Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

COL. RAJNISH BHANDARI, VSM versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Decided
2 August 2019
Judges listed
R.F. NARIMAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2019] 11 S.C.R. 157 · 2019 INSC 857

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and having perused Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932, applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, we are of the view that, given our judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39, the pari materia provision contained in Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code be also declared as violative of Part III of the Constitution of India. The sentence “In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor”, which does not occur in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot stand by itself in view of the fact that the expression used is ‘In such case’. The entire Section is, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. The fact that this statement of law in the Ranbir Penal Code is the exact opposite of the statement of law, so far as the wife is concerned, of that contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is of no consequence.

p. 158, margin A

2

We are, therefore, of the view that nothing survives against the appellant on charges relatable to Section 497 Penal Code. So far as Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, is concerned, the appellant has already been acquitted, subject to confirmation. The Armed Forces Tribunal judgment dated 08.01.2019 is, therefore, set aside. The appeal stands allowed.

p. 158, margin D

3

However, it is made clear that the confirmation proceedings, so far as the offence under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, is concerned, may go on and reach its logical conclusion.

p. 158, margin E