Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [March 18 to 24]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 240 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 78(5) – Arbitration clause – Two-Contract Case – When the parties enter into a contract, making a general reference to another contract, such general reference would not have the effect of incorporating the arbitration clause from the referred document into the contract between the parties. The arbitration clause from another contract can be incorporated into the contract only by a specific reference to arbitration clause. A reference to the document in the contract should be such that shows the intention to incorporate the arbitration clause from another document into the contract between the parties. The present case is a 'two-contract' case. Clause 7.0 of the L.O.I. which also forms part of the agreement specifically provides that the redressal of the dispute between the NBCC and the respondent shall 'only' be through civil courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone. When there is a reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions of the first contract, the arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to the second contract unless there is a specific mention/reference thereto. The present case is not a case of 'incorporation' but a case of 'reference' and a general reference would not have the effect of incorporating the arbitration clause. The learned single judge of the Delhi High Court has erred in allowing the appointed the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. (Para 10, 12, 13, 21 & 23) Nbcc (India) Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 246

Compensatory Jurisprudence

Compensatory jurisprudence – Case of wrong medical diagnosis causing premature discharge from service –In case of premature discharge from service of armed forces, extreme caution and care in ensuring correct diagnoses was required. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) failed to observe that there is no medical literature to show that the appellant was suffering from AIDS defining illness. In spite of being aware of the adverse and pernicious impact on the appellant, respondents acted grossly careless and negligent. The appellant had submitted four diagnostic reports, showing that his CD4 cell count was above 300 cells/mm3, as opposed to the respondents' 2003 Guidelines defining an AIDS illness to be one where the CD4 cell count is below 200 cells/mm3. The Medical Board, arbitrarily, wrongly and rejected the appellant's prayer on flimsy and wrong grounds by applying the 1992 Guidelines. Held, the appellant's reinstatement in service is not an available option now and also that direction for grant of pension, cannot be considered an equitable restitution of what the appellant has suffered by reason of psychological, financial and physical trauma, hence monetary compensation on account of wrongful termination of services is awarded to the appellant. (Para 6, 7, 8, 9 & 23) Satyanand Singh v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 247

