sadalawpublications.com

Article 142

Supreme Court Slams Indian Navy for Denying Permanent Commission to Female JAG Officer

Trending Today Supreme Court Halts Discharge of Woman IAF Officer Involved in Operations Sindoor and Balakot Amid PC Denial Dispute Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS VC, Cites Abuse of Legal Process Supreme Court Slams Indian Navy for Denying Permanent Commission to Female JAG Officer Supreme Court Declines Sentence in POCSO Case as Victim Now Married to Convict and Opposes Punishment Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 377 Case, Cites Lack of Marital Rape Recognition Under Indian Law Bombay High Court Quashes Non-Bailable Warrant Against Actor Arjun Rampal in Tax Evasion Case Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Supreme Court Slams Indian Navy for Denying Permanent Commission to Female JAG Officer PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 24 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India criticizes the Indian Navy for denying a Permanent Commission (PC) to a female SSC officer in the JAG Branch, calling for accountability and gender equality in the armed forces. “Shed Your Egos”: Supreme Court Criticizes Indian Navy Over Denial of PC to Female JAG Officer The Supreme Court of India has once again emphasized the need for gender equality in the armed forces, criticizing the Indian Navy for denying a Permanent Commission (PC) to a female officer in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Branch. The petitioner, Seema Chaudhary, is a Short Service Commission (SSC) officer from the 2007 batch who has faced multiple legal hurdles in her pursuit of justice. Supreme Court Urges Navy to “Shed Ego” and Comply with 2024 Ruling Despite past directions, the Supreme Court noted that Seema Chaudhary had not been granted PC even after five rounds of litigation. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr. R Balasubramanian requested time to consult with the authorities. Meanwhile, Rekha Palli, representing the petitioner, pointed out systemic discrimination: women can only join the Navy through short commissions, unlike men who can enter via permanent commissions. No Female JAG Officers Have Been Granted Permanent Commission Palli emphasized that no female JAG officer in the Indian Navy has ever been granted a Permanent Commission. The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, questioned the Navy’s rationale, especially as the petitioner was found suitable in all evaluation metrics. Negative ACRs and Gender Bias: The Court’s Rebuttal Dr. Bala argued that three Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) had negative remarks. However, the bench countered that these ACRs—covering 2016 to 2019—had been overruled by the reviewing authority. Justice Kant noted: “Enough is enough… Bring her in for Permanent Commission. This is not about ego.” He further criticized the bias of the male officers who authored the ACRs, highlighting a broader issue of gender discrimination in the Navy. 2024 Ruling and Violation of Article 142 In 2024, a bench led by former Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud had already directed the Navy to re-evaluate Chaudhary’s PC eligibility. The judgment, delivered under Article 142 of the Constitution, mandated a special Selection Board review. Justice Kant reaffirmed that the ruling was final and binding, stating the Navy must comply without letting personal biases or ego interfere. Background: Seema Chaudhary’s Service History Commissioned in 2007, Seema Chaudhary progressed to Lieutenant Commander by 2012 and received two extensions during her service. In 2020, she was informed of her termination by August 2021. The case has roots in the Union of India v. Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja judgment from 2020. That ruling stated that SSC officers in legal, education, and logistics branches should be considered for PC. Despite being included in that batch, Chaudhary was initially overlooked due to a 2008 policy letter that was later quashed. Claim of Workplace Harassment and Retaliation In her latest appeal, Chaudhary alleged that she was denied PC due to retaliation after filing a workplace harassment complaint against a male officer. A Board of Inquiry validated her claim, yet she was reassigned the next day—while the accused officer remained in place. Conclusion: A Call for Institutional Accountability This case is not just about one officer but reflects the broader struggle of women in the Indian armed forces. The Supreme Court’s stern remarks highlight the need for transparent, merit-based decision-making and an end to gender discrimination. The Indian Navy now stands at a critical juncture—will it uphold the constitutional principles of equality and justice, or allow systemic bias to persist? Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Halts Discharge of Woman IAF Officer Involved in Operations Sindoor and Balakot Amid PC Denial Dispute Supreme Court Halts Discharge of Woman IAF Officer Involved in Operations Sindoor and Balakot Amid PC Denial Dispute Sada Law • May 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS VC, Cites Abuse of Legal Process Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS VC, Cites Abuse of Legal Process Sada Law • May 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Slams Indian Navy for Denying Permanent Commission to Female JAG Officer Supreme Court Slams Indian Navy for Denying Permanent Commission to Female JAG Officer Sada Law • May 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Slams Indian Navy for Denying Permanent Commission to Female JAG Officer Read More »

Supreme Court Declines Sentence in POCSO Case as Victim Now Married to Convict and Opposes Punishment

