The Court held that unhygienic public facilities near a residence infringe the right to life and dignity under Article 21. MCD was directed to demolish the structures and provide proper waste management facilities.
A leading bar body has raised concerns over critical Supreme Court observations while setting aside a bail order, stating such remarks can demoralize judges and impact judicial independence.
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order reducing a three-year jail sentence in an attempt-to-murder case, holding that compensation cannot substitute custodial punishment. It stressed proportional sentencing and deterrence.
The High Court confirmed life imprisonment for parents who poisoned their mentally ill daughter, ruling that personal hardship cannot justify murder. The judgment stresses absolute parental responsibility.
The Delhi High Court held that prolonged pendency of bail applications causes trauma and violates the fundamental rights of accused persons. Granting bail in a murder case, the Court stressed that bail pleas must be decided promptly, whether allowed or dis-missed.
The Court set aside bail after finding concealment of criminal history and ignored evidence of forged qualifications. It laid down a recommendatory framework mandating full disclosure in bail applications.
The Supreme Court recommended that all High Courts incorporate rules requiring accused persons to disclose involvement in previous criminal cases in bail applications. The Court also expunged adverse remarks made against a Judicial Officer, holding them uncalled for.
The High Court upheld temple entry by non-Hindu invitees when authorised by the Thanthri. It ruled that such permissive entry does not breach the temple entry law.
Setting aside an unauthorised transfer order, the Court held that CJMs lack jurisdiction to move criminal trials between courts. The ruling reinforces strict adherence to statutory limits on judicial powers.
The High Court refused bail, citing prima facie evidence of bribery to influence a court order. The ruling underscores zero tolerance for acts undermining public trust in the judiciary.
