Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: December 2 – December 6, 2024
1) Right to get legal aid is accused's fundamental right: SC issues directions on role of Public Prosecutors & appointment of legal aid lawyers
The Court observed the right to get legal aid is a fundamental right of the accused. The Court emphasized that, when an accused is not represented by an Advocate, it is the duty of every Public Prosecutor to point out to the Court the requirement of providing him free legal aid.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the High Court by which he was convicted for the offence of rape and murder.
Cause Title- Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 919)
Date of Judgment- December 2, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
2) Case of ‘battle casualty’: Supreme Court upholds AFT order granting liberalised family pension to deceased soldier’s widow
The Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Centre and dismissed the appeal challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal order granting Liberalised Family Pension to deceased soldier’s widow.
The Court held that the soldier’s case was covered under ‘Battle Casualties’ as he died due to extreme climatic conditions. The Court took note of the fact that the death had occurred as a result of a war-like situation prevailing near the Line of Control.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Saroj Devi [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 921]
Date of Judgment- December 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih
3) Imperative to restore and protect temples and their properties with utmost care
The Court highlighted the need to restore, protect and preserve temples and their properties while appointing a retired Judge of the Kerala High Court as the fresh Administrative Head to conduct election for the administration and management of Kerala’s Oachira Parabrahma Temple.
The appellants, claiming themselves as elected Secretary and President of a temple viz., Oachira Parabrahma Temple situated at Kerala preferred these Civil Appeals against two orders passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala.
Cause Title- Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 922]
Date of Judgment- December 3, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R. Mahadevan
4) Information u/s. 27 Evidence Act must be proved by investigating officer as being voluntary & uninfluenced by threat, duress or coercion
The Court reiterated that the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) must be proved by the Investigating Officer as being voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.
The Court reiterated thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which it dismissed his Appeal and affirmed the Judgment of the Family Court-cum-VII-Additional Sessions Judge.
Cause Title- Wadla Bheemaraidu v. State of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 923)
Date of Judgment- December 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta
5) No allegation that he was carrying buttondar knife for the purpose of sale or test: Supreme Court quashes chargesheet
The Court quashed FIR and charge sheet filed against a person accused of carrying a buttondar knife. The Court clarified that the notification whereby a buttondar knife having blade dimensions of 7.62 cms or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth has been brought under the mischief of the Arms Act, would be applicable only when the recovered knife is meant for manufacture, sale or possession for sale or test.
The appellant approached the Court seeking quashing of the proceedings of the criminal case arising from an FIR lodged against him under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Cause Title- Irfan Khan v. State (Nct of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 924]
Date of Judgment- December 3, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
6) Politically charged atmosphere in West Bengal may not be conducive to fair investigation: SC transfers BJP worker’s assault case to CBI for investigation
The Court ordered the transfer of investigation against Kabir Shankar Bose to the CBI after observing that the politically charged atmosphere in the State of West Bengal may not be very conducive to a fair investigation.
The Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by Kabir Shankar Bose, an advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker by directing the State of West Bengal to transfer all relevant records of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an assault case.
Cause Title- Kabir Shankar Bose v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 930)
Date of Judgment- December 4, 2024
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal
7) State can’t deny payment of retiral benefits merely because college continued litigating over reinstatement of delinquent lecturer
The Court asked the Gujarat Government to pay retiral benefits to a delinquent employee whose reinstatement orders were continuously challenged by a Grant-in-Aid Institution.
The Court observed that no exception is provided in the Pension Scheme for the teaching/ non-teaching staff in the Gram Vidyapeeth to enable the State to deny payment of retiral benefits and shift the burden on the Institution. The Private College covered under the Grant-in-Aid scheme of the State Government had filed the present appeal impugning the orders passed by the High Court. The appellant only pressed the claim regarding liability of the appellant-college to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee.
Cause Title- Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith v. Government of Gujarat & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 935]
Date of Judgment- December 2, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K.Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal
8) Supreme Court grants 2L compensation to RSRTC conductor dismissed from service over incorrect punching of tickets
The Court granted compensation of Rs 2 lakh to a conductor who worked with Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation for 3 years and was dismissed from service in the year 1982 on account of incorrect punching of tickets.
The Court noted that he must have attained the age of superannuation considering the time gap. The workman had approached the Apex Court impugning the judgment of the High Court whereby the second appeal filed by the respondents was allowed setting aside the concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below.
Cause Title- Bastiram v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 934]
Date of Judgment- December 2, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal
9) Testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are relatives
The Court observed that merely because the witnesses are relatives, it cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses. The only requirement is that the testimonies of such witnesses have to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection. The Court noted that the incident occurred on account of a grave and sudden fight in the heat of anger due to the provocation by the deceased and there was no evidence to show that the accused acted in a cruel manner.
The Appeal, before the Court, challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court whereby the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life was affirmed.
Cause Title- Hare Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 936]
Date of Judgment- December 3, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
10) Reasons are heartbeat of every order; show cause notice to employees must specify grounds on which authority intends to proceed
The Court held that a show cause notice to an employee must specify the grounds on which the administrative or quasi-judicial authority intends to proceed as reasons are the “heartbeat of every order.”
The Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court which had upheld the termination of the Appellant, an Ophthalmic Assistant in the Health Department of West Bengal. The Bench restored the decision of the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) which had held that the termination Order could not be sustained as it was done without following the principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity to explain his case before the authority.
Cause Title- Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 940)
Date of Judgment- December 5, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice R. Mahadevan
11) AICTE & UGC Regulations applicable only to those who qualify as teachers & are discharging classroom teaching duties
The Court observed that AICTE and UGC regulations are applicable only to those who qualify as teachers and are discharging classroom teaching duties. The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the former Director of CSI Institute of
Technology contesting his retirement after noting that the Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) had decided to not adopt the amendment increasing the age of superannuation to sixty-five in their universities or colleges. The Court also clarified that CSIIT is an affiliated Institute of JNT University and therefore its teachers cannot have their age of retirement more than that of the teachers of the affiliating University.
Cause Title- P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 938]
Date of Judgment- December 6, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B.Varale
12) When can private defense exception be invoked in a murder case?: Supreme Court explains
The Court, in a recent Judgment, explained the ingredients of private defense exception in a murder case.
The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment by which the accused was convicted under Sections 302, 324, 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Cause Title- Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 937)
Date of Judgment- December 6, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
