1). Supreme Court Rules Test Identification Parade Loses Evidentiary Value Without Witness Testimony in Trial

Case Background

In this case, the Appellant was convicted by both the Trial Court and the High Court for dacoity (robbery) and offences under the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant, at gunpoint, stopped a moving bus and robbed its passengers.

A Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, where three witnesses identified the Appellant as the offender. However, these three witnesses were not called to testify during the trial.

Issues in the Case

The key legal issue before the Supreme Court was:

• Whether a TIP report holds evidentiary value when the witnesses who identified the accused during TIP are not examined in the trial.

Court Observations

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra heard the case. The Court emphasized that a TIP report is meant to either corroborate or contradict a witness during the trial. However, if the person who identified the accused during TIP does not testify in court, the TIP loses its evidentiary value.

The Court explained the rationale behind this principle:

• If a witness does not testify in court, there is no way to verify how they identified the accused.
• The accused might have been shown to the witness before the TIP or the witness might have been coached to identify the accused.
• Therefore, without the witness testifying and facing cross-examination, the TIP cannot be relied upon for identification.

In this case, even though PW-7 (the Naib Tehsildar who conducted the TIP) confirmed that two out of the three witnesses identified the Appellant, these witnesses were not examined in court. Thus, their TIP identification had no legal value.

Court Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and gave the Appellant the benefit of the doubt, reasoning that the TIP report had no evidentiary value since the key witnesses were not examined during the trial.

Legal Provisions 

The judgment reinforces the importance of:

• Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – This section deals with facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts, including identification of an accused person. However, the identification must be tested in courtthrough witness examination.
• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – Protects the right to a fair trial, ensuring that convictions are based on reliable evidence.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies that a TIP alone is not enough for conviction; the witness who identified the accused must testify in court.
• Strengthens fair trial principles by ensuring that accused persons are not convicted based on unverified identification.
• Prevents possible misuse of TIPs, such as coaching or prior exposure of the accused to the witness.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that proper witness examination is essential for identification evidence to be valid. A TIP report without the testimony of the identifying witnesses cannot be used to convict an accused. This ruling safeguards the rights of the accused while ensuring that evidence in criminal trials is reliable and fair.

Case Name: VINOD @ NASMULLA VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2). Supreme Court Overturns Death Penalty, Emphasises Fair Trial Rights for All, Even Accused of Heinous Crimes

Case Background

The case involved an Appellant who was convicted of murdering his wife and 12-year-old daughter. The Trial Court sentenced him to death, and the Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, the Appellant argued that he was denied a fair trial, violating his rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Issues in the Case

The Supreme Court had to determine:

1. Whether the Appellant was denied a fair trial due to multiple lapses in legal representation.
2. Whether the death sentence could be upheld in light of these procedural irregularities.

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta examined the case. The Court noted several serious lapses during the trial, including:

• The defense counsel was absent during the examination of key prosecution witnesses.
• The opportunity for cross-examination was denied because the defense was not properly represented.
• The questions put to the Appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC were general and incomplete, failing to cover all incriminating circumstances.
• The Appellant's counsel kept changing frequently, and the final lawyer had no time to prepare before arguments were closed.

The Court stressed that merely appointing a legal aid lawyer is not enough—the representation must be effective and meaningful. It cited Anokhilal v. State of M.P. (2019), which held that a competent defense is essential for a fair trial.

Additionally, the Court highlighted international human rights standards, referring to:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantee fair trial rights.
• Rome Statute, which ensures that even those accused of the most serious crimes receive fair legal representation.

The Court noted that in capital punishment cases, the highest standards of procedural fairness must be followed. If a trial is flawed, the credibility of the conviction itself is questioned.

Court Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, stating that the trial was unfair. It ordered a fresh trialin the Trial Court, starting from framing of charges.

Legal Provisions 

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – Ensures the right to a fair trial.
• Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Requires the accused to be properly questioned about the evidence against them.
• International Human Rights Treaties (UDHR, ICCPR, Rome Statute) – Emphasize the importance of legal representation and procedural fairness.

