Legal Updates as on 24.02.2023

  1. JKL HC: TATTOO REMOVAL LESIONS DO NOT IMPAIR CANDIDATE’S ABILITY TO SERVE IN CAPF – The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that lesions on the hand and forearm, which have no potential to affect a constable’s ability to perform their duties, cannot be used as a justification for disqualifying an applicant from the CAPF. 
    Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India 
  1. JKL HC: IF JURISDICTION IS A MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW, CANNOT DISMISS SUIT – According to the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, the requirement to dismiss a lawsuit outright or return a plaint for lack of jurisdiction only applies when it is a pure legal problem; any legal or factual questions that are mixed together must be decided on the merits. 
    Dr Jahangir Iqbal Tantray Vs Farmeeda Akhter 
  1. Minority schools are not eligible to receive state grants for the salaries of employees who are retained past the retirement age. – The Supreme Court has ruled that minority schools are not eligible to receive any grants for expenses incurred for continuing employees above the age of superannuation, notwithstanding the fact that regulations for grants or non-grants in aid to educational institutions must be enforced consistently. 
    State of Gujarat and Ors. v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust and Anr. 
  1. SC PUBLISHES SAFEGUARDS TO AVOID MISUSE OF THE POWER TO SUMMON ADDITIONAL ACCUSED U/S319 –  The Supreme Court issued procedural safeguards to prevent frequent abuse of the authority to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC while hearing an appeal challenging a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that approved an application seeking to summon an additional accused. 
    Juhru And Ors. v. Karim and Anr 
  1. GAUHATI HC: ACCUSED WOULD BE GRANTED BAIL IF SECTION 41A CRPC WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH – According to the Gauhati High Court, if the police do not adhere to the requirements of Section 41A CrPC, the individual who was detained is entitled to be freed on bail. 
  1. SC: IF A REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION EXISTS, DIFFERENT PAY FOR SIMILAR POST IS ALLOWED. – The Supreme Court has ruled that Pay Commissions may be justified in recommending different pay scales for ostensibly similar roles if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have a fair relationship with the objective or purpose intended to be achieved. 
    Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association And Anr. 

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is for general information and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this blog post should be construed as legal advice from The Aran Law Firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.

Tags :

Share This:

Legal Updates