Topic
Allahabad HC grants bail to applicant in POCSO case, citing co-accused release and Supreme Court’s Kapil Wadhawan precedent. Court emphasizes no incriminating evidence, completed charge sheet, and jail overcrowding while balancing offence gravity.
The Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentence of a life convict who had already served over 10 years, 10 months, and 21 days, aligning with Supreme Court directives in Sonadhar and Saudan Singh. The ruling reinforces that prolonged incarceration without appeal disposal justifies bail, even in heinous offences, unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Allahabad High Court rules that constitutional courts should not issue time-bound directions for disposal of cases, except in exceptional circumstances, as per Supreme Court guidelines.
The Supreme Court ruled that income tax returns (ITRs) cannot be mechanically applied to determine compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Courts must evaluate ITRs contextually, considering the deceased’s employment status-salaried individuals’ ITRs reflect actual income, while self-employed claimants’ ITRs may understate earnings due to business deductions. The judgment mandates a nuanced approach to prevent unjust compensation reductions, impacting insurers, claimants, and tribunals.
Allahabad HC directed the State to reconsider Shiksha Mitras' representation for regularization, aligning with recent Supreme Court rulings that recognize long-term contractual service as grounds for legitimate expectation. The decision underscores the shifting judicial stance on qualification requirements and service rights in education employment.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board must adhere to the Supreme Court's B.S.S. Parihar guidelines on lease price escalation, ensuring procedural fairness. The court directed the Board to reconsider escalation decisions and refund excess amounts collected from lessees, reinforcing judicial oversight over administrative discretion in housing disputes.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that state authorities must proactively enforce Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and Supreme Court guidelines, treating non-compliance as a violation of the right to life under Article 21. The judgment makes environmental enforcement a non-discretionary duty, binding on all administrative bodies.