Chhattisgarh High Court judgments

Chhattisgarh High Court sets aside conviction under Sections 511 and 450 IPC, ruling that uncorroborated testimony, inconclusive medical evidence, and admitted enmity between parties create reasonable doubt. The judgment underscores the burden of proof in criminal trials where victim credibility alone is insufficient without independent corroboration.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that farmers cannot enforce agricultural insurance claims without registration on the Central Crop Insurance Portal, even if premiums were paid. The ruling underscores that writ jurisdiction cannot resolve disputes over administrative lapses in portal registration, shifting the burden of compliance to claimants.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that when a minor produces a valid caste certificate, authorities must refer the claim to the District Committee for scrutiny - refusing to do so violates natural justice and deprives children of their future reservation rights. This sets a binding precedent for all educational institutions to act on certified caste claims, not dismiss them on procedural grounds.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that Public Information Officers cannot be penalized under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for mere delay or incomplete information unless there is a clear finding of malafide intent or persistent, unreasonable default. This sets a vital safeguard for PIOs acting in good faith and reinforces that procedural lapses alone do not justify financial penalties under the law.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that merely naming a director under Section 106 BNS without specific allegations of involvement is inadequate, but when systemic safety failures are documented - such as unguarded high-voltage wiring and unchecked work practices - a prima facie case of negligence arises. This sets a critical precedent for holding corporate leadership accountable not by title, but by demonstrable oversight failures in workplace safety.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that a purchaser of a superstructure without land title cannot override a prior mortgage under the SARFAESI Act, even with municipal permission. The ruling reinforces the primacy of secured creditors' rights over subsequent bona fide purchasers in property disputes.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that show cause notices under the Public Distribution System must include all underlying documents to ensure a fair hearing. Authorities must verify ownership and compliance before initiating proceedings against self-help groups, failing which the notice is legally flawed.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a late amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is permissible if it merely clarifies an existing defence without altering the suit's fundamental nature. This holding reinforces procedural fairness, allowing amendments even after two years if evidence remains open and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that a licensed money lender’s documentary proof of lawful transactions and legitimate debt recovery negates automatic denial of anticipatory bail, even in cases of exorbitant interest allegations. The ruling sets a precedent that financial disputes alone do not constitute grounds for arrest under the Chhattisgarh Sahukari Act.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the State's failure to formulate a clear policy on reckoning pre-absorption service of Shikshakarmis for pension violates Articles 14 and 16, as pension is deferred compensation. The court directed the State to include such service in pension calculations, ensuring constitutional equality and fairness for retired employees.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that a conclusive inquiry report establishing misappropriation of public funds by Gram Panchayat officials imposes a mandatory duty on authorities to recover the funds and register an FIR. Failure to act violates constitutional accountability under Article 243G, empowering citizens to seek judicial intervention for enforcement of statutory duties.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that terminating a temporary employee on suspicion of misconduct without a fair inquiry violates principles of natural justice, even for contingency-paid staff. The court ordered reinstatement with service benefits, reinforcing that procedural fairness applies regardless of employment status.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that denying pay scale benefits to an employee after 42 years of lawful service-solely on grounds of a non-sanctioned post-is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court directed payment of arrears with 12% interest, reinforcing that long-standing service acceptance estops the state from raising technical objections post-retirement.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that when a criminal charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is acquitted, any civil demand for recovery of alleged theft charges must be refunded, as civil liability cannot stand without a valid criminal finding. This protects consumers from dual punishment and reinforces that unjust enrichment claims cannot survive the collapse of their criminal foundation.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that Scheduled Tribe status verification cannot be denied for lack of pre-1950 documents. Authorities must decide applications within 60 days using alternative evidence, ensuring fair access to reservation benefits for marginalized communities.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that land oustees retain employment rights under the state rehabilitation policy in force at the time of land acquisition, even if subsequent corporate policies attempt to override them. The court held that such changes violate Article 14 and 21, reinforcing the principle of legitimate expectation for displaced families.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that failure to communicate adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) deprives employees of the right to representation, vitiating administrative fairness. The court directed authorities to allow the petitioner to seek upgradation of 'Poor' ratings within 30 days, with a decision mandated within 90 days.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that drowning in any water body, including agricultural fields, falls under the Revenue Book Circular's natural calamity coverage. Medical evidence of drowning overrides administrative assumptions about water depth, entitling dependents to Rs. 4,00,000 ex gratia payment.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that Shiksha Karmi employees do not qualify as 'government servants' for compassionate appointment purposes, quashing rejection orders and directing reconsideration within 120 days. The ruling clarifies eligibility criteria for dependents of deceased employees under service law.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that absorption into government service triggers full procedural protections under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966, mandating a formal inquiry before termination-even for misconduct predating regularization. The judgment reinforces that natural justice applies retroactively to past acts once an employee is regularized, protecting government servants from arbitrary dismissal.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that appointing a cooperative society president through nomination instead of election violates Section 49(8), which mandates a democratic process. This decision binds all cooperative societies in the state to conduct transparent elections within 90 days, reinforcing member rights and administrative accountability under cooperative law.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that prolonged administrative inaction on land sale applications by Collectors violates the right to livelihood under Article 21, mandating a 60-day deadline for decision-making. This binds revenue authorities across the state and offers immediate relief to small landholders facing financial distress due to bureaucratic delay.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a Patwari with over 30 years of service is entitled to the third time-bound pay scale under state circulars, affirming legitimate expectation and binding precedent from prior rulings. This decision mandates prompt adjudication of such claims and sets a clear standard for equitable pay progression in state-level revenue service roles.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that mechanically applying the husband's age limit under Section 21(g) of the ART Act 2021 to deny IVF to a medically fit wife violates her fundamental right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21. The order mandates the fertility clinic to proceed with treatment, shields it from liability, and permits continuation even if the wife reaches 50 during the process, setting a precedent for individualized medical assessment over statutory rigidity.