Constitution of India

Constitution of India – Quashing of proceedings – Held, tested on the touchstone of the principles stated in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., allowing continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR is gross abuse of process of law because the allegations as set out in the FIR do not disclose necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence. Hence, the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant are quashed and set aside. (Para 33) Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Constitution of India; Article 14 – Exemption of certain projects or activities from mandatory obtaining environment clearance – Unguided and blanket exemption, is, per se, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Item 6 grants exemption from the requirement of obtaining EC for “extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects, such as roads, pipelines, etc. Held, when an exception is sought to the requirement of obtaining EC, the exception must be specific. There is no specification about the quantum of ordinary earth, which can be extracted or the area which can be used to extract ordinary earth. “Linear projects” have not been defined making the term “linear projects” very vague. Even the amended item 6 continues to suffer from the same vice of arbitrariness, which Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits. The exemption granted without incorporating any safeguards is completely unguided and arbitrary and such blanket exemption completely defeats the very object of the EP Act. Hence, on account of the violation of Article 14, item 6 in the impugned notification, as well as the amended impugned notification, is struck down. (Para 25, 26 & 27) Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Constitution of India; Article 22(4) and Act, 1986; Section 9, 10, 11 & 12 - Advisory Board - Article 22(4) mandates that, any law pertaining to preventive detention must provide for constitution of an Advisory Board consisting of persons who have been or qualified to be appointed as judges of the High Court. It further vests the Advisory Board with the pivotal role of reviewing an order of detention within three-months by forming an opinion as to whether there is a sufficient cause for such detention or not, after consideration of all the material on record including representation if any, of the detenu. Under preventive detention legislations, Advisory Boards(s) are constitutional safeguards available to the detenu against an order of detention. Under the Act, 1986, Section 9 gives expression to this constitutional requirement, and provides for the constitution and composition of an Advisory Board for the purposes of the Act. Under section 10, any order of detention that has been made under the Act shall be placed before an Advisory Board thereunder within three-weeks from the date of its passing. As per Section 11, the Advisory Board must form an opinion and specify as to whether there is sufficient cause warranting the detention of the detenu. (Para 50, 52 & 53) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Constitution of India; Article 32 – Quashing the order of detention – The Court does not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction but may ascertain whether the subjective satisfaction is based on objective facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind. (Para 43) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Constitution of India; Article 32 – Writ of Habeas Corpus – 'Habeas Corpus' literally means 'have his body'. This is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective relief of immediate release from unlawful or unjustifiable detention, whether in prison or in private custody. It is the duty of the Court to issue this writ to safeguard the freedom of the citizen against arbitrary and illegal detention. By the writ of habeas corpus, the Court can cause any person who is imprisoned to be brought before the Court and obtain knowledge of the reason why he is imprisoned and then either set him free then and there if there is no legal justification for the imprisonment, or see that he is brought speedily to trial. The writ may be addressed to any person whatsoever an official or a private individual who has another in his custody. (Para 29 & 30) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Constitution of India; Article 226 and Criminal procedure Code, 1973; Section 482 – Categories of cases wherein quashing power could be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice are: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are absurd and inherently improbable to reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is provision providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is mala fide. (Para 32) Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Constitution of India – Guidelines issued to secure the fundamental rights and dignity of intimate partners, and members of the LGBTQ+ communities in illegal detention – Mandatory in nature – Habeas corpus petitions and petitions for protection must be given a priority in hearing and courts must avoid adjournments or delays in the disposal of the case; In evaluating the locus standi of a partner or friend, the court must not make a roving enquiry into the precise nature of the relationship between the appellant and the person; Effort must be to create an environment conducive for a free and un-coerced dialogue to ascertain the wishes of the corpus; The court must ensure that the corpus is produced before the court and given the opportunity to interact with the judges in-person in chambers to ensure the privacy and safety of the detained or missing person; The court must ensure that the wishes of the detained person is not unduly influenced by the Court, or the police, or the natal family during the course of the proceedings; Upon securing the environment and inviting the detained or missing person in chambers, the court must make active efforts to put the detained or missing person at ease; If a detained or missing person expresses their wish to not go back to the alleged detainer or the natal family, then the person must be released immediately without any further delay; Courts must grant an ad-interim protection while dealing with a petition for police protection by intimate partners on the grounds that they are a same sex, transgender, inter-faith or inter-caste couple to maintain their privacy and dignity; The Court must not adopt counselling or parental care as a means of changing the mind of the appellant, or the detained/missing person; The Judge during the interaction with the corpus to ascertain their views must not attempt to change or influence the admission of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the appellant or the corpus and Sexual orientation and gender identity fall in a core zone of privacy of an individual and no stigma or moral judgment must be imposed when dealing with cases involving parties from the LGBTQ+ community. (Para 16 & 17) Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1) (m) and Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Maintainability of the complaint filed by Insured Company (registered under the Companies Act, 1956) before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is in question – Whether 'company' is covered by the definition of 'person' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? – Held, the definition of 'person' as provided in the Act of 1986 is inclusive and not exhaustive. Consumer Protection Act being a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the statute. The very fact that in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a body corporate has been brought within the definition of 'person', by itself indicates that the legislature realized the incongruity in the unamended provision and has rectified the anomaly by including the word 'company' in the definition of 'person'. (Para 15) Kozyflex Mattresses Pvt. Ltd. v. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Criminal Law

