Supreme Court of India Judgements: Constitution of India

Showing posts with label Constitution of India. Show all posts

Monday, 31 March 2025

Supreme Court Directs Customs Authorities To Upgrade Lab Facilities For Proper Testing Of Disputed Articles On All Parameters

In a key decision, the Supreme Court today overturned the confiscation of imported goods labelled as "Base Oil SN 50," which customs authorities had classified as High-Speed Diesel (HSD), which only the State entities can import.

The Court found that the Customs Department failed to provide conclusive evidence proving the goods were High-Speed Diesel (HSD), due to inadequate laboratory testing and conflicting expert opinions.

In this regard, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh criticized inadequate lab testing facilities, which led to the release of confiscated goods because the customs authorities tested only 8–14 out of 21 IS 1460:2005 (HSD) parameters—insufficient to classify the goods as HSD.

Therefore, the Court directed the Respondents to upgrade lab facilities within six months to ensure full IS-standard testing and prevent future disputes.

"The genesis of the prolonged litigation lies in the non- availability of adequate facilities for testing all the parameters provided under Bureau of Indian Standard Specifications. Such a dispute could have been avoided had the testing facilities for all the parameters been available.

Since the Authorities themselves had laid down the specific parameters for classification of goods, as in the present case by referring to classification under IS 1460:2005, it is incumbent upon the Authorities to ensure that necessary facilities are made available for testing of any disputed article on all these parameters as otherwise, laying down such parameters would be meaningless.

“Hence, to avoid these difficulties, doubts and uncertainties in future, the respondents are directed to ensure that proper facilities are made available in the appropriate laboratories for undertaking tests for all these parameters or at least for those parameters which the Authorities consider are of essential character to satisfy the “most akin” test without which the article in issue cannot be properly classified. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to take necessary steps in this regard within a period of six months for proper testing in all the parameters in future.”,

Police Constitutionally Bound To Protect Freedom Of Expression; State Should Sensitize Officers On Constitutional Ideals

The Supreme Court on Friday (March 28) emphasized that police officers, as part of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, have a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals.

Referring to Article 51A(a), which mandates citizens to abide by the Constitution and respect its institutions, the Court observed that officers must uphold the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

“The police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The philosophy of the Constitution and its ideals can be found in the preamble itself. The preamble lays down that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure all its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Therefore, liberty of thoughts and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution.”

The Court observed, “Article 19(1)(a) confers a fundamental right on all citizens to freedom of speech and expression. The police machinery is a part of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Moreover, the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens.”

It noted that despite the Constitution being in force for over 75 years, police officers were often not sufficiently sensitized to their constitutional responsibilities. The Court urged the State to conduct massive training programs to ensure officers are aware of their obligations under the Constitution.

“The Constitution is more than 75 years old. By this time, the police officers ought to have been sensitized about their duty of abiding by the Constitution and respecting the ideals of the Constitution. If the police officers are not aware of these obligations, the State must ensure that they are educated and sensitized by starting massive training programs.”

“If an option under sub-Section (3) is not exercised by the police officer in such a case, he may end up registering an FIR against a person who has exercised his fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a) even though clause (2) of Article 19 is not attracted. If, in such cases, the option under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 is not exercised, it will defeat the very object of incorporating sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS and will also defeat the obligation of the police under Article 51-A (a)”, the Court held.

The Court emphasized that, even while fulfilling obligation under Section 173(1) of the BNSS to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed, police officers must be mindful of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and the exceptions outlined in Article 19(2).

“Even while dealing with the performance of an obligation under sub-Section (1) of Section 173, where the commission of the offence is based on spoken or written words, the police officer concerned will have to keep in mind the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) read with an exception carved out under clause (2) of Article 19. The reason is that he is under an obligation to abide by the Constitution and to respect the ideals under the Constitution.”

Under Article 19(2), the State can impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) in the interests of public order, decency, morality, or other specified grounds. However, the Court cautioned that such restrictions must remain reasonable and cannot be arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.

The Court further observed that while Article 19(2) allows certain laws to limit the right to free speech, those laws cannot overshadow the primary right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a). The substantive right to free expression must be protected unless the restrictions meet the criteria of reasonableness as laid down under Article 19(2).

Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat

Art 311 Doesn't Mean Only Appointing Authority Can Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Govt Servant

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the appointing authority is not required to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a state employee. Referring to Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the Court clarified that while the appointing authority's approval is necessary for dismissal, it is not required for initiating disciplinary action.

Overturning the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Datta noted that the court erred in applying the rulings in BV Gopinath and Promod Kumar, IAS. It clarified that these judgments were based on central laws, which differ from Jharkhand's Civil Service Rules governing the state.

The Court found that the Jharkhand's Rules didn't mandate charge-sheet approval by the Chief Minister, and only states that the disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by any superior authority. Moreover, the Chief Minister's approval of the draft charge-sheet (submitted alongside the proposal) sufficed as compliance, hence the court noted that no separate approval of CM was needed.

“As noted above, in the present case, the draft charge-sheet was there on record when the Chief Minister accorded his approval and there appears to be no valid reason as to why approval of the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent would not be regarded as grant of approval to the draft charge-sheet too. We are unhesitatingly of the view that according approval to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, in this case, did amount to approval of the draft charge-sheet.”, the court said.

Since the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner (superior authority), and the dismissal was upheld by the State Cabinet being approved by the Governor, therefore the Court found no reason for the High Court to interfere with the dismissal just because the charge sheet was issued without the Chief Minister's approval.

“We repeat, the entire proposal of initiating disciplinary proceedings inclusive of the draft charge-sheet, to suspend the respondent pending such proceedings and the names of the officers who would conduct the inquiry and present the case of the department in such inquiry having been approved by the Chief Minister, the Single Judge seems to have occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice in interfering with the order of dismissal on the wholly untenable ground of lack of approval of the charge-sheet by the Chief Minister; and the Division Bench, by failing to right the wrong, equally contributed to the failure of justice.”, the court observed.

Constitutional Safeguard Under Article 311(1) Does Not Mandate Issuance Of Charge-sheet By Appointing Authority

The Court noted that an argument was made by the Respondent claiming protection under Article 311(1) stating that the safeguards enshrined in Article 311 of the Constitution be scrupulously followed prior to ordering his dismissal including drawing up a charge-sheet in the manner required by the relevant law.

However, the Court noted that the constitutional safeguard under Article 311(1) only ensures that dismissal is by an appointing authority, not that charge sheets must be issued by the appointing authority or the disciplinary proceedings be initiated by them.

"If one looks at Article 311(1), the sole safeguard that it provides to any member, inter alia, of a civil service of a State or the holder of a civil post under the State is that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed (emphasis supplied). Clause (1) does not on its own terms require that the disciplinary proceedings should also be initiated by the appointing authority."

The Court clarified that disciplinary proceedings may be initiated by any superior authority, not solely by the appointing authority unless explicitly required by the rules.

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. VS. RUKMA KESH MISHRA

Giving Arrest Memo Not Same As Supplying Grounds Of Arrest : Supreme Court Sets Aside Arrest & Remand

"We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him. This, being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the Code which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment, particularly, in light of the judgment rendered by this Court reported as Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2024) 8 SCC 254."

In this case, the accused was arrested last December in connection with a first information report registered under Sections 384, 420, 468, 471, 509 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. He was remanded to police custody for 3 days. He challenged his arrest and remand before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which refused to entertain it. Against the January 30 order of the High Court, an appeal was filed. He challenged his arrest and remand on three grounds: non-compliance with Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the opportunity of being heard at the time of remand and the non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest.

The Supreme Court considered his criminal appeal only in terms of the last ground.

Case Details: ASHISH KAKKAR v. UT OF CHANDIGARH

Sunday, 23 March 2025

Explained | Can FIR Be Registered Against A Sitting Judge? What Is In-House Enquiry Procedure On Complaint Against Judge?

Reports regarding the alleged recovery of unaccounted money from the residence of Justice Yashwant Verma of the Delhi High Court have sent shock waves across the legal fraternity.

While it is understood that the Supreme Court Collegium is considering a proposal to transfer Justice Verma and that the Delhi HC CJ is enquiring into the matter, several concerns are being raised, quite rightly, by the general public.

If a Judge is found to be in alleged possession of unaccounted cash, should not an FIR be first lodged on this issue and a criminal investigation be commenced?

