1). Supreme Court: Filing of Bail Application After Rejection Is a Matter of Right

Case Background

The case involved a petitioner who was initially granted bail by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court later canceled this bail. When the petitioner filed a fresh bail application before the High Court, it was dismissed on the ground that the Supreme Court had not granted permission to file a new bail application.

Issue of the Case

The main issue was whether a High Court could dismiss a fresh bail application simply because the Supreme Court had not explicitly allowed the petitioner to file one after canceling the earlier bail.

Court Observations

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti held that filing a fresh bail application is a legal right even if an earlier bail application was rejected or previously granted and later canceled.

The Court emphasized:

• The High Court was not justified in dismissing the bail application on the sole ground that the Supreme Court had not permitted filing a fresh application.
• There is no prohibition on filing a new bail application if the circumstances allow.
• The Supreme Court, while canceling bail, had not taken away the petitioner’s right to seek bail again.

Court Rulings and Decisions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. It made it clear that every accused has the right to file a fresh bail application, and High Courts must evaluate such applications based on merits rather than procedural technicalities.

Legal Provisions 

• Article 21 of the Constitution: Right to life and personal liberty, including the right to apply for bail.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): High Court’s power to grant bail. (Section 483 of BNSS)

Significance of the Judgment 

This ruling clarifies that:

• A fresh bail application cannot be dismissed solely because the Supreme Court had earlier canceled bail without explicitly permitting re-application.
• High Courts must decide bail applications on merits rather than technical grounds.
• The ruling upholds the accused’s right to legal remedies and ensures fairness in bail proceedings.

The Supreme Court reinforced that filing a fresh bail application is a fundamental right, and High Courts cannot refuse to consider it solely on procedural grounds. The judgment strengthens the principle that every accused is entitled to seek bail afresh if circumstances allow.

Case Name: Vipin Kumar vs State of UP

2). Supreme Court: Principle of ‘Functus Officio’ Does Not Apply to Rule-Making Authority

Case Background

This case involved a dispute regarding the rule-making power of the State Government and the applicability of the functus officio principle (which means an authority loses its power after making a decision).

The appellants were transferred from a Corporation and appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) on a temporary basis in regular positions. They served for nearly 13 years and later requested seniority benefits. The State initially denied their request but later modified its earlier decision through a revised memorandum.

The respondents challenged this revised memorandum before the High Court, which ruled that the State Government had become functus officio after issuing the initial memorandum. As a result, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Issue of the Case

• Whether the functus officio principle applies to the rule-making power of the State Government.
• Whether the State must provide a prior hearing before issuing or modifying administrative policies.

Court Observations

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta disagreed with the High Court’s view. The Court made the following key observations:

1. Functus Officio Applies Only to Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Authorities
   • The principle does not apply to rule-making authorities, such as the State Government.
   • The State’s power to frame or modify rules cannot be nullified using the functus officio principle.
2. State Has the Power to Modify Decisions
   • The State can revise or amend its administrative decisions when necessary.
   • It is essential for effective governance and policy-making.
3. Prior Hearing is Not Required in Rule-Making
   • The High Court was wrong in stating that affected individuals must be heard before the State issues a policy change.
   • If every policy change required hearings, governance would be paralyzed and decision-making would be severely restricted.
4. Reliance on Legal Precedents
   • The Court referred to Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, where it was held that applying the functus officio principle to rule-making power would cripple the executive's ability to govern.

Court Rulings and Decisions

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and allowed the appeal.
• It ruled that the State Government retains the power to modify or revise its policies and that functus officio does not apply to rule-making authorities.

Legal Provisions 

• Article 245 of the Constitution: Grants power to the State Legislature to make laws.
• Doctrine of Functus Officio: Applies to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, not administrative rule-making.

Significance of the Judgment 

• Strengthens the executive's power to make and amend policies.
• Prevents unnecessary procedural roadblocks in governance.
• Clarifies that functus officio does not apply to rule-making authorities, ensuring flexibility in policy implementation.

The Supreme Court ruled that the State Government was within its rights to modify the memorandum, and the High Court’s ruling was incorrect. The decision ensures that governance remains efficient and adaptable, preventing unnecessary restrictions on administrative rule-making.