Criminal Law – Appropriate sentence – Principle of proportionality – The aggravating and mitigating circumstances which the Court considers while deciding commutation of penalty from death to life imprisonment, have a large bearing in deciding the number of years of compulsory imprisonment without remission, too. In the process of arriving at the number of years which the convict will have to undergo before which the remission powers could be invoked, some of the relevant factors that the courts bear in mind are:- (a) the number of deceased who are victims of that crime and their age and gender; (b) the nature of injuries including sexual assault if any; (c) the motive for which the offence was committed; (d) whether the offence was committed when the convict was on bail in another case; (e) the premeditated nature of the offence; (f) the relationship between the offender and the victim; (g) the abuse of trust if any; (h) the criminal antecedents; and whether the convict, if released, would be a menace to the society. Some of the positive factors have been, (1) age of the convict; (2) the probability of reformation of convict; (3) the convict not being a professional killer; (4) the socioeconomic condition of the accused; (5) the composition of the family of the accused and (6) conduct expressing remorse. The Court would be additionally justified in considering the conduct of the convict in jail; and the period already undergone to arrive at the number of years which the Court feels the convict should, serve as part of the sentence of life imprisonment and before which he cannot apply for remission. These are not exhaustive but illustrative and each case would depend on the facts and circumstances therein. No interference required for sentence of offences under Section 449 and Section 309. However, sentence under Section 302 is modified from 30 years imprisonment without remission to 25 years imprisonment without remission. (Para 57) Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Criminal Law – Standard of proof – Beyond reasonable doubt – Various lapses cumulatively affect the overall sanctity of the prosecution case, making it fall short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution case stands shaken beyond a point to which no conviction resting thereupon can be said to be just in the eyes of law. (Para 47) Periyasamy v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 482 and Constitution of India; Article 226 – Exercise of extraordinary power to quash proceedings – Such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Some instances where such power can be exercised is: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Held, present case would squarely fall under categories (1), (3) and (5) and even if the allegations made in the FIR and the material on which the prosecution relies, are taken at its face value, there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. (Para 17 & 18) Ms. X v. Mr. A, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986

Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986; Rule 5(3) and Constitution of India; Article 21 – Procedure of inviting objections to the draft Environmental clearance (EC) notification – Held, before the issue of the second EC notification, the procedure of inviting objections to the draft notification was followed, and the objections were considered. Hence, there is no reason to dispense with the requirement of inviting objections before publishing the impugned notification. Article 21 guarantees a right to live in a pollution-free environment and therefore, the participation of the citizens is very important by allowing them to raise objections to the proposed notification. Hence, their participation cannot be prevented by casually exercising the power under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5. (Para 22) Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986; Rule 5(4) – Requirement of public notice for modifying EC notifications can be dispensed with in 'public interest' – The Central Government for modifying EC notifications came to the conclusion that in the public interest, the requirement of prior publication of notice was required to be dispensed with. The document recording the satisfaction of the competent authority about the existence of public interest and the nature of the public interest ought to have been produced by the Ministry. As no such document was produced it can be concluded that the drastic decision to invoke Rule 5(4) was made without any application of the mind. Hence, the decision-making process has been vitiated. Therefore, the inclusion of item 6 of the substituted Appendix-IX will have to be held illegal. (Para 23 & 24) Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Object – The object of the EP Act is to provide for the protection and improvement of the environment. Object of mandatory requirement of obtaining environmental clearance notification for projects was to minimize the damage to environment while implementing projects. (Para 9 & 25) Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Evidence Act, 1872

Court has to strike a balance between testimonies of Injured Witness & Interested Witness. The evidence of an injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of a witness simpliciter. (Para 28 & 34) Periyasamy v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Evidence Law – Insufficiency of evidence – Sufficiency of the materials on record - Ordinarily the court should not get into or look into the sufficiency of the materials on record on the basis of which the requisite subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the Detaining Authority. However, if the facts of the case are such that the court is required to go into such issues, it may be done. The detention of the detenue is only relied upon on his confessional statement before the police and there is no test identification parade carried out by the police. There is nothing to indicate that the nefarious activities of the detenu created an atmosphere of panic and fear in the minds of the people of the concerned locality. Held, it is a case of and it prima facie, appears that the detenu might have been picked up by the police on suspicion and then relied upon his confessional statement before the police. (Para 33) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Evidence Act, 1872 – Independent witness – No independent witnesses were examined – The non-examination of independent witnesses would not be fatal to a case set up by the prosecution but if witnesses examined are found to be 'interested' then, the examination of independent witnesses would assume importance. It is hard to conceive how the Trial Court concluded that despite being the first cousin of D-1 and himself a person injured in the incident, PW-1 was not an interested witness. Further, considering categorical statement that “the wine shop is in the main road” and “the wine shop would be crowded always” the joining of independent witnesses ought not to have been a difficult task but, yet, it remained unachieved. (Para 31) Periyasamy v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Evidence Act, 1872 – Delay in filing the FIR and delay in examination of prosecution witness – The delay therefore renders the circumstances questionable. Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the two accused persons beyond reasonable doubt warranting a conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Para 42) Periyasamy v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Evidence Act, 1872 – Circumstantial evidence – Chain of circumstances – The circumstances set out are by themselves consistent with the sole hypothesis that the accused and the accused alone is the perpetrator of these murders which were most foul. Held, the circumstances presented in evidence in this case meets the ingredients that are required to be established. Hence, no reason to interfere with the concurrent conviction recorded by the trial Court and the High Court against the appellant. (Para 15) Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Evidence Act, 1872 – Circumstantial evidence – Panchsheel or the five principles essential to be kept in mind while convicting an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence: - (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, (2) the 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, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete 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. (Para 14) Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 – Burden of proof – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty. However, in exceptional cases where it could be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused, the burden will be on the accused since he could prove as to what transpired in such scenario, without difficulty or inconvenience. In this case, when an offence like multiple murders is committed inside a house in secrecy, the initial burden has to be discharged by the prosecution and once the prosecution successfully discharged the burden cast upon it, the burden did shift upon the appellant being the only other person inside the four corners of the house to offer a cogent and plausible explanation as to how the offences came to be committed. The appellant has miserably failed to prove. (Para 12) Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Goonda Act

Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Act 1986); Section 2(g) – Preventive detention is challenged – Difference between 'law and order' and 'public order' – In order to pass an order of detention under the Act 1986 against any person, the Detaining Authority must be satisfied that he is a “GOONDA” within the meaning of Section 2(g) and to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it necessary that he is preventively detained. Held, mere registration of the two FIRs for the alleged offences of robbery etc. could not have been made the basis to preventively detaining the appellant herein on the assumption that he is a “GOONDA”. What has been alleged against the detenu could have raised the problems relating to 'law and order' but it is difficult to say that they impinged on 'public order'. Further held, to bring the activities of a person within the expression of “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” the activities must be of such a nature that the ordinary laws cannot deal with them or prevent subversive activities affecting society. The true distinction between the areas of 'law and order' and 'public order' lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. Inability on the part of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention. (Para 20, 31, 32) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Act 1986; Section 2(a) –The Explanation to Section 2(a) provides that a person shall be deemed to be “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” when such person is a “GOONDA” and engaged in activities which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. 'Public order' shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely, inter alia if any of the activities of any person referred to in Section 2(a) directly or indirectly, are causing or is likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life, property or public health. (Para 23) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Act 1986; Section 3(2) – Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority – The Detaining Authority should take into consideration only relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite subjective satisfaction. There is an implicit duty to apply mind to the pertinent and proximate matters and eschew those which are irrelevant & remote. If the detaining authority does not consider relevant circumstances or considers wholly unnecessary, immaterial and irrelevant circumstances, then such subjective satisfaction would be vitiated. The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement in the order that “it was necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. To arrive at a proper satisfaction, the detaining authority must examine (i) the material adduced against the prospective detenu to satisfy itself whether his conduct or antecedent(s) reflect that he has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, (ii) whether it is likely that the said person would act in a manner prejudicial to the public order in near future unless he is prevented from doing so by passing an order of detention. Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Act 1986; Section 2(a) –The Explanation to Section 2(a) provides that a person shall be deemed to be “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” when such person is a “GOONDA” and engaged in activities which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. 'Public order' shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely, inter alia if any of the activities of any person referred to in Section 2(a) directly or indirectly, are causing or is likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life, property or public health. (Para 23) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Act 1986 – Object – To prevent crime and to protect the society from the anti-social elements and dangerous characters by placing them under detention for such a duration as would disable them from resorting to undesirable criminal activities. The provisions of the Act are intended to deal with habitual criminals, dangerous and desperate outlaws, who are so hardened and incorrigible that the ordinary provisions of the penal laws and the mortal/moral fear of punishment for crime are not sufficient deterrence for them. (Para 19) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Act 1986 – Invocation of Section 3 of the 1986 Act is not justified as mere involvement in a sexual offence, including one under Section 376D, by itself will not be sufficient to invoke Section 3 of the 1986 Act. This is for the reason that the 5 offence must be integrally connected 'with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'. It is not decipherable from the order of Detaining Authority coupled with the grounds of detention, or from the Confirmation Order dated 09.08.2023, how the offence is connected to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. (Para 7) Vaddi Lakshmi v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Information Technology Act, 2000

Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 67 – Criminalises the publication and transmission of obscene material in electronic form, covers material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it. (Para 7.1) Apoorva Arora v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 67A – The facts of the present case certainly do not attract Section 67A as the complainant's grievance is about excessive usage of vulgar expletives, swear words, and profanities. There is no allegation of any 'sexually explicit act or conduct' in the complaint and as such, Section 67A does not get attracted. Section 67A criminalises publication, transmission, causing to publish or transmit – in electronic form – any material that contains sexually explicit act or conduct. Though the three expressions “explicit”, “act”, and “conduct” are open-textured and are capable of encompassing wide meaning, the phrase may have to be seen in the context of 'obscenity' as provided in Section 67. (Para 46 & 47) Apoorva Arora v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Penal Code, 1860

Quashing of FIR – A court must exercise its jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal complaint when the allegations made therein, taken prima facie, do not disclose the commission of any offence. (Para 48) Apoorva Arora v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Penal Code, 1860 – The Right of Private Defence – The law provides that the person claiming such a right bears the onus to prove the legitimacy of the actions done in furtherance thereof and it is not for the Court to presume the presence of such circumstances or the truth in such a plea being taken. (Para 19) Periyasamy v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 & 120B – Since the foundational facts essential for constituting the substantive offences under Sections 153A and 504 IPC are not available from the admitted allegations of prosecution, the allegations qua the subsidiary offences under Sections 34 and 120B IPC would also be non est. (Para 30) Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Penal Code, 1860; Section 153A – For applying Section 153A IPC, the presence of two or more groups or communities is essential. Held, in the present case, no such groups or communities were referred to in the news article. Hence, the FIR lacks the necessary ingredients of the said offence. (Para 29) Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 – This offence can be invoked when the insult of a person provokes him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Held, there is no such allegation in the FIR that owing to the alleged offensive post attributable to the appellant, the complainant was provoked to such an extent that he could indulge in disturbing the public peace or commit any other offence. Hence, the FIR lacks the necessary ingredients of the said offence. (Para 30) Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Penal Code; Section 292 and Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 67 – Obscenity – Profanity is not per se obscene – Vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity. While a person may find vulgar and expletive-filled language to be distasteful, unpalatable, uncivil, and improper, that by itself is not sufficient to be 'obscene'. The specific material which the High Court found to be obscene, was “foul, indecent and profane” language and nothing more. The High Court has equated profanities and vulgarity with obscenity, without undertaking a proper or detailed analysis into how such language, by itself, could be sexual, lascivious, prurient, or depraving and corrupting. (Para 35) Apoorva Arora v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Penal Code; Section 292 and Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 67 – Standard to determine obscenity – 'Community standard test' – The Supreme Court in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal markedly moved away from the Hicklin test to the “community standard test”. The standard of determination is that of an ordinary common person and not a hypersensitive person such as an adolescent's or child's mind, who is susceptible to influences. The High Court has incorrectly used the standard of “impressionable minds” to gauge the effect of the material and has therefore erred in applying the test for obscenity correctly. (Para 7. 1 & 39) Apoorva Arora v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Penal Code; Section 292 and Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 67 – Objective consideration while assessing whether the material is obscene – The court must consider the work as a whole and then the specific portions that have been alleged to be obscene in the context of the whole work to arrive at its conclusion. The High Court has taken the meaning of the language in its literal sense, outside the context in which such expletives have been spoken. While the literal meaning of the terms used may be sexual in nature and they may refer to sexual acts, their usage does not arouse sexual feelings or lust in any viewer of ordinary prudence and common sense. Rather, the common usage of these words is reflective of emotions of anger, rage, frustration, grief, or perhaps excitement. By taking the literal meaning of these words, the High Court failed to consider the specific material (profane language) in the context of the larger web-series and by the standard of an “ordinary man of common sense and prudence”. Neither did the creator of the web-series intend for the language to be taken in its literal sense nor is that the impact on a reasonable viewer who will watch the material. Therefore, there is a clear error in the legal approach adopted by the High Court in analysing and examining the material to determine obscenity. (Para 36 & 37) Apoorva Arora v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Penal Code, 1860; Section 292 – Obscene material – Section 292 defines 'obscene' as a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object that is lascivious, appeals to the prurient interest, or has such effect, if taken as a whole, that tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear the matter contained in it. The provision criminalises the sale, distribution, public exhibition, circulation, import, export, etc of obscene material. The provision excludes such material when the publication is justified as being for public good on the ground that it is in the interest of science, art, literature, or learning or other objects of general concern; such material is kept or used for bona fide religious purposes; it is sculptured, engraved, painted or represented on or in ancient monuments and temples. (Para 12) Apoorva Arora v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Penal Code, 1860; Section 375 – “Consent” of a woman – To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. Held, the allegations in the FIR so also in the restatement made before the Dy. S.P., do not, on their face, indicate that the promise by accused was false or that the complainant engaged in the sexual relationship on the basis of such false promise. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by holding that permitting further proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. (Para 11, 15 & 18) Ms. X v. Mr. A, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Preventive Detention

