(i) Importance of Precedent in law: SC

Recently a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that ignoring a judgment of court would undermine soundness.

1. The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
2. The review petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court's judgment under review (JUR) was contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench judgments.
3. He contended that JUR did not correctly consider the precedents set by Constitution Bench judgments regarding the vesting of land and modification of rights under the consolidation scheme.
- JUR ignored settled precedents that were holding the field for decades.

What were the Court’s Observations?

1. The SC held that “Ignoring the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court and taking a view totally contrary to the same itself would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order.
2. The court allowed a review petition

(ii) Ordinary residence vis-à-vis a minor, does not include temporary living arrangements: SC

As per the recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court, under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, the concept of "ordinary residence" in relation to a minor does not include temporary living arrangements, even if the minor has temporarily relocated for educational reasons at the time of the custody petition under the Act.

1. Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 specifies that petitions regarding the guardianship of a minor's person must be filed in the District Court having authority over the area where the minor typically resides.
2. Petitioner's counsel argued the Family Court erred in disregarding the minor's residence in Haryana, stating that the determination of where the minor "ordinarily resides" required an inquiry into both fact and law.
3. The appeal filed by the father was dismissed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

1. Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held a bare perusal of section 9 (1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 makes it apparent that it is the ordinary place of residence of a minor which determines the jurisdiction of the Court for entertaining an application for guardianship of the minor.
- Such jurisdiction cannot be taken away by temporary residence elsewhere on the date of the petition's presentation. The fact that the minor is found actually residing at the place when the application for the guardianship of the minor is made does not determine the jurisdiction of the Court.

(iii) Female Hindu can assert absolute ownership on a Hindu undivided family property: SC

Recently in the Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (d) And Others case, the Supreme Court ruled that for a female Hindu to assert absolute ownership of an undivided property within a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act 1956 (HSA), she must be in possession of the property in question.

What was the Background of Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (d) And ors. ?

1. The adopted son of a female Hindu (widow) sought partition of the HUF property, claiming it was inherited by his widowed mother.
2. Even though the widow was not in possession of the HUF property, the lawsuit seeking title and possession was rejected.
3. The respondent (adopted son) filed a suit for partition of the HUF property in High Court which was allowed.
4. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.

What were the Court’s Observations?

1. The supreme court allowed the appeal and reversed the impugned judgment of the High Court.
- Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the HSA the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription”.

(iv) In a first of its kind, unique type of bail granted by HC

Recently, a unique bail condition was imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, requiring the accused student to perform community service as part of their temporary release on bail.

1. The statement by Justice Anand Pathak highlights the court's recognition of the seriousness of the allegations while also acknowledging the potential for the accused to reform their behavior.
2. This decision reflects a judicial approach that balances accountability for the alleged offense with the opportunity for rehabilitation and personal growth.

What was the Background of Abhishek Sharma v The State of Madhya Pradesh?

Accused arrested on April 4,2024 for continuous harassment of a girl via WhatsApp, stalking, and vulgar calls.

Accused, a first-year BBA student, seeks temporary bail citing potential academic setback due to prolonged confinement.

The applicant asserts a commitment to reform, vowing not to engage in such activities again.

Parents pledge to oversee their son's behavior, ensuring no further embarrassment or harassment to the complainant.

Applicant's actions, as per counsel, stem from ego issues, suggesting engagement in creative pursuits and community service to facilitate reform.

Applicant applied for temporary bail in High Court.

(v) Promotion cannot be claimed as a legal right by any govt. employee: SC

Recently in matter of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the promotion process implemented by the High Court of Gujarat for District Judge vacancies, emphasizing the absence of an inherent right to demand promotion among government employees.

It emphasized that promotion policies are primarily the prerogative of the legislature or executive, with judicial review limited to instances of violation of equality principles under Article 16 of the Constitution of India , 1950 (COI)

The Court held that promotion to the position of District Judge should be based on 'Merit-cum-Seniority'.

Supreme Court observed that government employees do not possess a legal right to demand promotion, and Court’s interference in promotion policy should be restricted solely to instances where there is a breach of the equality provision enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution.

(vi) Advocates not liable under Consumer Protection Act: SC

Recently, a division bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said that advocates cannot be held liable for deficiency of services under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D. K. Gandhi.

Complaint for Deficiency in Service:

      - D K Gandhi filed a consumer complaint against the advocate before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, alleging deficiency in service and seeking compensation.

Consumer Forum’s Decision:

      - The District Forum allowed D K Gandhi's complaint, but the State Commission allowed advocates' appeal, holding that lawyers' services did not fall under the definition of "service" in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Appeal to Supreme Court:

      - Aggrieved by this, appeals were filed in the SC by the Bar of Indian Lawyers, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Bar Council of India, and that advocate.

What were the Court’s Observations?

Legislative Intent and Purpose of Consumer Protection Act:

The SC held that the very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices only.

There is nothing on record to suggest that the Legislature ever intended to include professions or services rendered by professionals within the purview of the Act.

In doing so the court set aside judgment which had relied on the Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Others (1996) to bring advocates within the purview of the Act.

The court referred the Indian Medical Association case for consideration by a larger bench as it deserves to be revisited.