Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [March 1 to 10]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 180 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966

Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 (Andhra Pradesh) – Ghee as a product of livestock – The inclusion of “ghee” as a livestock product cannot be faulted merely because it is not directly obtained from milk, which is a product of livestock, it would still be a “product of a product of livestock”. 'Ghee' is derived out of 'milk' by undergoing a process, yet it still remains a product of livestock, for the purposes of the Act and payment of “market fee”. (Para 10) Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 (Andhra Pradesh) – Section 3 & 4 – Difference between the notification made under Section 3 of the Act and notification made subsequently under Section 4 of the Act – Notification under Section 3 is a onetime measure where the Government notifies an area where purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock can be made. Whereas under Section 4 the Govt. declares the 'notified market area' in respect of any notified product (products which have already been notified under section 3 of the Act). A draft notification and hearing of objections to the draft notification is mandatory under Section 3 but a prior hearing or prior publication of the draft notification is not a requirement under Section 4. The notification in question is a notification under Section 4, hence, no prior process was required to be followed as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act for working the scheme under Section 4 of the Act. Hence, the challenge to the notification has rightly been turned down. (Para 11) Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 (Andhra Pradesh) –Section 4(3) – Liability to pay market fee – Unjust enrichment – Section 4(3) empowers Market Committees to establish markets within the notified area, also directs that these Market Committees have to provide facilities in the markets for the purchase and sale of notified products. The appellants have availed the facility given by the Market Committee and hence they are liable to pay the fee. (Para 13) Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 (Andhra Pradesh) – Purpose – To consolidate and amend the laws regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock, along with establishment of markets in connection therewith. The aim was to secure effective and remunerative price of commodities by bringing producers and traders face to face thereby eliminating middlemen and do away with some other earlier unethical trade practices, which were exploiting agriculturists and farmers. (Para 2) Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), and a Court may refuse to make a reference if the claims, on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, are ex-facie barred. (Para 50) Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 180

The Parliament should consider bringing an amendment to the Act, 1996 prescribing a specific period of limitation within which a party may move the court for making an application for appointment of arbitrators under Section 11 of the Act, 1996. (Para 94) Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Bail

An accused, while joining investigation as a condition for remaining enlarged on bail, is not expected to make self-incriminating statements under the threat that the State shall seek withdrawal of such interim protection. Bijender v State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 209

Banking

Rate of Interest on loan amount is a policy decision – The respondent No.1 being a NBFC and as a corporate body would be bound by its policies and procedures with regard to lending and recovery. In that regard, the applicability of the rate of interest to be charged is also a matter of policy and cannot be case-specific unless the individual agreement entered into between the parties indicate otherwise. (Para 10) Rajesh Monga v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Child Custody

Welfare of the child is of paramount consideration and will override any personal law or statute. The wishes/desire of the child who is capable of forming an opinion has to be considered by the court while deciding any matter of child custody. On interaction by the court with the child, it is found that the child is intelligent and capable of understanding her welfare and wishes to live with the Appellant. The welfare of the child lies with custody of the appellants. (Para 14, 16, 17 & 20) Shazia Aman Khan v. State of Orissa, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Amendment in pleadings – No evidence could be led beyond pleadings – Specific amendment in the pleadings was sought by the plaintiffs with reference to oral partition but the same was rejected by the trial court. In such a situation, where no further challenge was made to the rejection, the plaint attained finality and evidence with reference to oral partition cannot be considered. The Trial Court had rightly ignored the plea taken in the replication by the plaintiffs regarding oral partition, as amendment sought to that effect had already been declined. What was not permitted to be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. The High Court committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the partition which was not even the pleaded case. (Para 14, 15 & 16) Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai v. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 194

