The Supreme Court held that the respondent, who sold his flat to a borrower financed by the appellant, was not a 'consumer' of the appellant under the Act, 1986, due to the absence of a direct contractual relationship

 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d) and 24-A — Contract Act, 1872 — A flat seller who is not a borrower or a party to the home loan agreement lacks privity of contract with the financing company and cannot be considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act for claims related to the sale consideration — Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had directed the appellant to refund money and pay costs to the respondent (original flat owner) — The Supreme Court held that the respondent, who sold his flat to a borrower financed by the appellant, was not a 'consumer' of the appellant under the Act, 1986, due to the absence of a direct contractual relationship — The Court also noted the doubtful existence of a Tripartite Agreement imposing liability on the appellant towards the respondent, the non-joinder of the borrower as a necessary party, and the issue of limitation in filing the consumer complaint.

M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED

Vs.

SNEHASIS NANDA

A statutory board lacks the authority to unilaterally reverse a government land acquisition for a public purpose through a private agreement.

 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 6 — Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 — Sections 4 and 6 — Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vests absolutely in the government upon possession — A statutory body, for whose benefit the land was acquired, cannot enter into a private agreement to return a portion of the land, as this would circumvent the law — Such an agreement is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and constitutes a fraud on the state's sovereign power of eminent domain — An arbitral award upholding such an illegal agreement is against public policy and liable to be set aside.

DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

Vs.

BHAGWAN DEVI (DEAD), THROUGH HER LR.

Supreme Court partly allows an appeal, converting a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304, considering the lack of premeditation and the time already served by the appellant,

 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 300, 302 and 304 — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served — Supreme Court partly allows an appeal, converting a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304, considering the lack of premeditation and the time already served by the appellant, and directs release if not required in any other case.

SUDAM PRABHAKAR ACHAT

Vs.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's conviction of six individuals for rioting and related offences, restoring their acquittal, as their mere presence at the crime scene amidst a large crowd was insufficient to prove membership in an unlawful assembly without evidence of specific roles or overt acts.

 Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 143, 147 and 149 — Conviction for Unlawful Assembly — Necessity of Proof Beyond Mere Presence — Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances — Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's conviction of six individuals for rioting and related offences, restoring their acquittal, as their mere presence at the crime scene amidst a large crowd was insufficient to prove membership in an unlawful assembly without evidence of specific roles or overt acts.

DHIRUBHAI BHAILALBHAI CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER

Vs.

STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

Supreme Court upholds the condonation of a 1537-day delay in the State's second appeal,

 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State, if “sufficient cause” is shown and substantial justice is served, balancing between adherence to limitation and the pursuit of meritorious claims —Supreme Court upholds the condonation of a 1537-day delay in the State's second appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach when substantial justice is at stake, particularly in cases involving government land, while ensuring the State exhibits due diligence in future proceedings.

INDER SINGH

Vs.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Motor Accident Claim Can't Be Rejected Merely Because Vehicle's Make Was Wrongly Described

 

The Supreme Court observed that discrepancy in the make of the vehicle cannot be a ground to deny a rightful claim when the vehicle's registration number and other key details are consistent and correctly mentioned.

Because of the change of make of the vehicle, i.e., TATA Sumo in place of TATA Spacio, the claim as allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was rejected by the High Court upon setting aside the claim awarded by the Tribunal even though the vehicle's registration and other key details remained the same.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the registration number of the offending vehicle is KA-31/6059, was found involved in the criminal case which is one and the same, the finding of the High Court cannot be sustained. Even mere misdescription of the make of the vehicle could not have been treated as consistency or a ground to dismiss the claim petition itself, particularly when there is no change in the registration number of the offending vehicle. Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.”

PARAMESHWAR SUBRAY HEGDE VERSUS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR

CBI Files 'Closure Report' In Sushant Singh Rajput Death Case, Rules Out Foul Play

After huge hue and cry and a probe that went on for more than four years, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Saturday filed a 'closure report' in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case, stating that it did not find any evidence to conclude any 'foul play' in the death of the actor.

According to    PTI, the CBI through its officials have submitted its 'closure report' in the death case before a special court in Mumbai, on Saturday. The special court, will not decided whether to accept the report or order further probe.

Reacting to the news, actor Rhea Chakraborty's counsel, senior advocate Satish Maneshinde has expressed displeasure over the 'uncalled for' false narratives on social media and also the electronic media, particularly against his client.

"The CBI has filed a closure report in connection with the Death of Sushant Singh Rajput after almost 4 and a half years. We are Greatful to the CBI for having thoroughly investigated every aspect of the case from all angles and closed the case. The amount of false narrative in the Social Media and Electronic Media was totally uncalled for. Innocent people were hounded and paraded before the Media and investigative authorities. I hope this does not repeat in any case," Maneshinde said.

The senior advocate further beseeched the 'captains' of media to reflect upon what they did.

"Rhea had to undergo untold miseries and was behind bars for 27 days for no fault of hers until Justice Sarang Kotwal of the Bombay High Court, released her on bail. Today I can share that I'm proud to have defended a Fauji Family Pro Bono. This Country is still very safe and every citizen crying for Justice has hope due to our vibrant judiciary," Maneshinde said, and concluded with, "Satya Meva Jayate!"

Notably, the actor was found hanging at his home on June 14, 2020 at Mumbai's plush Bandra area. Initially the case was probed by Mumbai Police, which concluded that it was a case of suicide as it found no evidence to show if anyone 'forcibly entered' his house. The city police in its preliminary probe also found that 'depression' could be a major contributing factor in the suicide. The police also did not found any 'suicide note' from the actor's residence.

Subsequently, the actor's father KK Singh lodged an FIR with the Patna Police in Bihar accusing actor Rhea and others of abetting his son's suicide. The father also alleged cheating, theft and wrongful confinement against Rhea.

In a counter, the actor too lodged an FIR against Sushant's sisters, accusing them of forging a 'prescription' of some scheduled drugs.

Since there were conflicting reports of the Patna and Mumbai Police, the Supreme Court had on August 19, 2020 ordered the CBI to conduct a thorough probe in both the cases. Now, as per the PTI report, the CBI has filed a closure report in both these cases.

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.

1990 Kashmir University VC Murder Case | 'TADA Procedural Safeguards Violated' : Supreme Court Dismisses CBI Appeals Against Acquittals

 

"Kartar Singh (supra) says that confession should be recorded in a free atmosphere. Recording of confessional statements in a heavily guarded BSF camp or in a JIC where the atmosphere for an accused would generally be daunting and overbearing cannot be said to be in a free atmosphere. It has come on record that the confessional statements so recorded were not accepted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate whereafter those were sent directly to the Special Court which again is an infraction of the statute."

The Court lamented that the "the procedural safeguards were given a complete go-bye."

The Court noted that the Special Court had stopped short of observing that it was a case of abuse of power and authority, and that the procedural safeguards were completely disregarded.

The Court also added that the failure to recover the murder weapon (AK-47 rifle) seriously damaged the prosecution's case, weakening forensic evidence. The forensic witness had testified that he had not seen the AK-47 rifle from which the cartridges were fired.

The Court underlined that witnesses could not identify the accused, making their testimony unreliable. The witnesses described the kidnappers as young men with moustaches but could not identify them.

State (CBI) Vs Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors