Case law

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

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law / Sadalaw

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 / Sadalaw

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 »

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

Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024) Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT THE OFFICE OF VAIBHAV CHOUDHARY INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SDG’S AND PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FOX MANDAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KAPIL GUPTA AND ASSOCIATES INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT IVY LAW OFFICES LLP Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A REHA BHARGAV 06 June 2025 Explore the landmark Supreme Court of India ruling on Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s land acquisition case, emphasizing the protection of property rights under Article 300A and the importance of procedural safeguards in municipal acquisitions. Introduction: Supreme Court on Municipal Land Acquisition and Property Rights The Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment on May 16, 2024, concerning the Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s (KMC) attempt to acquire private land owned by Bimal Kumar Shah. The case highlights the constitutional limits on municipal powers in compulsory land acquisition and reinforces the right to property protections under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution. Background of the Case KMC sought to acquire Shah’s land for public use—to create a park—relying on Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (link to Indian government legal code). Shah challenged the acquisition, arguing that Section 352 only authorizes identifying land for public purposes, not compulsory acquisition. He contended that proper legal procedures under Section 537 and constitutional safeguards were bypassed, violating his fundamental property rights. Key Issues in the Case Does Section 352 Empower Compulsory Acquisition? KMC argued that Section 352 granted authority to compulsorily acquire land for public benefit without following Section 537’s detailed procedures. Are Constitutional Protections Under Article 300A Being Upheld? The respondent maintained that compulsory acquisition must comply with Article 300A, which protects citizens from unlawful deprivation of property. Arguments from Both Sides Petitioner’s Viewpoint (KMC) Section 352 empowers the Municipal Commissioner for acquisition for public purposes. Acquisition aims to benefit the public by creating green spaces. No need to follow the elaborate procedures in Section 537. Actions were lawful and within municipal powers. Respondent’s Counterarguments (Bimal Kumar Shah) Section 352 does not authorize compulsory acquisition, only land identification. Section 537’s procedures, including notice and fair compensation, are mandatory. Violation of constitutional rights under Article 300A. Lack of due process and transparency in the acquisition process. Supreme Court’s Verdict The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Bimal Kumar Shah, holding that: Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act only allows identifying land but does not authorize compulsory acquisition. Compulsory acquisition must strictly follow Section 537 procedures, ensuring procedural fairness and protection of property rights. Acquisition without adherence to these safeguards violates Article 300A of the Constitution. The KMC’s acquisition was unlawful and invalid, with the Court ordering costs payable to the respondent. Conclusion: Upholding Property Rights and Legal Procedures This landmark judgment reaffirms the constitutional protection of property rights in India and the necessity for municipal authorities to comply with established legal frameworks when acquiring land. It emphasizes that deprivation of property cannot be arbitrary or without due process, reinforcing the rule of law and safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024) Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024) Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A Read More »

Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024)

