See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312218246

Case Law Digest

Research · January 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 24,236

1 author:

Manjeet Kumar Sahu

National University of Study and Research in Law,Ranchi, India
23 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Manjeet Kumar Sahu on 12 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

CASE LAW DIGEST : Jan to May, 2014

Manjeet Kumar Sahu

 The Government cannot direct or extend the period of detention up to the

maximum period of twelve months in one stroke.It is also contrary to Clause
(4)(a) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Says Supreme court

CHERUKURI MANI v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF A.P

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2014
Judgment Dated ; 8th May, 2014
CORAM :RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI .J, N.V. RAMANA .J
Facts of the Case :
1.The Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh issued a
preventive detention order on 30th September, 2013, under the Andhra Pradesh
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986
2.It was alleged that the husband of the appellant (detenu) has got all the attributes to be
called as a ‘goonda’ as envisaged under Section 2(g) of the Act.
3.The Government of Andhra Pradesh directed detention of the detenu for a period of
twelve months from the date on which he was detained i.e. 5th October, 2013.
4.The appellant challenged the detention of her husband before the High Court in a habeas
corpus Writ Petition, the High Court dismissed the same with a cryptic order.
ISSUES INVOLVED :
Whether the State Government has the power to pass a detention order to detain a person
at a stretch for a period of 12 months under the provisions of the Act. (Interpretation of
Sec. 3 of the above mentioned act of 1986 .
Conclusion:
1. If the Government intends to detain an individual under the Act for the maximum period
of 12 months, there must be an initial order of detention for a period of three months, and
at least, three orders of extension for a period not exceeding three months each.(refer para
13 of the judgment).

 Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus, Jura Subveniunt. Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court lifted the stay on nursery admissions in Delhi and held that
parents who have moved court against the Delhi government’s decision to scrap the
Inter-State Transfer (IST) will get seats in schools for their toddlers this academic
year.

1
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

Major Saurabh Charan and Ors v. Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi and others
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5379-5380/2014
Judgment Dated : 7th May, 2014
CORAM :H.L. Dattu .J , M.Y. Eqbal .J, S.A. Bobde .J
FACTS :
1.On 18.12.2013, Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi made order to amend Recognised Schools
(Admission Procedure for PrePrimary Class) Order, 2007, according to which admission to
open seats in the schools shall be made only on the basis of fixed parameters (For IST - 5
seats ) and points and further clarifying that vacant/unfilled seat(s), if any, shall be filled by
draw of lots.
CONCLUSION:
1.This order would only ensure to the benefit of those who had approached the Court. It
would certainly not extend the benefit to those who had not approached the Court or might
have gone in slumber

 Bulls cannot be used as a Performing Animals for Jallikattu and Bullock-cart Race
anywhere in the country, since they are basically draught and pack animals, not
anatomically designed for such performances. Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court also asked the Parliament to elevate rights of animals to that of
constitutional rights, as done by many of the countries around the world, so as to protect
their dignity and honour.
Animals have also a right against the human beings not to be tortured and against infliction
of unnecessary pain or suffering.
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5387 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 7th May, 2014
CORAM :K.S. Radhakrishnan .J, Pinaki Chandra Ghose .J
CONCLUSION:
1. Right to hold on to a property which includes animals also, is now only a legal right not a
fundamental right.
2.Rights and freedoms guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 PCA Act have to
be read along with Article 51A(g)(h) of the Constitution, which is the magna carta of animal
rights.
3.The word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic
environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for
human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. No question of repugnancy :The TNRJ Act, 2009 is an anthropocentric legislation enacted
not for the welfare of the animals, unlike PCA Act, which is an ecocentric legislation,
enacted to ensure the well-being and welfare of the animals and to prevent unnecessary
pain or suffering of the animals.
5.AWBI and the Governments should take steps to impart education in relation to human

2
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

treatment of animals in accordance with Section 9(k) inculcating the spirit of Articles
51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution.

 Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 passed by the
Kerala legislature is unconstitutional in its application to and effect on the
Mullaperiyar dam. Says Constitution Bench
State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3 OF 2006
Judgment Dated : 7th May, 2014
CORAM : R.M. Lodha CJI, H.L. Dattu .J, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad .J, Madan B. Lokur .J, M.Y.
EqbaL .J
ISSUES INVOLVED:
(i) Articles 3 and 4 read with Article 246 of the Constitution;
(ii) Article 131 read with Article 32 of the Constitution (in the context of res-
judicata);(Refer para 170 and 177 of the judgment)
(iii)Proviso to Article 131 read with Articles 295 and 363 of the Constitution and the effect
of the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971; and
(iv) The effect of decision of this Court in Mullaperiyar Environmental
Protection Forum in the context of afore-referred constitutional provisions.
CONCLUSION:
The 1st defendant(State of Kerala) is restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from
applying and enforcing the impugned legislation or in any manner interfering with or
obstructing the State of Tamil Nadu from increasing the water level to 142 ft. and from
carrying out the repair works as per the judgment of this Court dated 27.2.2006.
INTERESTING NOTE :
1.Article 131 is subject to two limitations — one contained in the opening words of the
Article, namely, “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” and the other which is
contained in the proviso to the Article.”
2. Law making power under Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution is paramount and it is
neither subjected nor fettered by Article 246 and Lists II (State List) and III (Concurrent
List) of the Seventh Schedule.