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthens the right to a fair trial, particularly in death penalty cases.
• Highlights that merely appointing a lawyer is not enough—the accused must receive proper legal assistance.
• Reinforces India's international human rights commitments in criminal trials.
• Ensures that death sentences are imposed only after a flawless legal process.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in capital punishment cases. A flawed trial cannot justify the death sentence, as every accused person is entitled to full protection of the law, regardless of the crime. The case will now be retried from the framing of charges stage, ensuring that the Appellant receives a fair and just trial.

Case Name: SOVARAN SINGH PRAJAPATI VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.259-260 OF 2019

3). Supreme Court Rules Lumpsum Compensation Can Be More Fitting than Reinstatement with Backwages in Some Wrongful Dismissal Cases 

Case Background

The case involved a driver who was dismissed from service after a disciplinary inquiry found him guilty of rash and negligent driving. The Labour Court upheld his dismissal, and the High Court affirmed this decision. However, during parallel proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), the employer (the Corporation) took a contradictory stance, arguing that the accident was caused by a lorry driver instead of the dismissed employee.

The employee then sought a review before the High Court, highlighting the contradiction in the employer’s claims. The High Court allowed the review, leading the employer to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether reinstatement with back wages or lumpsum compensation is the more appropriate remedy in cases of wrongful dismissal.
2. Whether the employer’s contradictory stances before the Labour Court and MACT affected the fairness of the case.
3. Who bears the burden of proof when back wages are claimed—the employee or the employer.

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta examined the case. The Court made several key observations:

1. Contradictory Stance of the Employer

• The Corporation argued before the Labour Court that the employee was guilty of misconduct due to rash and negligent driving.
• However, before the MACT, the Corporation argued that the accident occurred due to a lorry driver’s negligence, effectively contradicting its own earlier stance.
• The Supreme Court termed this as "suggestio falsi" (false representation) and "suppresio veri" (suppressing the truth)."

2. Suppression of Material Facts

• The Corporation did not disclose the MACT’s findings before the Labour Court, where it was ruled that the Corporation was not liable to compensate the accident victims.
• This selective presentation of facts was seen as an attempt to mislead the court.

3. Application of Natural Justice Principles

• The Court emphasized that while the Evidence Act does not strictly apply to industrial disputes, general principles of fairness and natural justice do.
• The Corporation’s conduct was unfair, as it failed to disclose crucial information and shifted its stance to suit its interests.

4. Determining Back Wages: Employer’s Burden of Proof

• The Court relied on past precedents, including Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013), to state that back wages are not automatically granted upon reinstatement.
• The Court observed that if an employer claims that the dismissed employee was gainfully employed, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove this.
• The Court also referred to Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which states that an employer must provide reasons for denying back wages.

Court Ruling

• The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order of 100% back wages and instead awarded 75% back wages from the date of termination until the driver’s superannuation (retirement).
• The employee was also entitled to full terminal benefits.
• The appeal was disposed of after this modification.

Legal Provisions 

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 17-B (relating to back wages).
• Labour Law Principles – Natural justice, fairness in disciplinary actions.
• Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) – Clarifies that back wages are not automatic and depend on the facts of the case.

Significance of the Judgment

• Reinforces that back wages are discretionary, and courts must balance employee and employer interests.
• Clarifies that if an employer argues that the employee was employed elsewhere, the burden of proof lies with the employer.
• Strengthens fair trial principles in labour disputes, ensuring that employers cannot take contradictory positionsto suit their convenience.
• Encourages courts to consider lump-sum compensation in cases where reinstatement may not be practical.

The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the importance of fairness and consistency in labour disputes. Employers cannot misrepresent facts to suit different legal proceedings. The Court also clarified that while reinstatement is the normal rule, lump sum compensation or reduced back wages may sometimes be more appropriate. This judgment sets a clear precedent on determining back wages and ensuring fair treatment of employees in industrial disputes.

Case Name: MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. MAHADEO KRISHNA NAIK

4). Supreme Court: Delay in Final Verdict After 6-7 Years as Undertrial Violates Right to Speedy Trial

Case Background

The case involved an accused who was arrested in 2020 by the Chhattisgarh Police under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on allegations of possessing articles related to Naxalite activities.