Difference between preventive and punitive detention – The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. An order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution, with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. (Para 25) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Mere involvement in sexual offence not sufficient : Supreme Court quashes Preventive Detention Order. Vaddi Lakshmi v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Principles of Natural Justice

Principles of Natural justice – Opportunity of being heard – The insured claims that the copies of the surveyor's report and the investigators' report were not provided timely and thus, the insured-appellant did not get proper opportunity to rebut the same. Held, the ends of justice require that the insured-appellant should have been provided proper opportunity to file its rebuttal/objections to the affidavit/reports submitted by the insurer-respondent before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and consequently, the complaint should be reconsidered on merits after providing such opportunity to the appellant. The appellant shall be permitted to file its rebuttal/rejoinder affidavit before the National Commission and shall be reheard and decided on merits afresh. (Para 17, 18 & 19) Kozyflex Mattresses Pvt. Ltd. v. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Property Law

Property Law – Plea of adverse possession – Ingredients to prove the plea of adverse possession: - (a) The plaintiff must plead and prove that he was claiming possession adverse to the true owner; (b) The plaintiff must plead and establish that the factum of his long and continuous possession was known to the true owner; (c) The plaintiff must also plead and establish when he came into possession; and (d) The plaintiff must establish that his possession was open and undisturbed. It is a settled law that by pleading adverse possession, a party seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner, and therefore, there is no equity in his favour. The plea is based on continuous wrongful possession for a period of more than 12 years. Therefore, the facts constituting the ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff. (Para 12) M. Radheshyamlal v. V. Sandhya, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Property Law – Plea of adverse possession – When a party claims adverse possession, Firstly, he must know who the actual owner of the property is. Secondly, he must plead that he was in open and uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years to the original owner's knowledge. It is not pleaded that even before the year 1947, the plaintiff or his father were in hostile possession to the knowledge of the original owner. Therefore, there is no proper foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plaint. Further, the plaintiff could not establish that his adverse possession commenced from a particular date. In a complaint filed to police one year before the institution of the suit the plaintiff asserted that he was in possession of the suit property for 35 years before filing the complaint. In the plaint, the plaintiff claimed to have been in possession since 1950. The plaintiff's own complaint defeats the case made out in the plaint. The plaintiff failed to prove his adverse possession. (Para 13, 15 & 16) M. Radheshyamlal v. V. Sandhya, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Supreme Court Rules, 2013