Order V Rule 25 - Original Side Rules; Order IV - Institution of ordinary suits and service of summons - Service where defendant resides out of India and has no agent - In the present case, the appellant had appeared before the High Court at the stage when leave to sue was sought by the respondent. Leave to sue was granted on 24 January 2020. It was over two years thereafter on 9 March 2022 that an advocate's notice was issued to the appellant. From the advocate's notice, it is evident that the requirement of the High Court OS Rules, which have been noted earlier, were not complied with. The Advocate's notice contained no annexures or documents. It is not evident from the suit number referred to in the notice whether it was the same plaint in respect of which leave to sue had been granted two years earlier. (Para 19) Trois Corporation HK Ltd v. National Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Order VIII, Rules 3 & 5 – Specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint – A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. Rule 5 provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement, shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant. In the written statement filed by the appellants, no specific para-wise reply was given. The failure of the defendant to give a para wise reply against the claim made by the plaintiff would make the allegations made in the plaint as admitted against the defendant. As there is no specific admission or denial with reference to the allegation in different paras, it becomes a roving inquiry for the Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in the plaint is either admitted or denied in the written statement filed. (Para 15) Thangam v. Navamani Ammal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Order IX Rule 13 - The order of the High Court directing a deposit of 75% of the suit claim as a condition precedent for condoning the delay and for setting aside the ex parte decree was unwarranted. The ends of justice would have been met if an order of costs was imposed on the appellant as a condition precedent for condoning the delay and for setting aside the ex parte decree. Imposing a requirement of a deposit of 75% of the suit claim is disproportionate and would have to be set aside. (Para 20) Trois Corporation HK Ltd v. National Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Code of Criminal procedure, 1973

Section 156 (3) - An affidavit is necessary with the application under Sectionb 156 (3) Cr.P.C. - Directions in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 are mandatory. Ramesh Kumar Bung v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Section 319 - High Court overturned the Trial Court Order; and accordingly impleaded the Appellants' as accused person(s) in the Underlying Proceedings on the satisfaction of a prima-facie finding that the materials on record i.e., (i) vague allegations emanating from the underlying complaint; (ii) the Complainant's statement under Section 161 of the CrPC; and (iii) the Complainant's examination-in-chief, are sufficient to proceed against the Appellant(s). Held, the High Court failed to appreciate that the discretionary powers under Section 319 of the CrPC ought to have been used sparingly where circumstances of the case so warrant. The Trial Court Order was well reasoned and did not suffer from any perversity. Moreover, the materials on record could not be said to have satisfied the threshold i.e., more than a prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of evidence that if left unrebutted would lead to conviction. (Para 9 & 10) N. Manogar v. Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Section 438 – Pre-arrest/Anticipatory Bail – Grant of pre-arrest bail to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation so as to favour an accused would send out a wrong signal in society and would be against public interest. Presumptions and other considerations applicable to a layperson facing criminal charges may not carry the same weight while dealing with a police officer who is alleged to have abused his office. Considering the position held by the respondent, even if he was suspended from service, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and the evidence was sufficiently high. Bail order is liable to be set aside. (Para 9 & 10) State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Section 438 – Pre-arrest/Anticipatory Bail – Court must record reasons for grant of Bail – An order of bail, bereft of any cogent reason, could not be sustained. Though grant of bail is discretionary, it calls for exercise of such discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The High Court did not deem it necessary to record as to what weighed with it while granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent, hence, bail order is set aside. (Para 5, 6 & 7) State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Section 438 – Bail / Anticipatory Bail – Considerations by Court while dealing with a bail petition – Similar considerations would apply even for grant of anticipatory bail – The nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 7) State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Section 482 - Quashing of FIR – The entire case of prosecution is based on unauthorizedly and illegally collected sample of meat. Hence, the High Court was right when it interfered by quashing the First Information Report. (Para 9) Joshine Antony v. Asifa Sultana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Section 482 - Quashing of FIR – Law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings - Discussed. (Para 9, 10 & 21) A.M. Mohan v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Section 482 - Quashing of FIR – Offence of Rape - A relationship may be consensual at the beginning but the same state may not remain so for all time to come. Whenever one of the partners show their unwillingness to continue with such relationship, the character of such relationship at it was when started will not continue to prevail. In the instant case, we do not think the relationship had remained consensual to justify quashing of the criminal complaint at the threshold. Rajkumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Constitution of India

