Supreme Court Monthly Digest June 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 415 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996

Section 29A - A High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award. Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) v. BSC & C and C JV, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Bail

Bail prayers are not to be indefinitely adjourned. Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate Of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 11 – Res judicata – Res judicata, as a technical legal principle, operates to prevent the same parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been conclusively determined by a court. Held, the previous decision of this Court in the first round would not operate as res judicata to bar a decision on the lead matter and the other appeals, because this rule may not apply hard and fast in situations where larger public interest is at stake. In such cases, a more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts, recognizing that certain matters transcend individual disputes and have far-reaching public interest implications. Hence, the applicability of res judicata is negated. (Para 23 & 25) Government of NCT of Delhi v. BSK Realtors LLP, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 420

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

'Absurdity' : Supreme Court quashes FIR which alleged book in Indore law college library hurt religious sentiments. Inamur Rahman v. State of M.P. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Power of courts to alter charge – It is permissible for Courts to alter charges but it can only be done by careful analysis of evidence and the reasons for the same must be recorded in the judgment. The “proof” of “common intention” is necessary to alter conviction from Section 149 to 34 of IPC. In the present case no charge under Section 34 of the IPC was laid against the accused by the Prosecution but when the charge under Section 149 IPC was dropped, the trial Court decided to conveniently alter the charge and with the aid of Section 34 IPC, ordered for conviction of the accused. Held, common intention of the appellants is not established by the prosecution. Further held, the Court while altering the charge from Section 149 to Section 34 IPC omitted to furnish any reasons. Hence, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and their conviction is unsustainable. (Para 17, 19, 20, 21) Madhusudan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Section 156(3) – To direct for registration of FIR – Held, no offence was made out in the complaint. Hence, the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate in dismissing the application filed under Section 156(3) is correct and unassailable. (Para 17) State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Constitution of India

Article 142 – Applicability/non-applicability of the doctrine of merger – The extraordinary constitutional powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is to be exercised with a view to do complete justice between the parties, remains unaffected and being an unfettered power, shall always be deemed to be preserved as an exception to the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis." Held, the doctrine of merger is not of universal application and powers under Article 142 of the Constitution shall be deemed as an exception to the doctrine of merger and the rule of stare decisis. (Para 33) Government of NCT of Delhi v. BSK Realtors LLP, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 420

Hierarchy in judiciary – Any orders passed by the Supreme Court, ought to be respected and fully complied with, in view of the fact that the hierarchy in the judiciary needs to be respected by one in all. In that hierarchy, the orders passed by the Supreme Court would bind not just the parties, but the judicial officers as well. (Para 8) Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Gopinath, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 428

Supreme Court asks Yamuna River Board to decide Delhi Govt's plea for additional water; HP Govt withdraws statement on surplus water. Government of NCT of Delhi v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 429

Delay

Subsequent change in law cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Environment

Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 - The Forest Department of the Delhi Government and the Tree Authority to keep a constant vigil in the entire area of the National Capital Territory of Delhi about the activities of illegal felling or damaging of trees. Unless these two Authorities do so, the very purpose of enacting various forest and tree laws will be completely frustrated. (Para 11) Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 433

Exemplary Costs

The State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to pay costs to the appellant. The State Government is directed to recover the said amount from the officer(s) who were responsible of taking deliberate, illegal, mala fide actions for denying relief to the appellant. (Para 11) Smita Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Judicial Service

Appointing serving judicial officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Services as legal advisors of the DDA completely violates the principle of independence of judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers. The position of the Judicial Officers working as the Law Secretaries is completely different. (Para 12) Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Vacancy arising due to elevation of judge not anticipated vacancy. Nitin Mittal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 432

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985

Section 37 – Constitution of India; Article 21 - Bail on grounds of undue delay in Trial despite bar in NDPS Act – Failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered. Held, section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, does not fetter the grant of bail to an accused on the ground of undue delay in the completion of the trial. Direction given to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 416

NEET

NEET UG 2024 - Grace marks given to 1563 candidates will be cancelled, they'll be given retest option: Centre tells Supreme Court. Alakh Pandey v. National Testing Agency, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 421

