Search Indian Judgments
Free access to thousands of Supreme Court and High Court judgments, powered by CallVakeel.
Filters
Need Help Understanding?
Legal language can be complex. Consult a verified lawyer to explain how a judgment affects your case.
Find a LawyerRecent Judgments
41 judgments foundMadras High Court orders FIR over fake, AI-generated books in public libraries
The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to immediately register a First Information Report (FIR) in connection with alleged fraudulent procurement of books for public libraries across the State [Ramasubbu Vs Gopal]A bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi flagged various fake and Artificial Intelligence-generated books available in public libraries.It directed removal of such books and also ordered the immediate freezing of bank accounts belonging to Agal Vilakku Publication, its proprietor Mohan and others involved in the alleged scam.The Court further directed the State government to initiate disciplinary action, including suspension, against officials responsible for the fraudulent procurement.The Bench observed that despite allegations of a large-scale scam involving public money, the authorities had not registered an FIR."Crores of rupees has gone out of the public exchequer. It is too obvious that a crime of this humongous proportion could not have taken place but for the active involvement of government servants. Not only the BNS provisions but also the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act stand attracted," the Court said.Justices GR Swaminathan and MD SumathiThe order was passed in a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with directions issued by the High Court in June 2024 to ensure transparency in the procurement of books for public libraries.The controversy came to light following allegations concerning books procured for Periyar Arivulagam in Coimbatore. Writer Perumal Murugan had raised concerns on social media about the alleged fraud, triggering widespread criticism.The Court recorded that the State government had acknowledged serious irregularities in the procurement system. IAS officer Jayanthi was relieved of her responsibilities as Director of Public Libraries, the DVAC commenced an enquiry and existing procurement orders were cancelled.However, the Bench questioned why the investigating agency had not registered a criminal case.When the Court proposed directing the immediate registration of an FIR, the State Public Prosecutor requested that the DVAC be permitted to complete its detailed enquiry.The Bench asked the prosecutor whether he disputed that a crime had been committed. After he answered in the negative, the Court questioned what prevented the DVAC from registering an FIR against unknown public servants.The Court also expressed concern over the circulation of books falsely attributed to prominent writers and intellectuals.It referred to a book titled Democracy and People's Right in the Contemporary World, found at the Kalaignar Centenary Library in Madurai, which falsely attributed authorship to economist Jean Drèze.The Court recorded that Drèze had denounced the book as fake.The Bench also noted that works falsely attributed to Tamil poet Subramania Bharati were available in public libraries.It observed that the procurement of bogus books infringed the public's right to receive accurate and quality information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution."By stacking bogus books with false content and books by phantom authors, not only the statutory duty cast under the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Act, 1948 is being breached, the right to receive accurate and quality information is also infringed," the Court said.The Bench further held that AI-generated and plagiarised books could fall within the expression "doubtful taste" under the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Rules, 1950, and that books containing dubious content or false narratives should not be procured.The Court directed authorities to identify officials involved, remove suspect books and disclose procurement expenditure. It observed that compliance with its 2024 transparency directions could have prevented the scam.The matter will be heard next on November 11.Senior Advocate KPS Palanivel Rajan instructed by advocate PM Vishnu Varthanan, appeared for the petitioner.Additional Advocate General B Saravanan, assisted by Special Government Pleader M Kannan, appeared for the respondents. State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan also appeared for the respondent.[Read Order]
US court allows Gurpatwant Pannun to serve lawsuit on Ajit Doval, ex-RAW head Samant Goel through Delhi courts
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has allowed Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to serve his lawsuit on National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief Samant Goel through Indian courts in connection with a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to assassinate him on American soil.In an order dated November 9, US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla allowed Pannun's application to serve the two Indian officials through district courts in Delhi under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents.The Court agreed with Pannun that Article 19 of the Hague Convention authorises service on Doval and Goel through service of summons mailed to those courts.It has now directed Pannun to submit a proposed service packet by November 30, following which the Clerk of Court will transmit the documents to the identified Indian courts. Pannun, the general counsel of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), filed the suit in 2024, naming the Government of India, Doval, Goel, Vikram Yadav, Nikhil Gupta and several unnamed defendants. He alleged that they conspired to kill him over his role in the Khalistan movement.He told the Court that he had thrice tried to serve Doval