giving rise to transient, uncommitted relationships. Abuse of Legal Provisions Justice Pahal stressed that the misuse of laws under emotional distress after a breakup can lead to frivolous criminal cases, thereby undermining genuine cases of misconduct. Arguments Presented   Defense Counsel’s Stand: The relationship was consensual. The actions, at best, amounted to immorality, not criminality. Significant delay (five months) in filing the FIR indicated retaliatory motives. Victim’s Counsel’s Stand: The accused was portrayed as a manipulative individual with a history of misleading women. Statements from other women corroborated the victim’s allegations. Court’s Verdict The Court concluded that the circumstances pointed more towards an emotional backlash rather than a genuine criminal grievance. It emphasized that not every morally questionable act should trigger criminal law intervention. Thus, considering the delay in filing the complaint, the mutual nature of the relationship, and the removal of serious charges (Sections 313 and 377 IPC), the Court granted bail to the accused without commenting on the merits of the case. Advocates Involved: For the Accused: Nitin Chandra Mishra and Senior Advocate Anup Triwedi For the Complainant: Advocate Devendra Singh For the State: Advocate Sunil Kumar Conclusion The Arun Kumar Mishra vs. State of UP case reflects an evolving societal reality and sends a strong message about the responsible use of criminal law. The judiciary’s careful distinction between emotional distress and actual criminality ensures that the legal system remains a tool for justice, not retaliation. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 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 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Breakups and False Rape Cases: Allahabad High Court’s Ruling on Criminalizing Emotional Fallout Read More »

“Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights”

Leave a Comment / 2020, Case law /

Trending Today “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” 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 Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights 26 Apr 2025 Discover the significance of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020), a milestone in safeguarding internet freedom and human rights in India. Understand the case background, Supreme Court’s judgment, and the future impact of the Telecom Bill 2023. Introduction: A Defining Moment for Digital Rights The case of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020) marks a historic milestone in India’s struggle for internet freedom and human rights. Triggered by the communication blackout in Jammu and Kashmir following the Article 370 revocation, the case questioned the delicate balance between national security and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of India‘s ruling not only scrutinized the legality of internet shutdowns but also introduced critical principles like proportionality, transparency, and judicial review. This blog explores the background, key arguments, court verdict, and the broader impact, including insights into the Telecom Bill 2023. Background: Communication Blackout in Jammu and Kashmir On August 5, 2019, the Indian government revoked Article 370, removing Jammu and Kashmir’s special autonomy. To preempt unrest, authorities imposed a stringent communication blackout—halting internet services and enforcing movement restrictions. This move disrupted daily life, crippled businesses, and hampered journalism. Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of the Kashmir Times, challenged these restrictions in the Supreme Court, arguing that they violated fundamental constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). Core Legal Challenges 1. Violation of Fundamental Rights The indefinite internet suspension infringed upon: Freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)). Right to practice any profession or carry out any trade (Article 19(1)(g)). 2. Lack of Proportionality and Due Process Petitioners highlighted: Blanket restrictions were unreasonable and lacked a graded response. Shutdown orders were not publicly disclosed, obstructing judicial review. 3. Government’s Defense The government contended: The shutdown was a temporary measure to maintain national security and public order. Powers were exercised under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017. Key Questions Before the Court Constitutionality of prolonged internet shutdowns. Proportionality of restrictions. Transparency and adherence to due process. The Supreme Court’s Verdict: A Historic Ruling On January 10, 2020, the Supreme Court delivered a transformative judgment: Recognition of Internet as a Fundamental Right The Court declared: Access to the internet is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). The Proportionality Test Restrictions on fundamental rights must be: Necessary. Least intrusive. Periodically reviewed. Transparency and Review Mechanism All shutdown orders must be published. A review committee must assess the necessity of orders every seven days. Judicial Scrutiny Citizens affected by shutdowns must have the right to challenge them in courts. Implementation of Guidelines: Reality Check Despite clear directions, compliance with the Anuradha Bhasin guidelines remains inconsistent. Reports suggest: Some progress in publishing shutdown orders. Inadequate adherence to the periodic review process. Frequent internet shutdowns still occur across India, raising concerns about fundamental rights. Impact on Journalism and Business The blackout devastated both: Journalists struggled to report, affecting press freedom. Businesses, especially in the digital economy, suffered heavy losses. This case stressed the critical need for balancing national security and individual liberties. The Telecom Bill 2023: A Step Forward? The Telecom Bill 2023 aims to codify shutdown regulations: Key Provisions Clear criteria for suspension of services. Robust review and accountability mechanisms. Mandatory public disclosure of shutdown orders. The bill seeks to enshrine the principles of proportionality, necessity, and transparency into law, ensuring a more predictable framework for future restrictions. Conclusion: The Lasting Legacy of Anuradha Bhasin Case The Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India ruling redefined the conversation around internet shutdowns and fundamental rights in India. Though implementation challenges persist, the case established a strong legal foundation promoting vigilance, transparency, and accountability. As technology evolves, the need to defend digital freedoms and ensure human rights becomes even more critical. The upcoming reforms under the Telecom Bill 2023 offer hope for a balanced and lawful approach in managing security concerns without eroding fundamental liberties. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 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 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

“Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” 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 »

Lily Thomas vs Union of India: Landmark Supreme Court Verdict That Transformed Indian Election Law

Leave a Comment / 2013, Case law /

Trending Today 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 Orders AIIMS to Reassess MBBS Eligibility of PwBD Candidate Based on Om Rathod and Anmol Rulings Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes Supreme Court Strikes Down Tamil Nadu Rule Requiring Title Proof for Property Registration Delhi High Court Fines Shazia Ilmi ₹25,000 in Privacy Violation Case Against Rajdeep Sardesai India and Nepal Sign MoU to Strengthen Judicial Cooperation and Legal Exchange Lily Thomas vs Union of India: Landmark Supreme Court Verdict That Transformed Indian Election Law RANI AGRAWAL 14 Apr 2025 http://sadalawpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Boot-camp-BNSS-1.mp4 Introduction The decision of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, decided by the Supreme Court of India on July 10, 2013, is seen as a watershed point in the evolution of Indian election law. This important decision reshaped the boundaries of political accountability and election integrity, emphasising the value of the democratic process. The court’s decision in this case effectively voided Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, dismissing convicted legislators immediately upon conviction, without the advantage of a three-month leave of absence to submit an appeal. This decision demonstrated the judiciary’s dedication to maintaining constitutional principles and preventing illegal immigrants from becoming politicians. Factual Background The Lily Thomas case stemmed from India’s persistent issue of political prosecution. Over the years, a considerable number of politicians at both the state and national levels have faced criminal allegations, some of which are serious. Prior to the 2013 decision, Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act protected sitting members of Parliament and state legislatures by giving them a three-month window to launch an appeal against their guilty verdict while remaining in office.Lily Thomas, a social activist, and Lok Prahari, an NGO, contested the validity of Section 8(4), claiming that it created an unjustified division between regular individuals and elected officials. They claimed that this clause violated the values relating to equality established in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and jeopardised the voting process. Legal Issues The Supreme Court’s key legal concern was whether Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 contradicted India’s Constitution, notably Articles 14 and 102(1)(e)/191(1)(e). The petitioners stated that the exemption was discriminatory and contributed to the criminalization of politics by enabling convicted members to remain in office while their appeals were pending. The Evaluation The Supreme Court, led by Justices A. K. Patnaik and S. J. Mukhopadhaya, issued a unanimous decision sweeping down Section 8(4) as unconstitutional. The court determined that the provision offended the principles regarding fairness before the law and equal protection under the law established by Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgement emphasised that the classification created by Section 8(4) was arbitrary and had no logical purpose.The court exhaustively reviewed the past significance and the legislative purpose of the Representation of the People Act of 1951, ruling that the founders of the Constitution meant to preserve the purity of legislative bodies. The judgement stated that, while the Constitution allows for member condemnation under certain situations, it does not allow for any relaxation or exemption from such disqualifications based only on the filing of a petition for review. Critical Considerations Several major remarks made by the Supreme Court in this momentous decision deserve extensive examination. Equality Before the Law: The court emphasised that the premise of equality before the law is a pillar of the Indian Constitution. Any legislation that creates an artificial division between ordinary persons and representatives who are elected without a legitimate foundation is unconstitutional. By permitting guilty parliamentarians to remain in office while their appeals were pending, Section 8(4) established an arbitrary classification that violated Article 14. The Virtue of Purity of the Democratic Mechanism: The court emphasised the necessity of preserving the sanctity of the democratic process. The court stated that criminalising politics endangers the nation’s democratic foundation. Allowing convicted individuals to remain in office weakens public trust in the legislative process while also tarnishing the image of democratic organisations. Legislative Intent and Constitutional Provisions: The court thoroughly examined the legislative motives underlying the Representation of the People Act of 1951, as well as the applicable constitutional provisions. It determined that the writers of the Constitution did not intend to introduce modifications or adaptations to the disqualifying requirements. The court noted that Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution compel member excommunication, and any relaxation of these rules would necessitate a constitutional change rather than legislative action. The Role of the Judicial Branch in Sustaining Constitutional Morals: The decision underscored the judiciary’s responsibility in protecting democratic norms and ensuring the rule of law. The tribunal argued that it is the judiciary’s responsibility to defend the authenticity of the democratic process and ensure that those with criminal convictions do not hold legislative posts. Impact and Implications The Lily Thomas judgement had an immediate and profound impact. The verdict resulted in the expulsion of several existing legislators who had been convicted of various offences. It conveyed a clear message that the judiciary would not allow any erosion of democratic and legal values. The conclusion also sparked a re-examination of the current legal framework controlling electoral disqualifications, resulting in debates about more reforms to rid the political system of criminal characters.The decision also had substantial political and societal repercussions. It raised awareness among people about the felony nature of politics and inspired civil society to seek greater openness and accountability in the electoral process. The verdict also encouraged political parties to be vigilant when picking competitors with clean histories, resulting in a gradual drop