Case Name: P. Rammohan Rao vs K. Srinivas., SLP(Civil) No(s). 4036-4038 of 2024

3). Allahabad High Court: Amended Section 36 of Arbitration Act Applies to Pre-Amendment Section 34 Applications Prospectively

Case Background

This case involved a dispute over the execution of an arbitration award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

• The respondent was awarded a contract that could not be completed within the agreed period, leading to a dispute.
• The matter was referred to an Arbitrator, who on March 3, 2010, passed an award in favor of the respondent, granting ₹92 lakh with 8% interest.
• The petitioners filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to challenge the award, but it was rejected by the Commercial Court, Jhansi, on February 3, 2021.
• Following this, the respondent filed an Execution Case under Section 36, which was initially dismissed on January 2, 2023.
• A second execution case was filed on May 17, 2024, which the petitioners objected to, arguing that it was time-barred.
• The Commercial Court rejected this objection on September 21, 2024, leading the petitioners to challenge this order in the Allahabad High Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether the second execution case under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act was time-barred.
2. Whether the amended Section 36 of the Arbitration Act applies retrospectively or prospectively.

Court Observations

A bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal examined the issue and relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Private Limited & Others (2018).

Key Observations:

• Amended Section 36 Applies Prospectively
  • The Court clarified that the 2015 amendment to Section 36 applies only to court proceedings initiated on or after the amendment’s commencement date.
  • The amendment does not affect arbitration awards passed before the amendment came into force.
• Execution of an Award is a Right of the Decree Holder
  • The Court reiterated that Section 36, before the amendment, only imposed a restriction on executing the award without meeting specific conditions.
  • This did not grant the judgment debtor an automatic right to stay execution.
• Reliance on the BCCI Judgment
  • In BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that Section 36, as amended, applies to execution proceedings, even if the Section 34 application was filed before the amendment came into effect.
  • The Court followed this precedent and applied the same principle to the present case.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The High Court dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the order rejecting the preliminary objectionraised by the petitioners.
• It ruled that the second execution case was not time-barred since the amended Section 36 applies prospectively to execution proceedings filed after the amendment.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996: Allows a party to challenge an arbitral award.
• Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, 1996: Deals with the enforcement of arbitral awards.
• BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd (2018): Established that amended Section 36 applies prospectively to court proceedings initiated after the amendment.

Significance of the Judgment 

• Clarifies the applicability of the 2015 amendment to Section 36.
• Reaffirms the decree holder’s right to execute an award without unnecessary legal hurdles.
• Strengthens the enforceability of arbitration awards, ensuring quicker resolution of disputes.

The Allahabad High Court upheld the validity of the second execution case, confirming that the amended Section 36 applies prospectively. The ruling ensures that arbitral awards remain enforceable while preventing unnecessary delays due to procedural objections.

Case Name: U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) And Another vs. Spml Infra Ltd.

4). "Long Incarceration Can Cause Mental Health Issues, Drug Abuse" – Bombay HC Grants Bail to Murder Accused Undertrial Held for Over 9 Years

Case Background

Ganesh Mendarkar, a 51-year-old man, had been in jail for 9 years and 25 days since January 20, 2016, in connection with a murder case. There were four accused in the case, and the other three co-accused had already been granted bail. The trial began in 2018, and out of 36 prosecution witnesses, only a few had been examined so far.

Given his prolonged imprisonment as an undertrial, Mendarkar sought bail, arguing that his extended incarceration was unjustified, especially since his co-accused were out on bail.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether an undertrial accused should remain in jail for an extended period while the trial is still ongoing.
2. Impact of long incarceration on an individual’s mental and physical health.

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav granted bail to Mendarkar while making strong observations on the harmful effects of long incarceration:

• Mental Health Consequences of Long Incarceration
  • The Court noted that long-term imprisonment can lead to serious mental health issues, including:
    • Depression
    • Anxiety
    • Low self-esteem
    • Substance abuse
  • It can also result in social stigma, making it harder for a person to reintegrate into society and maintain relationships with family and friends.
  • The Court referred to Post-Incarceration Syndrome (PIS), which is similar to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
• Prison Conditions and Its Effect on Undertrial Accused
  • The Court pointed out that prison conditions can be harsh and inhumane, affecting a person's mental health and behavior.
  • It emphasized that undertrial prisoners, who have not been convicted, should not be subjected to such conditions for excessive periods.
• Reference to Psychological Research
  • The Court cited an article by Dr. Christian Jarret, a psychologist, published on the BBC in 2018, titled "How Prisons Change People".
  • The article describes how life in prison deprives individuals of personal space, decision-making, and human connection, leading to psychological distress.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The Court granted bail to Ganesh Mendarkar on a surety of ₹50,000, considering:
  • His prolonged detention of 9 years as an undertrial.
  • The fact that his co-accused were already out on bail.
  • The slow progress of the trial, which began in 2018 but had only examined a few witnesses.

