The Punjab and Haryana High Court has questioned Haryana government’s decision to permit the sale of liquor beyond midnight in Gurugram and Faridabad [DA Bodega Hospitality and Others vs State of Haryana and Other].

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisht said if the people are allowed to stay all night at bars and pubs, the social strain of Indian society would be seriously hampered.

“Excess drinking and indulging in night life in Indian society is still a social taboo. While we may not be understood to discourage night clubs but the policy makers ought to take into consideration the Indian culture and also consider the that the percentage of literacy and mature understanding and repercussions of excessive drinking is yet a far reaching goal,” the Court said.

The Bench further said that while few States in India have applied absolute prohibition, most of the States have laid down a time schedule for selling liquor.

Once a time schedule is laid down, there should be no provision for granting extension of the said time for the entire night by taking extra money, it added.

“A balance has to be struck between the amount of revenue being earned vis-à-vis maintaining and nurturing the culture of the State. It is expected that the State shall take into consideration our observations while framing the future excise policy,” the Court said.

It made these observations while dealing with a petition challenging a provision under Haryana Excise Policy 2024-25 that prohibits bars and pubs in districts other than Gurugram and Faridabad from operating beyond midnight.

The liquor license holders of Panchkula district had moved the High Court, saying that under the earlier policy, they were also allowed to remain open up to 02.00 AM with a provision to further extend operations up to 08.00 AM on payment of additional amount of ₹20 lakh per annum.

However, it was stated that the new policy allows them to remain open only till 12 PM even as the timings of the bar licenses in Faridabad and Gurugram remain unchanged.

The Court rejected the plea, stating that once the petitioners have obtained license under the Excise Policy and are doing their business in the terms laid down therein, they cannot turn around and challenge part of the said policy which does not suit them.

“Principle of ‘take it or leave it’ has to be accepted and applied in contractual matters. Where a person wants to do liquor trade, he would have to accept the conditions as framed by the State,” the Court said.

It further said that no one has stopped the petitioners from doing business at Gurugram.

"The petitioners are carrying on business of sale of liquor in their pubs and bars at Panchkula, the persons situated at Gurugram and Faridabad cannot be said to be similarly situated. The amount of license fee which they have to pay is different from what is being paid by license holder at Panchkula," the Court added.

[Read Judgment]

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday ordered the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to probe allegations of fraud against the Kollam-based Edamulackal Co-operative Bank [Rajendran Unnithan v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and ors].

The case involves allegations that funds worth ₹24.44 crores were misappropriated between 2009 to 2017 from the deposits made by the public with the Edamulackal Service Co-operative Bank.

A Bench of Justices Amit Rawal and KV Jayakumar on December 4 noted that prima facie, the case involved the offences of breach of trust and cheating, which are scheduled offences in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which meant that the ED could probe the matter.

"We thus direct the Enforcement Director to register an ECIR as provided under the Act against all the persons involved, for misappropriation, breach of trust, cheating as well as offences under the PC Act forthwith," the Court ordered.

In an earlier order passed on December 3, the Court had referred to the case as a classic case of aggrandizement by the cooperative society's committee members who had squandered and played with the money of depositors.

"Out of many depositors, few of them are facing not only the financial hardship but medical difficulties like cancer and other diseases," the Court noted.

Among those who faced such hardships was 71-year-old Rajendran Unnithan S, a cancer patient who approached the Court for relief after he was unable to withdraw his fixed deposit of ₹9.4 lakhs from the bank for medical treatment.

The Court on Wednesday ordered the society to immediately transfer the funds owed to Unnithan to address his urgent medical needs.

"He is in immediate need of money and matured amount according to his calculation is about Rs.9,40,000/- and in Savings Bank Account Rs.56,370/-. Since the Grade IV society has a deposit of minimum Rs.1,50,00,000/-, we direct the Society to immediately either issue a pay order or transfer the amount through RTGS in the account of the petitioner as he is in immediate need to meet the expenses of the treatment," the Court ordered.