during visits to the US but was blocked by security personnel. His attempts to serve Doval, Goel and Yadav through India’s Central Authority at the Ministry of Law and Justice also failed.The court had earlier, on April 1, rejected Pannun’s efforts to serve the defendants through email service on India’s Attorney General, service on Yadav’s lawyers in an unrelated criminal case, and service by publication. It also agreed with the US State Department that service through diplomatic channels under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act was unavailable because of India’s reservation on Article 8 of the Convention. Notably, the US State Department took no position on the Indian-courts route.On the issue of summons through Indian court, Pannun argued that India's Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) allows foreign summons to be transmitted to Indian courts and served as though they were summons issued by those courts.Accepting the argument, the New York Court referred to Section 29(c) of the CPC, which permits summons issued by foreign civil courts to be sent to Indian courts, provided the Central government has notified the applicability of the provision.It noted that India had issued a notification in January 2009 extending Section 29 to civil courts in countries that are parties to the Hague Convention.The Court also referred to Order V Rule 21 of the CPC, which provides for transmission of summons between courts having jurisdiction over the place where a defendant resides.[Read Order]
CAT quashes transfer of first visually impaired woman IAS officer from Delhi to Arunachal Pradesh
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has quashed the transfer of Pranjal Patil, India's first visually impaired woman IAS officer, from Delhi to Arunachal Pradesh [Pranjal Patil Vs Union of India]. Judicial Member Rajveer Singh Verma ruled that the government cannot mechanically apply routine transfer rules without considering the special needs of employees with disabilities.The government's obligation to provide reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, takes precedence over administrative transfer guidelines, the tribunal said."Applying to a totally blind officer, without individual assessment, the same tenure rule that applies to able-bodied officers is the treatment of unequals as equals which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held to be violative of Article 14 in Net Ram Yadav," the order stated.The November 4 ruling came on an application filed by Patil, a 2017-batch IAS officer who has had no perception of light since childhood.Patil was initially allocated the Kerala cadre. In 2018, her request for an inter-cadre transfer to the AGMUT cadre was accepted under a policy applicable to officers with disabilities.She joined the Delhi segment in January 2020 to access specialised medical treatment and social support.However, the Ministry of Home Affairs transferred her to Arunachal Pradesh in September 2024. Her representation against the transfer was subsequently rejected.Before the Tribunal, Patil argued that the transfer violated Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and Department of Personnel and Training instructions providing exemptions from rotational transfers for employees with disabilities.She pointed out that she required continuous specialised ophthalmic care in Delhi and Noida. Her grandmother, who was her sole caregiver, had also died two days before the transfer order was issued.The Central government defended the transfer, arguing that IAS officers belonging to the AGMUT cadre were required to serve in different segments, including difficult postings.It submitted that Patil had spent nearly four years in Delhi without completing any tenure in a Category B segment. There was also a shortage of senior-scale officers in Arunachal Pradesh.The Tribunal rejected these arguments.It held that the requirement to complete tenure in a difficult posting could not itself constitute an administrative constraint justifying an exception to the protections available to employees with disabilities."To treat the requirement of the rotational policy as the constraint that defeats the exemption from that policy would render Part H meaningless," the Tribunal observed.It further found that the government had failed to produce particulars regarding vacancies, sanctioned strength or the availability of other officers who could have been transferred to Arunachal Pradesh.The CAT also noted that the government had failed to establish that comparable specialised medical facilities and support systems were available at Patil's proposed posting.Referring to the Delhi High Court's ruling in Ircon International Ltd. v. Bhavneet Singh, the Tribunal reiterated that the burden of establishing genuine administrative constraints rested on the employer.It also rejected the government's argument that Patil had accepted the possibility of postings across the AGMUT cadre when she sought the inter-cadre transfer in 2018."A statutory right cannot be waived by acceptance of a general transfer liability," the Tribunal said.Hence, it set aside the transfer order, the relieving order and the rejection of Patil's representation.It directed the authorities to continue or repost her in Delhi within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.Importantly, the CAT also protected Patil's future career prospects.It ruled that her inability to complete tenure in difficult postings because of her disability could not adversely affect her promotion, empanelment, central deputation or other service benefits.Any future proposal to transfer her outside Delhi would require a reasoned order, after hearing her and considering her medical condition, support requirements and alternative postings.Advocates Priyanka Bhardwaj and MK Bhardwaj appeared for Patil. Advocate Gyanendra Singh represented the respondents.[Read Judgment]
Explained | What did the Supreme Court clarify on the OBC creamy layer?