The trial was delayed, and the accused remained in custody for over five years. The prosecution intended to examine 100 witnesses, but only 42 had been examined so far. The accused filed for bail, but the High Court refused to grant it. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether keeping an accused in custody for over five years as an undertrial violates their right to a speedy trialunder Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether examining 100 witnesses was necessary for proving the charges.
3. Whether the delay in trial warranted the granting of bail.

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan examined the case and made the following key observations:

1. Right to Speedy Trial Under Article 21

• The Court emphasized that every accused has the fundamental right to a speedy trial, even if the crime is serious.
• A long delay in trial causes mental, financial, and social hardships to the accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
• The Court noted that if a final verdict comes only after six to seven years of imprisonment as an undertrial, it amounts to a violation of the right to a speedy trial.

2. Excessive Number of Witnesses Unnecessary

• The prosecution listed 100 witnesses, but the 42 already examined had similar testimonies.
• The Court questioned the necessity of calling so many witnesses for proving a single fact.
• Relying on Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 PC 16], the Court stated that not all witnesses need to be produced if their statements are repetitive.

3. Delayed Trials Harm the Accused and the Justice System

• The Court observed that judicial delays hurt not just the accused but also victims, society, and the credibility of the justice system.
• Long trials cause emotional and financial burdens on accused persons.
• The Court noted that undertrial prisoners are not compensated even if they are eventually found innocent.
• Judges must use provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to ensure speedy disposal of cases.

Court Ruling

• The Supreme Court granted bail to the accused, setting aside the High Court’s order denying bail.
• It ruled that keeping an accused in custody for over five years without trial completion violated Article 21.
• The Court held that the trial court should not delay proceedings by unnecessarily examining 100 witnesses.

Legal Provisions 

• Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to Life and Personal Liberty, including the right to a speedy trial.
• Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Provisions for efficient case management by judges.
• Malak Khan vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 PC 16] – Clarifies that examining too many witnesses unnecessarily prolongs trials.

Significance of the Judgment

• Reinforces the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
• Ensures that undertrial prisoners are not kept in custody indefinitely without progress in the case.
• Encourages efficient case management by reducing unnecessary delays in witness examination.
• Strengthens judicial accountability by emphasizing that judges must actively manage trials to prevent delays.

The Supreme Court’s ruling protects the rights of undertrial prisoners and highlights the importance of speedy trials. The judgment warns against excessive delays, unnecessary witnesses, and judicial inefficiency. It ensures that accused persons are not denied their fundamental rights, even in cases involving serious offences.

Case Name: TAPAS KUMAR PALIT VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

5). Conviction for Murder of Children Constitutes Cruelty, Says Punjab & Haryana HC, Grants Divorce to Husband 

Case Background

The case involved a husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The couple got married in 2003 and had a son and a daughter. However, in 2010, the wife was convicted for murdering both their children and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The husband filed for divorce, arguing that his wife's conviction and imprisonment caused him mental agony, fear, and deprivation of marital companionship. However, the Family Court in Sonepat rejected his plea for divorce in 2013. The husband then appealed this decision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether the wife’s conviction for murder and life imprisonment amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. Whether long incarceration and the resulting deprivation of marital life justify granting divorce.

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger made the following key observations:

1. Conviction for Murder Amounts to Cruelty

• The Court ruled that the wife's conviction for murder and life imprisonment caused mental agony, pain, and apprehension in the husband's mind.
• It noted that the husband could not be expected to live with a person convicted of killing their own children.
• The Court emphasized that although the Hindu Marriage Act does not explicitly list murder conviction as a ground for divorce, it amounts to mental cruelty.

2. Deprivation of Marital Relationship Due to Imprisonment

• The Court observed that nine years of incarceration meant that the husband was physically deprived of a matrimonial relationship.
• The Court noted that apart from emotional suffering, the husband also faced social humiliation due to his wife’s conviction.

3. Precedents Supporting Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty

• The Court referred to Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey [(2002) 2 SCC 73], where the Supreme Court held that when a marriage becomes dead due to the actions of the parties, keeping it alive serves no purpose.
• It also relied on Vimla Bai v. Panchu Lal, AIR 2007 Rajasthan 99, which ruled that if a spouse is involved in a murder case, it amounts to cruelty because the other partner cannot be expected to live with them.

