LawLoveLegal

CASE BACKGROUND — DISMISSAL OF A DISTRICT JUDGE FOR GRANTING BAIL IN EXCISE CASES The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of Nirbhay Singh Suliya , former Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khargone (Madhya Pradesh), who was removed from service in 2014 on allegations of: exercising judicial discretion improperly in bail orders under the MP Excise Act showing alleged “double standards” in granting or denying bail The disciplinary action was initiated after a complaint was filed in 2011 alleging corruption and irregularity in bail orders relating to seized liquor quantities above 50 bulk litres. An enquiry was conducted under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 , resulting in his dismissal, which was affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in July 2024. The officer challenged this before the Supreme Court. SUPREME COURT’S CENTRAL OBSERVATION — “FEAR CANNOT CONTROL JUDICIAL DISCRETION” Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala Justice KV Visw...

INTRODUCTION The Jharkhand High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on officials of the State Water Resources Department for filing what it termed a “most bogus and frivolous” civil review petition, observing that the petition was filed with the oblique motive of delaying execution of an arbitral award payable to a Bihar-based construction company, M/s R.K. Construction Private Limited. The Court directed that the fine be paid personally by the concerned officials and deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). CASE BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATION AWARD The dispute arose out of civil works carried out in Jamshedpur under the Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project. The construction company was awarded approximately ₹2.5 crore through arbitration, following a dispute with the Water Resources Department over unpaid dues for executed works. After the arbitral award, the company initiated execution proceedings before the competent court to recover the awarded amount. Durin...

The Supreme Court of India has once again reaffirmed a core constitutional promise: governance must empower, not burden, citizens. In a landmark judgment led by Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar , the Court struck down an additional bureaucratic requirement imposed by the Jharkhand government, calling it illegal, superfluous, and contrary to principles of good governance. This article examines the statutory background, constitutional foundations, judicial reasoning, and broader relevance of this decision. 1. Constitutional Value of Simplicity and Good Governance The Supreme Court emphasised that simplicity in public transactions is a constitutional value . Procedural efficiency forms part of good governance , which flows from: Relevant Constitutional Provisions Article 14 – Mandates non-arbitrariness in State action; unnecessary procedural barriers violate the equality principle. Article 21 – Expands to include administrative fairness and efficiency; e...

The Bombay High Court has delivered an important ruling that clearly defines the limits of criminal liability under the Maharashtra Obscene Dance Act and the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that simply being present at a dance bar does not automatically make a customer a criminal offender. This judgment significantly reinforces legal safeguards against arbitrary arrests and wrongful criminal prosecution in cases involving dance bar raids. Background of the Case During a police raid conducted on the night of May 4–5, 2024, at Surabhi Palace Bar and Restaurant in Chembur, Mumbai, a total of 11 individuals were detained. These included the bar manager, orchestra artists, women dancers, and multiple customers. The police filed charges alleging that women were performing obscene dances in violation of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, 2016. A customer was also booked under: Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Disobedience of public order Provisions of ...

Introduction The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, introduced in the Lok Sabha (Bill No. 111 of 2025), seeks to address a significant constitutional vacuum. At present, there is no explicit provision in the Indian Constitution for the removal of a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister who is arrested and detained in custody on serious criminal charges. This Bill aims to set a framework to safeguard constitutional morality, public trust, and good governance . Key Amendments Proposed 1. Amendment to Article 75 (Union Ministers) A Union Minister, including the Prime Minister, who is arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable with imprisonment of five years or more , shall be removed from office . The President shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister himself is in custody, he must resign within 31 days . If not, he will automatically cease to hold office. 2. Amendment to Article 164...