Article 19(1) (a) & 21– Right to dissent – The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) and every individual must respect the right of others to dissent. An opportunity to peacefully protest against the decisions of the Government is an essential part of democracy. The right to dissent in a lawful manner must be treated as a part of the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21, but the protest or dissent must be subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with Article 19(2). Further, the police machinery must be enlightened on the concept of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and the extent of reasonable restraint on this freedom. The police machinery must be sensitised about the democratic values enshrined in our Constitution. (Para 10 & 13) Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Article 20(1) – Article 20(1) does not prohibit this Court, to award a lesser punishment in a befitting case, when this Court is of the opinion that a lesser punishment may be awarded since the new law on the penal provision provides a lesser punishment i.e. lesser than what was actually applicable at the relevant time. The prohibition contained in Article 20 of the Constitution of India is on subjecting a person to a higher punishment than which was applicable for that crime at the time of the commission of the crime. There is no prohibition for this Court to impose a lesser punishment which is now applicable for the same crime. (Para 8) A.K. Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Article 136 – Interference under Article 136 is not warranted – The Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article 136 sparingly and only when exceptional circumstances exist which justify the exercise of its discretion. The court is not inclined under Article 136 of the Constitution to re-appreciate the findings of facts which have been arrived at by the High Court. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any error that would warrant the invocation of jurisdiction under Article 136. (Para 18 & 23) Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Article 136 – Power to interfere in acquittal passed by High Court – Once the appellate court acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence as it existed before conviction by the Trial Court, stands restored. Court, while scrutinizing the evidence, will proceed with great circumspect and will not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal, save when the impeccable prosecution evidence nails the accused beyond any doubt. An intervention is warranted when the High Court's approach or reasoning is deemed perverse or when based on suspicion and surmises court rejects evidence or when the acquittal is primarily rooted in an exaggerated adherence to the rule of giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Further circumstance for intervention arises when the acquittal would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice. An erroneous or perverse approach to the proven facts of a case and/or ignorance of some of the vital circumstances would amount to a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice. Supreme Court will be justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to undo the injustice mete out to the victims of a crime. (Para 15, 17 & 18) Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar,, (2022) 3 SCC 471; referred. State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Article 226 – Error of jurisdiction of High Court – The petitioner had expressly consented to the High Court to evaluate the entirety of the matter in its full perspective. As the petitioner has agreed to the evaluative action by the High Court, it cannot be concluded that the High Court has committed an error of jurisdiction. (Para 16 & 17) Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Rajya Sabha's role is part of basic structure - Rajya Sabha elections protected by legislative privileges under Article 194. Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Parliamentary processes not taking place on the floor of the house are also covered by parliamentary privilege. Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Contempt of Court

Substantially the same cause of action – The cause of action for filing the Contempt Petition and the alleged cause of action for filing the complaint case was substantially the same. Taking cognizance in a substantially same complaint case, after the dismissal of the Contempt Petition by a detailed order is an abuse of the process of law. The first respondent did not challenge the dismissal of the Contempt Petition and came up with a complaint case. Further, though the Contempt Petition was already filed in 2016, the said fact has not been mentioned in the complaint filed by the first respondent in the year 2017. Hence, prosecution of the complaint was itself an abuse of the process of law and ought to be quashed. (Para 9 & 10) Murari Lal Chhari v. Munishwar Singh Tomar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 192

Contract Act, 1872

Pre-contractual correspondence – As per English jurisprudence, pre-contractual correspondence loses its significance once the contract comes into existence. When the parties have signed the agreement, the terms agreed therein would bind the parties and the email exchanged between the parties prior to the agreement, cannot override the policy decisions. In order to contend that the appellant has been misled, the appellant ought to have raised such contention when the agreement was to be signed. Further, the appellant having repaid the loan amount with interest as per the terms of agreement cannot make out a grievance in hindsight and seek refund of the amount paid. No error has been committed so as to call for interference. (Para 13 & 14) Rajesh Monga v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Contract Act, 1872 – Once the parties committed themselves to a written contract, whereby they reduced the terms and conditions agreed upon by them to writing, the same would be binding upon them. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) cannot rewrite the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and apply its own subjective criteria to determine the course of action to be adopted by either of them. The right of election of the appellants to either continue or to terminate the Agreement within ninety days from the expiry of the grace period was absolute and it was not open to the NCDRC to apply its own standards. The NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction in ignoring the binding covenants in the Agreement and in introducing its own logic and rationale to decide as to what the future course of action of the parties. (Para 15 & 22) Venkataraman Krishnamurthy v. Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 184

