Search By Topic: Constitution of India

1. (SC) 28-07-2026

***

Constitution of India -- Article 338 -- Powers of National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) -- Legislature has prescribed for the NCSC a role that is recommendatory and advisory, but certainly not adjudicatory.

***

National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) -- Scope of powers -- NCSC can record a factual finding and then ask the concerned Government, either the Centre or the State, to act thereupon -- It certainly does not have adjudicatory power.

***

A. Constitution of India, Article 338 -- Powers of National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) -- Adjudicatory vs. recommendatory role -- Legislature has prescribed for the NCSC a role that is recommendatory and advisory, but certainly not adjudicatory -- NCSC is not meant to be a body taking over adjudicatory functions -- Directions issued by the NCSC directing implementation of its order and payment of arrears held contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and, as such, non est in law.

(Para 4, 13, 14)

B. Constitution of India, Article 338(8) -- Powers of National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) -- Powers of Civil Court -- Limited scope -- Legislature has been categorical in the powers of the Civil Court extended to the NCSC -- Use of the expression "namely" while enumerating such powers indicates their limited scope -- Though the NCSC has power to requisition documents and receive evidence, it does not have the power to make an order in furtherance of such evidence -- NCSC can record a factual finding and then ask the concerned Government, either the Centre or the State, to act thereupon -- Such provision certainly does not confer adjudicatory power.

(Para 9)

2. (SC) 21-07-2026

***

FERA -- Cognizance of offence -- Mandatory opportunity notice -- Service of an adequate and meaningful opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) is a mandatory statutory prerequisite for instituting a complaint under Section 56 or 57.

***

CrPC -- Section 482 vis-à-vis Section 397 -- In order to do substantive justice, the High Court can always treat and convert a petition filed under Section 482 as one under Section 397, and vice versa

***

Right to a speedy trial is an essential component of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 397 and 482 -- Inherent powers of High Court -- Maintainability of -- Quashing Petition -- Availability of an alternative remedy of revision under Section 397 of the CrPC does not, by itself, operate as a bar to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. -- Issuance of a summons is not an interlocutory order for the purposes of Section 397 -- The two provisions operate in distinct spheres, and the mere existence of a revisional remedy cannot be treated as ousting the jurisdiction preserved under Section 482, which is available wherever there is an abuse of the process of the court or where the ends of justice so require -- In order to do substantive justice, a High Court may always treat and convert a petition filed under Section 482 as one under Section 397, and vice versa, rather than non-suiting a party on a hyper-technical ground of maintainability.

(Paras 11, 13 and 14)

B. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973), Sections 56(1), 57 and 61(2) proviso -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cognizance of offences -- Mandatory requirement of opportunity notice -- Principle of natural justice – Quashing of summoning order -- Under the proviso to Section 61(2)(ii), where the alleged contravention consists of doing an act without permission, no complaint shall be made unless the person accused of the offence has first been given an opportunity of showing that he had such permission -- Adherence to the principles of natural justice must be read into the statute -- Service of an opportunity notice is a mandatory requirement without which no complaint under Section 56 or 57 can validly be instituted, and no Magistrate can validly take cognizance -- This opportunity must be meaningful and adequate, and not a mere technical or notional compliance -- The burden lies upon the prosecution that such notice was issued and served --  Where the complainant neither stated the date of the opportunity notice nor placed a copy or proof of service on record and the Magistrate took cognizance in a mechanical manner without recording satisfaction of compliance with Section 61(2), the order taking cognizance and issuing summons cannot be sustained in law, liable to be quashed.

(Paras 16-23)

C. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Right to speedy trial -- Protracted delay in trial -- Unexplained inaction by prosecution -- Quashing of proceedings -- The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is implicit in the fair, just, and reasonable procedure guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, extending to every stage of a criminal proceeding including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, and revision -- Complaint was instituted in 2002 for a transaction dating back to 1991-1992 --The prosecution failed to collect summons for service for nearly two years -- Despite express time-bound directions from the High Court to conclude the trial within one month (later extended to six months), the complainant refused to collect notices and remained absent right up to the filing of the appeals -- Such persistent and unexplained inaction spanning over 23 years reflects a complete want of diligence -- Permitting the prosecution to continue in such circumstances would unjustly leave the accused in a state of suspended animation indefinitely -- Criminal complaint and summoning order quashed.

