Supreme Court held that Legislative Assembly Speakers acts as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and doesn’t enjoy the constitutional immunity from judicial scrutiny under Article 122 and 212 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The Court held that a direction under Section 142(2A) entails civil consequences and requires a pre-decisional hearing. It reaffirmed the application of natural justice principles.
The Court held that differing judicial interpretations made the answer ambiguous. It granted relief by recognizing both answers as valid and directed accommodation of both candidates.
The Supreme Court held that the National Green Tribunal cannot order removal of encroachments when the dispute does not involve a substantial environmental question under Schedule I laws. The ruling clarifies limits of NGT jurisdiction in cases involving municipal or town planning violations.
The Supreme Court held that employer-provided group insurance benefits cannot be deducted from motor accident compensation as they arise from an independent contractual relationship. It ruled that such benefits do not have a direct nexus with the accident and cannot reduce statutory compensation.
The issue involved expiring tenures of tribunal members and lack of replacement mechanisms. The Supreme Court permitted a uniform extension framework up to September 2026. The decision aims to maintain operational tribunals pending legislative reform.
The Supreme Court asked the government to review policies promoting pulses cultivation after concerns were raised about insufficient MSP incentives and market support for farmers.
The Court directed authorities to submit an updated report on illegal encroachments along the River Ganga after finding that the existing data was outdated and insufficient for final directions.
The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail while directing the accused to cooperate with investigation, surrender passport and avoid influencing witnesses. The Court held that bail would stand cancelled if the conditions are violated.
A man convicted in a murder case, holding that Call Detail Records (CDRs) could not be relied upon in evidence unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
