Keeping Pace with Legal Change
This paper discusses a case in which the Supreme Court provided insight into how natural justice principles are applied to…
The Supreme Court of India made a landmark judgment pertaining to highly important points of the Goods and Services Tax…
In Kaushal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court invalidated defamatory comments of the Rajasthan High Court against a District Judge who had granted bail, holding that these strictures in the absence of hearing are against natural justice and judicial independence. The Court repeated that criticising subordinate judges should be dealt with administratively, not judicially. It reiterated the requirement of procedural fairness, judicial restraint and made it clear that guidelines for bail are advisory, not obligatory.
In Binod Pathak & Ors. Vs. Shankar Choudhary & Ors., the Supreme Court emphasized the statutory obligation of the pleaders under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC to report the death of a client. It held that defaults of procedure should never defeat substantive justice, particularly such defaults resulting from mala fide silence. Revoking the order of the Patna High Court, the Court held that no one shall profit from their own iniquity, upholding fairness and moral legal practices.
The Supreme Court is hearing an important legal issue which is pressed out because of the arrest of Pankaj Bansal by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Karnataka states that the ED is only liable to give reasons for its arrest in written form prospectively as held by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Military of India. This might influence many current probes that are going on under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
In a classic case, the Supreme Court set aside criminal cases against distant relatives, who had been falsely dragged into a dowry harassment case. The ruling adds strength to the point that general and lackluster claims of criminality are not sufficient to allow trial that will weaken innocent family members against the frivolous use of the law.
In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a penalty imposed on a senior retired Assistant Engineer, Ram Prakash Singh, under Rule 27 of Tripura Administrative Services Rules on procedural lapse and violation of due process, leaving it clear that departmental inquiry is subject to strict adherence to due process which entails production of evidence, timely conclusions and fair hearing opportunities.
The Supreme Court set aside the rejection of Maharana Pratap Singh on basis of denial of due process, broad allegations and absence of fair inquiry. It gave rewards to compensation, stating that the, due process, and following natural justice is an imperative in departmental exercises of discipline.
On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court made a very important decision that cleared K. Shikha Barman of all charges. The court found that there were serious mistakes in the way the case was handled and that the wrong person had been identified under the NDPS Act. The Court stressed that the prosecution did not show the defendant’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court in Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust v. UPSIDC affirmed UPSIDC’s cancellation of KNMT’s industrial land allotment, emphasizing strict contractual compliance, procedural fairness, valid legal notices, transparency, and accountability. The Court underscored the Public Trust Doctrine and restrained appellate interference
