A. Constitution of India, Article 19 -- Schedule area – Non-tribal rights to reside -- Under sub-clause (e) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, every citizen has a right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India -- However, by making a law, reasonable restrictions can be put on the said Fundamental Right as provided in Clause (5) of Article 19 -- Argument that non-Tribals have no right to settle down in a Scheduled Area rejected.

(Para 14)

B. Representation Of The People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950), Part III -- Right of Non-tribal to vote in Scheduled area -- Appellant cannot contend that only a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe can cast a vote in elections of the constituencies in the Scheduled Area -- Right to vote will be governed by Part III of the 1950 Act -- Every eligible voter is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of a constituency, in which he is ordinarily residing -- Therefore, any person eligible to vote who is ordinarily residing in the Scheduled Area has a right to vote, even if he is a non-Tribal.

(Para 16)

C. Constitution of India, Article 330, 332 -- Reservation for all the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative constituencies in a Scheduled Area -- Appellant cannot contend that all the constituencies in a Scheduled area should be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes -- Reservation is required to be made in terms of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India -- These provisions do not provide that all the constituencies in the Scheduled Areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes.

(Para 17)

D. Constitution of India, Fifth Schedule 5 (1) -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 1 -- Applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Scheduled area -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made applicable to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir -- In the absence of the exercise of power by the Hon’ble Governor under sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule, the said law was applicable to the Scheduled Area.

(Para 18)

Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Permission to go abroad – Criminal case pending -- Petitioners cannot be deprived of their Right to Travel on the premise that the Criminal proceedings are pending against them -- There are ways and means to secure the presence, if they are avoiding the legal proceedings, initiated against them.

(Para 15)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Revenue rasta – Constitutional right of single individual – Resistance by Gram Panchayat -- Even if only a single individual may become benefitted from the construction of a revenue rasta at the instance of the Collector of the revenue district yet the above is not a sufficient and well informed reason for the Panchayat to resist to make compliance with the orders of the Collector, as thereby there would be breach of the mandate of right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

-- Constitutional mandate of right to life, also encapsulates, the right to a road being constructed upto, the homestead of any citizen, thus for facilitating able ambulance services being purveyed to a citizen, thus requiring emergent medical aid.

-- Solemn duty cast upon the Gram Panchayat to enable all villagers concerned to become facilitated with an ambulance road.

-- Imperatively also when the Panchayat lands are meant for the common purposes of the village proprietary body, thus are meant to as such rather also serve the above purpose, which also is a purpose, which tenably serves any member of the village proprietary body concerned.

Writ petition of Gram Panchayat dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ of mandamus -- Work charge service -- Pensionary benefits – Respondent No.5/ UHBVN endorsing that the period of work charge service rendered by the petitioner under the respondent No.5 from 30.08.1968 to 10.05.1974 – Writ petition disposed of by directing the respondents No.4 and 6 to consider the work charge period for the purpose of re-fixation of pension and other retiral benefits.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee on recommendation of MLA – Legality of -- Proposal of public representative has to be considered by assessing it on merit in the light of Guiding Principles and Instructions regulating the transfer of employees in consonance with pronouncements of the Court -- Impugned order of transfer passed without application of mind by the Administration Department/Competent Authority, but only on the basis of U.O/D.O Note, generated and communicated at the instance of a person having no role in Administration of Department – Transfer order quashed.

(Para 5)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Life and liberty of victim/ accused -- Article 21 of the Constitution protects lives and personal liberties of both the victim and those accused of having committed an offence.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 154 -- Cognizable offence – Mandatory registration of FIR – Life and liberty of accused – Arrest of accused -- To strike a balance, distinction is drawn between power of arrest of an accused person u/s 41 and registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Code -- While registration of an FIR is mandatory, the arrest of the accused on registration of the FIR is not -- FIR is registered on the basis of information without any qualification like credible, reasonable or true information -- Reasonableness or credibility of information is not a condition precedent for registration of the FIR -- However, for making arrest in terms of Section 41(1)(b) or (g), the legal requirements and mandate is reflected in the expression ‘reasonable complaint’ or ‘credible information’.

(Para 15)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 -- Cognizable offence – Mandatory registration of FIR – Life and liberty of accused – Foreclose of investigation -- Under Section 157(1) of the Code, a Police officer can foreclose the investigation if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to investigate -- Requirement of Section 157(1) for the Police officer to start investigation is that he has “reason to suspect the commission of an offence” -- Therefore, the Police officer is not liable to launch investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence.

(Para 16)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157(1), 173, 202 -- Cognizable offence – Mandatory registration of FIR – Life and liberty of accused – When the Police officer forecloses investigation in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 157(1), he must submit a report to the Magistrate -- Here, the Magistrate can direct the Police to investigate, or if he thinks fit, hold an inquiry -- Where a Police officer, in a given case, proceeds to investigate the matter, then he files the final report u/s 173 of the Code -- The noticeable feature of the scheme is that the Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of investigation -- Magistrate, who has little or no scope to interfere with the investigation, is not absolutely powerless in view of the powers conferred in terms of Sections 159 and 173, and infra, Section 202 of the Code.

(Para 16-18)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR -- Inherent power of the High Court -- This power is normally exercised when the allegations in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged -- When an offence is disclosed, the court will not normally interfere into an investigation, however, if the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation can be permitted.

(Para 19-20)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3) – Cognizable offence -- FIR -- The operandi for registration of information in a cognizable offence and eventual investigation is not limited to Police -- Sub-section (3) to Section 156, subject to legal stipulations, gives the ameliorating power to a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 to order an investigation in a cognizable offence -- Two different powers vested with two distinct authorities, namely the Police and the Magistrate, who discharge distinct functions and roles under the Code as indicated above are not entirely imbricating.

(Para 23)

G. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 -- Postponement of issue of process -- Section 202 not only refers to an inquiry but also to an investigation -- In such cases, the Police cannot on its own exercise the power of arrest in course of making its report in pursuance of the direction u/s 202 of the Code.

(Para 26)

H. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 202 -- Magistrate is required to examine, apply his judicious mind and then exercise discretion whether or not to issue directions under Section 156(3) or whether he should take cognizance and follow the procedure under Section 202. He can also direct a preliminary inquiry by the Police.

(Para 38)

I. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 397, 401 – Right of accused pre-summoning proceedings – Revision -- Accused do not have any right to appear before the Magistrate before summons are issued -- However, the law gives them a right to appear before the revisionary court in proceedings, when the complainant challenges the order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) of the Code.

(Para 39)

Constitution of India, Article 16 -- Recruitment exam – Change of category -- General to DESM -- Permissibility of – After having participated in the qualifying examination and having failed to score the minimum requisite marks, seeking change in the category cannot be permitted -- If a candidate applies under a specific category he cannot be permitted to change his category during the selection or midway during the recruitment process.

(Para 6, 7)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 208 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Suspension of Sarpanch – Removal of Sarpanch – Writ petition -- Contention that on the complaint made by the petitioner, an inquiry was held and after inquiry, the District Development and Panchayat Officer vide its report had written to the Director that action as envisaged u/s 20 of the Act, 1994 be taken against the private respondents -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Director Village Development and Panchayat Department to take a final decision on the recommendation within a period of one month in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice and after giving due opportunities of hearing to respondents No.2 to 5.

(Para 1-4)

A. Constitution of India, Article 32, 72 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 302, 307 – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908), Section 3(b), 4(b), 5(b), 6 – Murder – Death sentence – Long pendency of mercy petition -- In a bomb blast the then Chief Minister of Punjab along with 16 others lost their lives and a dozen others were injured.

-- Petitioner himself never submitted any Mercy Petition.

-- Alleged Mercy Petition of year 2012 was filed by SGPC.

-- After the communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 27.09.2019, the proposal for considering the commutation of the death sentence of the petitioner was started and a decision was taken to keep the same pending till disposal of the pending appeals before Supreme Court, filed by the co-accused as well as by CBI.

-- It was after the directions issued by Supreme Court on 04.12.2020 and 02.05.2022 that the matter was again considered by the competent authority and it was decided to defer the question of commutation.

It cannot be alleged that there has been an inordinate delay in disposal of the Mercy Petition -- Argument regarding delay of more than 10 years cannot be sustained.

(Para 17)

B. Constitution of India, Article 32, 72 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 302, 307 – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908), Section 3(b), 4(b), 5(b), 6 – Murder – Death sentence – Long pendency of mercy petition -- In a bomb blast the then Chief Minister of Punjab along with 16 others lost their lives and a dozen others were injured -- It would not be within the domain of Supreme Court to delve upon the decision of the competent authority to defer taking of any decision at present -- It is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues -- Stand of the Ministry of Home Affairs to defer the decision on the Mercy Petition of the petitioner is also a decision for the reasons given thereunder -- It actually amounts to a decision declining to grant the same for the present – Direction given that competent authority, in due course of time, would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision.

(Para 17-21)

Constitution of India, Article 32 – e-Court project – Hybrid hearing -- Writ seeking Hybrid hearing at Punjab and Haryana High Court -- High Court has completely prohibited access to Hybrid hearings following the resumption of physical hearing on 28 March, 2022 – Grievance of the petitioners shall be suitably addressed to the Chief Justice of High Court on the administrative side particularly having regard to the investment of public funds as a part of the e-Courts project -- Petitioners permitted to move a representation in that behalf before the Chief Justice so that a suitable view can be taken in that behalf.

(Para 1-3)

A. Constitution of India, Article 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by Supreme Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties.

(Para 33)

B. Constitution of India, Article 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Factors to be considered

-- Period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor.

-- But these facts have to be evaluated keeping in view the economic and social status of the parties, including their educational qualifications, whether the parties have any children, their age, educational qualification, and whether the other spouse and children are dependent, in which event how and in what manner the party seeking divorce intends to take care and provide for the spouse or the children.

-- Question of custody and welfare of minor children, provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and economic rights of the children and other pending matters, if any, are relevant considerations – Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is situation specific.

Some of the factors mentioned can be taken as illustrative, and worthy of consideration.

(Para 33)

C. Constitution of India, Article 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(i-a), 13B -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Held, decisions of Supreme Court in Manish Goel (2010) 4 SCC 393, Neelam Kumar (2010) 13 SCC 298, Darshan Gupta (2013) 9 SCC 1, Hitesh Bhatnagar (2011) 5 SCC 234, Savitri Pandey and others (2002) 2 SCC 73 have to be read down in the context of the power of Supreme Court given by the Constitution of India to do ‘complete justice’ in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India – Held, power to do ‘complete justice’ is not fettered by the doctrine of fault and blame, applicable to petitions for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act -- Court’s power to dissolve marriage on settlement by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, as well as quash and set aside other proceedings, including criminal proceedings, remains and can be exercised.

(Para 40)

D. Constitution of India, Article 32, 142, 226 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage:

Whether a party can directly canvass before Supreme Court the ground of irretrievable breakdown by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

-- In Poonam’s case (2010) 4 SCC 460, a two judges’ bench of Supreme Court has rightly held that any such attempt must be spurned and not accepted, as the parties should not be permitted to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, or for that matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, and seek divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

-- Parties should not be permitted to circumvent the procedure by resorting to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be.

-- Secondly, and more importantly, relief under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can be sought to enforce the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India, and on the proof of infringement thereof -- Judicial orders passed by the court in, or in relation to, the proceedings pending before it, are not amenable to correction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, a party cannot file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and seek relief of dissolution of marriage directly from Supreme Court.

(Para 41)

E. Constitution of India, Article 32, 142, 226 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage:

Scope and ambit of power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.

“This question as to the power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is answered in terms of paragraphs 8 to 13, inter alia, holding that this Court can depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws, as long as the decision is exercised based on considerations of fundamental general and specific public policy. While deciding whether to exercise discretion, this Court must consider the substantive provisions as enacted and not ignore the same, albeit this Court acts as a problem solver by balancing out equities between the conflicting claims. This power is to be exercised in a ‘cause or matter’.”

(Para 42(i))

F. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce – Quashing of Ancillary proceedings -- Scope of Article 142 of Constitution of India :

Power to quash and dispose of other/connected proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or criminal prosecution primarily under Section 498-A and other provisions of the I.P.C. under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Held, Supreme Court can also, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, quash and set aside other proceedings and orders, including criminal proceedings.

(Para 42(ii))

G. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage:

Whether Supreme Court can grant divorce in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India when there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage in spite of the other spouses opposing the prayer?

“…… this question is also answered in the affirmative, inter alia, holding that this Court, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. This discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified. The Court, as a court of equity, is required to also balance the circumstances and the background in which the party opposing the dissolution is placed.”

(Para 42(iii))

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Common Eligibility Test (CET) -- EWS (Economically Weaker Section) from General Category -- Petitioner had got himself registered, applied and appeared for eligibility test as a General category candidate -- There is a categoric condition in the advertisement that category once filled in cannot be permitted to be changed -- It is well settled that if a candidate applies under a specific category he cannot be permitted to change his category during the selection or midway during the recruitment process.

(Para 6-9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 15 -- 75% reservation for permanent residents of State in educational institution --  In last 2 preceding years, in the year 2021-2022, only 4 seats out of 75 reserved seats for the resident of Madhya Pradesh had been filled and in the year 2022-2023, only 2 seats out of 75 reserved seats had been filled, and thus 71 and 73 seats, respectively remained vacant for the last two years -- Thus, it is apparent that the large percentage of seats reserved for the residents of Madhya Pradesh which remains unfilled is not serving any purpose – State must keep the ground realities in mind – Direction given to the State to reappreciate this entire aspect -- State Government may examine the data of last few years, in order to come to a realistic finding as to what should be the extent of these reservations -- A wholesale reservation is not serving any purpose rather it frustrates the very purpose of the reservation -- This shall be kept in mind by the authorities while taking a decision in this matter, which shall be done within two months.

(Para 16-19)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 15 -- Domicile reservation – 75% reservation for permanent residents of State in educational institution --  Though reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 18)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Can the provision of Section 37 of the Act, be construed to have same efficacy throughout the pendency of trial, notwithstanding, the period of custody of the accused -- Held, the Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of ND&Ps Act in perpetuity -- Petitioner is in custody since 24.02.2021 and the facts suggest that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future -- Co-accused has already been released on bail – Bail petition allowed.

(Para 7-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173(8), 309(2) – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Incomplete charge-sheet – Statutory bail/ Default bail – Remand of accused -- Right of default bail u/s 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- It becomes essential to place certain checks and balances upon the Investigation Agency in order to prevent the harassment of accused persons at their hands. Held,

I. Without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

II. Such a chargesheet, if filed by an investigating authority without first completing the investigation, would not extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.

III. The trial court, in such cases, cannot continue to remand an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without offering the arrested person default bail.

(Para 32)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Increase in age of retirement/ discharge of Anganwari workers/ helpers – Writ of mandamus – By impugned order High Court held them entitled to be continued in their engagement until attaining the age of 65 years against the existing policy of the appellant-State of discharging them upon attaining the age of 60 years – Held, existing statutory norms do not provide for uniform age limit for retirement of AWs/AHs; and it is for the State Government to decide as regards the service conditions, including the age of discharge -- No mandamus could have been issued so as to thrust a particular age of discharge -- Appeal allowed, impugned orders passed by High Court set aside.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 200 -- Assent to Bill – Return of Bill – Power of Governor – ‘As soon as possible’ – First proviso to Article 200 states that the Governor may “as soon as possible after the presentation” of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the State Legislature – The expression “as soon as possible” has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities.

(Para 2)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Recovery after retirement -- ACP benefits given on the basis of Government instructions – Thereafter Government withdrew the benefits -- Held, amount recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner is not in accordance with law – Amount ordered to be refunded with 6% interest per annum.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Delay in retiral benefits -- Petitioner shall be entitled for interest on that delay -- 6% per annum interest awarded from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of its disbursal.

