LawLoveLegal

Courts Cannot Recall Signed Orders Except for Clerical Errors I. Background of the Case In a rare and procedurally significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India restored anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a narcotics case after holding that the Patna High Court acted without jurisdiction in recalling a bail order that had already been signed. The case highlights a critical question of criminal procedure: Can a court undo a signed judicial order because of an internal staff error? The Supreme Court answered with a clear no . II. FIR and Allegations Under NDPS Act The case originated from an FIR registered in October 2024 in Vaishali district, Bihar , under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) . Key Allegations: 6.33 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from a co-accused During interrogation, the co-accused claimed that the contraband was meant to be delivered to Rambali Sahni No recovery was made from Sahni S...

Introduction In a significant ruling reinforcing the balance between judicial oversight and investigative autonomy , the Supreme Court of India has held that fixing timelines for completion of criminal investigations must remain an exception and not the norm . The judgment cautions High Courts against routinely prescribing time-bound probes under Article 226 of the Constitution , emphasising that investigations are inherently complex and unpredictable. The ruling came while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to complete an investigation into an alleged arms licence forgery within three months and granted the accused protection from arrest. Background of the Case The case arose from allegations that three accused had obtained arms licences using forged documents . The police initiated the investigation in May 2024 . In June–July 2024 , the Allahabad High Court: Directed the police to complete the investigation within 90 days Granted the a...

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has strongly reaffirmed the finality and binding nature of Constitution Bench judgments , rejecting a writ petition that sought to reopen the settled issue of minority educational institutions’ exemption from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) . In a stern order, the Court not only dismissed the plea but also imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner NGO , calling the petition a “gross abuse” of judicial process and a threat to the institutional integrity of the judiciary. Background of the Petition Petitioner and Relief Sought The petition was filed by an NGO, United Voice for Education Forum , invoking Article 32 of the Constitution , seeking: A declaration that the exemption granted to minority educational institutions from the RTE Act is unconstitutional Inclusion of minority schools— aided and unaided —within the ambit of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act , which mandates 25% reservation at entry leve...