Explained | What did the Supreme Court clarify on the OBC creamy layer? The Hindu Source: https://news.google.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?oc=5
Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 2 – November 6, 2026
Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 2 – November 6, 2026 Verdictum Source: https://news.google.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?oc=5
Top Legal Developments [2-8 Nov 2026]: OBC creamy layer Criteria, green crackers, OCI Card holder deportation, bonded labour; and more
Top Legal Developments [2-8 Nov 2026]: OBC creamy layer Criteria, green crackers, OCI Card holder deportation, bonded labour; and more SCC Online Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMingFBVV95cUxOX0I3dzE4VTJqdnB4d2V5THg4Tk9zNmtrazBnb1FOa2sxYjR4eDBrWEZOYU0tbWN3UHZwNzdxV20taEx5OE1iUVN1d0NJc2NjQlJ4NmZDU2wzN0ZzNEw5ZDVLUG1LZ2RlWjNoc2RTUDVMNUU0VG5DajJXMmp4VVpKa2l2QUdpLTU2VVREVFoycVJZQ19tN2ZJNnVmcU9sQQ?oc=5
‘Rampant Corruption and Blatant Nepotism’: Supreme Court Declares Karnataka Law Reviving 2011 KPSC...
‘Rampant Corruption and Blatant Nepotism’: Supreme Court Declares Karnataka Law Reviving 2011 KPSC... LawBeat Source: https://news.google.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?oc=5
Supreme Court Government Employee Suspension Rule: 48-Hour Custody Triggers Automatic Suspension
Supreme Court Government Employee Suspension Rule: 48-Hour Custody Triggers Automatic Suspension Sikkim News Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMixAFBVV95cUxOcy1DLUxXdnFVVXFZakNET0tpcnRBWWJ2cndRZGo5dzVjYm1JcXEySkc3b3ZCeFdXbjRMY0s4UzFNeHZ2YzdFN01BU1FNU3pNcktReHNCVWVIaHpRbTVDOEZSZEMtblZ6WjVqLTNFbzNTM0dsZHdidDBNaVA0VUtVUWM3SHNoVk9LVFlyUGdrbG5EUndSWHhXbFZhWS05YnRlSjhTX0hTblJUQ21VWnlXUlFoSW1mRFVaVnFZQXp2ajdmNWd2?oc=5
Section 452 CrPC: SC Says Seized Property Must Not Be Retained Longer Than Necessary
Section 452 CrPC: SC Says Seized Property Must Not Be Retained Longer Than Necessary LawBeat Source: https://news.google.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?oc=5
Understanding Excepted Matters in Indian Arbitration: A Three-Fold Contractual Framework
Understanding Excepted Matters in Indian Arbitration: A Three-Fold Contractual Framework SCC Online Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMitwFBVV95cUxOd1VZcTF1cDZaVy1TQmxuUm5wN3J1WjBqSnhQQ3hDbWp5elFvTzA1S2FMM1l0Uzd2TzFrSzNfdG5OdV81Ry1DZEt4NW9wLVdtOWhKWnhpS3V4azRwdE9UMjRvR1dpOTJfaTdaRm5NNEJkQjBaOVBHeWtVcGdRYXVYR2V0bkRGSDhNbXhPMHBrV1JSc0UweFUySGp0a2Ewa2o5TDduVXFsYVpvc3R3WWNSTm5sejlxUTg?oc=5
Civil Contempt in India: Breach of Court Undertakings, Wilful Disobedience & Supreme Court Judgements
Civil Contempt in India: Breach of Court Undertakings, Wilful Disobedience & Supreme Court Judgements Legal Service India Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMinAFBVV95cUxQaWJlVFlYM2UwaGo0N25pVFdZbGRkQ0ZydWFFUm1mM0hFWmhFRS1MdzZ3TDFBMmFFZERaZGZoODN0bzBvYVhSWE5zU2Y0ajdNY21CMDliM1hhS2NKcHkyelRKcGkwbHJzZ1M0R1ZmQ0dtc2ZKM0RmeFl1SlFPZ09EZWkybGVjVzg2dHR1dzhrX2hERmNfOFNac2Z5dGs?oc=5
Hum Do, Hamare Do?