 Art.15(5) and 21A does not alter the the basic structure or framework of the
Constitution and Power under Article 21A of the Constitution vesting in the State
cannot extend to making any law which will abrogate the right of the minorities
to establish and administer schools of their choice(refer para 45 of the
judgment). Says Supreme Court
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
WRIT PETITION (C) No. 416 OF 2012
Judgment Dated : 6th May, 2014

3
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

CORAM :R.M. Lodha CJI, A. K. Patnaik .J, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya .J, Dipak Misra .J,
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .J
ISSUE INVOLVED:
(i) Whether by inserting clause (5) in Article 15 of the Constitution by the Constitution
(Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, Parliament has altered the basic structure or
framework of the Constitution.
(ii) Whether by inserting Article 21A of the Constitution by the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth
Amendment) Act, 2002, Parliament has altered the basic structure or framework of the
Constitution.
Interesting Note :
1.The word ‘State’ in Article 21A can only mean the ‘State’ which can make the law.

 We must not forget that the Constitution is not just an ordinary Act which the
court has to interpret for the purpose of declaring the law, but is a mechanism
under which the laws are to be made. Says Constitution Bench of Supreme Court
State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Associated Management of (Government Recognised –
Unaided – English Medium) Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5166-5190 OF 2013
Judgment Dated : 6th May, 2014
CORAM :R.M. Lodha CJI, A. K. Patnaik .J, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya .J, Dipak Misra .J,
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .J
ISSUES INVOLVED :
(i) What does Mother tongue mean? If it referred to as the language in which the child is
comfortable with, then who will decide the same?
(Refer para 26 for answer)
(ii) Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a right to choose a medium of instruction
at primary stage?(Refer para 31 and 33 for answer)Answered in Affirmative
(iii) Does the imposition of mother tongue in any way affect the fundamental rights under
Article 19, 29 and 30 of the Constitution?(Refer para 35 for answer ) Answered in
Affirmative.
(iv) Whether the Government recognized schools are inclusive of both governmentaided
schools and private & unaided schools?(Refer para 43 for answer) Answered in Affirmative
(v) Whether the State can by virtue of Article 350-A of the Constitution compel the
linguistic minorities to choose their mother tongue only as medium of instruction in
primary schools?(Refer para 44 for answer ) Answered negatively
CONCLUSION:
1. If the tender minds of the children are subject to an alien medium, the learning process
becomes unnatural and inflicts a cruel strain on the children which makes the entire
learning process mechanical, artificial and torturous but if the basic knowledge is imparted
through mother tongue, the young child will be able to garner knowledge easily.

4
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

 The Constitution Bench today declared Section 6-A(1) of DSPE Act 1946, which
requires approval of the Central Government to conduct any inquiry or
investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the PC Act,
1988 where such allegation relates to (a) the employees of the Central
Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above and (b) such officers as are
appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under
any Central Act, government companies, societies and local authorities owned or
controlled by the Government, to be invalid and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI & Anr.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38 OF 1997
Judgment Dated : 6th May, 2014
CORAM :R.M. Lodha CJI , A.K. Patnaik .J,Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya .J,Dipak Misra
.J,Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .J
Interesting Notes:
1. A feeble attempt was made by learned Additional Solicitor General stating that Section 6-
A must at least be saved for the purposes of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the PC Act,
1988.However, the argument was rejected.
2.Each case has to be examined independently in the context of Article 14 and not by
applying any general rule.
3.Insertion of this challenged provision was made after the decision of Vineet Narain
Judgment.
4.Breach of rule of law amounts to negation of equality under Article 14.(Para 85 )
5.Criminal justice system mandates that any investigation into the crime should be fair, in
accordance with law and should not be tainted.
It is equally important that interested or influential persons are not able to misdirect or
highjack the investigation so as to throttle a fair investigation resulting in the offenders
escaping the punitive course of law.

