(1) SUPREME COURT
Contempt of Court
A. Artificial Intelligence (AI)—Use in Legal Proceedings—Reliance on AI-generated, non-existent, or fake judgments by a court is a serious matter affecting the integrity of the judicial process—Such reliance amounts to misconduct rather than a mere error of judgment—The Supreme Court has called for examination of accountability and institutional safeguards, issuing notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Bar Council of India. [Paras 1, 4, 7, 8] B. Contempt of Court / Misconduct—Adjudication Process—When a trial court bases its decision on AI-generated or synthetic judgments, it constitutes misconduct with legal consequences—This impacts the reliability and fairness of adjudication—Pending the Supreme Court’s consideration, the trial court was directed not to act on th...
(2) SUPREME COURT
Electricity Law
A. Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) / Power Supply Agreement (PSA)—Interpretation of Contract—Surrounding Circumstances—Contractual terms can be interpreted in light of attending circumstances and conduct of parties, even when reduced to writing, to give effect to terms that might otherwise be meaningless, unworkable, or ambiguous—Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 92, 94, 95, apply for adducing relevant circumstances. [Paras 22, 23] B. Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) / Power Supply Agreement (PSA)—Article 2.5 vs. Article 10—Article 2.5 indemnifies the buyer against increased coal costs from alternate sources, whereas Article 10 deals with “Change in Law” events materially affecting the seller’s ability to operate the source—Both operate in distinct spheres and are not mutually exclusi...
(3) SUPREME COURT
Validity
A. Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004—Rule 6A—Exemption from PhD Requirement—Supreme Court in Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala (2016) held that appointments under Special Rule 6A(i) & (ii) were valid as long as they conformed with AICTE qualifications—Rule 6A ceased to have effect after 05-03-2010 when AICTE issued new regulations mandating PhD for promotions to Professor, Associate Professor, and Principal posts. [Paras 3, 5, 9(a), 9(c)] B. AICTE Regulations—Binding Nature—State rules are subordinate to AICTE regulations regarding qualifications—Any provisions of State rules repugnant to AICTE regulations are void and inoperative; AICTE regulations must be followed even in the absence of enabling state rules. [Para 9(a)] C. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985...
(4) SUPREME COURT
Suspension of sentence
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Conviction and suspension of sentence—Cheque dishonour for ₹15,00,000—Appellant sentenced to one year RI and compensation—Appellate Court had granted suspension of sentence subject to deposit of 20% compensation but same stood cancelled due to non-deposit within stipulated time—Subsequently appellant deposited ₹3,00,000 as directed—Held, considering deposit of required amount and pendency of appeal, case made out for suspension of sentence—Impugned orders set aside and suspension of sentence restored. [Paras 6–8] B. Suspension of sentence—Conditions—Held, appellant directed to cooperate in hearing of appeal and not misuse liberty—Violation of conditions to entail cancellation of suspension of sentence. [...
(5) SUPREME COURT
A. Criminal Procedure—Regular Bail—Offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 IPC—Parity with co-accused—Appellant in custody since 15-02-2023—High Court rejected bail though three co-accused were already granted bail—Supreme Court held that in view of long incarceration and principle of parity, appellant entitled to bail—Impugned order set aside and appellant directed to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by Trial Court. [Paras 6–9] B. Bail—Conditions to ensure fair trial—Held, accused must cooperate with trial proceedings and shall not misuse liberty by influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence—Violation of bail conditions to entail cancellation of bail. [Para 9] ...
(6) SUPREME COURT
Anticipatory bail
A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 482—Anticipatory Bail—Allegations of sexual assault and promise of marriage under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act—Appellant and complainant known to each other as university associates—Appellant cooperated with investigation and charge-sheet already filed—Held, custodial interrogation not necessary—Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including furnishing security, non-tampering of evidence and non-contact with complainant. [Paras 6–10] B. Anticipatory Bail—Conditions and safeguards—Held, accused directed to furnish cash security with local sureties, cooperate in trial, refrain from influencing witnesses or contacting complainant, and not publicise litig...
(7) SUPREME COURT
Conviction and sentence
Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 304 Part II and 323—Conviction and sentence—Alteration of sentence—Single blow during sudden quarrel—High Court altered conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC and imposed 10 years’ RI—Supreme Court held that incident occurred on account of sudden quarrel and appellant inflicted a single blow with wooden log—Considering mitigating factors such as appellant’s age, good conduct in prison and period of incarceration of about six years with remission, sentence reduced to period already undergone while maintaining conviction—Appellant directed to be released forthwith. [Paras 8–10] ...