However, the simple answer is that at the first instance, no criminal proceedings can be initiated against a sitting Judge unless the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is consulted, as held by the Supreme Court in its judgment in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991).

Once the Chief Justice of India is satisfied that the allegations are prima facie credible, the CJI has to advise the President of India to allow the police to register an FIR.

"In order to adequately protect a Judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment the President will consult the Chief Justice of India who will consider all the materials placed before him and tender his advice to the President for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing FIR against the Judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter."

Over the years, this process has come to be known as the 'In-House Procedure,' which is a confidential enquiry for institutional credibility under the charge of the CJI.

The In-House Procedure was first stated in the 1991 judgment where the allegations were against a former Chief Justice of the High Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (PC Act).

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, two important issues emerged: Are judges public servants under the PC Act? If they are, then a prior sanction is necessary to launch criminal prosecution against them.

The second question was, who would be the competent authority to give that sanction?

Judges are 'public servants' as per PC Act

The Veeraswami judgment holds that a judge of a High Court or a Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of either Court, is a 'public servant' under the PC Act. Therefore, a criminal prosecution or FIR can be lodged against the judge for offences under the PC Act.

Sanction is not necessary if the judge no longer holds the office.

Who can remove a judge?

The judgment says the President of India is the competent authority to grant sanction under the PC Act to initiate a criminal prosecution against a sitting judge.

"The President, therefore, being the authority competent to appoint and to remove a Judge, of course in accordance with the procedure envisaged in Article 124, clauses (4) and (5) of the Constitution, may be deemed to be the authority to grant sanction for prosecution of a Judge under the provisions of Section 6(1)(c) in re- spect of the offences provided in section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947."

However, no FIR can be lodged against a judge unless the CJI is "consulted". The judgment reasons that in-house procedure protects a judge from "frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment".

"The President shall act in accordance with advice given by the Chief Justice of India."

Is the advice of CJI binding?

The judgment says when the President consults the CJI, the latter has to consider all the "materials" to tender the advice. If the CJI thinks that it is not a fit case for grant of sanction, the President 'shall' not accord sanction.

The judgment observes:

"If the chief Justices of opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of sanction for prosecution of the Judge concerned the President shall not accord sanction to prosecute the Judge; This will save the Judge concerned from unnecessary harassment as well as from frivolous prosecution against him.

Similarly in the case of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the President shall consult such of the Judges of the Supreme Court as he may deem fit and proper and the President shall act in accordance with the advice given to him by the Judge or Judges of the Supreme Court. The purpose of grant of previous sanction before prosecuting a public servant i.e. a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court is to protect the Judge from unnecessary harassment and frivolous prosecution more particularly to save the Judge from the biased prosecution for giving judgment in a case which goes against the Government or its officers though' based on good reasons and rule of law."

What is the 'In-House Enquiry' procedure?

In the 1995 judgment of Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, the Supreme Court termed it an "In-House Procedure". It was stated that impeachment is a "drastic: remedy and needs to be only used in serious cases. Therefore, the Court suggested an alternative procedure when a judge of the High Court is involved.

In 2015, in Additional District And Sessions v Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya, the Supreme Court further explained the In-House procedure especially in the context of the role of the Chief Justice of the High Court when the complaint is against a judge of the High Court.

What is the procedure?

The in-house procedure, as evolved through the above-cited judgments, is as follows.

The complaint can either be received by the Chief Justice of the High Court, the CJI or the President. In the first case, the following procedure laid down is to be followed. When it is received by the CJI, a similar procedure is adopted. If the President receives the complaint, he must forward it to the CJI.

1. The Chief Justice of the High Court, after confidential enquiry from independent sources, should ascertain if the complaint raises serious allegations of misconduct or impropriety. The CJ must also ask for a response from the judge concerned.

It should be noted here that as per the 2015 judgment, it is not open for the Chief Justice of the High Court to further constitute any committee to hold an enquiry by recording statements etc. His only determination is, whether a prima facie case is made out requiring a deeper probe.

2. In light of the response received, if the Chief Justice of the High Court thinks the matter requires further action, he should then consult the CJI and place all relevant information before him.

Meanwhile, all other procedures of enquiry against the judge should be suspended.

