The Supreme Court of India ruled that the seniority of Civil Judges should be based on their appointment date rather than selection. This judgment arose from a case regarding Civil Judges in Chhattisgarh, confirming that delays in appointments should not disadvantage candidates, thereby clarifying seniority rules within the judiciary.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation requesting strict enforcement of 75% attendance in Mumbai University law colleges due to insufficient evidence. The petitioner was advised to gather proper data before returning to court. The case highlights concerns over students’ attendance, especially while undertaking internships and jobs.
The Bombay High Court ruled that the 2019 law prohibiting instant triple talaq applies only to Talaq-e-Bidat, not Talaq-e-Ahsan. The Court quashed an FIR against a man who properly followed the Talaq-e-Ahsan method, clarifying that his divorce was legal under Islamic law, thus not violating the 2019 Act.
The Supreme Court of India quashed a dowry harassment case due to vague accusations against the husband’s family. The bench criticized the trend of naming multiple relatives without clear evidence and emphasized that strong, specific allegations are essential. This judgment reflects the court’s stance against the misuse of dowry laws.
The Supreme Court of India criticized the Kerala High Court for quashing FIRs against a teacher accused of sexually harassing students, stating the case must proceed under the POCSO Act. The Court emphasized the need for a trial due to significant evidence and concerns for victims, ordering the accused’s suspension and proper victim protection.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the compulsory retirement of a guard caught sleeping on duty with a detectable alcohol smell. The court ruled this a serious misconduct, emphasizing the guard’s responsibility to remain vigilant. The judge stated the punishment was appropriate, given the circumstances and duty involved.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized a Canadian father for violating a Canadian custody order by keeping his child in India. The court emphasized that Indian jurisdiction cannot be exploited to bypass valid foreign rulings. Ultimately, it ruled that the child should return to his mother in Canada, prioritizing the child’s welfare.
The Supreme Court of India annulled the Delhi High Court’s review of a contempt ruling, deeming it legally impermissible. It upheld a single judge’s finding of “intentional and malafide” disobedience regarding a contempt case. The Supreme Court emphasized that such rulings must be respected and cannot be reviewed without proper legal grounds.
The Supreme Court of India criticized the Allahabad High Court for unlawfully altering the punishment of three convicted individuals, declaring the decision “totally untenable” and devoid of legal foundation. Citing Section 362 of the CrPC, the Supreme Court reinforced that finalized judgments cannot be modified except for minor corrections, ensuring judicial integrity.