Contract Act, 1872 – Novation – As it was not open to one of the parties, to unilaterally change the agreed terms and conditions, there was no novation in contract. Mere exchange of correspondence between the parties prior to expiry of the grace period, cannot be held against them by treating it as an act in acceptance of or acquiescence with the change impliedly suggested by the respondent-company. Hence, the action of the appellants in terminating the Agreement immediately after expiry of the grace period, by getting a legal notice issued, cannot be found fault with. (Para 19) Venkataraman Krishnamurthy v. Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 184

Contract Act, 1872; Sections 37 and 40 - In the case of a personal obligation imposed on a person under the contract and on the demise of such person, his estate does not become liable and therefore, the legal representatives who represent the estate of a deceased would obviously not be liable and cannot be directed to discharge the contractual obligations of the deceased. (Para 27) Vinayak Purushottam Dube v. Jayashree Padamkar Bhat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 181

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992; Article 8 – Principle of Ecological Restitution – Article 8(f) requires the contracting parties to, as far as possible and as appropriate, to rehabilitate and restore the degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of threatened species. The focus has to be on restoration of the ecosystem as close and similar as possible to the specific one that was damaged. The State, apart from preventing such acts in the future, should take immediate steps for restoration of the damage already done; undertake an exercise for determining the valuation of the damage done and recover it from the persons found responsible for causing such a damage. (Para 150, 156 & 158) In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Corruption

Bribery not protected by legislative privileges - No immunity for MPs / MLAs taking bribes for vote/speech in legislature. Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy. It is disruptive of the aspirations and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy. (Para 104) Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Offence of bribery not dependent on actual performance of act for which bribe is taken, mere acceptance of bribe enough. Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185

The offence of bribery is complete the moment illegal gratification is accepted and is not dependent on the actual performance of the promise for which the bribe was sought. Offence is complete one mere acceptance of undue advantage. Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Cow Slaughter

Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 (Karnataka); Section 10 – Power of competent authority to enter and inspect – The power of the authorized person was confined to enter and inspect. As per the provisions, the assistant director had no power to seize any sample of meat. (Para 9) Joshine Antony v. Asifa Sultana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Dying Declaration

Dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court. The Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. Where the Court is satisfied about the dying declaration being true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. There cannot be an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration. (Para 7) Naeem v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 199

Enforcement of Law

Power to court to enforce laws – It is not the function of the court to see the day-to-day enforcement of the law; that being the function of the Executive, but because of the non-functioning of the enforcement agencies, the courts out of necessity may pass orders directing the enforcement agencies to implement the law. (Para 77) In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Environment

Fundamental right to a healthy environment – Sustainable development – All human beings have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, commensurate with their well-being, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources are conserved and preserved in such a way that the present as well as future generations will be aware of them equally. (Para 77) In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Order of closure of industry – The closure of the industry is a matter of last option and that an opportunity for remediation ought to be granted. The nature of the violations and severity of breach of environmental norms, left neither the statutory authorities nor the High Court with the option to take any other view. The TNPCB would be acting within the scope of its statutory powers while directing closure of plant, for the protection of the environment in accordance with law. (Para 21 & 24) Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Polluter pays principle – Those who pollute or degrade the environment should bear the costs of mitigation and restoration. Economic activities should not come at the expense of environmental degradation or the health of the population. (Para 24) Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Principle of Sustainable Development – The concept of intergenerational equity – The “present residents of the earth hold the earth in trust for future generations and at the same time the present generation is entitled to reap benefits from it.” The planet and its invaluable resources must be conscientiously conserved and responsibly managed for the use and enjoyment of future generations, emphasising the enduring obligation to safeguard the environmental heritage for the well-being of all. (Para 27) Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Right to a clean environment – All persons have the right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, live a life free from disease and sickness, and for those who till the earth, have access to uncontaminated soil. These rights are not only recognized as essential components of human rights but are also enshrined in various international treaties and agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Paris Agreement. These rights must be protected and upheld by governments and institutions worldwide, recognizing that they are essential for sustainable progress. (Para 26 & 28) Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Evidence Act, 1872