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024) Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT THE OFFICE OF VAIBHAV CHOUDHARY INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SDG’S AND PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FOX MANDAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KAPIL GUPTA AND ASSOCIATES INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT IVY LAW OFFICES LLP INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF ADVOCATE SANJAY TANGRI Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024) REHA BHARGAV 06 June 2025 Discover the Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment on the portrayal of persons with disabilities in cinema. Learn how the court balanced freedom of expression with dignity and respect for PwDs in the case of Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Pvt. Ltd. Introduction The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on July 8, 2024, in the case of Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Pvt. Ltd., addressing the portrayal of persons with disabilities (PwDs) in Indian cinema. This judgment highlights the delicate balance between artistic freedom and the rights of marginalized communities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). Background of the Case Facts In October 2023, Sony Pictures released the trailer for Aankh Micholi, a film depicting a family concealing various disabilities. Disability rights activist Nipun Malhotra challenged the film, arguing that it perpetuated harmful stereotypes about PwDs and violated the RPwD Act by using derogatory language and misrepresenting disabilities. Legal Issues The primary issues revolved around whether the film’s portrayal infringed on the constitutional rights of persons with disabilities, including dignity and equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Another key question was whether the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) properly fulfilled its duty under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 in certifying the film. Arguments Presented Petitioner’s Claims Misrepresentation and Stereotyping: The film allegedly reinforced negative stereotypes, promoting prejudice against PwDs. Violation of RPwD Act, 2016: The portrayal was claimed to disrespect the dignity and equality guaranteed by the Act. Constitutional Rights: The film was argued to violate fundamental rights related to equality and non-discrimination. CBFC’s Failure: The Board was accused of neglecting its duty by certifying a film that could harm marginalized communities. Demand for Punitive Measures: Malhotra sought damages and a public apology from Sony Pictures. Respondent’s Defense Freedom of Expression: Sony Pictures cited Article 19(1)(a) protecting creative freedom and artistic expression. Intent and Context: The film intended to use humor empathetically, raising awareness rather than mocking disabilities. CBFC Compliance: The certification process followed statutory guidelines and proper scrutiny. Promoting Inclusion: The film aimed to highlight resilience and inclusion, aligning with the RPwD Act’s objectives. No Malicious Intent: Humor was defended as a legitimate tool against stigma. Supreme Court Judgment The Supreme Court of India dismissed Nipun Malhotra’s petition, upholding the film’s certification and release. The Court emphasized: The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression protects creative works, including satire and humor. The portrayal did not amount to unlawful discrimination or defamation under the RPwD Act. The film’s message was considered inclusive, promoting resilience and dignity for PwDs. The CBFC acted within its statutory powers, considering content and social sensitivities. Filmmakers are encouraged to exercise responsible creativity without curbing artistic freedom. Conclusion The Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures case sets a crucial precedent in balancing freedom of expression with the protection of the dignity and rights of persons with disabilities in Indian media. While upholding artistic freedom, the Supreme Court underlined the importance of sensitive and respectful portrayals of disabilities in cinema. This ruling encourages filmmakers to promote inclusivity and responsible representation while safeguarding their creative liberties. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024) Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024) Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024) Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT THE OFFICE OF VAIBHAV CHOUDHARY INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SDG’S AND PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FOX MANDAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KAPIL GUPTA AND ASSOCIATES INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT IVY LAW OFFICES LLP INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF ADVOCATE SANJAY TANGRI INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT GGC LEGAL Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment NITU KUMARI 06 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India in Abhimeet Sinha vs. Patna High Court upheld the requirement of minimum viva voce marks in judicial service recruitment. Learn how this decision impacts merit, fairness, and recruitment transparency in Bihar and Gujarat. Introduction In a significant ruling affecting judicial service recruitment across India, the Supreme Court of India upheld the legality of minimum qualifying marks in viva voce (interview) for the appointment of judicial officers in Bihar and Gujarat. This judgment reinforces the principle that high written exam scores alone are not sufficient to determine merit, highlighting the critical role of interviews in evaluating candidates holistically. Background of the Case This case consolidated multiple petitions challenging the recruitment process for District Judge posts in Bihar and Gujarat: Bihar Judicial Services (2015): Required a 20% minimum in viva voce. Gujarat Judicial Services: Mandated 40% minimum in interview. Petitioners argued these requirements were arbitrary, violated the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, and conflicted with the Shetty Commission‘s recommendations and the All India Judges Association case. Key Legal Issues Raised Are minimum viva voce marks consistent with Shetty Commission and All India Judges’ case (2002)? Do these rules violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? Was the mark moderation process in Bihar fair? Were Gujarat’s amended rules invalid due to non-consultation with the Public Service Commission under Article 234? Supreme Court’s Judgment The Supreme Court upheld the minimum viva voce thresholds, stating that the recruitment criteria were constitutional, rational, and non-discriminatory. Viva Voce Cut-Offs Are Constitutionally Valid The Bench found no violation of Articles 14 or 16, affirming that interviews are essential for assessing the communication skills, temperament, and suitability of candidates for judicial roles. “While written exams assess knowledge, interviews reveal a candidate’s character and judicial temperament,” the court stated. Moderation in Bihar Was Legitimate The Bihar High Court’s moderation and aggregation methods were ruled to be objective and within legal boundaries. Gujarat Rules Hold Even Without PSC Consultation Despite the absence of consultation with the Public Service Commission, the High Court of Gujarat was found to have the constitutional authority under Article 234 to independently design judicial recruitment rules. Ratio Decidendi (Binding Legal Principles) Merit Beyond Marks: Judicial merit must encompass both intellectual and personal attributes. Interview Cut-Offs Are Fair: Reasonable thresholds are valid tools to ensure competency in judiciary. High Court Autonomy Upheld: The decision reinforces the autonomy of High Courts in setting judicial recruitment standards. Obiter Dicta (Judicial Observations) Codification Needed: Moderation processes should be clearly codified to avoid ambiguity and ensure transparency. Improving Interview Transparency: High Courts must work toward enhancing transparency in the viva voce stage to eliminate perceptions of bias. Court Directions Recruitment rules should explicitly define mark moderation mechanisms. Viva voce processes must be transparent and standardized across jurisdictions. Conclusion This ruling in Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. vs. High Court of Patna strengthens the principle that judicial recruitment must evaluate a candidate holistically—not just by academic excellence, but by interpersonal and analytical skills essential for judicial office. Upholding viva voce cut-offs ensures merit-based, fair, and constitutionally sound recruitment while preserving judicial independence. 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 Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024) Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024) Sada Law • June 5, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment Read More »

Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT THE OFFICE OF VAIBHAV CHOUDHARY INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SDG’S AND PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FOX MANDAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KAPIL GUPTA AND ASSOCIATES INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT IVY LAW OFFICES LLP INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF ADVOCATE SANJAY TANGRI INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT GGC LEGAL Supreme Court Limits Probe in ‘Operation Sindoor’, Upholds Fair Investigation Principles Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements NITU KUMARI 06 June 2025 The Supreme Court’s May 2024 ruling in Indian Medical Association vs Union of India mandates self-declarations for ads and holds influencers accountable. Learn how this landmark judgment strengthens consumer protection laws in India. Introduction – Cracking Down on Deceptive Advertisements The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on May 7, 2024, addressed the growing concern of misleading advertisements, particularly in the health and food sectors. The judgment came in response to a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against the Union of India, urging stricter regulation of false claims made in advertisements and endorsements by celebrities and influencers. This verdict has major implications for consumer rights, advertising laws, and the responsibility of influencers and advertisers in India. Case Background – IMA vs Union of India (2024 INSC 406) Presided over by Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, the case centered on deceptive advertising practices that mislead consumers and compromise public health. Key Concerns Raised Misleading health and food product ads exploiting public ignorance. Ineffectiveness of existing laws like the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Advertising Guidelines, 2022. Lack of timely regulatory action by authorities such as the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Ministry of AYUSH. Frequent violations by influencers and celebrities who endorse products without adequate knowledge. Legal Issues Considered by the Court The Court examined four major legal questions: Do misleading advertisements infringe upon the fundamental right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution? What are the responsibilities of manufacturers, advertisers, and endorsers? Are current legal frameworks sufficient to protect consumers? What is the role of regulatory authorities in ensuring compliance? Supreme Court’s Judgment – Strengthening Consumer Protection The Supreme Court issued a comprehensive judgment aimed at improving accountability and transparency in advertising. Ratio Decidendi (Legal Reasoning) The Court ruled that deceptive advertising violates the fundamental right to health and misguides consumer choices. Equal liability was assigned to manufacturers, advertisers, and endorsers under the 2022 Guidelines. Obiter Dicta (Observations) Influencers and celebrities must ensure products they endorse are genuine and thoroughly researched. Regulatory bodies must act promptly and transparently on consumer complaints. New Guidelines Issued by the Court To ensure compliance and consumer protection, the Court directed the following measures: 1. Mandatory Self-Declaration by Advertisers All advertisers must now submit self-declarations confirming the truthfulness of claims before broadcasting or publishing any advertisement. These declarations are to be uploaded on the designated portal of the Ministry. 2. Regulatory Oversight and Accountability Ministries like AYUSH and FSSAI must file affidavits explaining steps taken since 2018 to address deceptive advertising. Complaint resolution and enforcement actions must be publicly reported to ensure transparency. 3. Penalties for Non-Compliance Violations of the Advertising Code or related statutes will invite strict penalties, reinforcing a deterrent against unethical promotions. Conclusion – A Milestone in Consumer Rights Enforcement The May 2024 Supreme Court judgment marks a critical turning point in India’s approach to regulating deceptive advertising. By emphasizing transparency, accountability, and consumer health rights, the Court has laid down a robust framework for ethical advertising practices in India. This ruling sets a precedent not just for advertisers but also for influencers, celebrities, and regulatory authorities, reinforcing the principle that consumer protection is paramount in a democratic society. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements Sada Law • June 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024) Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024) Sada Law • June 5, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements Read More »