 The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit is not available to the petitioner.
Says Supreme Court
Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 57 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 6th May, 2014
CORAM : K.S. Radhakrishnan .J, Jagdish Singh Khehar .J
CONCLUSION
1.In this country, judicial orders are prepared, beyond Court hours, or on non-working
days. It is apparent, that not a hundred, but hundreds of Judge hours, came to be spent in
the instant single Sahara Group litigation, just at the hands of the Supreme Court. This
abuse of the judicial process, needs to be remedied. We are, therefore of the considered
view, that the legislature needs to give a thought, to a very serious malady, which has made
strong inroads into the Indian judicial system. (Para 149 of the judgment)
5
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

2.The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism, that anyone who initiates
and continues a litigation senselessly, pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature
should consider the introduction of a “Code of Compulsory Costs”. (Para 150 of the
judgment)
3.Read Para 153 of the Judgment: Even after the matter had concluded, after the
controversy had attained finality, the judicial process is still being abused, for close to two
years. A conscious effort on the part of the legislature in this behalf, would serve several
purposes. It would, besides everything else, reduce frivolous litigation. When the litigating
party understands, that it would have to compensate the party which succeeds,
unnecessary litigation will be substantially reduced. At the end of the day, Court time lost is
a direct loss to the nation. It is about time, that the legislature should evolve ways and
means to curtail this unmindful activity. We are sure, that an eventual determination, one
way or the other, would be in the best interest of this country, as also, its countrymen.

 If the complaint is filed without any authority, it is no complaint at all, and that
would make the requirement of a sanction completely irrelevant.Says Supreme
Court
CBI , Lucknow, U.P v. Indra Bhushan Singh & Ors.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 876 OF 2002
Judgment Dated : 2nd May, 2014
CORAM : Ranjana Prakash Desai .J, Madan B. Lokur .J
CONCLUSION:
The complaint filed under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 need
to be authorized by appropriate authority. Failure to do so will lack the jurisdiction of the
appropriate court.

 IMPACT OF NIRBHAYA CASE:

 The Supreme Court converted death sentence awarded by the courts into life
imprisonment.....but taking note of the diabolic manner in which the offence had
been committed against a child, the apex court sentenced him an imprisonment
of 30 years without remission.
Selvam v. State Thr. Insp. of Police
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1287 of 2011
Judgment Dated : 2nd May, 2014
CORAM : Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN .J, J. CHELAMESWAR .J, M.Y. EQBAL .J
Facts of the Case:
1.The deceased aged 9 years was found missing as she didnot retrun from
school.(13/2/2009)
2.complaint was registered by her father.
3. On the very same day, Accused confessed his guilt in front of Village Administrative
Officer.

6
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

4.Charges framed against the accused were Sections 302, 376, 379 and 201 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860
5. However, there was no eye-witness. This case is solely based on circumstantial evidence
and extra-judicial confession.
6. The Trial Court awarded death sentence to the accused.
7. It was subjected to confirmation by the High Court and also, at the same time appeal
against conviction was filed by the accused.However, the high court upheld the decision of
the session judge.
8. The Supreme Court didnot consider the matter to be rarest of the rare and thereby,
converted death sentence with minimum life imprisonment of 30 years without remission.

 Losses of the amalgamating companies can be carried forward and the

amalgamated company can get those losses set off against its profits subject to
Section 72 A of the Income Tax Act but there is no such provision in the case of
co-operative societies. – says Supreme Court
So whether this discrimination amounts to violation of Art.14 of the Indian Constitution???
Find it out... (Para 20)
RAJASTHAN R.S.S. & GINNING MILLS FED. LTD. v. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
JAIPUR
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3880 OF 2003
Judgment dated : 29th April, 2014
CORAM :Anil R. Dave .J, Shiva Kirti Singh .J

 Doctrine of prospective overruling is available even to the High Court- Says

Supreme Court
K. Madhava Reddy & Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4947-4951 OF 2014
Judgment Date; 29th April, 2014
CORAM :T.S. THAKUR .J, C. NAGAPPAN .J
ISSUES RAISED:
Whether the doctrine of prospective overruling was available even to the High Court?

 The life and liberty of human being should not be made to depend on animals
sensibilities. The services of a sniffer dog may be taken for the purpose of
investigation.However, its faculties cannot be taken as evidence for the
purpose of establishing the guilt of an accused. – says Supreme Court
LALIT KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2006
Judgement Dated: 25th April, 2014
CORAM : A.K. PATNAIK .J, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA .J

7
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

Brief facts of the case:

1. A Girl was found missing from home. Later, her dead body was found in the agricultural
field.
2. Investigation was carried with the help of dog squad.
3.The heroic work of "Raja - the German Shepherd species" in identifying the accused.
4.However, The accused passed the Crime test but there was also mitigating circumstance.
5.The Supreme Court did not find the case fit for death sentence and also stated that the
trial court as well as the high court has wrongly tried to relate this case with Dhananjay
Chatterjee case(1994).