Court Ruling

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted divorce to the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• It ruled that the wife's conviction and life imprisonment amounted to mental cruelty and justified dissolution of marriage.
• The Court emphasized that continuing the marriage would only prolong the husband’s suffering and that it was in the interest of justice to end the marriage.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on the ground of cruelty.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Punishment for murder.
• Precedents:
  • Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey [(2002) 2 SCC 73] – No need to keep a dead marriage alive.
  • Vimla Bai v. Panchu Lal, AIR 2007 Rajasthan 99 – Murder conviction amounts to cruelty for divorce.

Significance of the Judgment

• This judgment expands the scope of “cruelty” under divorce laws, recognizing that criminal acts like murdercan cause mental trauma to the spouse.
• It sets a precedent for granting divorce when a spouse’s imprisonment results in deprivation of marital life.
• The ruling reinforces the principle that marriages should not be prolonged if they cause suffering.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision protects the rights of individuals stuck in unworkable marriages. By recognising murder conviction as mental cruelty, the judgment ensures that justice is served not only in criminal law but also in family law.

Case Name: XXX v. XXX

6). Kerala High Court: Ex-Parte Orders Should Not Be Passed Blindly in Favour of the Present Party

Case Background

The case arose from an ex-parte eviction order passed by a Rent Control Court. The eviction was granted because the tenant did not appear in court, and the landlord’s evidence was not challenged. The tenant later challenged this order before the Kerala High Court, arguing that the lower court had not properly examined the case before ruling in favor of the landlord.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether a court can automatically pass an order in favor of a party just because the opposite party is absent.
2. What is the burden of proof on a party seeking relief in ex-parte proceedings?
3. Whether the Rent Control Court followed the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979, while passing the order.

Court Observations

A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar made the following observations:

1. Courts Must Not Grant Relief Blindly in Ex-Parte Cases

• The Court ruled that absence of the opposite party does not mean automatic victory for the party present.
• A litigant must still prove their case by showing sufficient evidence.
• Courts should not blindly pass orders in favor of the party present just because the other side did not appear.

2. Standard of Proof in Ex-Parte Cases

• The Court clarified that the burden of proof in an ex-parte case is not as strict as in a regular trial.
• The party seeking relief must show prima facie (basic) evidence to prove their claim.
• If the court is satisfied that the right or liability exists, it can pass a favorable order.

3. Opposite Party Can Join Proceedings Later

• The Court stated that even if a case proceeds ex-parte, the absent party can still join the proceedings later.
• However, they must accept the stages of the trial that have already taken place.

4. Lower Court Did Not Follow Proper Legal Procedure

• The High Court found that the Rent Control Court had wrongly granted eviction simply because the tenant did not appear.
• It noted that the court failed to follow Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979, which requires:
  • A written order explaining the decision.
  • Consideration of oral and documentary evidence.
  • Judgments based on justice, equity, and good conscience.
• The Court emphasized that just because a court is satisfied with a claim does not make it legally valid—the manner in which the decision is made is equally important.

Court Ruling

• The High Court set aside the eviction order, ruling that the Rent Control Court had failed to follow the correct legal procedure.
• It reiterated that courts must ensure fairness even in ex-parte cases and cannot grant relief automatically just because the other party is absent.

Legal Provisions 

• Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979 – Requires courts to issue written orders based on evidence and principles of justice.
• Principle of Natural Justice – Ensures that decisions are made fairly, even if one party is absent.

Significance of the Judgment

• The ruling strengthens fair trial principles by ensuring that courts do not favor one party blindly in ex-parte cases.
• It clarifies the burden of proof in cases where the opposite party is absent.
• It reinforces the need for courts to follow legal procedures strictly, even when the other side does not appear.

The Kerala High Court’s judgment ensures that ex-parte proceedings remain fair and just. It emphasizes that courts cannot pass orders automatically and must carefully evaluate the evidence before making a decision. This ruling protects both litigants and the integrity of the legal system.

Case Title: Sajeevan Swamy v Johnson and Others

Case No: OP(RC) 88 of 2024