21st January, 2025

1). Supreme Court Urges High Courts to Set Up Committees for Service Conditions to Address Grievances of District Judiciary Within 4 Weeks

On January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to ensure the establishment of Committees for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJs) to address grievances of judicial officers regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC). These directions were initially issued in the All India Judges Association case on January 4, 2024.

A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted that many High Courts had not yet formed the CSCDJs, and some committees were inactive or not meeting regularly. This has resulted in judicial officers filing individual applications in the Supreme Court, creating unnecessary litigation.

Key Directives of the Supreme Court

1. Constitution of CSCDJs
   • High Courts must establish CSCDJs within four weeks if they have not already done so.
   • These committees are meant to resolve grievances at the state level to reduce individual cases being filed in the Supreme Court.
2. Composition of the CSCDJs
   The committee will consist of:
   • Two High Court Judges (nominated by the Chief Justice; one must be a former district judiciary officer).
   • The Law Secretary/Legal Remembrancer.
   • The Registrar General of the High Court, who will serve as the Secretary of the Committee.
   • A retired District Judge, who will act as the Nodal Officer to handle day-to-day grievances.
3. Role of the Nodal Officer
   • Nodal Officers must be appointed within four weeks and will work regularly.
   • They will receive Rs. 75,000 per month as remuneration in addition to their pension.
   • Office space must be provided within the High Court premises for ease of access.
4. Functioning of the CSCDJs
   • The committees must meet at least once every three months.
   • Decisions made by the CSCDJs must be implemented by the respective State Governments within three months.
   • If judicial officers are dissatisfied with the CSCDJs’ decisions or face delays in implementation, they can approach the High Court for redressal.
5. Grievance Mechanism for Multiple Benches
   • In High Courts with multiple benches, Nodal Officers must visit all benches to hear grievances of judicial officers within their jurisdiction.
   • Nodal Officers will receive travel and daily allowances (TA/DA) for these visits, which will be paid by the State Governments.
6. Communication of Orders
   • The Registrar General of the Supreme Court was instructed to forward this order to the Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories and the Registrar Generals of all High Courts.

Legal Basis

The directions were issued under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to pass orders to do “complete justice.” This ensures that issues relating to the working conditions of district judiciary officers are resolved efficiently.

Simplified Impact

By setting up these committees, the Supreme Court aims to:

• Streamline the process of resolving service-related grievances of judicial officers.
• Reduce the burden on the Supreme Court by addressing issues at the High Court level.
• Improve the working conditions of the district judiciary, which forms the backbone of India’s judicial system.

This move ensures that judicial officers have a structured platform to voice their concerns, and High Courts are empowered to resolve these issues effectively.

Case Name : All India Judicial Association v Union of India W.P.(C) No. 643/2015   

2). Supreme Court Questions NGT's Jurisdiction to Direct Prosecution ​under PMLA

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) does not have jurisdiction to initiate prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that proceedings under the PMLA can only begin if there is a registered scheduled offense.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

1. NGT’s Lack of Jurisdiction under PMLA
   The Court expressed doubt over the NGT's authority to direct prosecution under PMLA. It stated:

   "There is a serious doubt about the jurisdiction of the NGT to direct prosecution of an individual under the PMLA. 

2. Requirement of a Scheduled Offense under PMLA
   The Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the PMLA requires the existence of a scheduled offense (a crime listed under the PMLA schedule) for proceedings to be initiated. In this case:
   • No First Information Report (FIR) had been registered.
   • No complaint was filed under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act), Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act), or Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA).
     Without a scheduled offense, the Court ruled, proceedings under PMLA could not be initiated.
3. Environmental Compensation
   • The Court partially allowed the appeal of Waris Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., which had challenged the environmental compensation imposed by the NGT.
   • It held that the methodology adopted by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) to calculate the compensation was flawed.