3. The CJI, on receipt of the information from the Chief Justice of the High Court, the CJI must ask for comments from the Chief Justice of the High Court and a response from the concerned judge through the Chief Justice of the High Court.

It is at this stage before the CJI, that the veracity of the allegations are to be probed.

4. If the CJI is of the opinion that the matter requires further investigation, he shall constitute a three-member Committee consisting of two Chief Justices of the High Courts other than the High Court to which the judge belongs and one High Court judge.

5. The said Committee shall hold an enquiry into the allegation and submit a report to the CJI. The Committee must devise its own procedure but should follow principles of natural justice. A copy of the report has to be sent to the judge concerned.

Where the CJ of the High Court is involved, the Bar must directly bring the matter to the notice of the CJI.

When the enquiry report recommends the removal of the judge

The CJI shall:

1. ask the judge to resign or seek voluntary retirement;

2. If the judge refuses to resign or seek voluntary retirement, the CJI must advise the Chief Justice of the High Court to not allot any judicial work to him. The same shall be put to the notice of the President and the Prime Minister.

In the case of Justice Soumitra Sen, the then-sitting judge of Calcutta High Court, he was advised to resign after an In-House Procedure was followed. Since he showed his unwillingness to resign, the then CJI K.G. Balakrishnan wrote it to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to initiate impeachment proceedings.

When the committee finds substance in allegation but misconduct not serious

In case the Committee finds that there is misconduct but not serious in nature, it shall call the judge and advise him accordingly.

If the allegation is against a Judge of the Supreme Court:

1. If a complaint is against a judge of the Supreme Court, the CJI must first examine it.

2. If CJI finds the complaint serious in nature, he shall ask for a response of the judge.

3. Based on the response and in light of the allegations, if the matter requires a deeper probe, CJI would constitute a Committee of three-judges of the Supreme Court.

4. The committee shall hold enquiry and similar action can be followed as followed in case a complaint is against a judge of the High Court.

There is no specific procedure where the allegation against the CJI is made. However, the pronouncements note that the President will have to consult other judges of the Supreme Court.

Transparency of in-house procedure

In Indira Jaising v. Registrar General, Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising had filed an Article 32 writ seeking public disclosure of the enquiry report made by a Committee constituted by the CJI of two judges of the Supreme Court and a judge of the High Court to enquire into the allegations of sexual harassment against the then sitting judge of Karnataka High Court.

Dismissing the petition, the Court had said: "A report made on such inquiry if given publicity will only lead to more harm than good to the institution as Judges would prefer to face inquiry leading to impeachment. In such a case the only course open to the parties concerned if they have material is to invoke the provisions of Article 124 or Article 217 of the Constitution, as the case may be. It is not appropriate for the petitioner to approach this Court for the relief or direction for release of the Report, for what the Chief Justice of India has done is only to get information from peer Judges of those who are accused and the report made to the Chief Justice of India is wholly confidential."

The said report is only for the purpose of the satisfaction of the CJI that such a report has been made. It is purely preliminary in nature, ad hoc and not final, it had observed. Jaisingh had remarked that the decision to not make the inquiry report public is a "scandaL".

Subsequently, the 2015 judgment the Registry of the Supreme Court was directed to upload the procedure on its official website.

Conclusion

While the In-House procedure allows the CJI to make informed decisions, the lack of any written guidelines or mechanism to make the inquiry report public continues to attract scepticism. A fair and transparent procedure would restore the tarnished faith of the judiciary caused by such unfortunate incidents.

Supreme Court Publishes Video & Pictures On Cash At Justice Yashwant Varma's House; Makes Report Of Delhi HC CJ Public

23 Mar 2025 12:02 AM

Listen to this Article

In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court on Saturday uploaded on its website the reports and documents, including photos and video, with respect to the allegations of the discovery of unaccounted currencies at the home of Justice Yashwant Varma, sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.

The inquiry report of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice and the response of Justice Varma have been made public.

Significantly, the Supreme Court also publicised the videos and photographs shared by the Delhi Police regarding the firefighting operation in Justice Varma's residence on March 14, when he was not present in his home.

The video appended to the report clearly shows sacks containing cash currencies, some of which are burnt. The video can be seen here.

