UP Land Revenue Act | Map Correction Cannot Be Done By Mechanically Transferring Land To Compensate Deficiency Of Adjoining Plot: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction In Injunction Suit Between Private Parties Not Barred If Title Or Vesting In Panchayat Not In Issue: P&H High Court District Consumer Commission Duty-Bound To Refer Product For Laboratory Analysis When Prayed For; Cannot Dismiss For Want Of Expert Evidence: Punjab State Commission Section 135(3) BNSS | Executive Magistrate Cannot Demand Interim Bond Without Commencing Inquiry; Must Supply Kalandara Material & Follow Madhu Limaye Safeguards: Delhi High Court In Neha Bora Sections 126 & 130 BNSS | Writ Court Cannot Evaluate Sufficiency Of Material At Show-Cause Stage Unless There Is 'Nil Material': Delhi High Court Section 32 Evidence Act | Multiple Dying Declarations Cannot Be Discarded Over Minor Variations If Core Substratum Imputing Fatal Blow Remains Consistent: Allahabad High Court Multiple FIRs Arising From Identical Financial Scheme Can Be Clubbed And Transferred To First FIR Court: Bombay High Court POCSO | Mandating Injury Report Indicating Penetrative Assault For Victim Compensation Violates Article 14, Frustrates Sec 164-A CrPC: Allahabad High Court Section 308 IPC | Premeditation & Requisite Intention Must Be Proved; Single Blow With Stone In Sudden Fight Attracts Section 325 IPC: Delhi High Court Organizing A Book Fair Is A Private Activity And Not A 'Public Function' Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Calcutta High Court Prior Permission From Education Officer Before Issuing Recruitment Advertisement Is Mandatory, Not An Empty Formality: Bombay High Court Order 41 Rule 5 CPC | Tenant Facing Eviction Decree Liable To Pay Mesne Profits At Market Rate Till Delivery Of Possession: Himachal Pradesh High Court Anticipatory Bail In Matrimonial Disputes | Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct Cannot Be Treated As Automatic Grounds For Custodial Interrogation: Delhi High Court Section 35 BNSS | Notice For Appearance Under Section 35(3) Is Not A Mandatory Precondition For Arrest Under Section 104 Of The Customs Act: Gujarat High Court Section 58 BNSS | 24-Hour Cap Is An Outer Limit, Not A Licence To Detain Accused Until Morning Court Hours: Kerala High Court Section 106 Evidence Act Cannot Fill Gaps In Circumstantial Chain, Last-Seen Theory Fails Without Proximity To Time Of Death: Karnataka High Court Service Law | Procedural Violation In Domestic Inquiry Not Fatal Unless Delinquent Proves Real Prejudice: Bombay High Court Indian Succession Act | Unequal Disposition Or Exclusion Of Legal Heir Does Not Invalidate Will If Due Execution Proved: Madras High Court Civil Services Rules | Seniority Counts From Initial Appointment If Normal Probation Completed Without Extension; Minor Penalty Cannot Depress Rank: High Court Pre-Arrest Bail Under Section 31 DV Act Cannot Be Denied If Accused Had No Notice Of Protection Order: Kerala High Court Section 50 NDPS Act Applies Only To Personal Search, Inapplicable To Search Of Bag Carried By Accused: Himachal Pradesh High Court Railway Rolling Stock Transfers to IRFC Must Be Classified to Determine Sales Tax Liability Under Delhi Sales Tax Act: Delhi High Court No Contributory Negligence Can Be Attributed To Pillion Rider In Road Accident: Karnataka High Court Nasha Mukti Center Cannot Detain Adult Based Merely On Spouse's Consent Without Medical Mandate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab Land Revenue Act | Revenue Officer Must Strictly Adhere To Approved Mode Of Partition Verbatim: Punjab & Haryana High Court Labour Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Employer For Non-Production Of Employment Records: P&H High Court Closure Of Evidence | Past Conduct Prior To Deposition Irrelevant For Deciding Plea To Adduce Further Evidence: Orissa High Court Supreme Court's Mandate In 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' On Supplying Written Grounds Of Arrest Applies Prospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Allegations Of Forceful Sexual Intercourse Raised After 14 Years Of Marriage Without Complaints Cannot Constitute Cruelty Under Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act: Telangana High Court Punjab Municipal Act | Municipality Alleging Unauthorised Construction Must Prove Violation By Cogent Evidence, Injunction Suit Maintainable Without Sec 49 Notice: P&H High Court Arbitration Act | Limitation To Challenge Award Commences From Date Certified Copy Is Obtained If Signed Copy Not Delivered Under Section 31(5): Madhya Pradesh High Court Pension Regulations | Voluntary Retirement Weightage Cannot Be Claimed By Employees Retired Prematurely Under Regulation 19(1): Telangana High Court Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied Solely Due To Marital Status; Judicial Declaration Operates Retrospectively: Allahabad High Court Transfer Of Female Employees With Infants | Administrative Exigency Must Yield To Constitutional Right Of Motherhood And Child Welfare: Rajasthan High Court Consumer Protection Act | Summary Jurisdiction Cannot Resolve Complex Factual Disputes Requiring Detailed Evidence & Cross-Examination: Punjab State Consumer Commission

After the Supreme Court intervened, the Patna High Court reverses its decision to suspend a POCSO judge.

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In response to the Supreme Court's intervention, the Patna High Court decided to drop its action against a district judge from Bihar who had been suspended with effect from February of this year. Shishikant Rai v. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Anr.

Shashi Kant Rai, an additional sessions judge from Araria in Bihar, challenged a suspension order that had just been upheld by the High Court in a Supreme Court case.

According to the order made public today and signed by the Registrar General of the High Court, the High Court decided to end departmental proceedings against the Special Judge under POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act) as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling earlier this week.

The panel of Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat stated on Monday that it would be best for everyone if the disciplinary actions against the judge from Araria, Bihar, were dropped, especially since it may send the wrong message to other judges.

"We sincerely urge that you drop everything. If you don't want to, we can start right away. Unless you're alleging corruption, there must be something evident. He is terribly unfair to him because all he is doing is following directions. It gives other, more competent people the wrong impression. The Bench had spoken a statement.

There shouldn't be an overzealous desire to punish, according to Justice Bhat.

The judge was ready to provide a statement before the High Court challenging the claims made against him, according to Senior Attorney Vikas Singh, who was representing the petitioner.

The district judge claimed before the Supreme Court that he was the only one singled out for criticism of the recently put in place evaluation mechanism for promotions in the district justice.

After being passed over repeatedly for promotion as a civil judge, the petitioner-judge had written to the High Court asking it to consider restoring seniority as a foundation for such raises (senior division).

It is claimed that by issuing the petitioner a show cause notice right away and then suspending him without giving a reason, the Hon'ble High Court violated its constitutional obligations to protect and guide judicial personnel.

It's interesting to note that the petitioner had judged a man guilty of sexually assaulting a child in November 2021 after only one day of hearings and had given him a life sentence.

In his case before the highest court, Rai alleged that after issuing the order, he received death threats.

He was also mentioned in relation to the suspension order and the current disciplinary processes, both of which allegedly occurred without any justification and caused him mental agony because "he stands condemned for an action that otherwise gained the adoration of the State."

One of the reasons he was suspended was because he handed down a death sentence after deliberating on a case for four days. During a previous hearing, the top court had stated the following regarding this topic:

"We've been trying to figure out how to evaluate mitigating circumstances in death sentences, and they must view the jail records. The judge pronounced the death sentence in this instance in just four days.

Latest Legal News