Incidental witnesses – The incident, which transpired partly within the confines of the house and extended slightly beyond the deceased's premises, the family members and close relatives naturally become the witnesses. These individuals cannot be considered incidental witnesses; instead, they emerge as the most natural witnesses. (Para 29) Thoti Manohar v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) SCC 7 723; referred. State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 25 – Confession before a police office – Confession of an accused recorded by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. (Para 23) Mohammed Khalid v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 183

Fair Opportunity

Neither arbitrariness nor malice found in the decision of the appellant-Board – The appellant-Board initially tried to purchase cardamom by issuing tenders and calling for bids, however due to failure of bidders to qualify the appropriate quality, the Board authorised the Chief Executive Officer to procure cardamom from local sources. Further, notice to purchase cardamom was published on the notice board and after price negotiations, respondent no. 2 was given supply orders after quoting the lowest rates. Hence, the decision of the appellant Board is legal, fair and transparent. There is neither arbitrariness nor malice in the decision of the appellant-Board as all the prospective bidders were given a fair chance. (Para 22) Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 207

Interim Order

Interim order of trial court not violated – Interim order restraining defendants No.1 to 4 from alienating the property was passed by the Trial Court on 31.05.1999 and on that date, defendant No. 7 was not party to the suit as he was impleaded only on 02.01.2001. There is no order passed by the Trial Court thereafter directing that the interim order was further extended qua the newly impleaded defendant also, hence it cannot be said to be a case of wilful violation of the order passed by the Trial Court. (Para 22) Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai v. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 194

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Section 94(2) – Mode for determination of age – In the order of priorities, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal in determination of age. The ossification test has been kept at the last rung to be considered, only in the absence of both certificate from school and birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat. Opinion of medical board that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after 25 years is accepted. (Para 19 & 20) Vinod Katara v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 210

Medical Negligence

Evidentiary value of expert opinion – In cases of deficiency of medical services, duty of care does not end with surgery – Findings of the DCDRC that there were lapses in duty of care by Respondent vis a vis both pre-operative and post-operative standards for conducting a traumatic cataract surgery is affirmed. Further, the expert opinion establishes a nexus between the lapses in post-operative care and the development of loss of vision after the operation. Despite the presence of evidence pointing towards negligence of the Respondents, both the forums (SCDRC and the NCDRC) failed to consider it and have mechanically and exclusively relied on the Medical Council report which did not delve into the nuances of pre-operative and post-operative care. While the report of the Medical Council can be relevant for determining deficiency of service before a consumer forum, it cannot be determinative, especially when it contradicts the evidentiary findings made by a consumer forum. In such circumstances, the appellate forum is tasked with the duty of undertaking a more thorough examination of the evidence on record. (Para 12, 13, 14 & 15) Najrul Seikh v. Dr. Sumit Banerjee, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

Motor accident compensation – Assessment of compensation on the basis of income of deceased – The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for assessment of just and fair compensation. Assessment of compensation cannot be done with mathematical precision. The assessment of income of the deceased by the High Court was done on a very conservative basis. Considering the material placed on record, income of the deceased deserves to be re-assessed as it is established that he was multi-tasking and was not engaged in a 9.00 to 5.00 P.M. job. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident as 52 years, the applicable multiplier for computation of compensation would be 11 times the sum of total dependency, as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, approved by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. (Para 14 & 15) Vethambal v. Oriental Insurance Company, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Is deemed transfer of motor insurance policy on sale of vehicle applicable only to third party risks ? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. Jaswinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 190

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Section 52A – Safe custody of sample packets – Proceedings required to be followed as per Section 52A of the NDPS Act, by the investigating officer of preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in presence of the jurisdictional magistrate is not followed. Due to lack of proper procedure followed, the FSL report is held to be nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence. Glaring loopholes in the prosecution case give rise to an inescapable inference that the prosecution has failed to prove the required link evidence to satisfy the Court regarding the safe custody of the sample packets from the time of the seizure till the same reached the Forensic Science laboratory (FSL). (Para 21 & 22) Mohammed Khalid v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 183

