Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

NO FURTHER EXTENSION TO DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT: SUPREME COURT

04 September 2024 10:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment reaffirming the separation of powers and the authority of judicial pronouncements. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, has restrained the government from granting any further extensions to the Director of Enforcement beyond the specified tenure.

Highlighting the sanctity of a writ of mandamus issued by the Court, the judgment stated, "Nullification of mandamus by an enactment would be impermissible legislative exercise." The Court further emphasized that the legislature cannot override individual decisions inter partes and affect their rights and liabilities alone, as it would amount to an intrusion into the judicial power of the state.

The judgment comes in response to writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021. Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the impugned Acts and rules were not violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Citing previous precedents, the Court underscored that while the legislature can change the basis of a decision and modify the law in general, it cannot nullify a specific mandamus issued by the Court. The Court also acknowledged the concern expressed by the Union of India regarding the FATF review and the need for a smooth transition, allowing the current Director of Enforcement to continue in office until 31st July 2023.

This judgment sets a significant precedent, upholding the authority of the judiciary and ensuring the adherence to the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law. It reaffirms the importance of judicial review and prevents legislative encroachment on individual rights and liabilities.

Date of Decision: July 11, 2023

DR. JAYA THAKUR  vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 

Latest Legal News