Report submitted by Delhi HC CJ Upadhyay

The report submitted by the Chief Justice states that the incident happened on March 14 in a storeroom where access to any person other than those residing in the official bungalow of Justice Varma is not there. Chief Justice Upadhyay was informed by the Commissioner of Police Delhi in the evening around 4:50 pm on March 15 about the fire which happened at Justice Varma's bungalow on March 14 at 11.30 PM. Thereafter, the Chief Justice instructed the Registrar-cum-Secretary to visit the spot of the incident in person and prepare a report. The Registrar visited the spot, after informing the PS to Justice Varma. Justice Varma was also there

Justice Upadhyay learnt from the Delhi Police Commissioner that the PCR call regarding the fire was made by the Personal Secretary to Justice Varma after the PS was told by Justice Varma's servants about the fire.

Justice Upadhyay after apprising about the incident to CJI on March 16, contacted Justice Varma the next day. Justice Varma responded by stating that the room was accessible to the servants, gardeners and sometimes even the CPWD personnel. When Chief Justice showed him the Whatsapp pictures sent by the Commissioner of Police, Justice Varma expressed some "apprehension about some conspiracy against him".

The Commissioner of Police in his report dated 16.3.2025 has reported that as per the guard posted at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, the debris and other partially burnt articles were removed from the room where the fire had broken out in the morning of 15.3.2025.

Chief Justice Upadhyay stated in his report to the Chief Justice of India that the matter required deeper probe. "The enquiry conducted by me, prima facie, does not reveal possibility of entry or access to the room by any person other than those residing in the bungalow, the servants, the gardeners and CPWD personnels, if any. Accordingly, I am of the prima facie opinion that the entire matter warrants a deeper probe," CJ Upadhyay said.

On receiving the report, CJI Sanjiv Khanna on March 21 asked Chief Justice Upadhyay to seek a response from Justice Varma on the presence of "unaccounted cash" the "source" of the money and the person who removed the "burnt cash" on the morning of March 15. Additionally, Justice Varma was asked not to dispose of his phone or to delete any any mobile number, or message or data from his mobile phone.

Justice Varma denies allegations

The Supreme Court also published the response given by Justice Varma.

He denied the allegations including that the room where the fire broke was a room in his official residence. As per his response, it is a storeroom that is disconnected from the main residence contrary to what is projected by TOI's report. He has also unequivocally denied any cash ever being placed in the storeroom.

"I state unequivocally that no cash was ever placed in that storeroom either by me or any of my family members and strongly denounce the suggestion that the alleged cash belonged to us. The very idea or suggestion that this cash was kept or stored by us is totally preposterous. The suggestion that one would store cash in an open, freely accessible and commonly used storeroom near the staff quarters or in an outhouse verges on the incredible and incredulous. It is a room which is completely disassociated from my living areas and a boundary wall demarcates my living area from that outhouse. I only wish that the media had conducted some enquiry before I came to be indicted and defamed in the press," Justice Varma has said in his response.

Justice Varma said that when the fire broke out, he and his wife were not there at the home, and only his daughter and aged mother were there. He said that this room was generally utilised by all and sundry to store articles such as unused furniture, bottles, crockery, mattresses, used carpets, old speakers, garden implements as well as CPWD material. This room is unlocked and accessible both from the official front gate as well as the backdoor of the staff quarters.

Justice Varma raised suspicions about the alleged cash currencies being absent on the morning of March 15. He pointed out that even when the PS of the Chief Justice visited the spot on March 15, no cash was found.

He stated that this was part of a conspiracy to frame him. He pointed out that certain unfounded allegations were circulated against him in social media in December 2024 as well.

"At the cost of repetition, I unequivocally state that neither I nor any of my family members had stored or kept any cash or currency in that storeroom at any point of time. Our cash withdrawals, made from time to time, are all documented and always through regular banking channels, the use of UPI applications and cards. Insofar as the allegation of the recovery of cash, I once again make it clear that no one from my house ever reported seeing any currency in burnt form in the room. In fact, this gets further corroborated from there being no cash or currency which we saw when the site was restored to us after the fire personnel and the police had left the scene quite apart from we being not apprised of any recovery or seizure which was made on the spot. This may also be viewed in light of the statement of the Chief of the Fire Service which I have gathered from news reports."

After examining the report of the Delhi HC CJ and the response of Justice Varma, CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member committee to conduct in-house inquiry into the matter.