Lily Thomas vs Union of India: Landmark Supreme Court Verdict That Transformed Indian Election Law Read More »

Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes Supreme Court Strikes Down Tamil Nadu Rule Requiring Title Proof for Property Registration Delhi High Court Fines Shazia Ilmi ₹25,000 in Privacy Violation Case Against Rajdeep Sardesai India and Nepal Sign MoU to Strengthen Judicial Cooperation and Legal Exchange Calcutta High Court Allows Anjani Putra Sena’s Ram Navami Rally in Howrah with Strict Conditions Waqf Amendment Bill Sparks Uproar: Opposition Moves Supreme Court Over Alleged Bias Against Muslims “NALSA Files PIL for Humanitarian Release of Aged and Sick Inmates from Indian Jails” Which law states that Aadhaar is required to operate bank accounts? Questions for the Supreme Court the Delhi government’s refusal to grant workers’ allowances Opening the Monument Examining the Long-Term Effects of the 1981 Case Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi on Individual Liberty and Indian Jurisprudence Rajya Sabha Adopts Bill 2025 for Waqf (Amendment) Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes MAHI SINHA 08 Apr 2025 The goal of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [the “ID Act”) and its several amendments has always been to guarantee workers social justice and to make sure they are not left defenseless against businesses and industries. Section 17B of the ID Act is one such clause. It was included by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, and it became operative on August 21, 1984. Because the employer has challenged the order in the High Court or Supreme Court, workers who have successfully obtained an award from the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal, or National Tribunal that sets aside an order of termination of their service and directs their reinstatement are not permitted to return to work. This is why Section 17B was enacted. An employer is then responsible for paying the employee’s last salary while the suit is pending. In Dena Bank vs. Kirtikumar T. Patel, the Supreme Court of India explained the purpose of Section 17B, holding that it is to alleviate to some degree the hardship that is caused to the worker due to the delay during the execution of the present during the duration of actions in which the reinstatement award is under objection before the High Court or the Supreme Court. However, some workers are abusing this social welfare legislation as they unfairly enrich themselves while harming the interests of the industries and how the industries have been forced to pay wages even though the workers have found gainful employment elsewhere. The worker must file an affidavit certifying that he is not financially engaged elsewhere in order to be entitled for earnings under Section 17B. The proviso to Section 17B, however, states that the Court will order that no wages be paid if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, that the worker had a job and had been paid enough during the challenge/appeal period, or a portion of it. This clause therefore primarily aims to protect workers who are not engaged in productive employment and who would face financial difficulties in the absence of Section 17B wages. This isn’t always the case, though. The ID Act’s lack of a corollary clause that forbids workers from providing false affidavits of non-employment and no penalties for workers who commit perjury has resulted in the misuse of Section 17B. In order to obtain back pay, some workers who obtained gainful jobs during the trial or after an appeal produce fake affidavits. The ID Act does not provide industries with a haven to protect themselves from such bold human behavior. The only remaining option for the harmed industry would be to file a perjury lawsuit against the dishonest employee. Even if perjury is proven, there will be no financial compensation, therefore this is also of little concern. Furthermore, there have been other instances where the burden of demonstrating whether a worker is gainfully employed has passed from the company to the worker. The Supreme Court recently upheld one of its earlier decisions in the case of National Gandhi Museum vs. Sudhir Sharma, decided on 24.09.2021, which stated that the employee bears the burden of proving that he was not financially secure during the period of challenge or appeal because he is aware of it. The court further held that the facts of each case determine whether or not this burden is discharged. However, the Supreme Court later adopted a different stance in Pradeep S/o Rajkumar Vs. Manganese Ore India, which was determined on 10.12.2021, concluding that the employer had the burden of demonstrating the employee’s gainful employment during the relevant period. It is challenging to determine the current legal position in light of these contradictory Supreme Court rulings. The fact that the employer will not be able to recoup the back wages that were already paid to the worker under orders issued under Section 17B of the ID Act while the appeal is pending, even if the High Court or the Supreme Court ultimately overturns the reinstatement order, further exacerbates the issues facing industries. The case of Dilip Mani Dubey vs. Siel Limited and others reaffirmed this stance. Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is relevant while evaluating the burden of proof for gainful work because it specifies that the burden of proof rests with the individual when certain facts are particularly within his knowledge. An employee’s employment at another company during the trial or appeal period becomes a fact that he is specifically aware of. Therefore, it must be the employee’s responsibility to demonstrate that they are not engaged in gainful job. In Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar, the Supreme Court expressed this opinion. In light of the current legal system and rulings, the legislature must intervene to resolve the confusion and enact strict legislation that forbids the abuse of the ID Act’s welfare provisions. To make sure that the advantage of Section

Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote