Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609 To 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638

SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Abkari Act

Person receiving information of crime or detecting the occurrence can investigate it. Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

Adverse Possession

Adverse Possession - Principles Summarised. Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693

When adverse possession is claimed over government land, Courts must act with greater care. Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693

Advocate

Advocate didn't disclose that his wife was the opposite party in client's case : Supreme Court upholds BCI penalty. Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet @ Ranu Yadav Dokh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635

Arbitration

The Court has no power to modify the award under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 631 : 2023 INSC 708

Bail

Courts should impose realistic conditions of bail considering the economic and social position of the undertrial prisons or else the act of grant of bail does not subserve its purpose. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Banking Law

Though nationalised bank employees are 'public servants', protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. not available. A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : 2023 INSC 682

Cheque

In a cheque case against a company, persons can't be made accused only because they're managing the company's business. Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622 : 2023 INSC 692

Civil Law

Supreme Court allows asi survey of Gyanvapi mosque without excavation or damage to structure; asks asi to follow "non-invasive" process. Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : 2023 INSC 702

Consumer Law

'NCDRC acted as if they were experts' : Supreme Court sets aside order upholding insurance claim repudiation. S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 619 : 2023 INSC 689

Court Complexe

Safety and Security in Court complexes - Several security measures such as the issuance of court identity cards, installation of CCTV cameras and baggage scanners, regulation of footfall in court complexes, deployment of security personnel/relevant officers, and introducing other emergency measures were suggested and laid down its guidelines. (Para 10) Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : 2023 INSC 706

Incidents of gunfire - Preserving the sanctity of a court as a space where justice is administered and the rule of law upheld being non-negotiable, it is critical that judicial institutions take comprehensive steps to safeguard the well-being of all stakeholders. Such incidents, that too in court premises, are deeply concerning and pose significant risks to the safety of not only judges but lawyers, court staff, litigants and the general public. (Para 2) Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : 2023 INSC 706

Mere installation of CCTV cameras may not be enough and something more is required in public interest to check activities which compromise the safety and security of all stakeholders of the justice delivery system, particularly in court complexes. (Para 5) Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : 2023 INSC 706

Criminal Law

The Supreme Court sets aside directions issued by P&H High Court regarding appearance of prosecution witnesses. State of Haryana v. Darshan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Registration of FIR - The Supreme Court set aside the Order of the High Court which had allowed the registration of FIR against MLA for allegedly making provocative remarks during the Panchayat elections - Requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to take fresh decisions after granting him an opportunity of hearing. Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 636

Sessions Court should first see if the case is of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' before proceeding with murder trial. Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Criminal antecedents of accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash criminal proceedings. Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Supreme Court quashes Gujarat Police FIR against senior advocate & former ASG IH Syed after complainant says allegation was based on misconception. Iqbal Hasanali Syed v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Threatening a person to withdraw fir/complaint or settle dispute will not attract offence under Section 195A IPC. Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The High Court can try to read in between the lines while considering a plea to quash the FIR. Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2023 INSC 684

15 days police custody meant to be applied to the entire period of investigation as a whole : Supreme Court doubts 1992 precedent. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Criminal Trial

Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained. Inordinate delay has been taken as presumptive proof of prejudice, but in particular cases where the accused is in custody. (Para 30) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

Digitisation

Digitisation of Judicial Infrastructure - Initiatives like Audiovisual (AV) technology / Videoconferencing (VC) facility for recording of evidence and testimonies in trial, live-streaming of court proceedings at all levels, establishing e-SEWA Kendras, particularly in remote areas also considered and leave it to the discretion of the Chief Justices of the High Courts to decide. (Para 12) Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : 2023 INSC 706

Education

B.Ed. graduates ineligible for the post of primary school teachers, holds supreme court; says 'right to education includes quality education'. Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : 2023 INSC 704

Election

Supreme Court dismisses PIL challenging appointment of Arun Goel as election commissioner. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Enforcement Directorate