 Whether the term "Proxy Counsel" has any legal standing.....Find it out under
Para 11.(Observation)
"(Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Anr.) -
“In such a chaotic situation, any “Arzi”, “Farzi”, half-baked lawyer under the label of
“proxy counsel”, a phrase not traceable under the Advocates Act, 1961 or under the
Supreme Court Rules,1966 etc., cannot be allowed to abuse and misuse the process
of the court under a false impression that he has a right to waste public time without
any authority to appear in the court, either from the litigant or from the AOR,"
Surendra Mohan Arora v. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4891 OF 2014
Judgement Dated :25th April, 2014
CORAM :Gyan Sudha Misra .J, Pinaki Chandra Ghose .J

 Test for Dowry Death is to identify the proximity between cruelty, harassment
and death of the deceased.- Says Supreme Court
Dinesh v. State of Haryana
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2011
Judgement Dated :25th April, 2014
CORAM :Dipak Misra .J, M.Y. Eqbal .J
Facts of the Case:
1. Marriage was solemnized between the accused and Manju Bala 4 years before the death
of Manju Bala(Deceased).
2.The accused was charged for Dowry Death.
3. The Supreme Court found that there is a proximate connection between cruelty,
harassment and death of the deceased

 The Chief Justice put his pen down scrutinizing one of the most delicate matter
in the criminal justice system.(Interpretation of Art.72, 73, and 161 read with
Sec. 53, 45, 432, 435, 437)

8
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

As far as his intention on this matter is concerned, his writing for the 1st time looked
reserved.However,his expression can be gathered from para 39 to 42 of the judgment. (
Review of Swamy Shradhanand Case).
He was the brainchild behind framing a separate category for conversion of death penalty
into life imprisonment ( Inordinate delay in conviction).He could have easily expressed his
opinion about "special category" in Swami Shradhanand case( Three Judge - Bench) but he
didn't.
I feel that his observation in this judgment will pave the way for the constitution bench to
decide the matter succinctly.
Once Remitted, Again Remitted ? : Let the Constitution Bench decide the matter.
Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors.
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 48 OF 2014
Judgement Dated : 25th April, 2014
CORAM : P. SATHASIVAM CJI, RANJAN GOGOI .J, N.V. RAMANA .J

 High profile Political Drama Case.

Union Minister was caught taking Cash and making statement that " money is
no less than God" in the year 2003.
Also find out the mystery behind using the term "string operation".( Para 10 to
14)
RAJAT PRASAD v. C.B.I.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 747 OF 2010
Judgement Dated : 24th April,2014
CORAM : SATHASIVAM CJI, RANJAN GOGOI .J, N.V. RAMANA .J

 Substantial question of law can be formulated at the initial stage and in some
exceptional cases, at a later point of time, even at the time of argument stage
and the opposite party should be put on notice thereon and should be given a
fair or proper opportunity to meet out the point.- Says Supreme Court
Arsad Sk. & Anr. v. Bani Prosanna Kundu & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4805 OF 2014
Judgment Dated: 23rd April, 2014
CORAM : Chandramauli Kr. Prasad .J, Pinaki Chandra Ghose .J
CONCLUSION:
It is well accepted principle that rules of procedure is a handmaiden of justice, the omission
of the Court in formulating the ‘substantial question of law’ (while admitting the appeal)
does not preclude the same from being heard as litigants should not be penalized for an
omission of the Court.

9
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

 There is a need for substantive guidelines for use of Publicly Funded

Government Advertising campaigns until the legislature enacts a law. Says
Supreme Court
Common Cause v. Union of India
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13 OF 2003
Judgement Dated :23rd April,2014
CORAM tongue emoticon. SATHASIVAM CJI, RANJAN GOGOI .J, N.V. RAMANA .J
Class action suit has been filed by an NGO Common Cause throwing light on the enduring
issue of use of publicly funded government advertising campaigns as de facto political
advertising canvass which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION:
The matter be posted for further direction before this Court on the expiry of three months
from today along with the suggestions as may be submitted by the Committee pursuant to
this judgment.

 The exact quantum of compensation that should be awarded in any given case
cannot and in fact, need not be determined with mathematical exactitude or
arithmetical precision. - Says Supreme Court
ASHISH KUMAR MAZUMDAR v. AISHI RAM BATRA CHARITABLE HOSPITAL TRUST & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4010 OF 2010
Judgement Dated : 22nd April,2014
CORAM : P. SATHASIVAM CJI , RANJAN GOGOI .J, N.V. RAMANA .J

 4 E's ( Enforcement, Engineering, Education and Emergency care) would be

the best manner to approach the issues arising pertaining to health care : Says
Supreme Court
S. RAJASEEKARAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 295 OF 2012
Judgment Dated :22nd April, 2014
CORAM : SATHASIVAM CJI , RANJAN GOGOI .J, N.V. RAMANA .J
SUMMARY OF THE CASE:
1.The petitioner being a leading orthopaedic surgeon and he realises that the large number
of accidents that occur every day on the Indian roads, causing loss of human lives besides
loss of limbs and other injuries resulting in human tragedies, are wholly avoidable. So, In
the light of the experience gained and propelled by a desire to render service.
2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the
Court’s intervention on :
a. Enforcement of the prevailing laws .
b.seeking directions from the Court for upliftment of the existing infrastructure and
facilities with regard to post-accident care.