Other litigants too, had outstanding amounts due to them, ranging from ₹1.47 lakhs to ₹ 21.60 lakhs, the Court was told. The Court on Wednesday ordered the Co-operative Society to release half of the outstanding amounts to these appellants.

The Court further noted that a first information report (FIR) had been registered in the matter in 2017, citing offences under Sections 406 (cheating), 409 (breach of trust), and 420 (conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, this FIR only named a former Secretary as the accused.

On the other hand, the Court noted that there appeared to be at least 14 persons who were facing allegations of having played a role in the bank fraud.

"It is wholly intriguing as to how and in what manner the other surcharge persons have been let off with no criminal case," the Court said.

It proceeded to ask the Home Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary of Co-operative Societies to explain this lapse by way of an affidavit.

The Court also asked the State and Co-operative Societies Department to file affidavits with information about the progress of proceedings already initiated in the matter, including the 2017 FIR and surcharge proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

Advocates R Reji, Arun Bose, B Bipin, Jeena AV, MV Thamban, Thara Thamban and Thomas Thomas represented Rajendran Unnithan S (appellant).

Senior Government Pleader TK Vipindas appeared for the Registrar of Cooperative Society and Advocate Santosh Kumar represented the Secertary, Edamulackal Service Co-operative Bank.

Advocate Jaishankar V Nair appeared for the ED.

[Read Order]

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a lawyer convicted by a trial court and sentenced to four years imprisonment for stalking and harassing a judicial officer [Mohd Haroon vs. State of U.P]

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra granted bail to one Mohd Haroon (convict) after taking into account his incarceration since July 2023 and the likelihood of a delayed decision by the High Court in the revision petition filed by Haroon.

“Considering the rival submissions made by the parties and nature of offence and the quantum of punishment awarded and the fact that revisionist is in jail since 11.7.2023 and the revision is not likely to be decided early, due to pendency of backlog cases and without further commenting on the merits of the case this Court deems it fit to enlarge the accused-revisionist on bail during the pendency of this revision,” the Court said

The case arose from allegations that Haroon, while practicing in the District Court of Hamirpur, persistently stalked a judicial officer, passed sexual remarks and invaded her privacy.

The complainant filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that Haroon's behavior amounted to harassment under Sections 354 (Assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A(1)(IV) (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 354-D (Stalking), and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) at Hamirpur convicted him and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment under Section 354 IPC along with other offences. This conviction was later upheld by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur.

Therefore, he moved the Allahabad High Court by filing a criminal revision plea.

Haroon argued that the prosecution’s case was exaggerated and lacked direct evidence of inappropriate communication. He emphasized that he had apologized to the complainant on multiple occasions but these gestures were misconstrued.

The defense highlighted that Haroon had already served over two years of his sentence, exceeding half of the maximum term. They also pointed to the unlikelihood of an early hearing due to the High Court’s backlog of cases.

The State opposed the application, stressing the gravity of the charges and the fact that the complainant was a judicial officer working in the same district. However, the State conceded that Haroon had served a substantial portion of his sentence.  

The Court observed that Haroon’s incarceration since July 2023 and the backlog of pending cases, justified interim relief.

Accordingly, the Court granted bail to him subject to personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the same amount.

Advocates Ajay Pandey, Amit Goel, Azad Khan and Deepak Pandey appeared for Haroon.

[Read Order]

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday observed that putting up unauthorised boards and banners in public places cannot be claimed as a religious practice by anyone [St Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church Kattanam Village v State of Kerala].

Justice Devan Ramachandran came down on the authorities for turning a blind eye to such illegal installations, whether it be out of fear or out of an assumption that it is a religious practice.

"When religious (places) keep boards and banners in public places, everyone turns a blind eye out of fear. Putting up boards like that is not religious practice for sure. Putting up boards of temples, churches or mosques in busy thoroughfare is not a religious practice. We know at least that much and we can say that without fear," Justice Ramachandran orally remarked.

The High Court was considering a batch of cases dealing with the issue of illegal billboards, flexes and banners on roads and other public spaces.

