2 April 2025 Legal Updates

  DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CAN'T BE INITIATED AGAINST QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICER MERELY ON GROUND OF PASSING WRONG ORDER: SUPREME COURT  

a. Case Title:

• Amresh Shrivastava vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

b. Court:

• Supreme Court of India

c. Date of Decision:

• April 1, 2025

d. Bench:

• Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih

Background:

This case concerns the scope of disciplinary action against quasi-judicial officers for orders passed in their official capacity, and the effect of inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings.

Facts

Amresh Shrivastava (Appellant) was appointed as Naib Tehsildar in 1981 and promoted to Tehsildar in 1991. In 1997, while posted as Tehsildar in Gwalior, he passed a land settlement order in favor of Kuber Singh and Madho Singh after following due procedure. After 12 years, in 2009, the Collector of Gwalior issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that the land settlement was granted to ineligible persons illegally. In 2011, a chargesheet was issued by the Commissioner, Gwalior, alleging dishonesty in executing the land settlement.The Appellant challenged the chargesheet through a writ petition, seeking protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985.

Procedural History

• A Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the chargesheet solely on the ground of inordinate delay.
• The Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, holding that protection is not available to officers who act negligently or confer undue favor.
• The Appellant challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether the chargesheet falls within the exceptions carved out in the K.K. Dhawan case that permit disciplinary action against judicial/quasi-judicial officers?
• Whether inordinate unexplained delay (14 years) in issuing a chargesheet is a ground for quashing it?

Supreme Court's Findings

1. On Disciplinary Action Against Quasi-Judicial Officers

• The Court referred to the K.K. Dhawan case, which outlines situations where disciplinary action can be taken against judicial officers.
• The Court found that the charges against the Appellant merely suggested a wrongful order without allegations of extraneous influence, bribery, or gratification.
• The Court relied on precedents including Virendra Kumar Singh vs. State of MP, Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India, and Krishna Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar, which establish that disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely because a quasi-judicial order is incorrect without evidence of misconduct or extraneous influence.

2. On Delay in Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings

• The Court held that while each case depends on its facts, in this case, the unexplained inordinate delay of 14 years favored the employee.
• The Court distinguished between cases where the department was unaware of irregularities and those where misconduct was known but action was delayed.
• The Court cited State of MP vs. Bani Singh and P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, TN Housing Board, which established that continuing departmental proceedings after undue delay would be unjust.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment, and restored the Single Judge's order quashing the chargesheet.

  S.319 CRPC | ADDITIONAL ACCUSED CAN BE SUMMONED BASED ON WITNESS'S STATEMENT WITHOUT CROSS-EXAMINATION: SUPREME COURT  

a. Case Title:

• Satbir Singh vs. Rajesh Kumar and Others

b. Court:

• Supreme Court of India

c. Date of Decision:

• April 1, 2025

d. Bench:

• Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan

Background:

This case examines the scope and application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers a court to summon additional accused persons during an ongoing trial.

Facts

On February 9, 2020, Satbir Singh (appellant) and Mukesh were admitted to hospitals with injuries following an assault during a volleyball game in village Rasulpur Khurd, Karnal. Initially, based on Mukesh's statement, an FIR was registered against Satbir. However, investigation revealed that Mukesh's allegations were not substantiated, leading to a closure report.

When Satbir regained consciousness on February 14, 2020, he alleged that after an altercation during volleyball, Mukesh returned with a knife accompanied by Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit armed with lathis. Neeraj held him while Mukesh stabbed him, and Rajesh threatened him.

Police registered a cross-case but after investigation found no involvement of Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit. Only Mukesh was charged under Sections 307, 323, 324, 506/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. During trial, Satbir (as PW-1) filed an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit as additional accused.

Procedural History

The Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal allowed Satbir's application under Section 319 CrPC on September 13, 2021.

Rajesh, Neeraj, Sagar @ Bittoo, and Ankit challenged this order in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court allowed their revision petition on March 7, 2024, setting aside the Sessions Judge's order.