The members of the Committee are - Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh; and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka.

Chief Justice of Delhi High Court has also been asked not to assign any judicial work to Justice Yashwant Varma.

Friday, 21 March 2025

Supreme Court Initiates In-House Procedure Against Delhi HC Judge Over Recovery Of Cash At Residence

Supreme Court Initiates In-House Procedure Against Delhi HC Judge Over Recovery Of Cash At Residence

After an extraordinary meeting, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the transfer of Justice Yashwant Verma, Judge of the Delhi High Court, following reports regarding the discovery of huge amounts of unaccounted cash in his official residence.

Justice Verma is recommended to be transferred to the Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court.

It is understood from those privy to the development that the transfer is not the final step and is only a preliminary action, with the authorities considering further actions as per the law. An in-house procedure against the Judge has been initiated.

As per the in-house enquiry procedure adopted by the Supreme Court, when there are allegations against a High Court Judge, the Chief Justice of India, after a preliminary enquiry, forms a committee of three Supreme Court judges to enquire into the matter after seeking the response of the Judge in question. Based on the report of the in-house panel, further action can be taken. It is understood that the CJI has initiated the preliminary enquiry into the matter.

A High Court Judge can be removed from office only through an impeachment motion passed by the Parliament. No judge has been impeached in India's history. Though some faced proceedings, they resigned before completion.

As per a report in the Times of India, the cash was found when a fire brigade reached Justice Verma's residence to douse a fire. Justice Varma was not in his residence then. When the fire personnel found the hoards of currency, they took pictures and videos of it and alerted their seniors. Ultimately, the matter was reported to the higher-ups in the government, who in turn informed the Chief Justice of India. This led to CJI Sanjiv Khanna convening an extraordinary meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium on Thursday evening to discuss the matter.

Prioritise Criminal Appeals Of Elderly Accused On Bail, Especially When Crime Is Old

The Supreme Court has advised the High Courts to give adequate priority to criminal appeals, where the accused are on bail. If the accused persons have remained on bail, especially in cases involving life sentences, and the appeal is ultimately dismissed after several years, then sending the accused back to prison might be difficult, particularly when they have attained old age.

The Court noted that generally, the High Courts prioritise appeals where the accused are in prison. However, there should be a balance struck so as to give adequate priority to the appeals where the accused are on bail, especially when the accused are aged and a long time has passed since the crime.

In the post-script to the judgment, the Court observed :

"In all the major High Courts in our country, there is a huge pendency of criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal. Considering the pendency of very old criminal appeals, priority is usually given to the hearing of the appeals where the accused are in prison. The appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail take a backseat. However, a right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail. The old age of the accused and the long lapse of time from the commission of the offence can always be a ground available to give some priority to the appeals against conviction of the accused on bail. If the appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail and especially where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade. Therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority."

Case : State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamlal and others

Saturday, 8 March 2025

Supreme Court Flags Delay In Amending Calcutta High Court Rule Requiring Division Bench Instead Of Single Judge For Certain Bail Cases

The Supreme Court recently raised concerns over the delay in amending the Calcutta High Court Rules on the aspect of the strength of the bench hearing bail applications, pointing out that the proposal to amend the Rule has been pending for 12 years.

The issue relates to the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, which requires certain bail applications to be heard by a Division Bench instead of a Single Judge.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that although the Full Court had on February 20, 2025, decided to amend the Rule, it had only referred the matter to the Rule Committee for drafting the amendment instead of directly implementing the change.

“Though it was resolved that proviso to sub-rule 2 of 1 Rule 9 of the Rules of the Chapter II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules should be suitably amended, instead of passing a resolution of amendment, now the issue has been referred to the Rule Committee for preparing a draft of amendment. We may note here that the proposal to amend the said Rule is 12 years old as can be seen from paragraph 5 of the report”, the Court observed.

The Court had earlier questioned why the Calcutta High Court was assigning regular and anticipatory bail applications to Division Benches when all other High Courts had Single Judge hear such matters. It sought an explanation from the High Court and asked for data on bail applications filed in 2024 and their pendency.

From the compliance report submitted by the Registrar General-in-Charge of the Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court noted that in 2024, more than 11,000 bail applications—both regular and anticipatory—were filed before the High Court.