In an earlier order, the Court had urged the authorities to impose a ₹5,000 penalty (as prescribed under the Kerala Municipality Rules) for each illegal installation in public spaces.

However, the Court noted this week that the practice has continued unabated, especially when it comes to those put up by politicians and political parties.

"How can pictures of Ministers be kept on boards like this? Have you received fines from any of the political parties responsible? I have no problem with political parties, temples, mosques, etc. having advertisements legally. But why on the guardrails and medians? Car (drivers) should be able to see the roads properly. Ninety nine percent of the general public also don't approve of it. These secretaries (of local self government institutions) are more scared of the people who put these boards than the court because we are trying to handle it in a civilised manner," Justice Ramachandran observed.

However, it also noted that the secretaries of local self government institutions, who were tasked with imposing fines, may be fearful of repercussions for acting against the interests of political parties.

"(The government) says it is for secretaries of local government institutions to do it but can you give it to me in writing that if they get these boards removed, they won't be attacked or punished? We spend lakhs and crores of rupees to beautify public areas but none of it can be seen because they are covered in boards and flags. These are attached with plastic threads also...You should have gotten at least 50 lakh fine by now. Have you gotten fines from any political party? You fear only them, not us...Are we governed by fear or by law?" Justice Ramachandran remarked.

The Court, therefore, passed an order reiterating that it would hold the secretaries personally responsible if the practice is not curbed.

The Court also directed the police to take action if the secretaries report of receiving any threats.

In order to discuss the situation further, the Court directed the Secretary of the Local Self Government Department of the State to be present online for the next hearing.

[Read Order]

The Supreme Court on Monday (December 2) was surprised to come across a case where a Allahabad High Court Bench reserved its verdict for fourteen months before it decided to list the matter before another Bench, instead of delivering a judgment [Ramdular Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.].

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta granted the litigant interim relief before sending the case back to the High Court with a directive to decide on the same promptly.

"We do not know the exact reason as to why the learned Judge of the High Court, despite lapse of 14 (fourteen) months since judgment was reserved, could not deliver the judgment and dispose of the petition one way or the other ... Be that as it may, without expressing any further comment on the matter of keeping a reserved judgment pending for 14 (fourteen) months and then not delivering the same, we request the roster bench of the High Court to dispose of the petition in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within three months," the top court said.

The petitioner, Ramdular Singh had moved the Allahabad High Court to challenge criminal proceedings lodged against him in a dispute that he alleged was of civil nature.

The High Court reserved its judgment in the matter on March 28, 2023. It, however, did not grant any interim relief to Singh in the meantime.

Fourteen months later, on May 27, 2024, the High Court de-reserved its judgment and referred the matter to another Bench. Aggrieved by this decision, Singh moved the Supreme Court for relief.

Singh's counsel argued that in the absence of any stay order order from the High Court, the criminal proceedings against his client have now reached the stage of framing of criminal charges. Thus, his client's plea before the High Court was effectively becoming pointless, the Supreme Court was told.

Having considered these submissions, the Supreme Court granted Singh interim relief and asked the Allahabad High Court to swiftly dispose of his plea.

"Till such time, the matter is considered next by the High Court, there shall be stay of proceedings before the trial court, i.e., the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Varanasi, in Case No. 330 of 2019. The petitioner shall be at liberty to seek extension of the order of stay till the disposal of the petition on merits," the Court added, as interim relief for Singh.

Advocate on Record (AOR) Divyesh Pratap Singh with Advocates Shivangi Singh, Suraj Prakash Singh, Amit Sangwan, Ashu Bhindwar and Sneha Chandna appeared for the petitioner, Ramdular Singh.

Senior Advocate Ajay Kumar Mishra, AOR Garvesh Kabra, Advocates Amit Singh, Avnish Deshpande and Sujata Upadhyay represented the respondents State of Uttar Pradesh.

[Read Order]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently called for a social audit of orphanages and old age homes to create a sense of belonging and security among the people living there [Dinesh Batham vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].

The Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh said responsible and resourceful persons of the society - those  holding important positions in the administration and sectors like education, health and law - must take some responsibility to visit the places.

Such visits to places where persons with disability, orphans, old age people, victims of crime and other destitute are institutionalized, will help them understand the inmates’ plight and then enable them to contribute for their well being, the Court remarked.

“Inmates who are living in such institutions would also feel that they are not left out by the society and the society is still eager to take them into its fold. This way, they would come in the mainstream also,” it added. 

The Court made these observations while suggesting a lawyer to spend a time of one hour as community service at the Mercy Home namely Madhav Andha Ashram, (Gwalior) with some food items or snacks worth ₹1,000.

The lawyer was seeking restoration of an appeal which had been dismissed for non-compliance with a conditional order.

He conceded that the procedural compliance had not been made due to a bona fide mistake on part of his clerk.

The Court allowed his request for restoration of appeal with the suggestion that he spend one hour with the children/inmates/families putting up at the Mercy Home.

The Court clarified that the suggestion was not punitive in nature and that discretion for its compliance rests with the counsel. 

“This community service of one hour would not only be satisfying to the soul but would also give a message to the differently abled children that society and its members care for them and that they are not considered as the children of the Lesser God,” it added.

The lawyer accepted the request and said any other counsel can also accompany him. The Court asked him to submit a report on his experience and suggestions.

“On submission of the report and affidavit as accepted by counsel for the applicants, Writ Appeal … shall be restored to its original number,” it ordered.

This is a test case to give a concept of 'Social Audit' a chance to gain ground, the Court further said.

While highlighting its importance for the well-being of inmates, the Court also emphasized that such visits by responsible persons would ensure a check on the functioning of such institutions.

“Another important effect of the Social Audit is that Management of those Institutions sometime misbehave or cause mischief to the inmates especially children and females living there and this way, they would always be cautious that the society is keeping eyes over their working. Therefore, evolution of concept of Social Audit and its effective implementation is the need of hour,” it said.

Thus, the Court stressed that the policy makers, particularly the Department of Women and Child Welfare, Department of Social Justice and Police must come out with some tangible solution in this regard.

“Copy of this order be also sent to the Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Department of Social Justice and Secretary Juvenile Justice Committee M.P. High Court for information and contemplation,” the Bench directed.

Advocate SN Seth represented the applicant.

Advocate AK Nirankari represented the State.

[Read Order]

The Supreme Court recently directed all States to streamline their legal machinery to prevent delays in filing appeals before the court [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary].

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan noted that in many cases, appeals were being filed after considerable delay due to the failure on the part of State officers to communicate the decisions to the higher authorities on time.

In view of the same, the Court asked States to ensure that liability is fastened on its officers responsible for delay and lapses in filing of appeals or cases on behalf of the government.

"We direct the State to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal / Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government," the Court said in its November 29 order.

The Court said its direction will have to be followed by all the States scrupulously.

The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refusing to condone a delay of 1,788 days in filing of second appeal.

The case arose from a decision of the trial court delivered on August 29, 2013, wherein it had determined that the respondent-private person had no title to the subject land and the same belonged to the government.

On August 21, 2014, the first appellate court ruled in favor of the respondent and overturned the trial court verdict.

However, the decision of the first appellate court was informed to the Collector only on August 25, 2015, who then took three months to notify the principal secretary of the judgment.

On October 26, 2018, after almost three years, the Law Department granted permission to file the second appeal, which was then forwarded to the Collector on October 31, 2018.

Based on this opinion, the State preferred the second appeal before the High Court on October 18, 2019, which was thereafter dismissed by the High Court citing the delay on the part of the State in filing the appeal.

The top court agreed with the approach of the High Court holding that the delay in filing of second appeal was not adequately explained by the State.

It noted that due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court even though valuable government lands were involved.

