LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 171Decided 7 Feb 2025
SLP(C) No.-025250-025251-2024
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

In 2017 the Kerala Government had set up the "Hema Committee," headed by a retired High Court judge, to study the working conditions and hardships faced by women in the Malayalam film industry; the committee submitted its report in 2019, but it remained largely unacted upon and undisclosed for years. The petitioner, Sajimon Parayil, went to the Kerala High Court seeking to keep the report confidential to protect the privacy of those who had testified, but the High Court's Division Bench instead began monitoring implementation of the report's recommendations and approved a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the allegations, prompting these petitions challenging some of the High Court's directions.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's core directions, holding that once a police officer has reason to suspect a cognizable offence has occurred, he is legally bound to proceed and register cases as required by law, and the Court cannot direct police to be restrained from doing so. It found the High Court had been actively and properly monitoring the SIT's actions. At the same time, the Court left the door open for individuals who had testified before the Hema Committee and who felt they were being unfairly compelled or harassed by the SIT to approach the High Court directly for redress, and asked the High Court to specifically examine whether FIRs were being registered on genuine supporting material or without any basis. The petitions were disposed of on these terms rather than being allowed or dismissed outright.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not shield potential offences from police investigation merely to protect confidentiality of an inquiry report; but individuals who believe an investigation triggered by such disclosures is being misused to harass rather than genuinely investigate can seek specific protection from the High Court supervising that investigation.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case