Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [February 12 to 18]

Administrative Law

Recruitment - Reserved Female Category - Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) - The Appellant i.e., a candidate who was scrupulously following the terms and conditions of the Impugned Advertisement was constrained to apply under the 'Open General Category' only on account of certain logistical limitations preventing her from obtaining a valid NCL Certificate. Held, the Appellant cannot be unfairly deprived of the benefit of female reservation merely on account of the Appellant's honesty and restraint which did not allow her to mark 'yes' against a column inquiring about a prospective candidates' status as a person belonging to the NCL, in the absence of the underlying supporting document. (Para 16 & 17) Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 107 : 2024 INSC 98

Acquittal

Appeal from acquittal – Principles of deciding – Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive i.e. inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary. Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge. If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed. If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal. If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts. In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court. (Para 36) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115 : 2024 INSC 104

Reversing the order of acquittal into conviction – The High Court had erred in reversing the decision of acquittal, without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or error in the reasoning of the Trial Court. Setting aside an order of acquittal, which signifies a stronger presumption of innocence, on a mere change of opinion is not permissible. A low standard for turning an acquittal into conviction would be fraught with the danger of failure of justice. In reversing the order of acquittal, what is required is an illegality or perversity in order of trial court. (Para 34 & 39) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115 : 2024 INSC 104

Adverse Possession

The person who claims adverse possession must show the following: (a) on what date he came into possession; (b) what was the nature of his possession; (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; (d) how long his possession has continued; and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. (Para 20) Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 117 : 2024 INSC 109

Banking Law

A bank cannot be held responsible for illegal activities carried out by the borrower in mortgaged premises. Punjab National Bank v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 127

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 61, 70, 204, 437 - An accused cannot be taken into custody when he voluntarily surrenders before the Court even though the Court which has taken cognizance of the chargesheet has not issued a summoning order against him. Bail application filed by such an accused, who voluntarily surrendered even in the absence of a summoning order, cannot be entertained. (Para 10) Souvik Bhattacharya v. Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata Zonal Office - II, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 122

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8) - Protest Petition - An application seeking further investigation can be treated as a protest petition if the application prima facie establishes the commission of the offences, and such an application can't be technically rejected because procedural recourse of filing a protest petition is not followed. Although the proper course for the complainant would have been to file a protest petition instead of filing it under Section 173(8) for further investigation, a petition should not be rejected merely because it is filed under the wrong caption. XXX v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 – Anticipatory bail granted on the condition is totally alien to the principles governing bail jurisprudence and is nothing short of perversity. State v. B. Ramu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 128 : 2024 INSC 114

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - High Court could not have stayed the investigations and restrained the investigating agencies from investigating cognizable offences as alleged in the FIRs and the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), particularly when the investigations were at a very nascent stage. The inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or caprice. The statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In a way, by passing such orders of staying the investigations and restraining the investigating agencies from taking any coercive measure against the accused pending the petitions under Section 482 Cr.PC, the High Court has granted blanket orders restraining the arrest without the accused applying for the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.PC. (Para 20) Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 114 : 2024 INSC 106

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Iudicial comity and judicial discipline demands that higher courts should follow the law. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the court do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice. (Para 24) Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 114 : 2024 INSC 106

Companies Act, 2013

Companies Act, 2013; Section 182 and Finance Act 2017; Section 154 – Constitution of India; Article 19(1)(a) – Constitutionality of Section 182(3) of Companies Act as amended by Section 154 of Finance Act – Non-disclosure of particulars of political contribution is violative of Right to Information – After amendment, Section 182(3) only requires the disclosure of the total amount contributed to political parties in a financial year. The deletion of the mandate of disclosing the particulars of contributions violates the right to information of the voter since they would not possess information about the political party to which the contribution was made which, is necessary to identify corruption and quid pro quo transactions in governance. Such information is also necessary for exercising an informed vote. The only purpose of amending Section 182(3) was to bring the provision in tune with the amendment under Section 29C of the RPA exempting disclosure requirements for contributions through electoral bonds. The amendment to Section 182(3) of the Companies Act serves no practical purpose as the Electoral Bond Scheme and relevant amendments to the RPA and the IT Act mandating non-disclosure of particulars on political contributions through electoral bonds is held unconstitutional. Hence, Section 182(3) as amended by the Finance Act 2017 is unconstitutional. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2024 INSC 113

Companies Act, 2013; Section 182 – Finance Act 2017; Section 154 – Constitution of India; Article 14 – Unlimited corporate funding – Arbitrariness of Section 182 - Removal of restrictions on political contributions is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution – Unlimited contribution by companies to political parties is antithetical to free and fair elections because it allows certain persons/companies (including shell companies) to influence the electoral process and policy making. This is violative of the principle of free and fair elections and political equality captured in the value of “one person one vote”. The ability of a company to influence the electoral process through political contributions is much higher when compared to that of an individual. Companies and individuals cannot be equated for the purpose of political contributions. Companies before the amendment to Section 182 could only contribute a certain percentage of the net aggregate profits and could be classified between loss-making companies and profit-making companies for the purpose of political contributions. The underlying principle of this distinction was that it is more plausible that loss-making companies will contribute to political parties with a quid pro quo and not for the purpose of income tax benefits. The amended provision does not recognize that the harm of contributions by lossmaking companies in the form of quid pro quo is much higher. Thus, the amendment to Section 182 is manifestly arbitrary for (a) treating political contributions by companies and individuals alike; (b) permitting the unregulated influence of companies in the governance and political process violating the principle of free and fair elections; and (c) treating contributions made by profit-making and loss-making companies to political parties alike. The observations means that the law must not treat companies and individual contributors alike because of the variance in the degree of harm on free and fair elections. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2024 INSC 113

Constitution of India

Constitution of India; Article 13 – Scope of Judicial Review in matters of economic policy – Courts must adopt a less stringent form of judicial review while adjudicating challenges to legislation and executive action which relate to economic policy as compared to laws relating to civil rights such as the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion. The amendment to Section 31 of the RBI Act can be classified as a financial provision to the extent that it seeks to introduce a new form of a bearer banking instrument. However, any resemblance to an economic policy ends there. The amendments in question can be clubbed into two heads: first, provisions mandating non-disclosure of information on electoral financing; and second, provisions permitting unlimited corporate funding to political parties. Both these amendments relate to the electoral process. The Bonds were introduced only to curb black money in the electoral process, and protect informational privacy of financial contributors to political parties. The Union of India has itself classified the amendments as an “electoral reform”. Thus, the submission of the Union of India that the amendments deal with economic policy cannot be accepted. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2024 INSC 113

Constitution of India; Article 19(1)(a) – Infringement of the Right to information of the voter – The non-disclosure of information about electoral contributions under amendments introduced by the Finance Act 2017 and the Electoral Bond Scheme is violative of the right to information of the voter traceable to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The voters have a right to the disclosure of information which is “essential” for choosing the candidate for whom a vote should be cast. The information about funding to a political party is such an 'essential' information for a voter to exercise their freedom to vote in an effective manner. The right to information of the voter includes the right to information of financial contributions to a political party because of the influence of money in electoral politics (through electoral outcomes) and governmental decisions. Information about political funding would enable a voter to assess if there is a correlation between policy making and financial contributions. Anonymizing contributions through electoral bonds are violative of Article 19(1)(a). Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2024 INSC 113

Constitution of India; Article 19(1)(a) and Indian Evidence act, 1872; Section 124 – Scope of right to information in the context of deciding the disclosure of evidence relating to affairs of the State – Conflict between public interest and private interest – Article 19(1)(a) has been held to guarantee the right to information to citizens. It is the role of citizens to hold the State accountable for its actions and inactions and they must possess information about State action for them to accomplish this role effectively. Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act stipulate that evidence which is relevant and material to proceedings need not be disclosed to the party if the disclosure would violate public interest. When such disclosure is denied on the ground that it would violate public interest, there is a conflict between private interest and public interest. There is a public interest in the impartial administration of justice which can only be secured by the disclosure of relevant and material documents. There is a close relationship between the right to information and open governance. Citizens have a duty to hold the government of the day accountable for their actions and inactions, and they can effectively fulfil this duty only if the government is open and not clothed in secrecy. The right to information has an instrumental exegesis, which recognizes the value of the right in facilitating the realization of democratic goals. But beyond that, the right to information has an intrinsic constitutional value; one that recognizes that it is not just a means to an end but an end in itself. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2024 INSC 113

Constitution of India; Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) and Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 - Infringement of the right to information of the voters for the purposes of curbing black money – Proportionality standard applied – Least restrictive means stage –The Electoral Bond Scheme is not the only means for curbing black money in Electoral Finance. There are other alternatives which substantially fulfill the purpose and impact the right to information minimally when compared to the impact of electoral bonds on the right to information. The legal regime itself provides other alternatives to curb black money such as contributions through cheques, bank draft, electronic clearing system or electoral trusts. Hence, the Electoral Bond Scheme does not fulfill the least restrictive means test. Further, the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) can only be restricted based on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2). The purpose of curbing black money is not traceable to any of the grounds in Article 19(2). Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2024 INSC 113

Bar association's resolution to not represent a party - Such a Resolution could not have been passed. Right to defend oneself is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution of India and further right to appear for a client is also a Fundamental Right being a part of carrying on one's profession as a lawyer. (Para 3) Rupashree H.R. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 126

The proportionality standard - To determine if the violation of the fundamental right is justified – The proportionality standard is by nature curated to give prominence to the fundamental right and minimize the restriction on it. The measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal (legitimate goal stage); The measure must be a suitable means for furthering the goal (suitability or rational connection stage); The measure must be least restrictive and equally effective (necessity stage); and The measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right holder (balancing stage). Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2024 INSC 113

Criminal Justice

It is the bounden duty of every Court of law that injustice wherever visible must be hammered and the voice of a victim of the crime is dispassionately heard. XXX v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Sections 18A and 28 - Non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer - The quantities of the 29 kinds of medicines recovered from the clinic run by the doctor were of small quantity. In such a situation, the non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer/person from whom the said medicines were acquired cannot be said to endanger public interest (which obviously is the primary object of the prohibition in law) by allowing the circulation of such substances unauthorizedly. In the attending facts and circumstances, considering that the accused is a doctor, it was held that imposing a sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified, particularly when the intent to sell/distribute under Section 18(c) of the Act has been held unproven. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, and the sentence of imprisonment was set aside; instead, a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant doctor. (Para 11 - 13) Palani v. Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 121 : 2024 INSC 110

Evidence Act, 1872

Appreciation of Evidence – The High Court fails to appreciate evidence in a thorough manner and merely relied on a limited set of facts to arrive at a finding. In an appeal, as much as in a trial, appreciation of evidence essentially requires a holistic view and not a myopic view. Appreciation of evidence requires sifting and weighing of material facts against each other and a conclusion of guilt could be arrived at only when the entire set of facts, lined together, points towards the only conclusion of guilt. Appreciation of partial evidence is no appreciation at all, and is bound to lead to absurd results. (Para 35) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115 : 2024 INSC 104

Circumstantial evidence –In absence of direct evidence, case essentially falls back on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances. The circumstances are far from conclusive and a conclusion of guilt could not be drawn from them. To sustain a conviction, the Court must form the view that the accused “must have” committed the offence, and not “may have”. (Para 37 & 38) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115 : 2024 INSC 104

Interested witness – Where a testimony is duly explained and inspires confidence, the Court is not expected to reject the testimony of an interested witness. However, when the testimony is full of contradictions and fails to match evenly with the supporting evidence the Court is bound to sift and weigh the evidence to test its true weight and credibility. (Para 33) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115 : 2024 INSC 104

Power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence – There is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, such power is a qualified power. For re-appreciating evidence, the court must consider, whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence or whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact or whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. (Para 25) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115 : 2024 INSC 104

Presumption of constitutionality – The presumption of constitutionality is based on two premises. First, it is based on democratic accountability, that is, legislators are elected representatives who are aware of the needs of the citizens and are best placed to frame policies to resolve them. Second, legislators are privy to information necessary for policy making which the Courts as an adjudicating authority are not. The presumption of constitutionality is rebutted when a prima facie case of violation of a fundamental right is established, upon which the onus would shift to the State to justify the infringement. The broad argument of the petitioners that the presumption of constitutionality should not apply to a specific class of statutes, that is, laws which deal with electoral processes cannot be accepted. Courts cannot carve out an exception to the evidentiary principle which is available to the legislature based on the democratic legitimacy which it enjoys. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2024 INSC 113

Presumption of innocence – The presumption is in favour of accused, unless proven guilty – The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal. (Para 24) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115 : 2024 INSC 104

Principles of circumstantial evidence – The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 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. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 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 37) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115 : 2024 INSC 104