Miscellaneous application – The maintainability of Post-Disposal miscellaneous applications “for clarification, modification or recall – Miscellaneous application seeking clarification of the order passed by the court couldn't be entertained after the disposal of the matter. Post disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments. The factual background of this Application does not fit into that description. The attempt in the present miscellaneous application is clearly to seek a substantive modification of the judgment of this Court. Such an attempt is not permissible in a miscellaneous application which was described in the course of hearing as an application for clarification. By taking out a Miscellaneous Application, the applicant cannot ask for reliefs which were not granted in the main judgment itself. There is a growing tendency of indirectly seeking review of the orders of this Court by filing applications either seeking modifications or clarifications of the orders passed by this Court. Such applications are a total abuse of process of law. Multiple attempts to reopen a judgment of the Court should not be permitted. (Para 11 & 20) Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order LV Rule 6 – Under Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Supreme Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. Order LV Rule 6 cannot be inverted to bypass the provisions for review in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The maintainability of the present application cannot be explained by invoking the inherent power of this Court either. The applicant has not applied for review of the main judgment. In the contempt action, it failed to establish any willful disobedience of the main judgment and order on account of non-payment of LPS. Now the applicant cannot continue to hitchhike on the same judgment by relying on the inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court. The miscellaneous application is an abuse of the process. (Para 12 & 13) Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XII Rule 3 - A post disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments. (Para 20) Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Theory of Restitutive Relief

Theory of restitutive relief – In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year in the case if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate. Held, it would neither be desirable nor justifiable to grant admission to the appellant in the on-going session of the MBBS(UG) course. However, considering the fact that the writ petition came to be filed before the High without any delay, the appellant is entitled to restoration of his seat in the first year of MBBS(UG) course in the same college in the next session. (Para 27) Vansh Prakash Dolas v. Ministry of Education & The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - The appellants have miserably failed to satisfy that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of the alleged offences. On the contrary, there is sufficient material collected by the respondent-ED to show that they are prima facie guilty of the alleged offences. (Para 30) Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 240

Writ Petition

Writ Petition – Validity of clause 4.8.1 of the NEET UG-2023 Information Brochure – Classification has no nexus to the object sought – Clause 4.8 of the Information Brochure provides an exception/relaxation for claiming seat in the Maharashtra State quota to Children of employees of Government of India or its Undertaking who have passed SSC and/or HSC or equivalent examination from the recognized institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra. However, this clause imposes a rider that such employee of Government of India or its Undertaking being the parent of the candidate seeking admission in the course under the State quota “must have been transferred from outside the State of Maharashtra at a place of work, located in the State of Maharashtra and also must have reported for duty and must be working as on the last date of document verification at a place located in the State of Maharashtra”. Proviso to Clause 4.8 was relied upon by the respondents while cancelling the admission granted to the appellant in CAP1. Held, the place of posting is not within the control of the employee or the candidate. Thus, the distinction drawn by the clause between two categories of employees in the Government of India services (i) those posted in Maharashtra and (ii) those posted outside Maharashtra has no nexus with the intent and purpose of the guidelines/rules and hence the same deserves to be read down to such extent. The condition creates a stipulation which would be impossible for the candidate or his parent to fulfill. Held, the candidate(s) who are born in Maharashtra and whose parents are also domicile of the State of Maharashtra and are employees of the Government of India or its Undertaking, such candidate(s) would be entitled to a seat under the Maharashtra State quota irrespective of the place of posting of the parent(s) because the place of deployment would not be under the control of the candidate or his parents. (Para 15 & 21) Vansh Prakash Dolas v. Ministry of Education & The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 250