(Paras 25, 26, 30-35)

3. (SC) 21-07-2026

***

Consent decree -- Article 142 cannot be employed to supplant the concluded and acted upon terms of a consensual arrangement between the parties.

***

Execution of consent decree -- Scope of enquiry remains a limited one -- It cannot be made a vehicle for rewriting the terms of a settlement which the parties themselves arrived at and acted upon.

***

A. Constitution of India, Articles 136, 142 -- Scope of interference -- Concurrent findings -- Creation of corpus -- Family Court and the High Court, on a concurrent appreciation of the same material, placed upon the settlement a construction which is natural, harmonious and fortified by the conduct of the parties -- No interference warranted -- Prayer for creation of a corpus towards higher education in exercise of powers under Article 142 cannot be acceded to, as issuance of such a direction would, in substance, amount to recasting a settlement which stands performed and discharged and undertaking, in execution, a fresh determination of the quantum of maintenance -- The jurisdiction under Article 142, wide as it is, cannot be employed to supplant the concluded and acted upon terms of a consensual arrangement between the parties.

(Para 33 and 34)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 21 Rule 10 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Sections 13-B and 28-A -- Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 -- Execution of consent decree -- Scope of executing court -- Where an execution petition is instituted for enforcement of a specific covenant of a concluded consent decree, the enquiry remains a limited one, namely, whether on a true construction of the settlement, the obligation stated to have been left unsatisfied subsists and remains enforceable, and not whether a larger or a different provision ought now to be made -- Where, on its true construction, the covenant stands satisfied, a general obligation to maintain cannot be invoked in execution to revive a discharged term or to substitute therefor a fresh and larger provision -- The general principle, whatever be its content, cannot be made a vehicle for rewriting the terms of a settlement which the parties themselves arrived at and acted upon.

(Paras 24 and 32)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 21 Rule 10 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 136 -- Execution of decree -- Conduct of parties -- Relevance of delay -- Held, where the entire amount under Clause 8 stood paid and no demand was raised towards payment of twenty per cent of the annual income during the intervening period of nearly five years, such silence reinforces the construction that the income-linked obligation stood discharged -- Delay was noticed not as a ground of limitation but as a circumstance illuminating the common understanding of the parties with regard to the meaning and operation of the settlement.

(Para 28 and 29)

D. Interpretation of Deeds -- Canons of construction -- Harmonious construction -- Rule of repugnancy -- Held, an interpretation which renders an express clause otiose is to be eschewed in favour of the one which gives effect to the instrument as a whole -- The rule of construction that an earlier clause prevails over a later one is attracted only where two clauses are so repugnant to each other that they cannot possibly be reconciled.

(Paras 26 and 31)

4. (P&H HC) 10-07-2026

***

Interrogatories are intended to secure admissions on material facts and not to satisfy curiosity or conduct a fishing enquiry; leave to administer them is discretionary and will not be granted unless necessary for fair adjudication or saving costs.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11 Rules 1 & 2 -- Interrogatories -- Leave to administer interrogatories -- Not a matter of right -- Leave can be granted only where Court is satisfied that proposed interrogatories are necessary for fair disposal of the suit or for saving costs -- Every question cannot be permitted merely because it is framed as an interrogatory.

(Para 4)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11 Rules 1 & 2 -- Interrogatories -- Scope and object -- Intended to obtain admissions regarding material facts directly in issue or relevant to matters in controversy -- Cannot be employed for a roving or fishing enquiry -- Cannot be used for collecting evidence, conducting advance cross-examination or eliciting facts having no nexus with determination of substantive issues.

(Para 5)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11 Rule 2 -- Interrogatories -- Relevancy -- Proposed interrogatories sought to ascertain whether written statement signed by one defendant had been filed with authority and knowledge of other defendants -- Written statement admittedly presented through common counsel -- Such procedural aspect having no direct bearing on rights of parties or issues involved in the suit not a proper subject-matter for interrogatories -- Leave rightly refused.

(Paras 6 to 8)

D. Constitution of India, Article 227 – Leave to administer Interrogatories -- Supervisory jurisdiction -- Interference with discretionary orders -- Grant or refusal of leave to administer interrogatories is a matter of judicial discretion of the Trial Court -- High Court will not interfere unless discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or contrary to settled legal principles -- Impugned order reflected due application of mind and suffered from neither jurisdictional error nor patent illegality -- No interference warranted.