"At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the officials functioning in the State machinery. Though the Government adopts systematic approach in handling the legal issues and preferring the petitions/applications/appeals well within the time, due to the fault on the part of the officials in merely communicating the information on time, huge revenue loss will be caused to the Government exchequer. The present case is one such case, wherein, enormous delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, though valuable Government lands were involved," the Court observed.

Therefore, it proceeded to impose cost of ₹1 lakh on the State of Madhya Pradesh.

While dismissing the appeal, the Court proceeded to direct all the States across the country to fix accountability on its officers responsible for causing such delays.

Advocate Sarad Kumar Singhania appeared for State of Madhya Pradesh.

[Read Order]

The Madras High Court recently restrained a litigant from filing public interest litigation (PIL) petitions for a year and also imposed a cost of ₹20 lakh on him after it came to light that the petitioner had knowingly suppressed important information pertaining to his matter.

In an order passed on December 4, a Bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy restrained TH Rajamohan, a 67-year-old man, from filing PILs for a year.

Rajamohan had moved the Court challenging a Government Order issued by the State Revenue Department that allowed alienation of around 40.97 acres of land.

Rajamohan claimed that around 13 acres of such land was reserved forest area and sought directions to the State to update its records and secure the forest land.

The State opposed the PIL and told the Court that the disputed land was classified as forest land in the year 1905. However, it had been denotified in the year 1962 and had since ceased to be forest land, the State said.

The State also questioned the bonafides of the petitioner and submitted that Rajamohan had been prosecuted in the past for having encroached upon government land.

An advocate commissioner appointed by the Court also confirmed such de-notification.

The Court realised Rajamohan had deliberately suppressed such information.

It further noted that in the PIL, Rajamohan had also accused former Member of the Legislative Assembly C Gnanasekaran of having used his influence to sell the land to real estate developers. However, Rajamohan had not submitted any documents to prove the same.

The Court took note of the submissions made by Senior Counsel P Wilson and Satish Parasaran who appeared for the MLC and the developer against whom allegations had been made.

They claimed that much damage had been caused to their clients due to the media reports after the filing of the PIL.

Therefore, the Court thought it fit to impose costs on the petitioner.

“Irrespective of whether such news releases originated from the petitioner, this would certainly have caused significant losses to the business and reputation of the 12th respondent. In our view, when the facts and circumstances are considered cumulatively in light of the principles enunciated in paragraph 181 of Balwant Singh Chaufal, it is appropriate to not only impose costs on the petitioner but also restrain him from filing PILs in this Court for a year without obtaining prior permission,” the High Court said.

The judges also noticed irregularities in the age, occupation, income etc. of the petitioner in his affidavit and the documents submitted in the Court.

The Court then said that either Rajamohan was willingly deceiving the Court or he was being made to do so at someone else’s behest.

Hence, the Court proceeded to pass adverse order against him.

“Only two inferences may be drawn in this regard. Either the petitioner lied in Court or he has been set up as a front by somebody to orchestrate the petition. In either case, it is just and necessary to impose costs on the petitioner so as to deter the filing of petitions, particularly by way of PILs, misstating or suppressing facts with oblique motives,” the High Court said.

It imposed costs of ₹20 lakh on the petitioner. Out of the said amount ₹10 lakh is to be paid to Vishal Developers against whom the allegations were made by the petitioner.

The remaining ₹10 lakh should be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, the Court directed.

[Read Order]

Sapna Jhangiani has taken the oath to join the Court of Appeal at the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts in a swearing-in ceremony presided over by His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai.

On her appointment, Jhangiani shared,

"I look forward to upholding my oath to judge with utmost justice and fairness, respect the law, perform my duties with trust and faith, and observe the highest standards of conduct."

Jhangiani is currently in independent practice in Singapore as Counsel, arbitrator, and mediator (alongside which she shall sit as a Judge of Appeal of the DIFC Courts).

Jhangiani holds an undergraduate degree from Oxford University and a diploma in international commercial arbitration from Queen Mary University, in which she graduated with distinction. She was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1999 and practised High Court litigation as a barrister in London until 2006, when she began her career in international arbitration. She was admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor in Singapore in 2019.

