Center of Indian Trade Unions v. The State of Maharashtra

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2019 INSC 513Decided 11 Apr 2019
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7734 of 1997
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi · Justice Deepak Gupta · Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Background

A trade union federation had challenged the Dabhol Power Project agreements between the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Dabhol Power Corporation (promoted by Enron) before the Bombay High Court, alleging corruption and fraud; the High Court found the conduct of the authorities "questionable" but dismissed the petition for lack of supporting material. When the matter reached the Supreme Court in 1997, the Court refused leave on the question of the project's validity itself, but issued notice limited to the narrower question of the State of Maharashtra's accountability given its inconsistent stands over time. Over the following two decades a government-appointed Godbole Committee found serious governance failures, and a retired judge, Justice S.P. Kurdukar, was appointed to head a commission of inquiry that never actually functioned due to litigation and delay.

Decision Breakdown

By 2019, over a quarter-century after the project agreements were first executed, the only question left for the Court to decide was whether the long-dormant judicial commission of inquiry headed by Justice Kurdukar should be revived or continued. The Court held that, given the extreme delay, the unavailability of the original foreign project promoters and most of the officials involved, and the Godbole Committee's own view (shared by a majority of its members) that a commission of inquiry would serve no useful purpose at this stage, reviving the inquiry would be futile. The Court accordingly closed the petition without directing any further inquiry, while not disturbing the earlier 1997 order that had already refused leave on the broader validity of the power project agreements themselves.

Lesson Learnt

Courts can decline to revive or continue an inquiry into even serious allegations of corruption once decades have passed and so much delay has occurred that a meaningful investigation is no longer practically possible: a reminder of how damaging prolonged delay can be to accountability efforts, independent of their underlying merit.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case