10
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

c.Management to minimize loss of life and physical injuries to

victims of road accidents.
CONCLUSION OF THE CASE
1. 4 different working groups to go into the four issues of road safety, namely, enforcement,
engineering, education and emergency care would be the best manner to approach the
issues arising.
2.All existing laws and norms including the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, as in force,
are required to be implemented in the right earnest and with all vigour by the authorities
of the Union and the State Governments who are responsible for such implementation.
3.Composition of Committee to monitor the process on behalf of the court.

 10% of the sale proceeds of iron ore excavated in the State of Goa and sold by
the lessees must be appropriated towards the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund
for the purpose of sustainable development and inter-generational equity-
says Supreme Court in Goa Mining Case
Goa Foundation v. Union of India & Ors.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 435 OF 2012
Judgment Dated :21st April,2014
CORAM :A. K. Patnaik .J, Surinder Singh Nijjar .J, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .J
Brief Fact of the case:
1.The Goa Foundation has filed Writ Petition (C) 435 of 2012 as Public Interest Litigation
praying for directions to the Union of India and the State of Goa to take steps for
termination of the mining leases of lessees involved in mining in violation of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980,
the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the Mineral Concessions
Rules, 1960, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention & Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 and the
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972.
2.The Expert Committee had recommended that a permanent fund for inter-generational
equity and sustainability of mining for all times to come named as “Goan Iron Ore
Permanent Fund” be created and an
expert group may be constituted by the State for working out the details of this fund.
3.10% of the sale proceeds of iron ore excavated in the State of Goa and sold by the lessees
must be appropriated towards the Goan Iron Ore
Permanent Fund for the purpose of sustainable development and inter-generational equity.
4.State of Goa in consultation with the CEC will frame a comprehensive scheme with regard
to fund and submit the same to this Court within six months.

11
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

 The alleged accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the statement of
the so called eye witnesses - Says Supreme Court
Thimmareddy & Ors v. State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.903/2014
Judgment Dated :21st April, 2014
CORAM :Surinder Singh Nijjar .J, A.K. Sikri .J
Facts of the case :8 accused persons had hatched a conspiracy to commit the dacoity and in
furtherance of the said conspiracy , they committed dacoity by intercepting KSRTC on
8.10.2004 at about 10.30 p.m.
KEYPOINT :
1. The Appellants were charged u/s 397(Dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous
hurt) read with 120-B of IPC.
2. The Trial Court acquitted them as the case was not proved against the all person beyond
reasonable doubt.
3. The Respondent approached the high court under sec.378 of CrPC, which reversed the
order of the trial court.
4.When matter was taken up by the apex court, the SC held that that High Court has
committed grave error in recording the conviction solely on the basis of the statement of
the so called eye witnesses, and wrongly believing their version.
4. The Apex Court restored the decision of the Trial court and set aside the Conviction
order of High Court.

 Martin Luther King Junior said, "of all forms of inequality, injustice in health
care is the most shocking and inhumane" – Says Delhi High Court
MOHD. AHMED (MINOR) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
W.P.(C) 7279/2013
Delhi High Court Judgment Dated :17th April ,2014
CORAM :MANMOHAN .J
FACTS OF THE CASE:
1.The petitioner suffers from a rare genetic disease called Gaucher Disease, which is
Lysosomal Storage Disorder, wherein the body cannot process fat resulting in
accumulation of fat around vital organs of the body.
2.If this disease is left untreated, the petitioner is unlikely to survive.
3.A treatment by the name of Enzyme Replacement Therapy is
available for this disease.Petitioner's father, who is a rickshaw puller by
profession cannot afford the same
ISSUE INVOLVED :Whether a minor child born to parents belonging to economically
weaker section of the society suffering from a chronic and rare disease, gaucher, is entitled
to free medical treatment costing about rupees six lakhs per month especially when the

12
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

treatment is known, prognosis is good and there is every likelihood of petitioner leading a
normal life.
OBSERVATION :
1.The enzyme replacement therapy is so expensive that there is a breach of constitutional
obligation of the Government to provide medical aid on fair, reasonable, equitable and
affordable basis.
2.The Central and the State Governments have violated Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.
3.Just because someone is poor, the State cannot allow him to die.
4.Since a breach of a Constitutional right has taken place, the Court is
under a duty to ensure that effective relief is granted.
4.As health is a State subject, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the
Government of NCT of Delhi, to discharge its constitutional obligation and provide the
petitioner with enzyme replacement therapy at AIIMS free of charge as and when he
requires it.