(Paras 9 & 10)

5. (P&H HC) 09-07-2026

***

Rent laws -- A tenant cannot enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings by seeking impleadment of a third party inducted into possession without the landlord's consent or nay internal arrangements or arbitral disputes with such person.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment of parties -- Necessary and proper party -- Plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot ordinarily be compelled to sue a person against whom no relief is claimed -- A person can be impleaded only if he is a necessary party, without whom no effective decree can be passed, or a proper party whose presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved -- A stranger claiming an independent or collateral right cannot insist upon impleadment merely because his interest may incidentally be affected.

(Paras 5 to 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 Eviction petition -- Landlord and tenant -- Impleadment of third party -- Tenancy originally created in favour of petitioner -- Subsequent partnership deed, internal arrangement or arbitral award inter se partners cannot alter contractual relationship between landlord and tenant or compel landlord to implead a person whom he has never recognised as tenant -- Proposed party held neither necessary nor proper party.

(Paras 8 to 11)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction petition -- Arbitral award between tenant with his partners -- Award determining rights and liabilities between partners inter se -- Does not bind landlord, who was not a party to arbitration -- Cannot modify or prejudice independent contractual rights arising under tenancy.

(Para 9)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 Eviction petition -- Impleadment -- Tenant cannot by his unilateral act of inducting a third person into possession without landlord's consent, compel the landlord to implead such person or enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings -- Inter se disputes between tenant and third party are alien to landlord's claim for eviction.

(Paras 10 & 11)

E. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Supervisory jurisdiction -- Interference with discretionary orders -- Power under Article 227 confined to cases of jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity or manifest failure of justice -- High Court cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction as an appellate court merely because another view is possible -- Order refusing impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, being based on settled principles and free from jurisdictional error, calls for no interference.

(Paras 12 to 14)

8. (SC) 04-06-2026

***

Right to travel abroad under Article 21, though a facet of personal liberty, is not absolute and must yield to competing considerations including the victim's right to speedy trial and the societal interest in effective administration of criminal justice.

***

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section  442 -- Right to travel abroad -- Pending criminal proceedings -- Scope and limitations -- Right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 but is not absolute -- Must be balanced against victim's right to speedy trial and societal interest in effective administration of criminal justice -- While considering a request by an accused to travel abroad, courts are required to strike a balance between individual liberty and the need to ensure expeditious progress of criminal proceedings -- Conduct of accused, including institution of successive proceedings, securing interim protections and withdrawal of petitions without adjudication after obtaining interim relief, is a relevant consideration in assessing bona fides -- High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, permitted accused to travel to USA primarily on medical grounds and previous appearances before trial court -- Availability of adequate medical treatment within India and the accused's overall conduct having not been duly considered, revisional order permitting foreign travel held unsustainable and set aside.

(Paras 8-13)

B. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) -- Passport -- Return of passport -- Magistrate directing release of passport while requiring separate permission for foreign travel -- Validity – Mere release of passport does not confer a right to travel abroad -- Accused permitted to retain passport but restrained from leaving India without prior permission of Sessions Court.

(Paras 11 -14)

13. (SC) 01-06-2026

***

Pension -- Temporary status casual labourers – Entitled to pensionary benefits even without formal regularisation.

***

A. Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 -- Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965,  Rule 10(1-B) -- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 -- Pension -- Temporary status casual labourers -- Formal regularisation -- Casual labourers conferred temporary status and, after completion of three years, treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees -- Benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees held to include pensionary benefits -- Entitlement to pension not dependent upon formal regularisation -- Temporary status casual labourers held entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in absence of regularisation.

(Paras 52 to 76)

B. Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, Clauses 6, 7 and 8 -- Pension -- Interpretation of beneficial scheme -- Expression "after regularisation" occurring in Clause 6 -- Scope -- Clause 6 does not create pensionary entitlement but confers additional benefit of counting 50% of service rendered under temporary status towards retirement benefits upon regularisation -- Absence of regularisation not extinguishing underlying entitlement to pension -- Scheme to be construed harmoniously and in a beneficial manner.