She has worked at international law firm, Clyde & Co for over 15 years before joining Attorney-General’s Chambers in Singapore.

Alongside Jhangiani, Judges Thomas Bathurst and Roger Stewart were also sworn in to join the Court of Appeals at the DIFC Courts.

HH Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid wished the newly appointed judges success in their new roles and emphasized that integrity and transparency are core values that have shaped the development of DIFC, making it one of the world’s leading financial hubs. 

Judges Jhangiani, Bathurst and Stewart expressed their gratitude for the opportunity to be part of the DIFC Courts.

The ceremony wad also attended by His Highness Sheikh Maktoum bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, First Deputy Ruler of Dubai, and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of the UAE, and President of DIFC.

The Governor of a State has no power to sanction prosecution against the Chief Minister (CM), the Karnataka government told the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday while opposing the prosecution of CM Siddaramaiah in the MUDA scam.

The submission was made on behalf of the State by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before a Division Bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind.

Siddaramaiah is being prosecuted after Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot granted sanction for the same.

"I am saying that in this case, the issue of sanctioning authority is a much larger constitutional issue. The Governor does not have the authority to approve prosecution of a Chief Minister ...I am not supporting A or B but this (sanction of prosecution against CM by Governor) just cannot be done. If you start prosecuting Chief Ministers and Ministers in this manner, then there will be utter chaos," Sibal argued.

After hearing preliminary submissions, the Division Bench today issued notice on CM Siddaramaiah's appeal against a single-judge's decision to uphold the grant of sanction by the Governor to prosecute him (Siddaramaiah) in the case.

The Court posted the matter for further hearing hearing on January 25, 2025.

The case concerns allegations of corruption in the grant of land by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to Siddaramaiah's BM wife, Parvathi.

The Karnataka Governor on July 26 granted sanction to prosecute CM Siddaramaiah in the case following private complaints made by activists TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna and Pradeep Kumar SP.

The complainants have claimed that MUDA granted a highly inflated compensation of 14 parcels of land to the CM's wife, Parvathi in exchange for undertaking development on 3 acres of land owned by her.

These 3 acres were 'gifted' to Parvathi by her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy (Siddaramaiah's brother-in-law). Swamy, in turn had acquired the land earlier in 2004 from one, Devaraju.

80 year-old landowner cries foul over being dragged into 'political slugfest'

Interestingly, Devaraju (the original landowner) has now complained to the Court that he has been unnecessarily dragged into a political slugfest, thanks to recent developments in the MUDA scam case.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave represented Devaraju today and urged the Division Bench to hear him first saying that although he wasn't a party to the matter, he has now been caught in the cross fire.

Dave pointed out that a single-judge has now remarked that Devaraju appeared to be party to fraud and should face prosecution.

"I am dragged at the age of 80 in the slugfest! I have nothing to do with politics. I asked my client, whether he voted for BJP or Congress? He said, neither - I voted for Janata Dal (JD(S))! So milord, why should I suffer because of all this? ... My life and liberty is at stake!" Dave argued.

The Court assured that it would hear Devaraju's counsel as well in the matter.

"You are like the lotus in the murky water that stays clean, doesn't touch the water. We'll treat you like that. We'll keep you separate," Chief Justice Anjaria told him.

Dave also urged the High Court to issue a stay on criminal proceedings as far as Devaraju is concerned.

"I need the protection because I don't want to face the CBI and criminal courts for having sold my land years ago. Why should I be held responsible?" he added.

He pointed out that another plea has already been filed now for a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the MUDA scam, which is scheduled for hearing before a single-judge on December 10.

The Court, however, declined to order any stay.

"We don't want to make any comments as it will colour the single judge's mind," the Bench explained.

Meanwhile, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Siddaramaiah and reiterated that the Governor erred in granting sanction to prosecute the Chief Minister in this case.