Hum Do, Hamare Do? Supreme Court Observer Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiigFBVV95cUxNdndZSHYzUnRrR0V5U2kzckpTLW51MGtGVy0xTEpwbjNtVEV1QTVmQWhpZGlRTmlXeHk0WGt0THEycTNMcF9wMGk1ek5UcVZ5dnNsVElfOUVleF9DQi1lN2QyR1pEbWZVUUZ1Mmg3VGxXYzFucG1NTFh1SnREenJTWEJKaEJfUHpPV2c?oc=5
OBC Creamy Layer Criteria: Supreme Court clarifies its March 2026 ruling doesn’t reopen concluded selections, but applies to UPSC CSE 2025 service allocation
OBC Creamy Layer Criteria: Supreme Court clarifies its March 2026 ruling doesn’t reopen concluded selections, but applies to UPSC CSE 2025 service allocation SCC Online Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMinwFBVV95cUxOd2pyclJxdUlZZUk5ZXdlek1TaFR1TU9qOWQ2cUQyb09nU3BPclQ5dXpBc0hvVUI3c255cmlqRUYzVUJqWFNjMGhCR2E3d1VhV0loWEJ2bFhrVFdPQ1cwZ1g5MklTTGtMRzE4Q0F3aVo3Q2xKcnZCSHZZSkp6QnVMaXV2czZVam5qNV9ubWlzTHVxcjN6NFZETDZ3NkMxUW8?oc=5
Supreme Court Clarifies Judgment On OBC-Creamy Layer Parental Salary Computation
Supreme Court Clarifies Judgment On OBC-Creamy Layer Parental Salary Computation Live Law Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiqgFBVV95cUxPaEJUT0ZjR1l2VFVqR1hIaHgydE9nak5jR2FYUDhtUVZXSU96Mzdua2dzcnhWRW8zODV5TTJVSzlHRlZNZFJ0Wl9DdUM3V0o0M3d1eGkxVVBNdjQ5Z0Y3WTVhWVl4LUdXZXR0b1RSVVRqekdMaW5veExDQUJ6cWpCUDllanppbWp4dXlqSVNPTmRlcmxEUDl2UWkxMWpucU16MzI1NkdXMzRpUdIBrwFBVV95cUxNdE1peVg2NlFkUnBXSTZsM3p0TFFUWWRJQ1BUZ3pCejVwYTdydnlpRmtCMFV0UE5OdHMtUUtMWmZjTzVkWFJYdE16NkNpY2haWmJrTnljNEZIa3FYMkljVmNXVzdTRGJIUEVzaElmUVlpNUxoNWlpVkFEX2M2cjBEUk1GR1VGSVlZbWd6YWZlZ0txczY2WUtNLXMtNVdmVm9SWnRLRUYxT1pqSFQwdXJF?oc=5
Parent income not sole factor: Supreme Court on creamy layer in OBC
Parent income not sole factor: Supreme Court on creamy layer in OBC The Indian Express Source: https://news.google.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?oc=5