(Paras 47 to 49, 56 and 57)

C. Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Rule 10(1-B) -- Pension -- Temporary Government servants -- Qualifying service -- Temporary status casual labourers treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees -- Upon completion of qualifying service of ten years, entitled to superannuation pension, gratuity and family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 -- Pensionary benefits cannot be denied merely on basis of nomenclature or absence of regularisation.

(Paras 70 to 75)

D. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 38, 39, 43 and 300A -- Pension -- Property -- Social welfare measure -- State as model employer -- Pension not a bounty but a vested constitutional right and property within meaning of Article 300A -- Financial burden no ground to deny pensionary benefits earned through long years of service.

(Paras 39 to 41, 74)

E. Service Law -- Delay and laches -- Pensionary benefits -- Continuing cause of action -- Claim for pension cannot be defeated solely on ground of delay -- However, arrears restricted to three years and two months preceding date of filing of Original Applications before Tribunal.

(Para 81)

15. (SC) 29-05-2026

***

Reserved judgments -- Constitutional guidelines issued -- Delay in pronouncement held to affect Article 21 rights and institutional credibility of justice delivery system.

***

Reserved judgments -- Judgment to be ordinarily pronounced within maximum period of 3 months from date of reservation.

***

Bail/ Suspension of sentence/ Acquittal -- Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is pronounced.

***

Bail applications to be pronounced preferably on same day or next day if reserved and uploaded immediately -- Communication of orders to jail authorities and trial courts mandated -- Immediate release directed subject to compliance of conditions.

***

A. Constitution of India, Articles 21, 226 and 227 -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Delay in pronouncement -- Held, right to life and personal liberty includes right to timely adjudication at all stages, including pronouncement of reserved judgments -- Undue delay undermines fairness of adjudicatory process and public confidence in judiciary -- Necessity of systemic reform emphasised.

(Paras 9–11, 18–21)

B. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Supreme Court -- Binding directions -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Comprehensive framework issued governing timelines, monitoring, transparency and accountability in pronouncement of judgments -- Directions declared binding across all High Courts.

(Paras 15–17)

C. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Timelines for pronouncement -- Judgment to be ordinarily pronounced within maximum period of 3 months from date of reservation -- Special expedition mandated in matters involving personal liberty.

(Para 16A(i))

D. Criminal law -- Bail, suspension of sentence, acquittal -- High Courts -- Personal liberty matters -- Bail applications to be pronounced preferably on same day or next day if reserved and uploaded immediately – Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is pronounced.

(Para 16A(c)–(e))

E. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Administrative monitoring -- Monthly automated reporting of pending reserved judgments to Chief Justice mandated -- Registrar General to compile and forward list of delayed matters -- Administrative oversight by Chief Justice strengthened.

(Para 16A(ii)(a), 16B, 17)

F. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Supervisory mechanism -- If judgment not delivered within 3 months, matter to be placed before Chief Justice -- Direction to concerned Bench to pronounce judgment within stipulated time -- In exceptional cases, matter may be reassigned to another Bench for rehearing.

(Para 16A(ii)(c)–(d))

G. High Courts -- Transparency -- Website disclosure -- Mandatory display of reserved judgments pending beyond 3 months -- Separate disclosure of cases where operative order delivered but reasoned judgment pending -- Automated email/SMS alerts to advocates introduced.

(Para 16B)

H. High Courts -- Judgments -- Operative order and reasoned judgment -- Where operative part is pronounced, reasoned judgment to be uploaded within 7–15 days -- Delay beyond prescribed period triggers administrative review and litigant remedies.

(Para 16A(i)(i), 16A(ii)(e))

I. High Courts -- Remedies to litigants -- Delay in pronouncement -- If judgment not pronounced within 3 months, party entitled to file application for early pronouncement -- If delay persists, party may approach Chief Justice for re-assignment of matter to another Bench.

(Para 16A(iii))

J. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments – Institutional reform directed to ensure timely pronouncement of judgments and judicial accountability.

(Paras 15–17)

25. (SC) 25-05-2026

***

Probate of Will -- Criminal investigation -- Testamentary jurisdiction -- High Court while exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not cease to be Constitutional Court possessing inherent and plenary powers and can exercise constitutional powers to protect estate.