Two-views theory – When the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution and reinforces the presumption of innocence of accused. When two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. It is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by re-appreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. (Para 26) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115 : 2024 INSC 104

Guardianship

Habeas Corpus - There is no legal right of an elder sister to exercise guardianship over her sister except when there is an order from a Court of competent jurisdiction. Rita Dwivedi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 124

Interpretation of Statutes

The courts should not give a hypertechnical interpretation to the clause(s) that would nullify the effect of the corrigendum/instructions. (Para 18) Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 107 : 2024 INSC 98

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Section 24 (3) (c) - Notice of COC meeting needs to be served on operational creditor having more than 10% dues. (Para 54) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 111 : 2024 INSC 102

Ordinarily feasibility and viability of a resolution plan is best decided by the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”), however when the resolution plan envisages the use of asset/land not owned by the Corporate Debtor but by a third party, which is a statutory body, bound by its own rules and regulations having statutory flavor, then there has to be a closer examination of the plan's feasibility. (Para 54) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 111 : 2024 INSC 102

The Adjudicating Authority (“AA”) i.e., NCLT under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has the power to recall its order approving the resolution plan if the resolution plan is not submitted as per the mandate of the Code. (Para 52) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 111 : 2024 INSC 102

The claim submitted by the Resolution Applicant (“RA”) under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) cannot be rejected/overlooked merely on the fact that the claim submitted appears to be in a different form other than the form in which the claim needs to be submitted. (Para 54) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 111 : 2024 INSC 102

When charge is created, resolution applicant to be placed as secured creditor in the plan. (Para 54) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 111 : 2024 INSC 102

Judicial Service

Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001; Rule 14, 18 and 21, Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017 – “No change in the rule midway” - The High Court administration is seeking to deviate from the Rules guiding the selection process itself - Rule 14, empowers the High Court administration in specific cases to reassess the suitability and eligibility of a candidate and not to take a blanket decision for making departure from the selection criteria specified in the 2001 Rules. Precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of the recruitment rules without there being a finding on such candidate's unsuitability, such an action would fail the Article 14 test and shall be held to be arbitrary. If the High Court is permitted to alter the selection criteria after the performance of individual candidates is assessed, that would constitute alteration of the laid down Rules. The reasoning behind the Full Court Resolution of (securing 50 per cent marks in aggregate) is that better candidates ought to be found, is different from a candidate excluded from the appointment process being found to be unsuitable. This deviation from Statutory Rules is impermissible. (Para 20 & 24) Sushil Kumar Pandey v. High Court of Jharkhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 109 : 2024 INSC 97

Labour Law

Respondent, a part-time labourer, reinstated by Labour Court in 2001. State repeatedly litigated against implementation of the Labour Court award, harassing respondent for 22 years. Frivolous Special Leave Petition dismissed; respondent awarded costs of Rs.10,00,000. State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Bijawat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 125

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2006 (Haryana) - The family of a deceased in a motor accident cannot seek "double benefits". If the family has received benefits from the State Government on account of the death of the deceased, then such benefits are liable to be deducted from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. There cannot be a duplication in payments or a windfall owing to a misfortune. On the death of the person in harness, owing to a road traffic accident the dependents of a deceased cannot be doubly benefited as opposed to those who are dependents of a deceased who dies owing to illness or any other reason under the Rules formulated by the Haryana Government. (Para 6) Krishna v. Tek Chand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 – Bail to the accused charged in connection with offence involving commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance – In case of recovery of huge quantities of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused, more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents. The Court would have to mandatorily record the satisfaction in terms of the rider contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The High Court not only omitted to record any such satisfaction, but has rather completely ignored the factum of recovery of narcotic substance, multiple times the commercial quantity. The impugned order is cryptic and perverse on the face of the record and cannot be sustained. Thus, the same is quashed and set aside. State v. B. Ramu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 128 : 2024 INSC 114

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138 and 141 - The Director of the company wouldn't be held liable for the dishonor of a cheque issued by the company pursuant to the retirement of the Director unless some credible evidence is brought on record proving the guilt of the director. The director could be held liable for the dishonor of the cheque after his retirement only when it is proved that any act of a company is proved to have been done with the connivance or consent or may be attributable to a director. (Para 10) Rajesh Viren Shah v. Redington (India) Ltd; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 119 : 2024 INSC 111