"First, Section 17A (of the Prevention of Corruption Act) has been completely violated. The requirement that there had to be a filter of a police officer has been violated. Here, the private complainant has gone straight to the Governor. The second is that the Governor is always bound by the advice of the council of ministers. The Governor can only interfere if there is manifest illegality in the council's advice," Singhvi said.

Senior Advocate KG Raghavan appeared for one of the private parties on whose complaint the Governor had sanctioned Siddaramaiah's prosecution in the MUDA case. Senior advocate Maninder Singh appeared for another complainant, Snehamayi Krishna.

[Read Live Coverage]

The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the defamation case filed by the mouthpiece publication of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L Murugan [Dr L Murugan vs Murasoli Trust].

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order after Murasoli Trust (publisher) said that it does not wish to prosecute the matter in view of Murugan's statement that he had no intention of harming anyone's reputation.

The Bench, thus, allowed the appeal against a Madras High Court order that had refused to quash the defamation case against the Union Minister.

The Supreme Court had in September stayed the trial court proceedings in the matter.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra with advocates NR Elango and Devyani Gupta appeared for Murasoli Trust.

Senior Counsel K Parameshwar with Advocate Geet Ahuja appeared for L Murugan.

The case stemmed from remarks made by Murugan at a press meet wherein he alleged that Murasoli's operations were running on land meant for Dalits in Tamil Nadu.

Before the High Court, Murugan had argued that since the alleged defamatory statement was not made against the trust, no case was made out.

The High Court had noted that the Minister's statements may be comprehended as questioning the right and title of the property in question.

It had added that it could not go into the merits of the case at the current stage and had declined to quash the trial court proceedings.

The minister then approached the Supreme Court.

Two law students who appeared for the Common Law Admission Test post graduate exam 2025 (CLAT PG 2025) have moved the Supreme Court against Consortium of National Law Universities alleging procedural lapses and arbitrary treatment of candidates at the exam

The two petitioners, Anam Khan and Ayush Agrawal, who appeared for the CLAT PG 2025 exam conducted on December 1, have raised concerns over procedural inconsistencies, errors in the provisional answer key and excessive fees for filing objections.

As per the petitioners, various procedural lapses at examination centers resulted in unequal treatment, undermining the fairness and integrity of the test.

According to the petition, Anam Khan, who took the exam at Government Law College in Mumbai, received her question booklet at 1:50 PM, in line with the Consortium’s Test Day Instructions.

In contrast, Ayush Agrawal, who took the exam at Acropolis Institute of Law in Indore, was handed his question booklet after 2:00 PM, effectively reducing his allotted examination time.

Such treatment amounts to a violation of right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, it has been contended.

The petitioners have also contested several answers provided in the provisional key and have alleged that there were errors in at least 12 questions.

These errors reflect negligence by the Consortium which affects the merit ranking of candidates, it has been contended.

"It is submitted that releasing an incorrect Provisional Answer Key for nearly 12 questions shows nothing but a lackadaisical attitude in conduction of the said examination by the Consortium," the petition emphasized.

Moreover, candidates were required to pay ₹1,000 per objection, a sum the petitioners deem unreasonable given the errors originated from the Consortium’s own oversight.

As per the plea, despite charging ₹4,000 as an application fee, the Consortium failed to ensure accuracy in the answer key.

Besides, the petitioners have also taken exception to the timeline followed in release of answer key to the counseling.

The final answer key was released on December 9 followed by results on December 10 and counseling registration on December 11.

This timeline does not allow sufficient time for candidates to seek legal remedies or challenge errors in the answer key, it has been contended.

"It is submitted that this leaves no scope for the candidates to challenge the final list from a court of law or seek any remedy from any court of law. It is submitted that such arbitrary and miniscule time duration in release of final answer key, publication of CLAT result and initiation of admission counselling is prejudicial to candidates who might want to challenge the final answer key," petition states.

Therefore, the petitioners have sought directions to stay the publication of CLAT PG 2025 results and the counseling until the final answer key is released without any errors.