Section 67 - Confession statements are not admissible evidence. The authorities / officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau must comply and abide by the judgment in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. Sharik Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 216

NEET

Students of open schools recognized by Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and State Education Boards eligible for NEET exam. Medical Council of India v. Anshul Aggarwal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Penal Code, 1860

Section 153-A (1) (a) & Section 153-A (1) (b) and Constitution of India; Article 19(1) (a) – Freedom to criticise decisions of the government – Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, under which, every citizen has the right to offer criticism of the action of abrogation of Article 370 or every other decision of the State. If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive. The appellant intended to criticise the action of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India and did not refer to any religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. Describing the day the abrogation happened as a “Black Day” is an expression of protest and anguish. The effect of the words used by the appellant will have to be judged from the standards of reasonable women and men. Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract Section 153-A (1) (a) of the IPC. Further, every citizen has the right to extend good wishes to the citizens of the other countries on their respective independence days. It cannot be said that such acts will tend to create disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups. Motives cannot be attributed only because the person belongs to a particular religion. WhatsApp status of the appellant cannot be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony among various groups. Thus, continuation of the prosecution under Section 153-A of the IPC will be a gross abuse of the process of law. (Para 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14) Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Section 302 – Acquittal order reversed in conviction – Reason assigned by High Court to discard evidence of complainant (PW2) and his daughter (PW3) is untenable. Complainant narrated the entire occurrence on a call made to the Police Control Room within ten minutes of the occurrence, hence, the court fails to find any meeting of the minds in such few minutes so as to create a false narrative only to implicate Gurpreet Singh. The presence of Gursewak Singh at the time of occurrence, his prompt reporting of the crime, and the swift action taken by the police immediately upon receipt of the said report, have cumulatively and unequivocally established the prosecution case beyond any doubt. On the contrary, the prosecution has successfully established that accused had been nursing a grudge against the deceased, hence, the attribution of motive by the prosecution stands proved. The reasons assigned by the High Court while granting acquittal are totally perverse and as a result of misreading of the evidence on record. Hence, it warrants interference by Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136. (Para 28, 30, 31, 33) State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Section 302 & 34 – Co-accused –There is also not an iota of evidence to suggest that other respondents had any meeting with Accused and/or they had conspired with him for the execution of the crime. As there is no specific motive attributed, benefit of doubt can be extended to them. There is no convincing explanation to implicate them as co­accused. (Para 35) State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Sections 302 and 316 - From every available evidence, which was placed by the prosecution, it is a case where a sudden fight took place between the husband and wife. The deceased at that time was carrying a pregnancy of nine months and it was the act of pouring kerosene on the deceased that resulted in the fire and the subsequent burn injuries and the ultimate death of the deceased. This act at the hands of the appellant will be covered under the fourth exception given under Section 300 of the IPC, i.e., “Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner”. The act of the appellant is not premeditated, but is a result of sudden fight and quarrel in the heat of passion. Therefore, we convert the findings of Section 302 to that of 304 Part-II, as we are of the opinion that though the appellant had knowledge that such an act can result in the death of the deceased, but there was no intention to kill the deceased. Therefore, this is an offence which would come under Part-II not under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. (Para 20 & 21) Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 215

Section 306 – Abetment to suicide – Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Apprehensions expressed in the suicide note, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered sufficient to attribute to the appellant, an act or omission constituting the elements of abetment to commit suicide. The necessary ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide are not made out from the chargesheet and hence allowing prosecution of the appellant is grossly illegal. (Para 21 & 23) Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Section 306 - Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. (Para 36) Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Section 306 - In order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. (Para 39) Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Section 306 - Human mind is an enigma. There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to commit or attempt to commit suicide: it may be a case of failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive environment in college or hostel, particularly for students belonging to the marginalized sections, joblessness, financial difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage, acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so forth. Therefore, it may not always be the case that someone has to abet commission of suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself are relevant. (Para 47) Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Section 306 - The court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. (Para 40) Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Section 306 - Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. (Para 34) Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Sections 415 and 420 - Cheating - Ingredients to constitute the offence - Discussed. (Para 11 - 13) N. Manogar v. Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Sections 415 and 420 - Cheating - For attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR / complaint discloses: (i) the deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. (Para 13) N. Manogar v. Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Sections 415 and 420 - Cheating - The dishonest inducement is the sine qua non to attract the provisions of Sections 415 and 420 of IPC. (Para 20) N. Manogar v. Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Preconception and Pre­-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994