Violation of Section 19 PMLA will vitiate arrest; Magistrate should ensure that ED followed the arrest procedure. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

‘Custody' under Section 167 CrPC includes custody of other investigating agencies such as ED, not just police. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Habeas corpus writ not maintainable against ED alleging illegal arrest; Plea to be raised before Magistrate. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Supreme Court dismisses Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging ED custody. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

ESI

Electronics shop repairing & servicing electrical goods is a “factory” under ESI act. J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Evidence Law

Section 27 Evidence Act - Disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Test Identification Parade (TIP) - If the accused are already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, then the sanctity of TIP before the court is doubtful. (Para 13) Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678

Law with regard to conviction based upon circumstantial evidence - Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - Circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established - There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” - Facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused - However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 18, 19) Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678

Government Land

Proper and concrete proof as required would need for the claimants to show some proof of possession, other than statements which may be vague. Merely a long period of possession, does not translate into the right of adverse possession. Surmises, conjectures and approximations cannot serve the basis for taking away the right over land resting with the State and place the said bundle of rights in the hands of one who did not have any such rights. (Para 28) Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693

When the land subject of proceedings wherein adverse possession has been claimed, belongs to the Government, the Court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness, care and circumspection as it may lead to Destruction of a right/title of the State to immovable property. (Para 21.7) Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693

Judicial Review

If the policy decision itself is contrary to the law and is arbitrary and irrational, powers of judicial review must be exercised. (Para 36) Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : 2023 INSC 704

Insurance Law

Insurance companies must deal in a bonafide & fair manner; should not just care for its own profits. Isnar Aqua Farms v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 615 : 2023 INSC 680

Uberrima fides, i.e., good faith, is the requirement in a contract of insurance - It is not open to an insurance company to ignore or fail to act upon a certificate or document that it had itself called for from independent and impartial authorities, subject to just exceptions, merely because it is averse to it or to its detriment. Having undertaken to indemnify an insured against possible loss in specified situations, an insurance company is expected to make good on its promise in a bonafide and fair manner and not just care for and cater to its own profit - It is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties; that good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the party knows; and that the insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the insurance company to disclose all material facts within their knowledge since the obligation of good faith applies to both equally. This obligation and duty would rest on both parties not only at the inception of the contract of insurance but throughout its existence and even thereafter. (Para 12 - 13) Isnar Aqua Farms v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 615 : 2023 INSC 680

Land Law

RFCTLARR Act - The Supreme Court sets aside the award passed during covid lockdown; says 'fair opportunity of hearing must be given to claimant'. Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Law of Torts

High Court’s direction to introduce a law dealing with “Liability in Tort” – Held, as far as the law of torts and liability thereunder of the State is concerned, the law regarding the liability of the State and individuals has been gradually evolved by Courts. Some aspects of it find place in statutes already in force. It is a debatable issue whether the law of torts and especially liabilities under the law of torts should be codified by a legislation. A writ court cannot direct the Government to consider introducing a particular bill before the House of Legislature within a time frame. Therefore, the first direction issued under the impugned judgment was unwarranted. (Para 8) Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701

Law Commissions

Constitutional or Statutory status – Held, when a litigant seeks a writ of mandamus, he must show a right existing in his favour and the corresponding obligation of the State to ensure that the litigant is able to exercise the said right. There is no right vested in the applicant to claim that the Law Commission set up by the Central Government should be given constitutional or statutory status. Law Commissions have already functioned and submitted reports. Whether Law Commission should be given a status under the Constitution or under a Statute is a major policy decision to be taken by the Central Government. It is only the Central Government which can take a call on this issue. Therefore, the 2nd direction was uncalled for. (Para 9) Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701