(8) SUPREME COURT
Suspension of sentence
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 389—Suspension of sentence pending appeal—Conviction under Sections 376(3), 363 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Sentence of twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment—Appellant in custody for about three years and six months and criminal appeal pending before High Court since 2023—Held, considering period of incarceration and likely delay in disposal of appeal, case made out for suspension of sentence—High Court order refusing suspension set aside and appellant directed to be released on bail subject to conditions. B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Suspension of sentence—Conditions—Safeguards—Held, appellant directed to cooperate with hearing of appeal before High Court, appear a...
(9) SUPREME COURT
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Bail—Parity—Grant of bail to co-accused—Effect—Appellant doctor implicated in offences under IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act and Motor Vehicles Act—Co-accused granted bail by Supreme Court in connected matters—Appellant in custody for about twenty-one months—Held, on principle of parity appellant entitled to similar relief—High Court order rejecting bail set aside and bail granted subject to conditions ensuring presence in trial. B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Grant of bail—Conditions—Safeguards—Held, accused directed to cooperate with trial, not misuse liberty and not contact or influence witnesses directly or indirectly—Violation of conditions to entail cancellation of bail. ...
(10) SUPREME COURT
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Bail—Grant of regular bail—Trial at advanced stage—All prosecution witnesses examined and only statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC and defence evidence remaining—Co-accused already granted bail—Held, continued incarceration of accused not justified—Supreme Court interfered with High Court order refusing bail and directed release of petitioner on bail subject to conditions imposed by Trial Court. [Paras 4, 8–9] B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Expeditious trial—Direction by Supreme Court—Recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC and defence evidence—Held, accused directed to cooperate with trial and appear on dates fixed by Trial Court—Trial Court directed to conclude trial within two months—Misuse of lib...
(1) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Bail
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Bail—Interim Bail Made Absolute—Petitioners joined investigation as directed by the court, no recovery was pending, and parties settled the dispute amicably by filing a petition to quash the FIR—Given that chances of conviction were remote, the interim bail granted earlier was confirmed. [Paras 3, 4, 10] B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Bail—Principles for Granting Bail—Bail is grounded in the presumption of innocence; freedom of the accused cannot be curtailed indefinitely—Gravity of offence alone is not decisive; courts must balance multiple factors, including circumstances peculiar to the accused—The object of bail is to secure appearance at trial, not to serve punitive or preventative purposes. [Paras 5–9] C. Criminal Procedure Co...
(2) HIMACHAL PRADESH
A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 151 & Order 14 Rule 2—Preliminary Issues—Test for Determination—Issues can be treated as preliminary only if they can be decided purely on law without examining evidence and can dispose of the suit entirely, such as questions of jurisdiction or statutory bars—Mixed questions of law and fact, or law dependent on disputed facts, cannot be decided as preliminary issues. [Paras corresponding to Order 14 Rule 2] B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 14 Rule 2 (2)—Jurisdiction and Statutory Bar—Issues relating to jurisdiction or a statutory bar to the suit may be tried as preliminary issues if no evidence is required and the decision can lead to outright dismissal. C. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 14 Rule 2 (1) & (2)—Mixed Issu...
(3) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Dishonour of cheque, Anticipatory bail
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Dishonour of Cheque—Compounding of Offence—Offence under Section 138 is compoundable. The High Court can compound the offence even after conviction, subject to compliance with Apex Court guidelines and conditions for compounding. [Paras 5–8] B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 147—Compounding Procedure—Parties can mutually agree to compound the offence after payment of the entire compensation amount—Upon such agreement, the accused may be acquitted and the conviction/sentence quashed. [Paras 7–8] C. Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 438—Anticipatory Bail / Criminal Revision—Criminal revision may be entertained against a conviction under Section 138 N.I. Act, but subsequent payment of enti...