Case Background

1. NGT’s Findings and Orders
   • On September 27, 2019, the NGT directed the UPPCB to calculate environmental compensation for Waris Chemicals and other units accused of polluting groundwater in Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh, by improperly storing hazardous chromium waste.
   • The UPPCB calculated the waste dumped at the site to be 62,225 metric tons (MT). Based on production capacities, Waris Chemicals’ liability was fixed at Rs. 25.39 crores for its share of 5,643.75 MT of waste.
   • The NGT also directed action under PMLA for alleged violations of environmental laws.
2. Waris Chemicals' Appeal
   Waris Chemicals contested the compensation and the NGT’s finding of liability under PMLA. It argued that:
   • The PCB’s methodology was arbitrary, as it held the company liable for pollution before its operations began in 1995.
   • No scheduled offense under PMLA was registered, making the Tribunal’s direction unsustainable.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

1. Flawed Compensation Methodology
   The Supreme Court agreed with Waris Chemicals’ argument that the UPPCB’s methodology was erroneous. It noted that:
   • Waris Chemicals started operations in 1995, yet the PCB had attributed liability for waste dumped since 1976.
   • The NGT, instead of recalculating the compensation itself, should have remanded the matter back to the PCB for reassessment.
2. No Scheduled Offense Under PMLA
   Referring to the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., the Court reiterated that:
   • Under Section 3 of the PMLA, "proceeds of crime" must originate from a criminal activity linked to a scheduled offense.
   • Since no FIR or complaint under environmental laws was registered, the precondition for invoking PMLA was not satisfied.
3. Directions to the UPPCB
   The Court set aside the NGT’s findings which related to PMLA action and compensation calculations. It directed the UPPCB to reassess the environmental compensation in a lawful manner.

Relevant Legal Provisions

1. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)
   • Section 3: Defines money laundering as dealing with "proceeds of crime" generated from a scheduled offense.
   • Scheduled offenses are listed in the PMLA Schedule, including various criminal acts under other laws.
2. Environmental Laws
   • Water Act, 1974
   • Air Act, 1981
   • Environment Protection Act, 1986

Significance of the Judgment

• The ruling reinforces the principle that PMLA proceedings require the existence of a scheduled offense as a prerequisite.
• It limits the jurisdiction of the NGT to act beyond its statutory mandate.
• The decision ensures fairness in environmental compensation by emphasizing lawful and accurate assessments.

This case is a reminder of the necessity of adhering to procedural and substantive legal requirements in environmental and financial matters.

Case Name – Waris Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

3). Supreme Court: Petition on Limited Issue Does Not Restrict Jurisdiction to Address Broader Issues

The Supreme Court has ruled that issuing a limited notice does not restrict its jurisdiction to consider broader issues if the petitioner raises substantial legal questions or significant errors in the lower court's judgment. The Court emphasized that procedural technicalities cannot prevent the delivery of substantial justice when the case warrants a deeper examination.

This decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan in a criminal appeal involving the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

1. Jurisdiction Beyond Limited Notice
   The Court clarified that a limited notice does not curtail its jurisdiction to hear additional issues. It observed:

   "Justice could be a real casualty if the Bench is held to be denuded of its jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the contentions not referred to in the notice issuing order."

2. Discretionary Power of the Bench
   • Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court exercises discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave in appeals.
   • If a limited notice has been issued but the petitioner raises significant questions of law or procedural lapses, the Bench may expand the scope of the appeal at its discretion.
   • The Court referred to Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which empowers it to take steps necessary for doing complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution.
3. Substantial Justice Over Procedural Technicalities
   • The Court stated that procedural limitations, like the scope of the notice, should not overshadow the need for substantial justice.
   • Even if a plea falls outside the limited notice, it can be heard if it involves a significant legal question or potential injustice.