Recommendations of Constitutional Courts - High Court’s direction to appoint a "Nodal Officer" to note down the Courts' recommendations to bring to the knowledge of the Policy Makers – Held, whether a nodal officer should be appointed or not, is a matter to be decided by the Central Government. The Court cannot compel the Central Government to appoint a nodal officer. All the departments of the Government have adequate notice of the judgments of Constitutional Courts in which recommendations are made for the amendment of any legislation. Therefore, the 5th direction is unwarranted. (Para 11) Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701

Requisition for grant of funds – Held, the Central Government will consider such requisition at the earliest considering the importance of the tasks assigned to the Law Commission. The Central Government must ensure that the Law Commission does not become ineffective on account of lack of funds. (Para 13) Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701

Legislation

No Constitutional Court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. The Court may, at the highest, record its opinion or recommendation on the necessity of either amending the existing law or coming out with a new law. (Para 12) Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701

Manipur Violence

Manipur | 'In sectarian conflict, mob uses sexual violence to send a message of subordination; state bound to stop this'. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

'Investigate if Manipur police officers colluded with violence' : Supreme Court to supervising officer - Directions. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

'Enquire into violence against women in Manipur from May 4' : Supreme Court explains mandate of committee of three women judges. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

The Court directed to constitute a committee of three former High Court women Judges that will essentially look at relief and rehabilitation of the survivors and to appoint officers from other States to monitor the investigation of the criminal cases related to the ethnic clashes. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Sexual Violence

In time of sectarian violence, mobs use sexual violence to send a message of subordination to the community that the victims or survivors hail from. Such visceral violence against women during conflict is nothing but an atrocity. It is the bounden duty of the state – its foremost duty, even – to prevent people from committing such reprehensible violence and to protect those whom the violence targets. (Para 17) Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Sports Quota

75% eligibility condition for admission to sports quota 'unwarranted & discriminatory'. Dev Gupta v. Pec University of Technology, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623 : 2023 INSC 695

Service Law

Central Civil Service Rules - Retired employee can be appointed as inquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Wildlife

Issue regarding death of Cheetahs taking place in Kuno National Park - Supreme Court requests Centre to take into consideration suggestions of expert committee in right earnest. (Para 13) Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 616

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Abkari Act; Section 8 - The testimonies of official witnesses cannot be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined - the person receiving the information of the crime or detecting the occurrence thereof, can investigate the same. Questioning such an investigation on the basis of bias or such like factor, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not amenable to a general unqualified rule that lends itself to uniform application. (Para 16-26) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

Advocates Act, 1961; Section 35 - Professional Misconduct - Advocate did not disclose that his wife was the opposite party in the property dispute case taken up by him - Upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India to suspend the license - Advocate's son, who was assisting his father as his junior colleague, was let off with an undertaking that he won't commit any misconduct in future. Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet @ Ranu Yadav Dokh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - The court is powerless to modify the award and can only set aside partially, or wholly, an award on a finding that the conditions spelt out under Section 34 have been established - In appeal, Section 37 of the Act grants narrower scope to the appellate court to review the findings in an award, if it has been upheld, or substantially upheld under Section 34. (Para 13-16) Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 631 : 2023 INSC 708

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 10 - Procedure of Commissioner - In terms of Order XXVI Rule 10, the Commissioner has to submit a report in writing to the court. The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him constitute evidence in the suit and form a part of the record. However, the court and, with its permission, any of the parties may examine the Commissioner personally in open court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in the report or as regards the report including the manner in which the investigation has been made. The court is also empowered to direct such further inquiry if it is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner. The evidentiary value of any report of the Commissioner is a matter to be tested in the suit and is open to objections including cross-examination. A report of the Commissioner does not by and of itself amount to a substantive finding on matters in dispute and is subject to the process of the court during the course of the trial. (Para 14) Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : 2023 INSC 702