Penal Code, 1860

Section 34 – Common intention – The existence of common intention in a given case must necessarily be established by the Prosecution with relevant evidence. The Court also has the responsibility to analyze and assess the evidence before convicting a person with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. Importantly, a mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC without action in furtherance of such common intention. (Para 19, 22 & 25) Madhusudan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Section 34 & 149 – Difference between common intention and common object – There is a significant distinction between Section 34 and Section 149 of IPC. Section 34 requires active participation and prior meeting of minds whereas Section 149 assigns liability merely by membership of an unlawful assembly and has a wider scope than Section 34 IPC. (Para 15) Madhusudan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001 - Under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation(s) in place. There is no gainsaying in the fact that exhibiting compassion to all living beings, is the enshrined Constitutional value and mandate, and cast obligation on the authorities to maintain. (Para 11) Animal Welfare Board of India v. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Section 4 – Taking cognizance of an offence punishable for the negligence of duty by a public servant – To constitute a prima facie case of negligence of duty, the proviso to section 4(2) contemplates an administrative enquiry and recommendations. The absence of recommendation would bar taking cognizance by the Court. The proviso is an inbuilt safeguard to the public servant from initiation of prosecution by every dissatisfied complainant. Held, for taking cognizance for an offence of commission and omission under section 4(2) of the Act of 1989, the recommendation of the administrative enquiry is a sine qua non. The recommendation of administrative enquiry on alleged failure of duty or function by a public servant would make the neglect of an offence clear and the cognizance of such an offence is legal. Further held, the Magistrate did not call for an administrative enquiry report on the dereliction of duties complained against the named public servants. Taking up the merits of the negligence of duty by the public servant without the recommendation of the administrative enquiry is impermissible. Hence, no case warranting penal proceedings under section 4 has been made out and the impugned judgment, directing penal prosecution is not in conformity with the mandate of law. (Para 13. 2, 13. 3, 13.4, 14.4 & 17) State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Section 4(1) – Ingredients for taking cognizance of an offence punishable for the negligence of duty by a public servant – The provision has the following facets: i. Firstly, section 4(1) is meant to operate against a public servant, and the threshold requirement is that the public servant shall not be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; ii. Secondly, such a public servant willfully neglects his duties, as mandated under the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1995. (Para 13) State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Section 4(2) – Duties for performance by a public servant – Section 4(2) uses the word 'include' which is a phrase of extension and not of restrictive connotations. The word 'include' is not equivalent to 'mean'. The words and phrases in sub-section (2) must be construed as comprehending not only such acts as they signify according to their natural import but also those which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. (Para 13.1 & 13.2) State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Section 4(2) – Object of a proviso – The main function of a proviso is to put a qualification and to attach a condition to the main provision. It indicates the exceptions to the provision but may aid in explaining what is meant to be conveyed by its part. A proviso is enacted to modify the immediately preceding language. (Para 13.4) State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Service Law

Entitlement of post-retiral benefits and terminal dues – The appellant(s) have continued to work initially as seasonal/daily wage employees but thereafter regularized and have continued to work till their superannuation. Held, considering the fact that the appellant(s) have worked for a long period (over 30 years), it would be unreasonable and unfair to deny them post retiral benefits or terminal dues as may be admissible to the regular government employees. Hence, the appellant(s) would be entitled to all consequential benefits. (Para 3, 5 & 9) Anand Prakash Mani Tripathi v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 417

Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005; Rule 7A – Recruitment rule challenged – Denial of Appointment in question – The State Government exercising powers conferred upon it by Section 95(1) r.w. Section 70(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 promulgated recruitment rules – In spite of having passed the selection exam, the State Government took the shield of an amended rule i.e. Rule 7-A, issued on 29th July, 2009 for denying relief to the appellant herein, even when the said rule had no retrospective application. Further, in spite of the High Court having struck down the said rule and passing repeated orders in favour of the appellant, another notification dated 21st March, 2018 was issued making the amended rule effective from 1st January, 2008 i.e. prior to the date of recruitment. Hence, this was clearly a mala fide action in an attempt to circumvent the orders passed by the High Court by hook or by crook so as to prevent the appellant and her peers of their lawful claim to appointment which stood crystalized long back. Held, the appointment order will be effective from the date on which the first appointment order pursuant to the selection process dated 31st August, 2008 came to be issued. (Para 8 & 11) Smita Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Sexual Offence

Refusal of accused in sexual offence case to undergo medical examination shows unwillingness to cooperate with investigation. X v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 419

Stamp

Stamp Act, 1958 (Maharashtra); Section 47 & 48 and Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939; Rule 21 & 22A – Limitation – The appellant's case was rejected on the ground that the application filed by her was beyond the limitation period. The application seeking a refund of the stamp duty needs to be preferred within six months from the date of the instrument as stated in Section 48. Held, the application for relief under Section 47 to be made within six months of the date of the instrument prima facie appeared to have been done by the appellant. Hence, the appellant's application was within time and the same could not have been rejected as barred by limitation. (Para 12) Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 426

Stamp Act, 1958 (Maharashtra); Section 47 & 48 – Demand for refund of Stamp Duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed – Rights of a bonafide purchaser – It is settled law that the period of expiry of limitation prescribed under any law may bar the remedy but not the right. Held, the appellant is entitled to claim the refund of stamp duty amount on grounds that the appellant has been pursuing her case as per remedies available to her in law and should not be denied refund merely on technicalities. Further held, the appellant being a bonafide purchaser is a victim of fraud played upon her by the vendor which led to the cancellation of the conveyance deed. Hence, the case of the appellant is fit for refund of stamp duty. State is directed to refund the stamp duty. (Para 10 & 16) Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 426

Suppression of Facts

Harsh measures needed to deal with suppression of facts. All India EPF Staff Federation v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 431