***

Probate of Will -- Perjury -- Section 340 of the Code held applicable to all proceedings in all Courts in criminal cases or civil cases irrespective of fact whether matter involves offence mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C.

***

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Sections 247, 269, 300 -- Constitution of India, Article 215 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Probate of Will -- Testamentary jurisdiction -- Administrator pendente lite -- Court-monitored investigation -- Jurisdiction of High Court -- Challenge to order of High Court directing court-monitored criminal investigation into affairs of deceased -- Primary function of Probate Court is to adjudicate execution and genuineness of Will -- However, High Court while exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not cease to be Constitutional Court possessing inherent and plenary powers -- If High Court notices glaring irregularities or element of mischief played by executor, it cannot remain silent spectator and can exercise plenary and constitutional powers to protect estate.

(Paras 29 to 41)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Sections 247, 269, 300 -- Constitution of India, Article 215 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Probate of Will -- Perjury -- Exercise of powers by High Court -- Under Section 340(3)(a), where Court making complaint is High Court, an officer of that Court may be appointed to make complaint -- Since High Court was exercising testamentary jurisdiction, it was permissible for officer of High Court registry to make complaint -- Object and scope of Section 340 is to institute enquiry and ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in Court -- Section 340 of the Code held applicable to all proceedings in all Courts in criminal cases or civil cases irrespective of fact whether matter involves offence mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C.

(Para 41)

28. (SC) 19-05-2026

Recruitment -- Appointment of Principal -- Waitlisted candidate -- Recommended for appointment in one college but failed to join -- Fresh recommendation for another college on basis of subsequent vacancy held impermissible -- Appointment contrary to statutory scheme.

***

Recruitment -- Repeal and savings -- Enforcement of new selection statute -- After repeal of old Act, authorities could not revive old select list or issue fresh recommendation under repealed provisions.

***

Locus standi -- Officiating Principal -- Challenge to illegal appointment -- Officiating Principal competent to challenge appointment made contrary to statutory provisions -- Objection regarding locus standi held insignificant where action of authorities was ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction.

***

A. Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (16 of 1980), Sections 12, 13(3), 13(4) and 14 -- Appointment of Principal -- Waitlisted candidate -- Change of posting -- Appellant, a waitlisted candidate, was recommended for appointment as Principal in specific college but did not join on account of personal reasons -- Thereafter sought appointment in another college against subsequent vacancy -- Fresh recommendation in favour of appellant held contrary to statutory scheme and law laid down in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma case, (1998) 3 SCC 45 -- Appointment rightly quashed.

(Paras 18 to 23)

B. Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (15 of 2023), Sections 10, 11 and 31 -- Repeal and savings -- Validity of old select list -- Old Act stood repealed on enforcement of New Act -- Only recommendation already issued under Old Act could survive under saving clause -- Authorities could not revive old select list or issue fresh recommendation under repealed provisions.

(Paras 16 to 24)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Locus standi -- Officiating Principal -- Challenge to illegal appointment -- Officiating Principal competent to challenge recommendation and appointment made contrary to statutory provisions -- Where action of authorities is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction, objection regarding locus standi loses significance.

(Paras 27, 28)

43. (H.P. HC) 25-04-2026

***

Family pension -- Entitlement -- Second marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage -- Long cohabitation and documentary evidence of marriage -- Even if marriage is void under Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act, relationship not immoral -- Entitlement to family pension upheld on principles of social justice and economic empowerment -- Appeal allowed and family pension granted.

***

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1955), Section 5(i) -- Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Section 114 -- CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, Rule 50 -- Family pension to second wife -- Entitlement -- Appellant claiming family pension of deceased employee as widow -- Marriage disputed on ground of subsisting first marriage -- Evidence of affidavit of deceased, Parivar Register entry and long cohabitation produced – In Section 9 petition marriage held to be nullity -- Presumption of valid marriage drawn under Section 114 Evidence Act based on long cohabitation -- Held, even if marriage is void under Section 5(i) HMA, such relationship though illegal is not immoral -- Financially dependent partner cannot be denied relief solely on that ground -- Claim of the appellant for grant of family pension is governed by the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules -- Interpretation of pension rules to advance social justice, dignity and economic empowerment of women -- Object of family pension analogous to maintenance jurisprudence -- Deceased had treated appellant as nominee and cohabitation continued for long period -- Appellant held entitled to family pension as widow for purposes of CCS Pension Rules -- Impugned judgment set aside -- Appeal allowed.