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024)

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024) Supreme Court Rules Bail Cancellation Requires Just Cause, Protects Personal Liberty Supreme Court Issues Notice on Son’s Plea Against Assam Police for Illegal Detention and Deportation to Bangladesh Woman Faces Criminal Charges for Concealing ₹10 Lakh in Divorce Settlement in Delhi NEET-PG 2025 Postponed: Supreme Court Directs Single-Shift Exam for Transparency and Fairness Allahabad High Court Upholds ₹273.5 Crore GST Penalty on Patanjali Ayurved Kamal Haasan’s “Kannada from Tamil” Comment Sparks Legal Row and Film Boycott Threats Supreme Court Questions Government Over Non-Recognition of Madarsa Degrees Like Kamil and Fazil Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case: Fresh Hearing Begins After Judge Transfers in Higher Judiciary Delhi High Court Issues Dynamic Injunction to Block Illegal Streaming of ICC World Cup by Rogue Websites Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024) REHA BHARGAV 05 June 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court of India interpreted Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the 2024 case Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen. Learn the legal stance on delayed seizure reporting and its impact on the validity of police actions. Introduction In a landmark ruling on May 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a critical interpretation of Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The case, Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen & Ors., addressed the legality of police seizures and the implications of procedural delays in reporting them to a Magistrate. This decision is a significant legal precedent in cases involving freezing of bank accounts during criminal investigations. Background and Facts of the Case Shento Varghese, a deliveryman at a jewelry firm named “PR Gold,” alleged that the respondents defrauded him by exchanging fake gold bars for genuine gold chains. Police investigations revealed that ₹19,83,036 had been transferred into the respondents’ bank accounts. On January 9, 2023, the police froze these accounts under Section 102(1) CrPC. However, the seizure was reported to the Magistrate only after a delay of nearly three weeks. The Madras High Court ordered the de-freezing of the accounts solely due to this delay. The appellant, Shento Varghese, then approached the Supreme Court to challenge this order. Legal Issue Does delayed reporting of a seizure to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) CrPC invalidate the seizure itself? This question prompted a critical legal review of police powers and the role of procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings. Arguments Presented Petitioner/Appellant (Shento Varghese): The seizure was valid under Section 102(1) CrPC, directly linked to a criminal fraud. The delay in reporting was a procedural irregularity, not a substantive illegality. The accused failed to prove any prejudice caused by the delay. Respondents (Accused): Argued that Section 102(3) mandates reporting seizures to the Magistrate “forthwith”, implying immediate compliance. Delay violated their statutory rights and compromised judicial oversight. Cited precedent from Tmt. T. Subbulakshmi v. Commissioner of Police (2013) in support of their claim that non-compliance vitiates seizures. Asserted irreparable harm due to loss of opportunity to contest the seizure in time. Supreme Court Judgment: Key Highlights Ratio Decidendi The Court held that delayed reporting under Section 102(3) does not nullify a seizure made under Section 102(1) CrPC. “A delay in reporting seizure to the Magistrate does not vitiate the seizure under Section 102(1) CrPC.” Obiter Dicta The Court emphasized: Importance of procedural discipline. The role of judicial oversight in protecting individual rights. Need to balance law enforcement efficiency with citizens’ constitutional protections. Guidelines and Legal Clarification The Supreme Court issued key takeaways: Police can legally seize property, including bank accounts, under Section 102(1) CrPC. Delay in reporting the seizure does not make it unlawful. Courts should focus on the substantive connection between seized property and the alleged crime. Minor procedural delays cannot override the purpose of criminal justice. Conclusion The ruling in Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen offers crucial clarity on the interpretation of Section 102 CrPC. It confirms that substantive justice prevails over procedural technicalities when law enforcement actions are grounded in legality. By drawing the line between procedural errors and substantive legality, the Supreme Court upholds both the efficiency of police investigations and the rights of individuals involved in criminal proceedings. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024) Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024) Sada Law • June 5, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024) Read More »

Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Condemns Arrest of Sharmishta Panoli, Demands Immediate Release Over Social Media Controversy Supreme Court Petitioned After Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Reporting on Madhya Pradesh Sand Mafia Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Assam’s Deportation Policy on Bangladeshi Infiltration Supreme Court Orders Medical Care for Disabled Rape Survivor Under Victim Compensation Scheme LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) REHA BHARGAV 02 June 2025 Supreme Court grants bail to Ankur Chaudhary in a landmark judgment affirming that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21, even under the stringent NDPS Act. Learn how trial delays impact personal liberty and bail rights in drug-related cases. Introduction The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh highlights the crucial balance between enforcing the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and protecting fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Despite allegations of manufacturing commercial quantities of Alprazolam, the petitioner was granted bail due to excessive trial delay violating his right to personal liberty. Case Facts On April 29, 2022, Ankur Chaudhary was arrested in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, accused of illegally manufacturing approximately 151.8 kilograms of Alprazolam, a controlled psychotropic substance. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on confessional statements from co-accused, while two key witnesses did not support the allegations. Despite the serious charges, Chaudhary remained in custody for over two years without meaningful trial progress. Legal Issue Does prolonged incarceration without trial violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, thereby justifying bail even when barred by Section 37 of the NDPS Act? Arguments from the Petitioner The petitioner’s counsel argued that continuous detention without a speedy trial infringes on the constitutional right to liberty. The defense highlighted weak prosecution evidence and stressed the presumption of innocence. They urged bail as justice delayed is justice denied. Arguments from the Respondent The State of Madhya Pradesh emphasized the gravity of the offense under the NDPS Act, pointing to the commercial quantity of narcotics seized. It argued strict bail conditions under Section 37 must be upheld to prevent potential evidence tampering or reoffense. Supreme Court Judgment A Vacation Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan granted bail, underscoring that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental. The Court observed the trial had not progressed for over two years, making continued detention unconstitutional despite the NDPS Act’s stringent bail provisions. The weakening of prosecution evidence further supported bail, balancing public interest with individual liberty. Conclusion This landmark ruling reinforces that even under stringent drug laws, constitutional protections like Article 21 prevail against undue trial delays. The Supreme Court’s decision in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh sets a vital precedent for safeguarding the right to personal liberty and speedy justice in narcotics cases. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Read More »

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

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

Supreme Court Judgment on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Land Acquisition: Protecting Right to Property Under Article 300A

Supreme Court Guidelines on Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Indian Cinema | Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures (2024)

Supreme Court Upholds Viva Voce Cut-Off for Judicial Services: Key Judgment on Merit Criteria in Bihar and Gujarat Recruitment

Supreme Court Directs Mandatory Self-Declarations in Ads: Influencers and Brands Liable for Misleading Endorsements

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 102(3) CrPC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Does Not Invalidate It – Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024)

Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

Editorial message

Quick links

Contact info