 Delegatus Non Potest Delegare reiterated by the Supreme Court.

SIDHARTHA SARAWGI v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA AND
OTHERS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.18347/2013
Judgment Dated :16th April,2014
CORAM :GYAN SUDHA MISRA .J, KURIAN JOSEPH .J
Disputed Facts :The ejectment notice issued by the Land Manager of Kolkata Port Trust is
illegal and without jurisdiction as he is not competent to issue such ejectment notices.
ISSUE INVOLVED:Is there any exception and is there any distinction between delegation of
legislative and non-legislative powers.
OBSERVATION :
1. There is a subtle distinction between delegation of legislative powers and delegation of
non-legislative/administrative powers.
2.The Constitution confers power and imposes duty on the Legislature to make laws and
the said functions cannot be delegated by the Legislature to the executive.
2.The Legislature is constitutionally required to keep in its own hands the essential
legislative functions which consist of the determination of legislative policy and its
formulation as a binding rule of conduct.
3.While there cannot be sub-delegation of any essential functions, in order to achieve the
intended object of the delegation, the non-essential functions can be subdelegated to be
performed under the authority and supervision of the delegate.

13
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

 The Judiciary should deal with the misuse of Public Interest Litigation with
iron hand: Supreme Court
JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4593-4594 OF 2014
Judgment Dated :17th April,2014
CORAM : P. SATHASIVAM CJI , RANJAN GOGOI .J, N.V. RAMANA .J
Fact of the case :The appellant had filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging
misappropriation of property of Galta Peeth/Thikana and whether Mahanth appointed was
to administer the properties during his life time or there was a right of succession.
OBSERVATION : (Para 47 and 49)
1. The scope of Public Interest Litigation is very limited, particularly, in the matter of
religious institutions. It is always better not to entertain this type of Public Interest
Litigations simply on the basis of affidavits of the parties. The public trusts and religious
institutions are governed by particular legislation which provide for a proper mechanism
for adjudication of disputes relating to the properties of the trust and their management
thereof. It is not proper for the Court to entertain such litigation and pass orders. It is also
needless to mention that the forums cannot be misused by the rival groups in the guise of
public interest litigation.
2.In the guise of Public Interest Litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is
exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The Courts have to be very cautious and
careful while entertaining Public Interest Litigation. The Judiciary should deal with the
misuse of Public Interest Litigation with iron hand.
3.The Courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the
person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it.

 The Supreme Court affirmed the Delhi High Court judgement and stated that
CAG can audit accounts of private telecom companies.
Association of Unified Tele Services Providers & Others v. Union of India
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4591 OF 2014
Judgement Dated :17th April, 2014
CORAM :K.S. Radhakrishnan .J , Vikramajit Sen .J
Subject Matter : This case primarily concern the scope and ambit of the powers and duties
of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India (TRAI) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in relation to the proper
computation and quantification of Revenue in determining the licence fee and spectrum
charges payable to Union of India.
Observation Para 67)
Tribunal’s order is an encroachment upon the constitutional and statutory power
conferred on CAG under Articles 148, 149 of the Constitution as well as Section 16 of the
1971 Act read with Rule 5 of the TRAI Rules 2002 and the licensing provisions.
Power of CAG Worth Noting. See (Para 15 -20)

14
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

 Another Judgment added in the segment of TMA PAI FOUNDATION's

case(2002) and P.A INAMDAR's Case(2005)
D.A.V. College Managing Committee Through Regional Director v. Laxminarayan Mishra &
Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4556 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 16th April,2014
CORAM :R.M. LODHA .J, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH .J
Keypoints of the Case:
1.DAV Public Schools operating in the State of Odisha is private unaided
educational institutions and are covered by the provisions of the Orissa
Education Act, 1969.
2. The fees levied by such schools are subject to policy decisions of the State Government
and their Managing Committee should conform to the
requirements of the Act of 1969 read with relevant Rules of 1991.
3.The fee are structure revised by the concerned schools was not approved by the State
Government and the High Court held against the appellant that revision of the fee structure
could not be justified by the appellant that it is commensurate with the facilities provided
to the students.
OBSERVATION
The SC held that the appellant and the concerned educational institutions represented by it
shall be entitled to revise their fee structure with immediate effect as per
recommendations of the Fee Structure Committee, Odisha dated 2.5.2013.