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Curtailment of 15 days of police custody by any extraneous circumstances, act of God, an order of Court not being the handy work of investigating agency would not act as a restriction. (Para 60) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. is a bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act. (Para 77) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The decision in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141, which held that police custody is not permissible beyond first 15 days of remand, as followed subsequently requires reconsideration by a reference to a larger Bench. (Para 79) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The maximum period of 15 days of police custody is meant to be applied to the entire period of investigation – 60 or 90 days, as a whole. (Para 62) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 - An order of remand has to be challenged only before a higher forum as provided under the Cr.P.C. when it depicts a due application of mind both on merit and compliance of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 read with Section 19 of the PMLA 2002. (Para 66) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The word “custody” under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 shall mean actual custody. (Para 60) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The words “such custody” occurring in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 would include not only police custody but also that of other investigating agencies. (Para 85) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 197 - Although a person working in a Nationalised Bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of Section 197 of the CrPC would not be attracted at all as Section 197 is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government. (Para 45) A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : 2023 INSC 682

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 197 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - In the prosecution for the offences exclusively under the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua the public servant. In cases under the general penal law against the public servant, the necessity (or otherwise) of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC depends on the factual aspects. The test in the latter case is of the “nexus” between the act of commission or omission and the official duty of the public servant. To commit an offence punishable under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC on such reasoning. The “safe and sure test”, is to ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have made the public servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of his official duty. He may have acted “in excess of his duty”, but if there is a “reasonable connection” between the impugned act and the performance of the official duty, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC cannot be denied, so long as the discharge of official duty is not used as a cloak for illicit acts. (Para 49) A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : 2023 INSC 682

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Trial courts cautioned against recording statements in a casual and cursory manner. What holds importance is not the mere quantity of questions posed to the accused but rather the content and manner in which they are framed. (Para 31) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41A - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 has got no application to an arrest made under the PMLA 2002. (Para 35) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR. However, delay with other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case rendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings. (Para 33) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - the complainant had named the appellant and alleged complicity based on a misconception and therefore, at this stage, having realized the same, has indicated that he does not wish to prosecute the complaint as against the appellant. Therefore, the FIR as against the appellant, would not be appropriate and all further action unnecessary. Iqbal Hasanali Syed v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - When it comes to quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings. An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal, then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter. Initiation of prosecution has adverse and harsh consequences for the persons named as accused - The right to not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds as one of the underlying mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution - The requirement and need to balance the law enforcement power and protection of citizens from injustice and harassment must be maintained. It goes without saying that the State owes a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished but at the same time it also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed. (Para 34) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the 2 initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. (Para 30) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. (Para 26) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2023 INSC 684

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 82, 83 - The High Court by its impugned order even while granting bail to the accused issued detailed and elaborate guidelines with respect to the manner of issuing proclamations under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The impugned order has inadvertently or otherwise entirely overlooked Form 5 and 6 and the important provisions of Sections 83 Cr.P.C. and 174A IPC. Therefore, to the extent, they issue directions to the State and to all Courts within the territories of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh; are hereby set aside. However, to the extent that the order grants bail to the accused, is left undisturbed. State of Haryana v. Darshan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Constitution of India, 1950 - The Court expressed its anguish of the manner in which women have been subjected to grave acts of sexual violence in the course of the sectarian strife in Manipur. Subjecting women to sexual crimes and violence is completely unacceptable and constitutes a grave violation of the constitutional values of dignity, personal liberty and autonomy all of which are protected as core fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Mobs commonly resort to violence against women for multiple reasons, including the fact that they may escape punishment for their crimes if they are a member of a larger group. (Para 17) Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 10A - Survey of Gyanvapi Mosque - Commission for Scientific Investigation - Application seeking a direction to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to undertake a scientific survey for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the construction and the age of the structure. The District Judge allowed the applications and directed the ASI to “undertake the scientific investigation / survey / excavation on the property. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the order of the District Judge directing an archeological survey of the area in which the Gyanvapi Mosque is situated. However, during the course of the proceedings before the High Court, ASI has clarified on affidavit that it was neither carrying out any excavation nor would the survey involve any destruction of the property. Held that the Order of the Trial Judge under Order XXVI Rule 10A cannot prima facie be construed to be without jurisdiction. Having regard to the nature and ambit of a court appointed Commissioner, we are unable to differ with the view of the High Court, particularly while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The survey shall not involve any excavation at the site or any destruction of the structure. The entire process shall be concluded by any noninvasive methodology that may be adopted by the ASI. (Para 15 -17) Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : 2023 INSC 702