(4) MADHYA PRADESH
Contempt of Court
A. Contempt of Court—Wilful Disobedience—For a contempt petition to succeed, it must be shown that there was wilful and deliberate disobedience of a court order—If the original order is ambiguous or does not specifically address a matter, the proper recourse is to seek clarification from the issuing court rather than initiate contempt proceedings. [Para 10] B. Contempt of Court—Consequential Benefits vs. Back Wages—An order granting promotion with “all consequential benefits” does not automatically include back wages unless explicitly mentioned—The principle of “no work, no pay” applies, and back wages are not considered implicit in the phrase “consequential benefits.” [Paras 11, 13] C. Service Law—Retrospective Promotion and Entitlement—Even where a...
(5) MADHYA PRADESH
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 319—Power to Proceed Against Additional Accused—A court may summon a person not already facing trial to be tried together with the existing accused if evidence recorded during the trial indicates their involvement in the commission of the offence—The power under Section 319 can be exercised only on the basis of evidence adduced before the trial court, and not merely on the basis of materials such as the charge sheet, case diary, or statements collected during investigation, which do not constitute evidence. [Para 6(19.2)] B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 319—Scope of Application—The exercise of power under Section 319 is not dependent upon whether the person sought to be summoned was named in the FIR or charge-sheeted by the police—Any pers...
(6) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Writ petition
A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ Jurisdiction—Forfeiture of Security Deposit—Violation of Natural Justice—Forfeiture of a substantial security deposit by the State without affording the affected party an opportunity of hearing is arbitrary and violative of Article 14—Where the action entails civil consequences, compliance with principles of natural justice is mandatory—In such circumstances, the writ court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside arbitrary State action. B. Administrative Law—Principles of Natural Justice—Audi Alteram Partem—Forfeiture of earnest money or security deposit involving adverse civil consequences must comply with the rule of audi alteram partem—Prior issuance of a show-cause notice and grant of an opportunity to ...
(7) HIMACHAL PRADESH
A. Land Revenue Law—Partition Proceedings—Question of Title Raised at Belated Stage—Objection regarding title raised during partition proceedings after considerable delay, particularly after the mode of partition had already been finalized and where the party had earlier consented to the partition, is liable to be rejected as belated—Where the alleged transfer through a gift deed remained unchallenged by the original owner and was acted upon by the beneficiary through construction on the land, such late-stage objections cannot be entertained. B. Land Revenue Law—Partition Proceedings—Belated Objections—Revenue authorities are justified in rejecting objections relating to title raised at a late stage of partition proceedings, especially when substantial progress has already been made and the pre...
(8) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Condonation of delay
A. Limitation Act, 1963—Condonation of Delay—Inordinate Delay—Absence of Sufficient Cause—Application for condonation of delay of 559 days in filing appeal rejected—The appellants failed to provide a satisfactory or tangible explanation for the prolonged delay—Certified copy of the impugned judgment was obtained after one year and five months without proper justification—The explanation based on internal approval processes within a statutory public utility undertaking lacked specific details and did not demonstrate diligence—Courts cannot condone delay caused by negligence, bureaucratic lethargy, or impersonal institutional machinery—While a liberal approach may be adopted in condonation matters, it cannot excuse gross negligence or absence of bona fides—Consequently, the applica...
(9) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Condonation of delay
A. Limitation Act, 1963—Section 5—Condonation of Delay—State as Litigant—Inordinate delay of more than one year in filing appeals by the State cannot be condoned merely on the ground of internal administrative procedures or consultations among departments—Lethargy, tardiness, and inaction of the State do not constitute “sufficient cause.” Courts have consistently held that undue latitude cannot be granted to the State when it acts indolently—Applications for condonation of delay dismissed and consequently the appeals rejected. [Paras 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17] B. Civil Procedure—Conduct of State in Litigation—State expected to act with diligence and seriousness in pursuing litigation—Repeated delayed filings and failure to adopt efficient measures, such as filing joint appeal...
(10) HIMACHAL PRADESH
A. Public Interest Litigation—Illegal Mining and Environmental Damage—PIL alleging illegal mining and environmental harm dismissed where auction proceedings for dredging were found to be conducted in accordance with law—Court held dredging operations were time-bound and necessary for flood mitigation; continuation of interim stay would be detrimental—Expert recommendations on watershed management and groundwater recharge noted. [Paras 34–41] B. Public Interest Litigation—Conduct of Petitioner—Where petitioner’s conduct indicates personal interest, including registration of an FIR against him, the Court may decline to examine the PIL on merits—Though veracity of the FIR is not adjudicated at that stage, it remains a relevant factor in assessing bona fides of the petitioner. [Para 37]...
