Supreme Court on Judicial Conduct, Stray Dogs & EVMs; A Weekly Legal Digest

New Delhi – India's higher judiciary has been a crucible of significant legal developments this past week, with the Supreme Court delivering landmark rulings on judicial conduct, environmental governance, electoral transparency, and criminal jurisprudence. From recalling an unprecedented order against a High Court judge to intervening in the stray dog menace and recounting votes from an EVM within its own premises, the apex court's pronouncements have set new precedents and reinforced established legal principles. This weekly digest provides a comprehensive overview of these pivotal decisions for legal professionals.

Judicial Accountability and Conduct Under Scrutiny

In an extraordinary sequence of events, the Supreme Court addressed the sensitive issue of judicial conduct and inter-court relations. The week saw the recall of a highly unusual order that had directed a sitting Allahabad High Court judge to be removed from criminal jurisdiction until retirement.

In M/S. Shikhar Chemicals v. State of Uttar Pradesh , a bench had taken severe exception to an order passed by Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court. However, following a letter from the Chief Justice of India and representations from other High Court judges, the disposed-of matter was relisted, and the strictures were recalled, highlighting the judiciary's internal mechanisms for course correction.

The apex court also dealt with the fallout from another controversy involving scandalous allegations against a Telangana High Court judge. In In Re: N. Peddi Raju And Ors. , the Court directed the lawyers involved to tender an unconditional apology directly to the judge. In a significant observation, the bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria emphasized the constitutional parity between High Court and Supreme Court judges, stating, "Although the Supreme Court can judicially reverse or modify the decisions of the High Court, it does not mean that the Supreme Court has administrative control over the High Court." This reinforces the federal structure of the Indian judiciary and the autonomy of High Courts.

Landmark Rulings in Criminal and Civil Procedure

The Supreme Court delivered several crucial clarifications on criminal and civil law, impacting trial procedures and evidentiary standards.

Confessional FIRs and Conviction: In Narayan Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh , the Court set aside a murder conviction that was based solely on the accused's confessional FIR. It reiterated that such statements are barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot, by themselves, form the basis for conviction without strong corroborative evidence. This decision underscores the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence and the inadmissibility of self-incriminating statements made to police.

Summoning Additional Accused: The Court clarified a procedural point in Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State Of UP , holding that a Court of Sessions has the power to summon an additional accused at the committal stage under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The bench explained that a court takes cognizance of the "offence," not the "offender," and can summon others found to be involved during the proceedings.

Bail Conditions and Judicial Discretion: The judiciary's approach to granting bail and imposing conditions was a recurring theme. In Anil Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand , the Supreme Court struck down a pre-arrest bail condition requiring an accused to resume conjugal rights with his wife. The Court deemed the condition untraceable to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and warned that it was "beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation." Conversely, in Jamnalal v. State Of Rajasthan , the Court cancelled the bail granted to a POCSO convict, admonishing the High Court for failing to assess whether the convict had a fair chance of acquittal, a key consideration under Section 389 Cr.P.C.

Territorial Jurisdiction in Cheque Bounce Cases: For practitioners dealing with cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the ruling in Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat is of paramount importance. The Court reiterated that territorial jurisdiction for a Section 138 complaint lies with the court where the payee maintains their bank account, not where the cheque was physically presented for collection.

Environmental Law and Governance

The Court issued impactful directives in the realm of environmental law, balancing development with ecological preservation.

Powers of Pollution Control Boards: In a significant affirmation of regulatory power, the bench in Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. ruled that Pollution Control Boards are empowered to impose environmental compensation on polluting entities. The Court clarified that this power should be exercised when "some form of environmental damage or harm has been caused... or the same is so imminent."

EIA Exemptions Struck Down: The Court in Vanashakti v. Union Of India struck down a portion of a central government notification that had exempted industrial sheds, schools, and colleges from prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006. The bench found the exemption arbitrary, noting, "It is common knowledge that education has nowadays also become a flourishing industry," and that any large construction activity will have an environmental impact regardless of its purpose.

Electoral Integrity and Governance

In a move to enhance transparency in the electoral process, the Supreme Court issued a key directive to the Election Commission of India. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India , the Court ordered the publication of the district-wise list of approximately 6.5 lakh voters omitted from Bihar's draft electoral roll. It mandated that the list be searchable by EPIC number and specify the reasons for deletion, ensuring that affected citizens have a fair opportunity to file claims for inclusion.

In another governance-related matter, the court made strong observations in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Green Infra Corporate Wind Private Limited . It stated that a state instrumentality like GUVNL must act as a "model citizen" and cannot adopt a "Shylock"-like approach purely driven by commercial interests, especially when it contradicts the state's own renewable energy policies.

Social Justice, Rights, and Public Interest

The Court also delivered judgments championing social justice and addressing pressing public interest issues.

The Stray Dog Menace: Taking suo motu cognizance of the stray dog issue in the National Capital Region, the Court passed an interim order in In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays' . Initially, a two-judge bench directed authorities to pick up stray dogs and detain them in shelters without release. However, this order was later modified by a three-judge bench, which stayed the no-release clause, opining it was "too harsh." The modified order allows for the release of sterilized and vaccinated dogs back into their localities, aligning with the ABC Rules, except for those exhibiting aggressive behavior or suspected rabies.

Disability Rights in Employment: The Court reiterated the rights of persons with disabilities in the workplace in Ch. Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation . It held that an employer must provide suitable alternate employment to an employee who acquires a disability during service, setting aside a High Court decision that had justified the termination of a bus driver who acquired colour blindness.

Incestuous Sexual Violence: Taking a firm stance against incestuous abuse in Bhanei Prasad @ Raju v. State Of Himachal Pradesh , the Supreme Court upheld the life sentence of a father who raped his minor daughter. The Court observed that such violence "shakes the very foundation of the familial trust" and directed substantial compensation for the victim.

A Rare Recount and Other Notable Rulings

In an exceptionally rare move, the Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar v. Kuldeep Singh And Ors. summoned Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to its premises and conducted a vote recount by its Registrar in a Haryana Gram Panchayat election dispute. The recount revealed the 'defeated' candidate had won, leading the Court to direct the election officer to issue a new notification declaring him the winner, subject to the final judgment of the Election Tribunal. This direct intervention underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring the sanctity of the electoral process at every level.

The judiciary continues to navigate complex legal and social issues, with these rulings offering critical guidance to legal professionals, shaping public policy, and reinforcing the foundations of justice and accountability in India.