19 July 2025 Legal Updates

APPEAL FULLY ABATES IF LRS OF DECEASED PARTY IN JOINT DECREE NOT SUBSTITUTED', SUPREME COURT SUMMARISES LAW ON SUIT ABATEMENT

(a) Case Title: 

• Suresh Chandra (Deceased) Thr. LRs & Ors. v. Parasram & Ors.

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision: 

• July 18, 2025

(d) Bench: 

• Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra

Background:

The case arose from a civil suit filed by Parasram (respondent) against Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu (appellants) for declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits over a property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it in favor of Parasram. The appellants then filed a second appeal before the High Court.

During the pendency of the second appeal, Ram Babu (appellant no. 2) died, and his legal representatives (LRs) were not substituted within the stipulated time. The High Court declared the appeal abated and rejected applications for condonation of delay.

Key Legal Issues:

• Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the delay condonation applications for substituting Ram Babu’s LRs.
• Whether the second appeal abated wholly or partially due to non-substitution of Ram Babu’s LRs.

Supreme Court’s Decision:

1. On Condonation of Delay:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, noting that the appellants failed to show "sufficient cause" for the delay. Ram Babu died in 2015, but substitution applications were filed only in 2022, indicating negligence.

2. On Abatement of Appeal:

The Court ruled that the second appeal abated wholly (not partially) because:

The defendants (Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu) had a joint defense claiming common title through their father. If the appeal proceeded and succeeded for the surviving appellant (Suresh Chandra’s LRs), it would create inconsistent decrees: one holding Ram Babu (through his LRs) as a tenant (final due to abatement) and another holding Suresh Chandra as the owner.

The Court emphasized that Order XLI Rule 4 CPC (allowing one defendant to appeal for all) does not apply when all defendants jointly file an appeal and one dies without substitution.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Abatement Rules (Order XXII CPC):

• If a party dies and LRs are not substituted, the appeal abates.
• The abatement is whole (not partial) if the decree is joint and indivisible, and its reversal would lead to conflicting decrees.

2. Order XLI Rule 4 CPC:

• Allows one co-party to appeal for all if the decree is based on common grounds.
• However, this provision does not override abatement rules when all appellants jointly file an appeal and one dies.

Decision:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that:

The delay in substitution was unjustified and the second appeal abated entirely as the defendants’ joint defense made the decree inseparable.

MAKE RULE MANDATING DISCLOSURE OF ANTECEDENTS & EARLIER PLEAS IN BAIL APPLICATIONS: SUPREME COURT TO HIGH COURTS

(a) Case Title:

• Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 18, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta (3-Judge Bench)

Key Facts

A District Judge from Rajasthan (Kaushal Singh) was criticized by the Rajasthan High Court for granting bail to an accused person named Sethu @ Angrej in a case involving serious offenses including attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC). The High Court found that the judge had acted inappropriately by:

• Ignoring the criminal antecedents of the accused
• Misapplying legal precedents
• Failing to follow proper procedures for bail applications

The High Court passed strictures against the judicial officer and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Justice for disciplinary action.

Legal Issues

• Whether High Courts can pass strictures against judicial officers in judicial orders?
• What is the proper procedure for dealing with judicial misconduct?
• What are the requirements for considering criminal antecedents in bail applications?

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court expunged the strictures passed against the judicial officer, holding that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing personal strictures against judicial officers in their judgments.

Key Legal Principles Established

1. Prohibition on Personal Strictures:

• Courts should criticize erroneous orders but avoid personal criticism of judicial officers

2. Alternative Procedure:

Instead of public criticism, High Courts should:

• Decide the case on merits without personal observations
• Separately communicate concerns to the Chief Justice through confidential proceedings
• Allow the judicial officer opportunity to explain on the administrative side

3. Five Reasons Against Public Strictures:

• Violates natural justice (condemns officer unheard)
• Causes irreparable harm to reputation
• Undermines judicial authority
• Forces judicial officer to become a litigant
• Demoralizes the judiciary

Practical Direction

The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to consider incorporating rules requiring accused persons to disclose their criminal antecedents in bail applications, similar to Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules.

CAMPUS SUICIDES: SUPREME COURT ISSUES DIRECTIONS TO SMOOTHEN NTF'S FUNCTIONING

(a) Case Title:

• Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 14, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Key Facts:

This case deals with student mental health and prevention of student suicides in higher education institutions. The Supreme Court had previously established a National Task Force (NTF) on Mental Health of Students and Prevention of Student Suicides through a judgment dated March 24, 2025.

Main Issues and Orders:

1. National Task Force Progress:

The NTF is chaired by retired Justice S. Ravindra Bhat has conducted multiple meetings since March 2025. It has also developed comprehensive research methodology including surveys, field visits, and stakeholder consultations and piloted questionnaires at institutions in Delhi and Bengaluru. Further it has received ethical approval from NIMHANS Ethics Review Committee.

2. Challenges Faced by NTF:

• Lack of physical space for secretariat
• Delays in website creation
• Academic institutions closed for summer break
• Incomplete response from state governments regarding nodal officers
• Data access issues with NCRB and other agencies

3. Court's Directions:

• Ministry of Home Affairs: Secretary to be appointed as ex-officio member of NTF to facilitate data access
• Physical Space: Union directed to provide suitable workspace within 4 weeks
• Nodal Officers: 12 states/UTs given 2 weeks to appoint nodal officers or face action against Chief Secretaries
• Investigation Updates: Reports sought on FIRs related to IIT Delhi, IIT Kharagpur, and Kota student suicides
• States/UTs Required to Appoint Nodal Officers: Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tamil Nadu, J&K & Ladakh, and Lakshadweep.