Case Background

1. Facts
   • The appellant, convicted under the IPC and the PC Act, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
   • The Court initially granted leave limited to two issues:
     • The applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
     • The quantum of sentence for other offenses.
   • During the hearing, the appellant's counsel sought to include a plea for acquittal, arguing that substantial questions of law warranted the Court's consideration.
   • The respondent's counsel opposed this, contending that it was beyond the limited notice issued earlier.
2. Supreme Court's Decision
   • The Court rejected the respondent's objection, allowing the appellant to present broader arguments.
   • It stated that the limited notice did not restrict its jurisdiction to address other legal points if substantial justice demanded it.
3. Outcome
   • The Court ultimately ruled against the appellant but clarified that its broader jurisdiction under Article 136 and Article 142 empowers it to consider all relevant issues, even those outside the initial scope of the notice.

Legal Provisions and Case References

1. Article 136 of the Constitution
   • Grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to entertain special leave petitions against judgments of lower courts.
2. Article 142 of the Constitution
   • Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do complete justice in any case before it.
3. Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
   • Allows the Court to enlarge the scope of the appeal for the purpose of doing justice.
4. Relevant Case Reference
   • The Court referred to V.C. Shukla v. State (1980) and other precedents emphasizing the need to prioritize justice over procedural technicalities.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies Jurisdiction: Reinforces that issuing a limited notice does not restrict the Court’s ability to address broader issues if substantial legal questions arise.
• Balances Technicality and Justice: Ensures that procedural limitations do not obstruct justice in deserving cases.
• Expands Interpretation of Article 136: Highlights the Court’s discretion to revisit the scope of appeals in the interest of fairness.

This decision is crucial for law students as it underscores the importance of balancing procedural rules with the principles of substantial justice.

Case Name: BISWAJIT DAS VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

4).Orissa High Court: Section 205 CrPC (Exemption from Personal Attendance of Accused) Applies to SC & ST (PoA) Act Cases

The Orissa High Court has clarified that there is no statutory restriction on exempting the personal attendance of an accused under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), even in cases involving the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act).

A Single Bench comprising Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra set aside a trial court order that denied an application for dispensing with personal appearance, emphasizing that such decisions should balance the spirit of the law and the specific circumstances of the case.

Case Background

The appellants, employees of TP Northern Odisha Distribution Ltd. (TPNODL), were accused of offenses under the SC & ST Act. They filed an application under Section 205 CrPC, requesting an exemption from personal appearance in court. They argued that as public servants managing electricity distribution, their continuous presence at work was essential in the public interest.

However, the Special Judge (SC & ST), Balasore, rejected their application. The appellants challenged this order in the Orissa High Court under Section 14-A of the SC & ST Act, which allows appeals against certain orders under the Act.

Appellants' Arguments

1. Impact on Public Service:
   The appellants contended that their repeated court appearances disrupted their critical role in ensuring uninterrupted electricity supply, causing inconvenience to the public.
2. Trial Court’s Error:
   They argued that the trial court erroneously held that allowing the application could hinder the identification of the accused and that the denial of relief violated the purpose of Section 205 CrPC.

Observations of the High Court

1. Power under Section 205 CrPC is Discretionary:
   • The High Court reiterated that Section 205 CrPC provides discretion to trial courts to exempt an accused from personal appearance in appropriate cases.
   • The Court found no statutory provision under the SC & ST Act prohibiting the use of this discretionary power.
2. No Bar for SC & ST Act Cases:
   Justice Mohapatra held:

   "There exists no embargo in the exercise of power conferred by Section 205 CrPC in trials involving the SC & ST (PoA) Act."

3. Preventing Unnecessary Harassment:
   • Section 205 CrPC is designed to prevent undue hardship to accused persons, especially public servants.
   • The Court noted that forcing repeated appearances would waste the appellants’ time and affect electricity distribution, impacting the public.
4. Impugned Order Too Harsh:
   • The High Court held the trial court’s reasoning to be excessively rigid and inconsistent with the law, particularly given the appellants’ role as employees of a public utility company.
5. Alternative Measures Available:
   • The Court added that if an accused fails to appear after being granted exemption, the trial court has mechanisms to address such situations under Section 205 CrPC.