Preconception and Pre­Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994; Section 20(3) – Suspension of registration of license – Power of suspension under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act can only be exercised when the appropriate authority forms an opinion with reasons in writing, that it is necessary or expedient in public interest to suspend the registration of licensed entity. It is incumbent on the authority to form an opinion for reasons to be recorded in writing to indicate the said public interest. Such power can be exercised without issuing notice under Section 20(1). The power of sub­section (3) is intermittent and in addition to the power of sub­section (2) but it may be exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances in public interest. Suspension order dated 29.12.2010 does not contain reasons as required to form an opinion that it is necessitated or expedient in public interest to exercise such power. The order of suspension does not qualify the requirements of Section 20(3), is not justified and has rightly been set aside. (Para 16, 17& 18) District Appropriate Authority v. Jashmina Dilip Devda, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 202

Preconception and Pre­Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994; Section 20(3) – Duration of suspension order – The power of suspension, if any exercised, by the appropriate authority deeming it necessary or expedient in public interest for the reasons so specified, it should be for interim period and not for an inordinate duration. (Para 17) District Appropriate Authority v. Jashmina Dilip Devda, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 202

Preconception and Pre­Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994; Section 20(1) & (2) – The appropriate authority on being satisfied that there was a breach of provisions of PC&PNDT Act or the Rules may, after issuing notice and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, without prejudice to any criminal action against the licensed entity, suspend its registration for such period as it may think fit or cancel the same as the case maybe. The order of suspension was passed on 25.10.2010 without any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing as per Section 20(2). The order dated 25.10.2010 also does not qualify the requirements of Section 20(3). (Para 18) District Appropriate Authority v. Jashmina Dilip Devda, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 202

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; Section 2(ix) (k) and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955; Rule 32(c) & (f) – Misbranded food – The packets taken from shop/godown of the appellants by the food inspector were misbranded as defined under Section 2(ix) (k) of the Act, as they were not labelled in accordance with the requirements of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. (Para 7) A.K. Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955; Rule 32(c) & (f) and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; Section 52 – Reduction of sentence as per current law applicable – Sentence of imprisonment and fine converted to only fine – The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, repealed by the introduction of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, wherein Section 52 provides a maximum penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- for misbranded food and no provision for imprisonment. When an amendment is beneficial to the accused it can be applied even to cases pending in Courts where such a provision did not exist at the time of the commission of offence. (Para 9) A.K. Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Once cognizance of a complaint filed under Section 44 is taken by the Special Court under the PMLA Act, the power to arrest vesting under Section 19 of the PMLA Act cannot be exercised. Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 191

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

'One day trial' in POCSO case - Supreme Court affirms High Court Order for fresh trial after setting aside conviction. Bablu Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Public Trust Doctrine

The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources. (Para 138) In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 198

The state holds natural resources in trust for the benefit of the public, ensuring that the common resources necessary for the well-being of the populace are protected against exploitation or degradation. It is important to balance economic interests with environmental and public welfare concerns. While the industry has played a role in economic growth, the health and welfare of the residents of the area is a matter of utmost concern and the State Government is responsible for preserving and protecting these concerns. (Para 25) Vedanta Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Recruitment

Power of court to interfere in recruitment process – Courts should be cautious and slow in dealing with recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a deprived candidate, as it will have a cascading effect on the entire recruitment process. The courts are duty bound to take into consideration the relevant orders, rules and enactments before finally deciding the case. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. Recruitment made in favour of respondent 2 is restored. (Para 14) Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board v. Saluvadi Sumalatha, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Process of recruitment – Ratio of seats – 30% of the posts meant for both locals and non-locals have to be mandatorily filled up first before going for the remaining 70%. Government notification stated that all Departments are directed to maintain 70% of reservation in direct Recruitment to Locals maintaining the 30:70 ratio. The High Court fell into an error in not only adopting a wrong ratio but also fixing 70% first. (Para 13) Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board v. Saluvadi Sumalatha, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Specific Relief Act, 1963

