LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vivek Rai & Anr. v. High Court of Jharkhand Through Registrar General & Ors.

Writ Petition (Criminal) · Neutral citation not assigned (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 61 of 2012)Decided 4 Feb 2015
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 61 of 2012
Justice T.S. Thakur · Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

Background

The petitioners, convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, had their appeal dismissed and then tried to file a revision petition in the Jharkhand High Court. The High Court refused to register the revision because of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, which bars posting a revision for admission unless the convicted petitioner has first surrendered to custody. The petitioners filed this writ petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that Rule 159 violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 and conflicted with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 159, holding it was not arbitrary or discriminatory. It noted that an almost identical surrender requirement exists in Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 itself, and relied on its own earlier decisions in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay and Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v. CBI, which upheld such surrender rules as a long-standing, sound practice meant to ensure a twice-convicted person does not abscond while seeking further relief. The Court also clarified that the rule does not take away a court's inherent power to grant an exemption from surrender in an appropriate case, so the absence of an explicit exception clause in Rule 159 was not fatal to its validity. Finding no infirmity in the rule, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Lesson Learnt

A court rule requiring a convicted person to surrender to custody before their revision or appeal is even registered is a settled, valid procedural safeguard, not a violation of fundamental rights, but courts retain inherent power to grant exemptions from surrender in deserving cases even if the rule's text does not spell that out.

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

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case