09 May 2025 Legal Updates

POLICE MUST REGISTER REGULAR FIR AND NOT 'ZERO FIR' IF PART OF ALLEGED OFFENCE OCCURRED WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title: 

• Ms. X v. State of NCT of Delhi & Others

(b) Court: 

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 

(c) Date of Decision: 

• 2nd May 2025 

(d) Bench: 

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula 

Facts:

The petitioner (Ms. X) filed a complaint alleging sexual assault by Aman Garg under false promises of marriage.  A Zero FIR was registered at P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Delhi under the following provisions of the IPC- Sections 376- rape/506- criminal intimidation /509- outraging modesty. However, the investigation was later transferred to, Noida, UP, where the second FIR was registered.  The petitioner contested the transfer, arguing that part of the offence occurred within Delhi’s jurisdiction (at her residence in Adarsh Nagar). 

Legal Issues:

• Whether the registration of a Zero FIR and transfer to UP was justified when the offence allegedly occurred partly in Delhi. 
• Whether the police failed in their duty under Section 154 CrPC by not registering a regular FIR in Delhi. 

Court’s Observations & Ruling:

1. Zero FIR Concept: 

• As per Section 154 CrPC, police must register an FIR for cognizable offences, even if outside their jurisdiction (via Zero FIR).  However, if the offence occurred within the jurisdiction, a regular FIR must be registered. 

2. Territorial Jurisdiction: 

• The court noted that the petitioner’s statement disclosed an incident of assault in Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, giving P.S. Adarsh Nagar jurisdiction to investigate.  Transferring the case to UP was illegal and mechanical, as Delhi Police had a duty to investigate the Delhi-based offence. 

3. Directions: 

• Delhi Police must register a regular FIR and investigate. 
• UP Police must hand over all documents to Delhi Police. 

Key Takeaways:

• Zero FIR vs. Regular FIR: Zero FIR is for crimes outside jurisdiction; regular FIR is mandatory if the offence occurs within jurisdiction. 
• Police Duty: Police cannot evade responsibility if part of the offence falls under their territorial limits. 

VALID DISTRICT SURVEY REPORT (DSR) ESSENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE; DRAFT OR LAPSED DSR CAN'T BE BASIS FOR ENIVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Gaurav Kumar & Ors. 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 08, 2025 

(d) Bench:

Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra 

FACTS

The case arose from an e-auction notice dated 13.02.2023 issued by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, for sand mining in Uttar Pradesh. The respondents challenged the notice before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), arguing that the auction was illegal as it was conducted without a valid District Survey Report (DSR)—a mandatory requirement under environmental laws. The National Green Tribunal quashed the auction, and the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Issues:

• Whether a valid DSR is mandatory for granting environmental clearance (EC) for sand mining. 
• Whether a draft DSR can substitute a final DSR for conducting auctions or granting EC. 

Supreme Court's Observations:

1. Importance of District Survey Report (DSR): 

• The DSR is a critical document for assessing the environmental impact of sand mining.  It identifies mining/no-mining zones, calculates replenishment rates, and ensures sustainable extraction.  A DSR must be updated every five years to reflect ecological changes. 

2. Legal Framework: 

• The Environment Protection Act, 1986, and Environmental Impact Assessment Notifications mandate strict compliance with environmental safeguards. 
• The 2020 Sand Mining Guidelines reinforce the need for a District Survey Report before any mining activity. 

3. Draft DSR is Invalid: 

• The Court held that a draft DSR cannot be the basis for granting environmental clearance or conducting auctions. Only a final, approved DSR (prepared after public consultation and expert appraisal) is legally tenable. 

Judgement:

The Supreme Court upheld the NGT's decision, ruling that the e-auction was illegal due to the absence of a valid DSR.  The Court further emphasized zero tolerance for unauthorized mining and strict enforcement of environmental laws. 

ARMY'S BURDEN TO PROVE ILLNESS WHICH AROSE DURING SERVICE WASN'T SERVICE-RELATED: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS DISABILITY PENSION

(a) Case Title:

• Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India & Ors. 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 07, 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justices Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Abhay S. Oka 

Facts:

The appellant, Rajumon T.M., was discharged from the Indian Army in 1998 after being diagnosed with Schizophrenia. His claim for disability pension was rejected by authorities, citing that the disability was "constitutional" (not service-related). 

Legal Issues:

• Whether the Medical Board’s opinion (denying disability pension) was valid despite lacking detailed reasons. 
• Interpretation of Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, and Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, which govern disability pension claims. 

Supreme Court's Observations

1. Role of the Medical Board:

• The Board must provide detailed reasons for its opinion, as its findings are crucial for granting/denying disability pension. Mere conclusions (e.g., "constitutional disorder") without justification are insufficient. 

2. Beneficial Interpretation:

• Disability pension rules must be interpreted liberally to protect servicemen’s rights, especially in cases of mental illnesses like Schizophrenia, where proving service connection is inherently challenging. 

3. Burden of Proof:

• When a serviceman is discharged involuntarily due to disability, the onus shifts to authorities to justify denial of pension. 

Decisions:

The Court held that the Medical Board’s opinion was arbitrary due to lack of reasoning.   It directed the grant of disability pension to the appellant (excluding arrears beyond three years) without remanding the case, considering the 27-year delay.