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 20 – Specific Performance – The grant of decree for specific performance is always discretionary and depends on the conduct of the person. Considering the plaintiffs' conduct of making false and/or incorrect statements in the plaint, which were very material, we hold that the plaintiffs are disentitled to relief of specific performance. The relief of specific performance is an equitable relief, hence a person who seeks equity must do equity. (Para 9 & 14) Major Gen. Darshan Singh v. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 3(2)(v) – It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the offence committed upon the deceased was on the basis of his caste. From the admitted allegations of the prosecution, the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out. Prosecution for the offence is ex facie illegal and unwarranted. (Para 16 & 18) Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; Section 33(a) & 38V(4) – Tiger Safari permissible in buffer zone – Although it will not be permissible to establish a 'Tiger Safari' in a core or critical tiger habitat area without obtaining the prior approval of the National Board, such an activity would be permissible in the buffer or peripheral area. (Para 101) In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 198

NTCA guidelines 2012, 2016 & 2019 and Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; Chapter IVB – Validity and purpose of the guidelines – NTCA issued Guidelines in 2012, 2016 & 2019 for establishment of 'Tiger Safaris' in the buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves. There is no infirmity in the 2012 & 2016 Guidelines for establishing the 'Tiger Safaris' in the buffer and fringe areas and emphasizing on the rehabilitation of injured tigers (after suitable treatment), conflict tigers, and orphaned tiger cubs which are unfit for rewilding and release into the wild. However, the 2019 Guidelines, departing from the aforesaid purpose, provide for sourcing of animals from zoos in the Tiger Safaris which is contrary to the purpose of Tiger Conservation. Similarly, as per the 2019 guidelines, vesting of final authority for selection in the CZA and not in the NTCA, is not in tune with the emphasis on tiger conservation as provided under Chapter IVB of the WLP Act. Since undertaking of establishment of such a 'Tiger Safari' would be basically for the 'in-situ' conservation and protection of the tiger, it is the NTCA that shall have the final authority. A 'safari' can be established only for the purposes specified in clause 9 of the 2016 Guidelines and not as per the 2019 Guidelines. (Para 100 & 103) In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 198

NTCA Guidelines, 2016; Clause 10 – Location of Tiger Safari – Clause 10 requires recommendations of the Committee comprising of the members from NTCA, CZA, Forest Department of concerned State, an experienced tiger biologist/scientist/conservationist, and a representative, nominated by the Chief Wildlife Warden of the concerned State. Technically there is non-compliance with the requirement of clause 10 as such committee was not constituted for the purpose of determining the location of the 'Tiger Safari' at Pakhrau. However, since most of the authorities mentioned therein have participated in the decision and the concerned authorities, who have expertise in the matter, have approved establishment of 'Tiger Safari' at Pakhrau, the decision requires no interference. Held, the provisions of the 2016 Guidelines are scrupulously followed. (Para 111 & 112) In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Will

Genuineness of Will – On grounds of alleged ill-health of the testator – From the evidence recorded, the testator was found to be in good senses and capable of understanding his welfare to take correct decisions. The testator was conscious of the fact that he had a wife and a minor child whose interest had been taken care of by leaving part of the property for them. The Will was not surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Further, it cannot be concluded that the testator was not in a position to make a 'Will'. (Para 13) Thangam v. Navamani Ammal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Writ Petition

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Judicial review is restrained in matters of public tenders – Constitutional courts should exercise caution while interfering in contractual and tender matters, disguised as public interest litigations. The respondent no. 1, being an interested party could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. The prayer made in writ petition, makes it clear that the real grievance of respondent no 1 is about the grant of contract in favour of another bidder. The High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition on behalf of an interested person who sought to convert a judicial review proceeding for enhancing personal gain. (Para 19 & 21) Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 207