Welcome to today’s Daily Legal Digest from Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates, Patiala. Every day we pick a handful of court decisions and legal developments from across India and explain them in plain language, so that ordinary readers, families and business owners in Punjab can understand what changed and why it might matter to them.
Punjab & Haryana High Court gets a new Chief Justice amid objection from the Punjab Government
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra took oath as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday morning, with Punjab Governor Gulab Chand Kataria administering the oath in Chandigarh. He had been serving as Acting Chief Justice since June, and the Centre notified his appointment on 5 September after the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation in August.
What makes this unusual is the politics around it. A day after the notification, the Punjab cabinet passed a resolution objecting that the appointment was cleared without waiting for the state’s views, and asked the Governor to hold off on the oath. The ceremony went ahead anyway, and Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann did not attend, while Haryana’s Chief Minister was present. For litigants in Punjab, the practical point is simple: the High Court now has a permanent Chief Justice, which usually means steadier roster allocation and administrative decisions in the months ahead. Source: Bar & Bench and LiveLaw.
Supreme Court to builders: deliver what the brochure promised
In a case concerning the DLF Primus housing project in Gurugram, the Supreme Court has directed the CBI to continue a preliminary enquiry into how the project was built compared with the plan and brochure shown to homebuyers. A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan noted that a 24-metre road shown cutting through the project in the original plan does not exist as promised; a large part of that stretch is being used for parking or has been turned into a green patch. The Court warned that if the project is not brought in line with the brochure by the next hearing on 12 October, it will pass further orders, and it also pulled up Haryana officials for not resolving a related land acquisition issue.
Why this matters to ordinary buyers: the brochure and layout plan you were shown at the time of booking are not just marketing material. Courts treat them as representations the developer is expected to honour. If you are in a dispute with a builder over a flat or plot that was not delivered as promised, our property disputes and consumer court pages explain the options available. Source: LiveLaw.
Three murder convictions overturned in a week: weak investigation cannot fill gaps in evidence
In the first week of September the Supreme Court set aside murder convictions in three separate cases, from Bihar, Haryana and Telangana, and the common thread in each was that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the Haryana case, a man who had spent 16 years in jail for the murder of a six-year-old child was acquitted because the chain of circumstantial evidence had too many missing links, including DNA samples that were collected but never compared. In another, police had failed to recover cartridges or send blood-stained soil for testing after an alleged daylight shooting. In the third, the case rested almost entirely on confessions of co-accused, which cannot on their own convict another person.
For families dealing with a criminal case, the lesson is that how the police investigate matters as much as what they allege. Gaps in recovery, forensic testing and witness evidence can decide the outcome years later. If you or a family member is facing a serious criminal charge, our criminal defence page sets out how we approach such matters. Source: LiveLaw.
Supreme Court flags a “huge gap” in how police and trial courts handle juvenile accused
In a judgment delivered on 2 September and reported over the weekend, the Supreme Court set aside a 21-year-old conviction after finding that the accused was a minor on the date of the offence. A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar observed that the growing number of people raising a plea of juvenility for the first time before the Supreme Court shows a serious gap in how the Juvenile Justice Act is understood and applied by investigating officers and lower courts. The Court reaffirmed that the age on the date of the offence is what counts, that the claim can be raised at any stage, even after the case is over, and that delay alone does not defeat it if credible proof of age exists.
In plain terms: if someone was under 18 when an alleged offence took place, they are entitled to be dealt with under the juvenile justice system rather than the regular criminal courts, and that protection does not lapse just because nobody raised it earlier. Source: LiveLaw.
If any of today’s developments touches on a situation you or your family are dealing with, you are welcome to get in touch with our office in Patiala for a consultation.
This digest is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Advocate Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates, Patiala.