In a recent appeal matter — Jaideep Bose vs Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited — the Supreme Court last week quashed the defamation proceedings initiated in the Karnataka High Court against a director and correspondents of Times of India for the alleged report that spurious artefacts were auctioned by the respondent.
The Court found that the auctioneer had not proved any monetary loss as a result of the alleged defamation. At the same time, it cautioned the newspaper and its editorial staff to exercise due caution before publishing any news item.
While freedom of expression was paramount, it is subject to reasonable restrictions one of which is it should not hurt the sentiments or scandalise the character of anyone.
Case 2: Remission of sentence need not be applied for
In a landmark verdict on a petition filed by an NGO regarding policy strategy for granting bail, the Supreme Court, on February 18, ruled that if a state government has a policy for remitting sentences, it must come into effect automatically when the conditions for such remission are met. The convict serving a prison term should not be required to apply individually, as doing so would be discriminatory and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Not all state governments have implemented such a policy, and where they have, variations between states are permissible and not considered discriminatory. Each state may also set specific conditions under which remission or premature release would be granted, but these conditions must be reasonable and capable of being complied with.
If the conditions are violated, the remission may be revoked. For instance, if a convict serving a life sentence is released after 14 years on the condition that he returns to the path of rectitude, the remission can be canceled if he is later found to be associating with criminals.
Case 3: Blacklisting of a contractor can’t be done lightly
In Techno Prints vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation case, the Supreme Court held that blacklisting of a contractor while being an inherent power in the armoury of an authority awarding tenders, it cannot be invoked blindly or unthinkingly as grave consequences follow — substantial denial of livelihood.
The contractor in this case could not perform due to COVID. The authorities ought to have shown due consideration to this extraordinary situation instead of blacklisting him peremptorily on the ground of breach of contract. The Court laid down the following tests before blacklisting can be done. Firstly, whether the contractor has habitually failed to supply the equipment in time. Secondly, the equipment supplied did not perform satisfactorily. Thirdly, it failed to honour the bid without sufficient grounds.
The Court found the contractor had not fallen foul of these conditions and thus revoked the blacklisting for three years together with the forfeiture of earnest deposit of ₹5 lakh.
Case 4: Forfeiture of gratuity need not necessarily be for criminal conviction
In a Western Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Manohar Govinda Fulzele case, the Supreme Court on February 17, ruled that a criminal conviction is not required for gratuity forfeiture under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Gratuity can be forfeited if the employee’s misconduct itself constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude.
A fine judgment indeed given the fact that the term gratuity springs from the term gratuitous. It is at the discretion of the employer though to be sure such discretion cannot assume the hue of arbitrariness or capriciousness. If the terms of gratuity which is payable to a retiring or resigning employee who has put in at least 5 years of service says that consistent good behaviour is a prerequisite, the employer would be perfectly justified in not paying the gratuity if he finds that he had deserted his parents for example. While he might not have been convicted criminally for this neglect of filial duties, the employer can take a narrower view of things.
—The author, S. Murlidharan, is a Chartered Accountant and legal expert who provides commentary on and interprets important court rulings and judgments. The views expressed are his own.
Read the previous Legal Digest columns here