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Sports Quota - Objective of the sports quota, was to promote and encourage sports, and sportsmanship in educational institutions. Expecting the same degree of academic excellence as that of general candidates will defeat the purpose of the sports quota. The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore, falls afoul of the equality clause. (Para 17, 18) Dev Gupta v. Pec University of Technology, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623 : 2023 INSC 695

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - A “fair trial”, is a right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it encompasses all stages of trial including that of “investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and the trial. (Para 28) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21A - Right to Education Act, 2009; Section 23 - B.Ed. degree holders did not pass the basic pedagogical threshold require for teaching primary classes and thus would not be able to provide 'quality' education to primary school children. (Para 31) Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : 2023 INSC 704

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21A - Right to Education Act, 2009; Section 23 - The fundamental right of primary education in India not just included 'free' and 'compulsory' education for children below 14 years of age but also included 'quality' education to be imparted in such children. (Para 19) Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : 2023 INSC 704

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging appointment of Election Commissioner – Held, the appointment of the Election Commissioner, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has been examined the Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155. The Constitution Bench did not pass any effective order disturbing the appointment, though the relevant files and all other factors have been taken into consideration. PIL dismissed. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 22(1) r/w. 13(4)(iv) – Insurance claim - Leakage of gas - Reports of the loss Assessor and experts – Held, NCDRC made observations in the impugned judgment as if its members were experts in the relevant field and clothed with authority to sit in appeal over the same. The leak of ammonia gas was not occasioned due to wear and tear as claimed by the insurance company but was the outcome of an accident which was not foreseen and beyond its control and not covered by any of the exceptions in the Policy so as to entitle the company to claim immunity for the ultimate purpose of repudiating the insurance claim. The NCDRC committed serious error by not giving the reports placed on record the extent of credence the same deserved. The manner in which the NCDRC dealt with such reports was not proper and legal; major part of the reports could not have been rejected and only stray observations relied upon to support the conclusions. This is one of the foremost reasons which compels to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Repudiation of the insurance claim, on facts and in the circumstances, is held to amount to deficiency in service on its part. Therefore, see no reason to accept any of the grounds assigned by the NCDRC for rejection of the Complaint. (Para 34 – 34) S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 619 : 2023 INSC 689

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 2(14AA) - Factories Act, 1948; Section 2(k) - “manufacturing process” - the firm's utilization of electrical energy for repairing electrical goods would make it fall within the definition of “power” used in the “manufacturing process” under both the ESI Act and Factories Act,1948. The word Manufacturing process also includes “repairing” any article for its use. Admittedly, the shop premises is used not only for selling goods, but also to service electrical goods. That being the position, it is clear that the appellant firm falls under the definition of a “Factory” and is using a “manufacturing process”, as contemplated under both the Statues. (Para 8 & 9) J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 2(15)(C) - Factories Act, 1948; Section 2(g) - “power” - the electronic goods shop which sells goods and repairs/services such goods can be said to be engaged in a “manufacturing process” using “power” as defined under ESI Act and Factories Act. (Para 10) J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Sections 2(12) - Factories Act, 1948; Section 2(k) - “factory” - Electronics shop repairing and servicing electrical goods is “factory” under ESI Act. (Para 9) J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 114(a) - A presumption of fact must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation. (Para 36) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 21) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Interpretation of Statutes - All penal statutes are to be construed strictly - Court must see that the thing charged is an offence within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the words. (Para 19-21) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - Offences by Companies - A person will become vicariously liable when a company is accused of the offence under Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds) of the Act, only if such a person was "in charge of" and was "responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company" at the time the offence was committed. Just because a person is managing a company and is involved in its day-to-day affairs, he does not automatically come under the ambit of Section 141 of the NI Act. (Para 19) Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622 : 2023 INSC 692

