1. Investigating Officer Must Collect Evidence, Not Create It: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of a woman accused of murdering her stepmother and minor half-brother. The Court found that two prosecution witnesses appeared to have been set up to create evidence against the accused. It stressed that an investigating officer must collect evidence fairly rather than create evidence to support a case. The decision highlights the importance of a fair investigation and the need for courts to carefully examine the reliability of prosecution evidence before convicting an accused.
2. Law Clerk Experience Cannot Replace Bench Clerk Experience for Judicial Service Eligibility: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a law clerk's work cannot be treated as equivalent to that of a bench clerk for meeting the eligibility requirement of prior legal practice in judicial service examinations. Law clerks generally assist judges with legal research, while bench clerks perform court-related administrative duties. The Court made it clear that these roles are not interchangeable and cannot be used to bypass mandatory eligibility requirements for entering judicial service.
3. Supreme Court Questions Leniency Towards Death Row Convicts
The Supreme Court criticised the tendency to show leniency towards murder convicts, particularly those sentenced to death. Justice Dipankar Datta referred to a past case in which a death sentence was commuted and the convict later committed another serious crime after being released on parole. The observations raised concerns about the consequences of excessive leniency in serious criminal cases. The remarks highlight the need for courts to carefully consider the gravity of offences and the wider implications when deciding sentences.
4. Supreme Court Issues New Directions to Improve Women’s Safety in Delhi
The Supreme Court issued directions to strengthen women’s safety in Delhi, including preventive policing, public transport security and monitoring of vulnerable areas. The measures form part of ongoing suo motu proceedings initiated after reports of sexual violence in Delhi-NCR. The Court’s directions aim to improve police patrolling and security arrangements in public spaces. The case highlights the need for coordinated action by authorities to prevent crimes against women and ensure safer public transport and public areas.
5. Refusal to Marry Live-in Partner Does Not Automatically Amount to Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that refusing to marry a live-in partner does not, by itself, amount to abetment of suicide if the partner later dies by suicide. The Court quashed criminal proceedings against six accused, finding no material to show that the refusal was intended to drive the woman to suicide. It clarified that abetment requires evidence of intentional instigation or the necessary knowledge linking the accused’s conduct to the suicide. The ruling highlights that a relationship dispute alone is insufficient to establish criminal liability.
6. Supreme Court Asks NALSA to Examine Remuneration of Permanent Lok Adalat Members
The Supreme Court asked the National Legal Services Authority to examine a plea seeking better remuneration for permanent Lok Adalat members. The petition challenged the current payment model of ?2,500 per sitting, arguing it does not adequately reflect their increasing workload and broader jurisdiction. The matter highlights the need to review the remuneration of members handling dispute resolution through permanent Lok Adalats. The Court asked NALSA to consider the issue.
7. Supreme Court Restricts Unlawful Detentions and Restrictions During Delhi Protests
The Supreme Court directed that detentions, traffic restrictions and metro closures during protests must be carried out only in accordance with law. It also sought an explanation from Delhi authorities on why they should not initiate contempt proceedings over the closure of 45 metro stations during protests at Jantar Mantar. The Court’s intervention followed restrictions imposed during demonstrations concerning the Chief Election Commissioner and the revision of electoral rolls. The matter raises questions about balancing public order with lawful protest and freedom of movement.
8. CJI Surya Kant Declines Meeting with Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a request from Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge and others to meet him, saying the issues they wanted to raise were already pending before the Supreme Court. The leaders were told to pursue such matters through judicial proceedings. The decision reflects the importance of addressing pending legal issues through the established court process rather than through separate meetings with the Chief Justice.
9. CJI Surya Kant Forms Committee on Judicial Well-Being
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant constituted a five-member standing committee on judicial well-being to address occupational stress and other challenges affecting judges’ mental and physical health. Supreme Court judge Justice K.V. Viswanathan chairs the committee. Its formation highlights growing recognition of the pressures judicial officers face and the need for institutional support for their well-being. The initiative aims to address stress-related concerns and improve support for members of the judiciary.
10. Supreme Court Criticises Reliance on Its 1987 Judgment on Condonation of Delay
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the continued reliance on its 1987 judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, which adopted a liberal approach to condoning delays in legal proceedings. The Court observed that litigants have repeatedly cited the judgment, which condoned a four-day delay, when seeking condonation. Its remarks questioned how litigants have used the precedent over time and highlighted the need to carefully consider the reasons for delay when deciding such applications.