(Paras 1–5, 7–12, 14–21)

46. (H.P. HC) 17-04-2026

***

Panchayat election -- False declaration -- Concealment of pending criminal case in nomination form amounts to false declaration and valid ground for annulment of election.

***

Panchayat election -- Disqualification -- Six years’ bar from contesting elections under Section 146(2) of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act held neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.

***

Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (4 of 1994), Sections 122(1)(n), 131, 146(1), 146(2) -- Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21, 226 -- Panchayat election -- False declaration in nomination form -- Concealment of pendency of criminal case -- Election of petitioner as Pardhan earlier set aside on ground of deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents -- Deputy Commissioner thereafter disqualified petitioner for six years under Section 146(2) -- Challenge to constitutional validity of Section 146(2) on ground that punishment was harsh, disproportionate and arbitrary for want of discretion to impose lesser penalty -- Rejected -- Held, disclosure of criminal antecedents in nomination form is mandatory and concealment thereof constitutes false declaration attracting statutory disqualification --  Six years’ disqualification cannot be termed arbitrary or disproportionate as legislative intent is to ensure exclusion of disqualified candidate from at least the next Panchayat election cycle -- Provision enacted to preserve purity, transparency and accountability in electoral process -- Section 146(2) constitutionally valid.

(Paras 11 to 19)

47. (SC) 08-04-2026

Impleadment as party in writ proceedings -- A person directly affected by an interim order in writ proceedings impleaded as a proper party cannot be denied impleadment merely because he was not an original party.

In writ proceedings, the principles of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC guide impleadment.

Necessary and proper party – A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed and a proper party is one whose presence enables complete and effective adjudication.

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment in writ proceedings -- Necessary and proper party – High Court declined prayer of appellant to be impleaded in pending writ petition and also refused clarification/modification of interim order – Record showed that interim order passed in writ petition was relied upon by municipal authorities while dealing with appellant’s case and revised building plans were rejected on footing that operation of the 2025 Rules had been kept in abeyance – Held, where a person is directly and demonstrably affected by an interim order passed in writ proceedings, such person cannot be shut out merely because he was not an original party – At the least he is a proper party whose presence enables Court to effectively adjudicate consequences of its own order – High Court erred in holding that appellant had no lis – Order refusing impleadment set aside – Appellant directed to be impleaded in writ petition.

(Paras 7-18)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Writ – Impleadment of Necessary/ Proper party -- Though proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not to be controlled by the technicalities of pleadings as in an ordinary civil suit, the principles underlying Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC continue to furnish sound guidance -- A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed -- A proper party is one whose presence enables the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon the questions involved.

(Para 7)

48. (SC) 02-04-2026

Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Review of Punishment – Courts ordinarily should not interfere with punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, being the best judge of misconduct, unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, amounting to using a “sledgehammer to crack a nut”.

Disciplinary Proceedings – Parity in punishment – Harsher punishment imposed on a higher-ranking officer (Senior Manager) as compared to co-delinquents holding lower posts is justified as higher rank entails greater responsibility and accountability.

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Review of Punishment – Scope of Interference by Courts – Normally, in exercise of the power of judicial review, courts should not interfere with the punishment imposed on a delinquent employee by the competent disciplinary authority or substitute their own judgment for that of the authority – The disciplinary authority is the best judge, interference is warranted only where the punishment is so disproportionate that it appears the disciplinary authority has “used a sledgehammer to crack a nut” – A punishment that is strikingly or shockingly disproportionate and not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct proved would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Doctrine of Proportionality – Parity in punishment – Higher-ranking officer vis-à-vis subordinates – Respondent, a Senior Manager (MMGS-III), dismissed from service for misconduct, while co-delinquents (officer and gunman) were awarded lesser punishment – High Court interfered granting parity – Held, impermissible – Higher rank carries greater responsibility, trust and accountability – Therefore, harsher punishment for a higher-ranking official cannot be equated with punishment imposed on lower-ranking employees – Grant of parity solely on the ground that co-delinquents received lighter punishment is misconceived -- High Court erred in interfering with the disciplinary authority’s decision – Punishment of dismissal restored – Appeal allowed.

(Para 10-18)