Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Judiciary

NIRBHAY SINGH SULIYA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

The inquiry findings were perverse and unsupported by record: the complaint was general and directed primarily against the stenographer but the complainant was not examined; prosecution and other witnesses supported the impugned bail orders which contained reasons; omission to expressly cite Section 59-A(2) in four orders, when cited in others, did not constitute evidence of extraneous consideration or corrupt motive. Therefore removal based solely on those four bail orders was unjustified; mere erroneous judicial orders without other indicia of misconduct do not warrant disciplinary removal.…

Source excerpt

  • Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers
  • Removal from service
  • Bail orders
  • Misconduct
  • Section 59-a, madhya pradesh excise act, 1915
  • False and frivolous complaints against judicial officers
Read case analysis
Judiciary

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court directed that High Courts and State Governments amend service rules so that (a) the LDCE quota for promotion from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to Higher Judicial Service (District Judge cadre) is increased to 25%; (b) the minimum qualifying service for LDCE from Civil Judge (Senior Division) is reduced to 3 years (with a cumulative minimum of 7 years including Junior Division service); (c) 10% of posts in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre be reserved for accelerated promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) via LDCE with a 3-year minimum as Junior Division; (d) vac…

Source excerpt

  • Limited departmental competitive examination (ldce) quota
  • Minimum qualifying experience for ldce
  • Promotion from civil judge (junior division) to senior division
  • Calculation of vacancies on cadre strength
  • Suitability test for promotion to higher judicial service
  • Minimum practice requirement for civil judge (junior division) examination
Read case analysis
Judiciary

SARITA CHOUDHARY versus HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

The Court held that on the facts the terminations of the two petitioners were punitive and stigmatic because adverse ACR entries and complaints were relied upon without timely communication or considered after termination, without granting opportunity to explain or conducting adequate inquiry under Article 311; the Administrative Committee and Full Court acted arbitrarily in treating closed advisories/warnings and inconsistent ACR material as decisive; accordingly those termination-related resolutions and orders were illegal and set aside and the petitioners were to be reinstated subject to s…

Source excerpt

  • Termination of judicial officers
  • Probation
  • Reinstatement in service
  • Annual confidential report (acr)
  • Article 311
  • Maternity and pregnancy discrimination
Read case analysis
Judiciary

DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS. versus THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Since the appellants had qualified the prescribed suitability test (minimum 40 marks), they could not be denied promotion merely because their placement in a merit list was lower; they are entitled to notional promotion from the date other officers on the select list were appointed and to consequential service benefits (seniority, increments, notional pay fixation) but not back wages.

Source excerpt

  • Promotion
  • Civil judges (senior division)
  • Jharkhand superior judicial service
  • Suitability test
  • Merit-cum-seniority
  • Notional promotion
Read case analysis
Judiciary

CHIRAG BHANU SINGH & ANR. versus HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

The writ petition was maintainable insofar as it challenged lack of effective consultation; the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot individually reconsider recommendations for elevation and reconsideration must be undertaken collectively by the High Court Collegium; accordingly the Collegium must reconsider the petitioners' names following the Supreme Court Collegium resolution dated 4 January 2024 and the Law Minister’s letter dated 16 January 2024.

Source excerpt

  • Appointment of judges
  • Judicial review
  • Collegium system
  • Reconsideration
  • Consultation
  • Eligibility vs suitability
Read case analysis
Judiciary

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

The Supreme Court accepted the SNJPC recommendations regarding the majority of allowances for serving and retired judicial officers, with limited modifications (notably permitting HBA for purchase from private individuals subject to safeguards, deleting foreign travel to SAARC countries under LTC, and clarifying availability of advance increments for higher qualifications including at ACP stage), rejected State pleas that financial burden or State-specific rules or parity with other government officers justify denying or reducing benefits, and directed institutional mechanisms (Committee for…

Source excerpt

  • Allowances for judicial officers
  • House building advance
  • Children education allowance
  • City compensatory allowance
  • Concurrent charges allowance
  • Conveyance/transport allowance
Read case analysis
Judiciary

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

The Court accepted the SNJPC recommendations in substance: adopt the pay-matrix model on the 7th CPC pattern, apply a uniform multiplier/index of rationalization of 2.81 to judicial officers and pensioners (with fitment as per corrected tables), give effect to pay revisions from 01.01.2016, permit notional inclusion of the increment falling after retirement for pension calculation subject to a vertical ceiling of Rs.224,100, accept recommendations on DA at Central rates, ACP, family pension and gratuity (including a maximum gratuity of Rs.20 lakhs with DA-linked escalation), and directed High…

Source excerpt

  • Judicial pay
  • Pension
  • Pay commission recommendations
  • Independence of judiciary
  • Designation uniformity
  • Fitment multiplier 2.81
Read case analysis
Judiciary

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

For the peculiar facts and circumstances pertaining to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, the Court modified its earlier orders and held that 10% of the cadre strength of District Judges shall be filled up by LDCE with candidates who have seven years qualifying service (5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge (Junior Division)); the modification applies only insofar as the DHJS is concerned.

Source excerpt

  • Promotion to higher judicial service
  • Limited departmental competitive examination (ldce)
  • Eligibility requirements for promotion
  • Delhi higher judicial service rules
  • Judicial appointments
Read case analysis
Judiciary

KRISHNA PRASAD VERMA (D) THR. LRS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer should not be initiated merely because a wrong judicial order was passed unless there is clear, substantiated material showing misconduct, extraneous influence, or gratification. Negligence in not noticing an order without material indicating misconduct does not amount to misconduct. High Courts should act as guardians of judicial independence; wrong orders should be recorded in service files, affecting career progression, but not leading to disciplinary action unless misconduct is clearly present.

Source excerpt

  • Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officer
  • Independence of judiciary
  • Article 235 of constitution
  • Wrong judicial orders as misconduct
  • Service record consequences
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

K. SREEDHAR RAO versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE, NEW DELHI

An Acting Chief Justice appointed under Article 223 is treated as a Chief Justice only for limited purposes such as salary; for pension under Part I of the 1954 Act, service rendered as an Acting Chief Justice must be counted and computed at the Chief Justice rate for that period (here 14 months) under Rule 2 read with Rule 7, but an Acting Chief Justice is not entitled to all pensionary benefits including the overall ceiling available to a retired Chief Justice except insofar as the period of acting service is treated as Chief Justice service for the purpose of computation.

Source excerpt

  • Pension computation for judges
  • Status of acting chief justice under article 223
  • Interpretation of high court judges (salaries and conditions of service) act, 1954
  • Interaction of rule 2 and rule 7 of part i of the first schedule
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.