 Crimes are also committed by men holding high positions and having bright
future: ( SC observed in Para 17 of the judgment)

ASHOK RAI v.STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1508 OF 2005
Judgement Dated :15th April,2014
CORAM :MADAN B. LOKUR .J, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI .J

 Women have the right to claim leave as a matter of right. Says Supreme Court

KAKALI GHOSH v. CHIEF SECRETARY,ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND ORS

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4506 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 15th April,2014

15
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

CORAM :V. GOPALA GOWDA .J, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA .J

Law Involved :Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave)Rules, 1972
GROUND of the case:
Appellant is the only person to look after her minor son and her mother is a heart patient
and has not recovered from the shock due to the sudden demise of her father; her father-in-
law is almost bed ridden and in such circumstances, she was not in a position to perform
her duties effectively.
Issues Involved:
whether a woman employee of the Central Government can ask for uninterrupted 730 days
of Child Care Leave?
Observation :
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court and affirmed the order of
Tribunal.( Appellant have the right to claim leave as a matter of right.)

 One Rank One Pension for Judges – Says Supreme Court

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India & Ors.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 521 OF 2002
Judgment Dated: 31st March,2014
CORAM:. SATHASIVAM CJI, RANJAN GOGOI .J, N.V. RAMANA .J
Observation: Para 18
1. In the three-tier judicial system provided by the Constitution, members of the Bar, who
join the Higher Judicial Service at the District Judges level, on retirement, get the benefit of
10 years addition to their service for the purposes of pension (Rule 26B of the DHJS Rules).
2. Judges of the Supreme Court, who are appointed from the Bar given a period of 10 years
to their service for the purposes of pension (Section 13A of the Amendment Act, 2005).
3.However, the benefit of 10 years addition to their service for the purposes of pension is
being denied to the Judges of the High court appointed from the Bar, which is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

 INTERPRETATION OF SOME OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER PSC AND Arbitration

& Conciliation ACT,1996 INVOLVED.
Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 27 OF 2013
Judgment Dated:31st March, 2014
CORAM : Surinder Singh Nijjar .J
Brief of the Case:
1. The Arbitrator appointed by the contracting party and the operator failed to appoint
third arbitrator in order to solve the relevant dispute mentioned below.

16
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

2. Having failed, the petition was filed under Sec.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 before this hon'ble court
INTERPRETATION OF SOME OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER PSC AND A & C ACT,1996
INVOLVED ARE:
1. Art.33.5 and 33.6 of PSC
2. Sec. 11(2),11(6) and 11(9)
Some of the issues that have already arisen between the parties; which
are as under:
(I) Whether the FDP implies a commitment of the contractor to produce particular or at a
particular rate?
(II) Whether the FDP implies a commitment of the contractor to do a series of development
activities even if there is a difference of opinion between the Government and the
Contractor as to the efficacy of
these activities?
(III) Whether the FDP is revised pro tanto by WP & B’s from time to time approved by MC?
(IV) Whether the variation between the costs proposed in the FDP and the actual cost can
be a basis for disallowing Capex?
(V) Is the recovery of cost related in any manner to the estimates of production even if the
costs are within the sanctioned budgets?
(VI) Is the recovery of costs of facilities in any manner related to the attainment of
production estimates of the FDP or the estimates of deposits or reservoir characteristics?
(VII) Whether the FDP was a representation by the contractor to produce at a particular
rate or to produce a particular quantity for a defined period, which by conduct became a
binding contract between the parties?
(VIII) Would the drilling of additional wells result in increased production rates/volumes.
(IX) Did the approval of the WP & B’s [FY 2009-10 (RE)and 2010-11 (BE)] result in a
modification of FDP?
(X) Were the reasons given by the MoPNG/DGH for declining approval to the WP & B’s for
FY 2010-11(RE) and 2011-12 valid?
(XI) If the answer to (IX) and (X) is in the negative,what is the consequence?
Observation: Para 81
Upon due consideration, The Apex court hereby appoint Honourable James Spigelman AC
QC, former Chief Justice and Lieutenant Governor of New South Wales, Australia as the
third Arbitrator who shall act
as the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Email address which has been supplied to the Court is as follows :
spigel@bigpond.net.au

 Concept of Inherent Jurisdiction stated by the Supreme Court

Navneet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
CURATIVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 88 OF 2013
Judgment Dated:31st March,2014

17
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

CORAM: P. SATHASIVAM CJI, R. M. LODHA .J, H.L. DATTU .J, SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA .J
Brief of the Case:
1. Navneet Kaur w/o Devender Pal Singh Bhullar had filed the present Curative Petition
against the dismissal of Review Petition (Criminal) No.435 of 2013 in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 146 of 2011 on 13.08.2013.
2. She prayed for setting aside the death sentence imposed upon Devender Pal Singh
Bhullar on two ground:
a) Inordinate Delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition
b) Ground of deterioration in mental Condition
Observation:
The 4- judges bench allowed the curative petition.

