10 September 2025 Legal Updates

RESERVED CATEGORY CANDIDATES AVAILING AGE RELAXATION BARRED FROM MIGRATING TO GENERAL CATEGORY SEATS IF RULES FORBID: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 9, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Background Facts

• The case involved recruitment for Constables (GD) in paramilitary forces (BSF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, NIA, SSF) and Rifleman in Assam Rifles conducted by Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The age limit was 18-23 years as of August 1, 2015, with 3 years age relaxation for OBC candidates.
• The respondents (OBC candidates) availed this age relaxation but failed to qualify in the OBC category. However, their marks were higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved category for their respective departments.

Legal Issue

Can OBC candidates who availed age relaxation but failed to qualify in their reserved category be considered for selection in the unreserved category if they scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate?

High Court Decision

The Delhi High Court allowed the migration, relying on the precedent in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2010), holding that:

• Refusing migration would violate merit-based recruitment principles
• Age relaxation doesn't affect the "level playing field" in open competition
• Such relaxations are merely "aids to reservation"

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision and held that migration is not permitted when there's an express embargo.

Key Legal Principles Established:

• Rule-Specific Analysis: Whether reserved candidates can migrate to unreserved category depends on the specific recruitment rules applicable to each case.
• Office Memorandum dated July 1, 1998: This government instruction clearly states that SC/ST/OBC candidates who avail relaxations (age limit, experience qualification, number of chances) "shall be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies."
• Distinguishing Precedents: The Court distinguished Jitendra Kumar Singh case, noting it was based on different statutory provisions that expressly permitted migration.
• Case-by-Case Basis: The Court emphasized that each recruitment process must be analyzed based on its governing rules rather than applying general principles universally.

Important Legal Maxim Applied

The Court cited Lord Halsbury's principle from Quinn v. Leathem: "Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved... a case is only an authority for what it actually decides."

SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN FOUR-STEP TEST FOR HIGH COURTS TO QUASH CRIMINAL CASES UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC/ 528 BNSS

(a) Case Title:

• Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 2, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the Case

• A woman filed a private complaint in 2014 against Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, alleging rape and other offences that supposedly occurred in 2010. She claimed that Kesarwani befriended her at a coaching institute, raped her and made a video to blackmail her. He promised to marry her but later refused. She became pregnant in 2011, and he forced her to abort. When she asked him to marry her, he and his family made casteist remarks.
• The Magistrate took cognizance and summoned Kesarwani for trial under Section 376 IPC (rape). The High Court of Allahabad dismissed his petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.

Legal Issues

• Whether criminal proceedings based on a frivolous and vexatious complaint should be quashed
• The distinction between rape and consensual sex in cases involving promise of marriage
• The duty of courts when dealing with manifestly frivolous complaints

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that:

Key Legal Principles Established:

1. Test for Frivolous Complaints:

• Courts must look beyond the complaint's averments and examine the overall circumstances leading to case registration, materials collected during investigation and whether proceedings serve any useful purpose.

2. Promise of Marriage Cases:

• Courts must distinguish between: False promise made from the beginning with mala fide intent (rape) and genuine promise that couldn't be fulfilled due to circumstances (not rape).

3. Four-Step Test for Quashing:

Courts should examine:

• Whether material is sound and indubitable
• Whether material rules out charges
• Whether material hasn't been refuted by prosecution
• Whether continuing trial would abuse court process

Reasons for Quashing

The Court found the complaint was frivolous because there was a 4-year delay in filing complaint with no explanation. There were vague allegations without specific dates/places. There was no independent evidence supporting claims. Even appellant's parents were unnecessarily made accused and lastly, the complainant refused to accept Supreme Court notice, showing lack of seriousness.

IBC | HOMEBUYERS CAN'T BE DENIED FLAT POSSESSION IF THEIR CLAIMS WERE VERIFIED & ADMITTED BY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 9, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Key Facts

Appellants were homebuyers from Bengaluru who had booked an apartment in IREO Rise (Gardenia) project in Mohali, developed by M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited (Corporate Debtor).

1. Timeline:

• 2010: Apartment booked
• 2011: Buyer's Agreement executed for Rs. 60,06,368/-
• Appellants paid Rs. 57,56,684/- (almost entire consideration)
• 2013: Possession was due but not delivered
• 2018: CIRP commenced against Corporate Debtor

2. Claim Filing Issue:

• Appellants claimed they filed their claim on January 11, 2019 (disputed). Undisputedly refiled claim on February 7, 2020. Claim was verified and admitted by Resolution Professional. Listed as Serial No. 636 in creditors' list dated April 30, 2020.

Legal Issue

Whether homebuyers whose claims were verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional should be treated as:

• Clause 18.4(vi)(a): Entitled to possession/conveyance deed, OR
• Clause 18.4(xi): "Belated claimants" entitled only to 50% refund

Lower Courts' Decisions

• National Company Law Tribunal: Rejected appellants' application, held them entitled only to 50% refund under Clause 18.4(xi)
• National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: Affirmed NCLT's decision, treating appellants as belated claimants

Supreme Court's Reasoning

1. Verification is Key:

• Once the Resolution Professional verified and admitted the claim (Serial No. 636), it acquired full legal recognition in CIRP process.

2. Clause Interpretation:

• Clause 18.4(xi) applies only to unverified/uninformed claims
• Appellants' case falls under Clause 18.4(ii) read with 18.4(vi)(a) as their claim was verified and admitted

3. Protection of Homebuyers:

• Relegating bona fide homebuyers who paid substantial consideration to mere refund claimants contradicts the legislative framework's objectives.

Supreme Court's Decision

Allowed the appeal and Set aside both NCLAT and NCLT orders and further directed respondents to execute conveyance deed and hand over possession within 2 months

Key Legal Principles

• Homebuyer Protection: IBC provides special protection to homebuyers as financial creditors
• Resolution Plan Interpretation: Courts must interpret resolution plan clauses purposively, not mechanically
• Verification Significance: Once Resolution Professional verifies and admits a claim, it cannot be arbitrarily downgraded
• Equity in Insolvency: Bona fide claimants who have paid substantial amounts deserve equitable treatment