The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking an FIR against four judges and two lawyers for allegedly grabbing public land. Justice NS Shekhawat called the plea baseless and an attempt to malign the judiciary. The court warned against such trends, refused to initiate contempt proceedings, but fined petitioner Suresh Kumar Rs 25,000 for filing a frivolous case.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on wednesday, set aside the conviction of three men who were declared guilty by the Punjab & Haryana High Court almost 20 years after they were acquitted by the trial court in a murder case. A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan expressed deep concerns about the standards of Public Prosecutors in High Courts. The Court criticized the way in which the Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the acquittal based on the Public Prosecutor’s arguments.
A long legal fight between a husband and wife, both judges, ended with the Punjab and Haryana High Court reinstating the husband back to work after 16 years. The had accused him of misconduct, which led to his dismissal and their marriage being annulled in 2012. However, the court found that there was not enough proof to justify his removal, highlighting the importance of following proper legal procedures. This decision shows the need for fairness and justice in the judiciary, even in cases involving personal issues.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that soldiers are presumed to be in good health at the time of enlistment, and any later health issues are assumed to be caused or worsened by military service unless proven otherwise. The Court directed the Union of India to grant disability pension to a retired soldier, highlighting that the employer must provide strong evidence to deny such claims.
Justice Rajesh Bindal, born on April 16, 1961, in Ambala, Haryana, assumed office as a Supreme Court judge on February 13, 2023. He previously served at the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Jammu & Kashmir High Court, and Calcutta High Court, and as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. He will retire on April 15, 2027, after a distinguished career.
As of November 21, 2024, India’s judiciary faces severe challenges with 5,200 unfilled positions and 4.53 crore pending cases. The Supreme Court has two vacancies while High Courts have 364, predominantly in Allahabad. Initiatives to translate judgments into regional languages aim to improve access to legal resources amidst these issues.
![[NDPS Cases]"Bail May Be Granted for Ganja and Charas Cases, Not for Heroin": Supreme Court](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-46.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, 1st August, The Supreme Court ruled that bail may be granted in NDPS cases involving ganja and charas but not for those involving heroin due to its severe impact, particularly on the younger generation. An accused in a heroin case was denied bail despite advanced age and indirect possession. The court maintains a strict stance on heroin-related offenses.
Jaswant Singh, an AAP leader, today withdrew his Supreme Court petition challenging his arrest and remand by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case. The Bench granted him the option to apply for bail in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Singh has been in custody for over six months related to the ED’s investigation into allegations of defrauding banks.
Today, 21st May, The Supreme Court dismissed a plea for re-evaluation of Punjab Judicial Services Mains Exam marks, citing lack of authority. Petitioners requested reconsideration based on discrepancies, but the Court upheld the existing process and advised them to approach the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Article 226 for redress, subsequently granting permission to withdraw the petition.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the requirement for parents to report offenses against their child under the POCSO Act. It refused to quash an application against a mother for failing to report her son’s sexual harassment, leading to his suicide. The case highlights legal obligations and judicial discretion under the POCSO Act.