 The Apex Court directed that all hospitals, public or private, whether run by
the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other
person, are statutorily obligated under Section 357C to provide the first-aid or
medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of any offence covered under
Sections 326A, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or Section 376E of the IPC.

In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business &
Financial News dated 23.01.2014
SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 24 OF 2014
Judgment Dated :28th March, 2014
CORAM:P. SATHASIVAM C.J.I, SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE .J, N.V. RAMANA .J
BRIEF OF THE CASE:
This is a case relating to the gang-rape of a 20 year old woman of Subalpur Village, P.S.
Labpur, District Birbhum, State of West Bengal on the intervening night of 20/21.01.2014
on the orders of community panchayat as punishment for having relationship with a man
from a different community, by order dated 24.01.2014, took suo motu action and directed
the District Judge, Birbhum District, West Bengal to inspect the place of occurrence and
submit a report to this Court within a period
of one week from that date.
OBSERVATION:(Para 20 of the judgment)

 MUZZAFARNAGAR RIOT CASE: VERY WELL BALANCED JUDGEMENT

Mohd. Haroon & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 155 OF 2013
Judgment Dated :26 March , 2014
CORAM : P. SATHASIVAM CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI .J, RANJAN GOGOI .j

18
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

1. The Government will have to formulate and implement policies in order to uplift the
socio-economic conditions of women, sensitization of police and other concerned parties
towards the need for gender equality and it must be done with focus in areas where
statistically there is higher percentage of crimes against women.
2. However, no rigid formula can be evolved as to have a uniform amount, it should vary in
facts and circumstances of each case. Nevertheless, the obligation of the State does not
extinguish on payment of compensation, rehabilitation of victim is also of paramount
importance. The mental trauma that the victim suffers due to the commission of such
heinous
crime, rehabilitation becomes a must in each and every case.
3. The Court accordingly, direct the State Government to make payment of Rs. 5 lakhs, in
addition to various other benefits, within 4 weeks from today.
4.The CAG also clarify that, according to Section 357B, the compensation payable by the
State Government under Section 357A shall be in addition to the payment of fine to the
victim under Section 326A or Section 376D of the IPC.
5.It is the responsibility of the State Administration in association with the intelligence
agencies of both State and Centre to prevent such recurrence of communal violence in any
part of the State.

 The Supreme Court explained the Distinction between delay and inordinate
delay
Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.6609-6613 OF 2014

Judgment Dated :24th March,2014
CORAM : DR. B.S. CHAUHAN .J, J. CHELAMESWAR .J

Subject: Inordinate delay of 10 years 2 months and 29 days cannot be condoned.

Legal Provision : Sec.54 of Land Acquisition Act,1894(Appealable Orders)

Observation:
1. Distinction between delay and inordinate delay
2. Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium

 The Supreme Court turned out to be Watchdog of the CAMPA Fund.

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India & ORS.
W.P (CIVIL) NO. 202 OF 1995
Date of Judgment: 12th March, 2014
CORAM :A.K.Patnaik .j , Surinder Singh Nijjar .j , Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .J

19
 CASE LAW DIGEST – Jan to May 2014

COMMENT:
The Supreme Court turned out to be Watchdog of the CAMPA Fund.
Forest Bench sat on 12th March to decide the matter on transfer of fund from National
CAMPA to State CAMPA Fund. The Petitioner also prayed for directing the State of Tamil
Nadu to take steps to stop all felling and clearing activities in the forests of Nilgiris District
in the State of Tamil Nadu. He further highlighted the conversion of Forest Land into
Plantation Land.

 It is only if first link in the chain of circumstances is established that the

subsequent links may be formed on the basis of the last seen theory.- Says
Supreme Court
Shyamal Saha & Anr v. State of West Bengal
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1490 OF 2008
Judgment Dated : 24th Feb, 2014
CORAM : Ranjana Prakash Desai .J, Madan B. Lokur .J

 R-R Test should be Society-Centric and not Judge-Centric. – Says Supreme

Court
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1419-1420 OF 2012
Judgment Dated :20/02/2014
COMMENT : R-R Test should be Society-Centric and not Judge-Centric
Facts: Murder of a ten year minor boy - charges u/s 302/201 and 377 - Both Session judge
and High Court ordered death sentence - SC commuted to 30 years without remission.

 The Supreme Court deciphered the Community Standard Test

AVEEK SARKAR & ANR. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.902 OF 2004
Judgement dated :3/2/14

20

View publication stats