Penal Code, 1860

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 306 and 417 - Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 (Tamil Nadu); Section 4 - Broken relationships and heartbreaks are part of everyday life. Merely advising a partner to marry as per the advice of parents would not attract the penal provisions of abetment to suicide. There must be direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide. Where the words uttered are casual in nature and which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling people, and nothing serious is expected to follow from the same, the same would not amount to abetment of suicide. In order to constitute 'instigation', it must be shown that the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The words uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the consequence. (Para 10 - 12 & 16) Prabhu v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 112

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376, 417 and 420 - Accused is a police officer. The allegation of undue influence and/or unintended favour towards him by the Investigating Officer cannot be brushed aside lightly. The appellant in her application has stated that: (i) respondent no.2 was already married to M and was, thus, disqualified to perform the second marriage; (ii) he being a Government officer, his second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage would have been a misconduct under the Conduct Rules; and (iii) that the first chargesheet itself suggested that the appellant and respondent no.2 had been living together and were in physical relationship. If that is so, the Investigating Agency ought to have further probed as to whether they have been cohabitating pursuant to the so-called marriage performed on 13.09.2012 and/or it was merely a consensual live-in relationship. Similarly, the Investigating Officer does not appear to have taken any pains to visit the hospital/medical clinics to verify whether the appellant underwent abortion twice. We are not sure whether the statements of the persons living in the neighbourhood were recorded or not to find out whether the appellant and respondent no.2 had been living together as husband and wife. All these facts will have a material bearing on the determination by the Trial Court as to whether a prima facie case under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of IPC is made out or not. XXX v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 499 and 500 - Petitioner described all Gujarati people as “thugs”. It is true that every prosecution for defamation cannot be quashed on the ground that the offending allegations have been withdrawn. After the petitioner has explained the context in which he made the statements and after withdrawal of those statements, in the facts of the case, it is unjust to continue the prosecution. No purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, this is a fit case to quash the complaint. (Para 8 - 10) Tejashwi Prasad Yadav v. Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 113 : 2024 INSC 108

Practice and Procedure

A technicality like the caption of the application/petition could not be an impediment to consider the substance thereof. XXX v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Roster notified by the Chief Justice is not an empty formality. All Judges are bound by the same. No Bench can hear a case, unless as per the prevailing roster, the particular case is assigned to the Bench or that the case is specially assigned to the Bench by the Chief Justice. (Para 8) Directorate of Enforcement v. Bablu Sonkar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : 2024 INSC 107

Service Law

Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 (Gujarat); Rule 25 - Qualifying service of a government employee - Qualifying service for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits / pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules would include prior services rendered by such person under inter alia the Central Government provided that (i) the employment of such person under the Central Government encompassed an underlying pension scheme; and (ii) such person came to be absorbed by the State Government. The Appellant has most certainly, 'implicitly' been absorbed by the State Government i.e., the Appellants' participation in the selection process was prefaced by an NOC from the Central Government; and subsequently was followed by the tender of a technical resignation to the Central Government upon securing employment with the State Government. The interpretation sought to limit the benefit of Rule 25(ix) only to such person(s) who may have 'explicitly' been absorbed by the State Government is narrow and restrictive. (Para 14 & 18) Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : 2024 INSC 100

Constitution of India – Special leave Petition against order of High Court – To set aside impugned termination order – Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed. It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However, when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered. Termination from service order is liable to be set aside. Chatrapal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 120 : 2024 INSC 115

Pension – Objective - Pension is earned by a government servant in lieu of tireless service rendered by him / her during the course of their employment; and often is an important consideration for person(s) seeking government employment. The raison d'etre qua the grant of pension by the State Government would inextricably be linked to a concentrated effort by the State Government to enable its former employee(s) to tide over the vagaries and vicissitudes associated with old age vide a pension scheme. (Para 10) Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : 2024 INSC 100

Pension – Delegated Beneficial legislation - Pension scheme(s) floated by the State Government form a part of delegated beneficial legislation; and ought to be interpreted widely subject to such interpretation not running contrary to the express provisions of the Pension Rules. (Para 17) Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : 2024 INSC 100

Specific Relief Act, 1963

Specific Relief Act of 1963; Section 34 - A suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession. In this regard, a plaint could be amended at any suit stage, even at the second appellate stage. (Para 33) Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 117 : 2024 INSC 109