Relevant Provisions

1. Section 205 of the CrPC:
   • Grants the Magistrate the discretion to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and allow representation through a lawyer in certain circumstances.
2. Section 14-A of the SC & ST Act:
   • Allows appeals to higher courts against certain orders passed under the Act.

Court’s Decision

The High Court set aside the trial court’s order and allowed the appellants' application under Section 205 CrPC. The decision underscores the importance of balancing legal provisions with practical considerations, especially when public service responsibilities are involved.

Significance

• Clarification on Section 205 CrPC:
  The judgment reinforces that Section 205 CrPC can be invoked even in cases under the SC & ST Act.
• Relief for Public Servants:
  The ruling highlights the need to prevent unnecessary harassment of public servants when their work is critical for public welfare.

This decision provides a significant precedent for balancing judicial procedures with broader public interest.

Case Name: Anup Ghosh @ Anup Kumar Ghose & Ors. v. State of Orissa

5). Rajasthan High Court: Section 143A (Interim Compensation to Complainant in Cheque Bounce) of Negotiable Instruments Act Applies Prospectively

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was introduced through an amendment in 2018, has prospective application. It cannot be applied to cheque bounce complaints filed before the amendment came into effect on September 1, 2018.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand delivered this judgment while relying on the Supreme Court's decision in G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana (2019), which clarified the prospective nature of Section 143A.

Background of the Case

Several petitions were filed before the High Court questioning whether Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows payment of interim compensation to the complainant in cheque bouncing cases, could be applied retrospectively to cases filed before the amendment.

In the present case, the cheque bounce complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act had been filed in 2017, prior to the introduction of Section 143A in 2018.

Legal Provisions

1. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
   • Penalizes the dishonor of cheques due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arrangement with the bank.
2. Section 143A (introduced in 2018):
   • Empowers courts to direct the accused to pay interim compensation (up to 20% of the cheque amount) during the pendency of proceedings.

Key Observations of the Court

1. Supreme Court Precedent in G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana (2019):
   The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling, which held that Section 143A is prospective in nature. The Supreme Court reasoned that before the insertion of this provision, there was no mechanism under the Act to direct the accused to pay interim compensation before being proven guilty. Therefore, applying this provision retrospectively would impose a new disability or obligation on the accused, violating principles of fairness.
2. Principles of Retrospective Application:
   The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994), which laid down principles regarding the retrospective application of laws:
   • Procedural laws should not be applied retrospectively if they create new rights, obligations, or disabilities.
   • Laws that affect substantive rights must be applied prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.
3. No Retrospective Effect for Section 143A:
   The Court emphasized that prior to September 1, 2018, there was no provision in the NI Act for ordering the accused to pay interim compensation. Applying this provision to complaints filed before that date would impose an unfair burden on the accused.
4. Refund of Deposited Amounts:
   The Court directed that any amount deposited by the petitioners under interim compensation should be refunded to them within four weeks.

Decision

The High Court allowed the petitions and ruled that Section 143A:

• Is prospective in its application.
• Can only apply to complaints filed on or after September 1, 2018.
• Does not apply to cases filed before the amendment, such as the current complaints filed in 2017.

Significance

This decision reinforces the principle that amendments introducing new obligations or liabilities cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated. It also safeguards the rights of accused individuals in cheque bounce cases.

Bench and Key Cases Referred

1. Bench:
   • Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
2. Key Cases:
   • G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana (2019): Confirmed the prospective application of Section 143A.
   • Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994): Outlined principles of retrospective application of laws.

This judgment ensures clarity on the application of Section 143A and protects individuals from unfair imposition of new liabilities in ongoing or older cases.

Case Name: Rashmi Khandelwal v Kanhiyalal and Ors.