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120A - One person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself - The offence of criminal conspiracy is committed only when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. (Para 38) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Penal Code, 1860; Section 195A - To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A - False evidence means false evidence before the Court of law. On such false evidence if a person is convicted and sentenced, then the person found guilty of administering threats would be liable to be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent as such innocent person is punished and sentenced. The word “false” in Section 195A should be read in the context with what has been explained in Section 191 of the IPC which falls in Chapter XI – of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice. (Para 16) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Penal Code, 1860; Section 299, 300, 302, 304 - A duty is enjoined upon the Court of Sessions to undertake an exercise and to satisfy itself whether a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out or not, before proceeding with the trial of an accused for murder. (Para 6) Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - Prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case as they need to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence with regard to last seen theory is totally unreliable. The evidence regarding the Call Detail Records (CDRs) also is one which does not inspire any confidence. As such, the appeals deserve to be allowed. (Para 21) Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678

Penal Code, 1860; Section 386 - The victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury. (Para 22) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Penal Code, 1860; Section 390 - Theft amounts to ‘robbery’ if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Before theft can amount to ‘robbery’, the offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The second necessary ingredient is that this must be in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. The third necessary ingredient is that the offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. It is not sufficient that in the transaction of committing theft, hurt, etc., had been caused. If hurt, etc., is caused at the time of the commission of the theft but for an object other than the one referred to in Section 390, IPC, theft would not amount to robbery. It is also not sufficient that hurt had been caused in the course of the same transaction as commission of the theft. (Para 14) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant - In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. (Para 25- 26) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - One of the essential elements for constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present. (Para 28) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 - Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. (Para 27) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 - Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 would enure to the benefit of the person arrested. For such noncompliance, the Competent Court shall have the power to initiate action under Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002. (Para 39) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 (3) - When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA, 2002 no writ of Habeus Corpus would lie. Any plea of illegal arrest is to be made before such Magistrate since custody becomes judicial. (Para 82) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; Rule 14 - the disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant. Hence, no fault can be found as the inquiry officer was not a public servant, but a retired officer. Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Award passed during covid lockdown – Held, Fair opportunity of hearing must be given to claimant. Award passed in respect of the acquired land is set aside. (Para 10) Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - It is imperative that a fair opportunity of hearing is given to the persons whose rights are affected. This requires that the interested person is given an effective opportunity to put forth his or her claim. Any deviation to the prescribed procedure, especially when it has seemingly affected the interested person, would militate with the very object of legislative mandate. (Para 8) Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – the Collector is obligated to hold an inquiry on certain relevant aspects, including the objections submitted by the interested persons, and pass an award concerning: (a) the exact area of the acquired land; (b) the compensation as may be determined under Section 27 of the Act; and (c) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. (Para 5) Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632

NOMINAL INDEX

1. A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : 2023 INSC 682
2. Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622 : 2023 INSC 692
3. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 612
4. Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 616
5. Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : 2023 INSC 702
6. Dev Gupta v. Pec University of Technology, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623 : 2023 INSC 695
7. Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : 2023 INSC 704
8. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626
9. Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693
10. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 610
11. Iqbal Hasanali Syed v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620
12. Isnar Aqua Farms v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 615 : 2023 INSC 680
13. J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637
14. Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678
15. Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 631 : 2023 INSC 708
16. Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet @ Ranu Yadav Dokh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635
17. Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2023 INSC 684
18. Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705
19. Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683
20. Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : 2023 INSC 706
21. S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 619 : 2023 INSC 689
22. Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687
23. Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703
24. Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625
25. State of Haryana v. Darshan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638
26. Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 636
27. Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632
28. Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609
29. Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : 2023 INSC 701
30. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677