Advocates Manasi Bhushan, Shakshi Sharma, Sanjana Patel, Akshit Chaudhary, Chetan and Ankit Chaturvedi

The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted medical bail to former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA and Unnao rape case convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar to undergo treatment for retinal detachment [Kuldeep Singh Sengar v CBI].

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed that he be admitted to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Delhi for an initial assessment to determine whether his condition can be treated locally or whether he would have to be referred elsewhere.

"Granted interim bail for 2 weeks and to be admitted in AIIMS Delhi for reviewing his condition tomorrow for 3-4 days, AIIMS to ascertain if his condition can be treated in Delhi itself. If he is to be released from hospital then Sengar is to reside in a known location and won’t contact the survivor. Local CBI to be in touch with AIIMS to monitor his movement. Sengar to remain in touch with IO daily," the Court said.

Senior Advocate Narayanan Hariharan argued that Sengar’s medical condition was critical, requiring immediate attention. He stated that Sengar had been advised surgery for retinal detachment and wished to undergo treatment in Chennai. Hariharan highlighted that Sengar also suffered from other ailments.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing the survivor, opposed the bail application. He contended that adequate medical treatment could be provided within the jail and expressed concerns regarding the accuracy of Sengar’s medical reports.

Pracha emphasized that Sengar posed a potential threat to the survivor and her family, whose safety remains under Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) protection.

The Unnao rape survivor was allegedly kidnapped and raped by Sengar between June 11 and June 20, 2017. She was then sold for ₹60,000, after which she was recovered at the Maakhi police station.

The survivor was thereafter continuously threatened and warned by the police officials against speaking out.

The case took a controversial turn after a lorry without a number plate rammed into the car in which the victim was traveling. The victim and her lawyer were critically injured, while two of her aunts passed away.

In August 2019, the Supreme Court transferred the trial in four cases relating to the Unnao rape case to Delhi and ordered that the same be held on a day-to-day basis and completed within 45 days.

Sengar was convicted in December 2019 for the rape of the minor victim as well as for the custodial death of the victim’s father. He was sentenced to life-imprisonment in the rape case and sent to jail for 10 years in the custodial death case.

The Kerala High Court is cracking down on social media use and online gaming amongst its staff members while at work.

An official memorandum was issued in this regard this week, to inform staff members that indulging in online games during office hours and lunch recess is strictly prohibited.

Moreover, except for official purposes, going on social media, watching movies or engaging in online trading during office hours has been prohibited. However, this is not prohibited during lunch hours.

"Any violation of the same shall be viewed very seriously," the memorandum states.

Controlling Officers have also been directed to be watchful and restrict staff members under their control from flouting these rules.

[Read Official Memorandum]

Courts should be extremely cautious in entertaining bail applications by those accused of serious offences like murder, rape and dacoity after the trial of such cases has started and the prosecution has begun examining witnesses, the Supreme Court recently observed [X v. State of Rajasthan and Another].

A Division Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan added that it is only if the trial gets unduly delayed for no fault of the accused that the court may be justified in granting bail in such cases after the start of trial.

"Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused," the November 27 order said.

The Court explained that once the trial starts, it should be allowed to reach its conclusion, without bail orders that may unduly sway the course of the trial one way or another.

"Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence," the Court observed.

The Court also criticised the trend of granting bail shortly after the framing of charges in trial or after witness testimony is recorded, by merely citing minor discrepancies in the victim's testimony.

"Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt," it observed.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a victim in a rape case challenging the Rajasthan High Court's decision to grant bail to an accused.

The High Court had granted the accused bail citing discrepancies between the First Information Report (FIR) and the statement given by the victim to a magistrate during investigation.

The Supreme Court disapproved the High Court's approach, observing,

"The High Court seems to have looked into few discrepancies in the FIR compared to the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code. This could not have been a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of an accused in a serious offence like rape."

However, the top court refrained from setting aside the bail order, and instead imposed additional bail conditions on the accused, including that he must not to enter the victim's village till the completion of the trial.

The Court also directed the accused to furnish his new residential address to the police.

[Read Order]