Trending Today YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra Arrested for Espionage: No Regrets Over Leaking Info to Pakistan ISI Supreme Court Halts Discharge of Woman IAF Officer Involved in Operations Sindoor and Balakot Amid PC Denial Dispute Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS VC, Cites Abuse of Legal Process Supreme Court Slams Indian Navy for Denying Permanent Commission to Female JAG Officer Supreme Court Declines Sentence in POCSO Case as Victim Now Married to Convict and Opposes Punishment Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 377 Case, Cites Lack of Marital Rape Recognition Under Indian Law Bombay High Court Quashes Non-Bailable Warrant Against Actor Arjun Rampal in Tax Evasion Case Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Supreme Court Declines Sentence in POCSO Case as Victim Now Married to Convict and Opposes Punishment PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 24 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India declined to sentence a POCSO convict, citing the victim’s opposition to punishment and her current marital relationship with the accused. Learn about the landmark ruling under Article 142 and its implications on the legal system. Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Under Article 142 On Friday, May 23, the Supreme Court of India ruled against sentencing a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The bench, invoking its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, noted that the victim—now an adult and married to the convict—did not view the incident as a crime. Victim Faced More Harm from Legal and Social Fallout The Court emphasized that although the act was legally an offense, the victim did not perceive it as such. According to the official report, the victim endured greater trauma from the legal and societal consequences rather than the act itself. Her struggle involved navigating police procedures, enduring court trials, and fighting to protect her husband from conviction. Emotional Bond and Current Family Life Influenced Decision The accused married the victim following the incident, and they now live together with their child. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, recognized the deep emotional connection the victim had developed with the convict. She had become, as noted, “very possessive about her small family.” Court Highlights Systemic Failures in Justice Delivery This judgment also spotlighted the failures of the legal system, society, and the victim’s own family. The Court remarked that “her own family abandoned her, the legal system failed her, and society judged her,” thereby denying her the opportunity to make informed decisions earlier. Instructions to State and Ministry of Women and Child Development Alongside the ruling, the Court issued preliminary instructions to the State Government and sent a notice to the Ministry of Women and Child Development. These directives aim to address the recommendations provided by the Amicus Curiae, with more detailed orders to follow upon release of the final judgment. Conclusion: A Controversial Yet Eye-Opening Judicial Precedent The Supreme Court’s decision to forgo sentencing in this POCSO Act case has ignited important conversations around justice, victim agency, and the limitations of the current legal framework. By exercising its powers under Article 142, the Court prioritized context, emotional well-being, and the wishes of the now-adult victim over rigid legal formalism. This ruling not only exposes the challenges victims face in the aftermath of such cases but also calls for urgent reform and sensitivity within the judicial system. As the nation reflects on this precedent, it remains critical to balance the rule of law with compassion, autonomy, and societal accountability. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra Arrested for Espionage: No Regrets Over Leaking Info to Pakistan ISI YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra Arrested for Espionage: No Regrets Over Leaking Info to Pakistan ISI Sada Law • May 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Halts Discharge of Woman IAF Officer Involved in Operations Sindoor and Balakot Amid PC Denial Dispute Supreme Court Halts Discharge of Woman IAF Officer Involved in Operations Sindoor and Balakot Amid PC Denial Dispute Sada Law • May 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS VC, Cites Abuse of Legal Process Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS VC, Cites Abuse of Legal Process Sada Law • May 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Declines Sentence in POCSO Case as Victim Now Married to Convict and Opposes Punishment Read More »

Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice

Trending Today Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice NITU KUMARI 21 May 2025 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kuldeep Kumar, overturning the Chandigarh mayoral election results due to ballot tampering. Learn how electoral malpractice was exposed and justice was served. Introduction: A Controversial Mayoral Election in Chandigarh On January 30, 2024, the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation held its highly anticipated mayoral election. The contest quickly became controversial following allegations of electoral malpractice. Kuldeep Kumar, backed by an alliance between the Indian National Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party, contested the results after eight of his votes were declared invalid by the Presiding Officer, Anil Masih. The issue escalated to the Supreme Court of India, which ultimately ruled in Kumar’s favor, citing serious procedural violations and abuse of authority. Facts of the Case: What Happened During the Chandigarh Mayoral Election? The mayoral election included 36 eligible voters: elected councilors and the Member of Parliament from Chandigarh. Kuldeep Kumar received 12 votes, while Manoj Kumar (a Bharatiya Janata Party candidate) received 16 votes. The Presiding Officer invalidated 8 ballots—all in favor of Kuldeep Kumar—due to alleged ink marks. Video evidence revealed that these ink marks were made during the counting process, leading to claims of tampering and vote defacement. Legal Battle: From High Court to the Supreme Court After the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused interim relief, Kuldeep Kumar filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2998 of 2024 in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Key Legal Questions Raised Did the Presiding Officer’s actions constitute electoral fraud? Were the 8 invalidated ballots actually valid votes for Kuldeep Kumar? Could the Court invoke Article 142 to correct the injustice? Key Legal Provisions Cited Regulation 6 of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Regulations, 1996 – Governs election procedures and ballot validity. Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Permits prosecution for false evidence. Article 142 of the Constitution – Empowers the Supreme Court to deliver complete justice. Arguments Presented by Both Sides Appellant: Kuldeep Kumar Accused the Presiding Officer of intentionally defacing ballots to manipulate the outcome. Cited that ink marks do not render ballots invalid under the municipal regulations. Requested the Court recognize him as the rightfully elected mayor. Respondents: U.T. Chandigarh & Others The Presiding Officer claimed ink markings were used to identify already-defaced ballots. Manoj Kumar, the eighth respondent, argued a new election would be necessary since he had already resigned. Supreme Court Judgment: Justice Restored Date of Judgment: February 20, 2024Citation: 2024 INSC 129Presiding Judges: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India Justice J.B. Pardiwala Justice Manoj Misra Court’s Ruling Found electoral malpractice had occurred. Declared Kuldeep Kumar the legitimate mayor. Invalidated the previously announced result in favor of Manoj Kumar. Ratio Decidendi The eight defaced ballots were legally valid and intended for the appellant. The Presiding Officer had exceeded his legal authority. Obiter Dicta Emphasized that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Strongly criticized abuse of power by election officials. Court-Ordered Actions & Future Safeguards Directed action under Section 340 CrPC against the Presiding Officer. Issued guidelines to preserve election records and ensure transparency in future elections. Conclusion: A Victory for Electoral Integrity The Supreme Court’s verdict in Kuldeep Kumar vs. U.T. Chandigarh reinforces its role as a guardian of democracy. By invoking Article 142, the Court upheld the sanctity of elections, restored the rightful candidate, and underscored the importance of accountability in governance. This case serves as a precedent in safeguarding the democratic fabric of India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Read More »