Legal Provisions 

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, including protection against unjust and prolonged imprisonment.
• Section 439 of the CrPC: Provides the High Court and Sessions Court the power to grant bail to accused persons.(Section 483 of BNSS)

Significance of the Judgment 

• Reinforces the principle that undertrial prisoners should not be kept in jail indefinitely.
• Highlights the need for speedy trials to prevent unnecessary incarceration.
• Raises awareness about the mental health impact of long imprisonment.
• Encourages a more humane approach towards undertrial prisoners.

The Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to Ganesh Mendarkar serves as an important reminder that justice delayed is justice denied. It stresses that prolonged incarceration, particularly for undertrial prisoners, can have severe mental and emotional consequences. The ruling underscores the need for timely trials and a fair legal process, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to undue hardship while awaiting justice.

Case Name: Ganesh Mendarkar vs State of Maharashtra (Bail Application 597 of 2025)

5). Kerala High Court: Oral Examination for Interrogatories Allowed Only in Exceptional Cases

Case Background

In this case, the petitioner had filed an application before the Sub-Court, requesting that the defendants be examined orally (viva voce examination). The petitioner argued that the defendants had not fully answered certain questions in the interrogatory (a formal set of questions sent to the other party in a lawsuit).

The Sub-Court rejected the application, stating that the petitioner did not specify which answers were incomplete or contradictory. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court.

Issues of the Case

1. When should a court order oral examination (viva voce examination) under Order XI Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)?
2. Can a party demand a specific method (oral or written) for answering interrogatories?
3. What are the options available if the answers to interrogatories are insufficient?

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice P. Krishna Kumar examined the issue and made the following observations:

• Oral Examination Should Be Rare
  • Order XI Rule 11 of CPC states that if a person fails to answer or gives an insufficient answer to an interrogatory, the court can direct them to respond either by affidavit or by viva voce examination.
  • However, the Court emphasized that viva voce examination should only be ordered in exceptional caseswhere further information is genuinely needed.
  • The party filing the application cannot demand a specific method of answering; the decision rests entirely with the Court.
• No “Hide-and-Seek” with the Court
  • If a party deliberately avoids giving proper answers, even after being asked to answer again by affidavit, the Court can then order oral examination.
  • However, the Court warned that striking out a defense or dismissing a suit should be done only if a party fails to comply with a Court’s direction under Order XI Rule 11.
• Interrogatories Help Discover Facts
  • Under Order XI Rule 1 of CPC, parties in a lawsuit can use interrogatories to obtain facts from the opposite party.
  • The answers given in response become part of the evidence in the case.
• Alternative Options Available
  • If a party is not satisfied with the answers to the interrogatories, apart from seeking oral examination, they can:
    • Apply for a fresh set of interrogatories with the Court’s permission.
    • Clearly specify which parts of the answers are incomplete or contradictory and ask for further written answers.
• Petitioner’s Application Was Vague
  • The High Court noted that the petitioner had not clearly mentioned which answers were incomplete or contradictory.
  • Since the application lacked specific details, the Sub-Court was right in rejecting it.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The High Court upheld the Sub-Court’s decision, stating that the petitioner’s application was too vague.
• However, the Court granted the petitioner two weeks to file a proper application before the Sub-Court, clearly stating which questions required further answers.

Legal Provisions 

• Order XI Rule 1 of CPC – Allows a party to use interrogatories to question the opposite party.
• Order XI Rule 11 of CPC – If a party fails to answer or gives insufficient answers, the Court can direct them to answer further either by affidavit or oral examination (viva voce).

Significance of the Judgment 

• Limits the use of oral examination to exceptional cases, preventing unnecessary delays in trials.
• Clarifies that parties cannot demand a specific method of answering interrogatories; the court decides the best approach.
• Encourages parties to be precise in their applications rather than making vague or general claims.
• Reinforces the importance of interrogatories in fact-finding and evidence collection in civil cases.

The Kerala High Court’s ruling provides clear guidelines on the use of interrogatories and oral examinations in civil cases. It ensures that oral examinations are not misused and are ordered only when absolutely necessary. The judgment also highlights the importance of specificity in legal applications, preventing parties from fishing for information without proper justification.

Case Name: Dasan v Yathra and Others

Case No: OP(C) 3329 of 2017