Satbir appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued notice only to Rajesh and Neeraj (respondents 1 and 3), as the petition against Sagar @ Bittoo and Ankit was dismissed.

Issues

The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.

Supreme Court's Analysis

1. The Court reaffirmed the law on Section 319 CrPC as laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), particularly:

• The power can be exercised against persons not named in the FIR or not charge-sheeted
• The degree of satisfaction required is more than prima facie (as needed for framing a charge) but less than what would lead to conviction if evidence goes unrebutted.
• The court need not wait for evidence to be tested by cross-examination

2. The Court criticized the High Court's reasoning:

The High Court erroneously relied on police reports that found no involvement of the additional accused. It failed to consider the Sessions Judge's satisfaction based on Satbir's examination-in-chief. The High Court should have adopted a "hands off" approach in its revisional jurisdiction.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Additional Sessions Judge's order summoning Rajesh and Neeraj to face trial. The Court clarified that its observations should not be construed as an opinion on their involvement in the crime and directed the Sessions Judge to conclude the trial expeditiously.

  NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BE CREMATED OR BURIED AT A SPECIFIC SITE, AUTHORITIES WILL DECIDE WHERE TO CREMATE OR BURY A CITIZEN: BOMBAY HIGH COURT  

a. Case Title:

• Lakhani's Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Chairman, CIDCO & Ors.

b. Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Bombay

c. Date of Decision:

• March 28, 2025

d. Bench:

• Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata

Background:

This case concerns a dispute over the construction of a crematorium in Ulwe, Navi Mumbai, and highlights the balance between traditional usage rights and urban planning.

Facts

The petitioners, two cooperative housing societies located in Sector 9, Ulwe, filed a writ petition seeking to prevent CIDCO (City and Industrial Development Corporation) from approving a crematorium on some plots of Sector 9, Ulwe. The petitioners claimed the plots were reserved for a petrol pump as per CIDCO's Development Plan, but construction of a crematorium had been initiated.

After receiving complaints, CIDCO officials attempted to demolish the structure on November 9, 2023, but were prevented by villagers from Kharkopar who staged a massive protest. Two other societies supported the petition through an intervention application. The residents of village Kharkopar opposed the petition through another intervention application, claiming the crematorium had existed for over 250 years and had been recognized by CIDCO through various development grants between 2006-2008.

Contentions of Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• The crematorium was located in the middle of residential societies, commercial shops, and near a school and playground, causing mental impact on children.
• The wood-burning cremation process created fire, smoke, foul smell, and air pollution, affecting the mental and physical health of residents.
• Another crematorium was already available 15-20 minutes away.
• The construction was illegal and influenced by powerful persons.

Intervening Villagers' Arguments

• The crematorium had existed for over 250 years at the same location.
• CIDCO had sanctioned funds for its development in 2007-2008.
• CIDCO had issued work orders for construction in 2020 but later changed the location.
• The villagers had repeatedly requested upgrades to the existing crematorium.
• Shifting the crematorium would cause hardship to the villagers.

CIDCO's Arguments

• CIDCO is the planning authority for Navi Mumbai's development.
• A crematorium was initially planned at Plot No. 176, Sector 9, Ulwe, at the request of local villagers.
• The plan was cancelled due to technical issues including "wet lands" concerns.
• A new crematorium was relocated to Plot No. 1, Sector 14, Ulwe, which is now functional.
• CIDCO had attempted to demolish the unauthorized structure but was prevented by villagers.

Court's Analysis

• Planning authorities (in this case, CIDCO) are responsible for providing crematoriums, and citizens do not have a fundamental right to seek a particular place for cremation.
• CIDCO had provided a fully functional crematorium approximately 3.5 kilometers away from the disputed plot.
• The court found that the societies were situated in close proximity to the cremation ground, as evidenced by photographs.
• The villagers' argument that they would have to travel a greater distance to use the new crematorium was not sufficient to justify continuing the current crematorium.

Decision

The court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to use the land as per the Sanctioned Development Plans in accordance with law, effectively preventing the continuation of the crematorium on the disputed plots.