(Para 6, 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(C) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Petitioner in custody since 22.01.2021 and none of the 15 PWs have been examined till date -- Therefore, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for a right to speedy Trial and the petitioner can be granted the concession of bail – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 19(c) -- Advocates’ strike -- Grievance Redressal Committee -- Supreme Court requested all High Courts to constitute Grievance Redressal Committee in High Courts which may be headed by the Chief Justice and such a grievance redressal committee be consisting of two other senior Judges, one each from service and one from the Bar to be nominated by the Chief Justice as well as the Advocate General, Chairman of the Bar Council of the State and President of the High Court Bar Association – High Court may also consider to constitute the similar Grievance Redressal Committee at the District Court level.

(Para 2, 3)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ for a mandamus – Unauthorized occupation of Hadda Rori land – Demarcation of land – Eviction -- Respondents are purportedly delaying in making a lawful demarcation – Writ petition allowed, empowered Revenue Officer directed to forthwith make lawful demarcation(s) of the petition lands, and, thereafter to supply a certified copy of the demarcation report to the BDPO -- In case the said demarcation report reveals, that some encroachments, are made on the lands designated as Hadda Rori, thereupon, the BDPO concerned, is directed to forthwith institute a petition under Section 7 of the Act, before the learned Collector, who shall on receiving the said petition but after hearing all affected concerned, hence make a lawful decision thereon within 3 months of preferment of the said petition.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 300A -- Withholding of pensionary benefits – Pendency of complaints – Ground of -- Pension and pensionary benefits are Constitutional Rights and they can be withheld or deprived of only by the authority of law -- There was neither any judicial or criminal or disciplinary proceedings or any other statutory proceedings against the petitioner -- Mere pendency of some complaints against the petitioner cannot become a ground for deferment of pension and pensionary benefits -- Petition allowed, petitioner held entitled for benefits alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, in case amount not paid within four months, future rate of interest @ 9% per annum allowed instead of 6% -- Petitioner was earlier compelled to file a writ petition, held entitled for costs of Rs.25,000/-.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Parole -- Admission of son in school and to take care of agriculture crop – Superintendent of District Jail directed to ensure, deploying of armed police escort along with the petitioner to enable him to make arrangements regarding the admission of his son in the school and to take care of his agricultural crops and fields – Petitioner ordered to be release from morning of 20.04.2023 uptill the evening of 03.05.2023 – All the expenses to be borne by the petitioner.

(Para 1, 2)

Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, Rule 4, 8, 12 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Discretionary quota plot – Direction by High Court to allot – Challenge to -- Allotment of residential plots under discretionary quota declared illegal by Full Bench.

Letter dated 11.02.1987 stated that the Government had merely approved the allotment of a residential plot admeasuring 500 square yards and directed the Trust to allot an identified plot to respondent under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1983 -- Therefore, the act of identifying and allotting a specific plot was to be undertaken by the Trust -- Allotment of an identified plot in favour of respondent did not crystallize by the date of the Full Bench judgment in the year 2003 and remained stagnant at the stage of the Government’s approval.

Directions issued by High Court to allot plot contrary to the said Full Bench judgment, which practically stood affirmed by Supreme Court, cannot now be accepted or acted upon -- Civil appeal allowed, the impugned orders by the High Court set aside.

(Para 7-19)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Life and liberty -- Police protection -- Senior Superintendent of Police directed to depute a senior officer to look into the matter and after seeking a report, he may pass an appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

(Para 1-6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21, 72, 161 – Mercy petition – Expedite disposal – Directions issued -- Supreme Court observed and directed all the States/appropriate authorities before whom the mercy petitions are to be filed and/or who are required to decide the mercy petitions against the death sentence, such mercy petitions are decided at the earliest so that the benefit of delay in not deciding the mercy petitions is not accrued to the accused and the accused are not benefited by such an inordinate delay and the accused may not take the disadvantage of such inordinate delay.

(Para 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21, 72, 161 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 53, 54, 55, 302 – Murder -- Nine persons killed -- Death sentence – Long pendency of mercy petition -- Commuted to life imprisonment for natural life -- High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground that there was an inordinate unexplained delay in not deciding the mercy petition(s) kept pending for about 7 years and 10 months – Judgment and order modified and it is directed that the accused to undergo life imprisonment for natural life and without any remission.

(Para 4-8)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 – Life and liberty – Live-in relationship with married lady -- Protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India as emanating out of Article 21 -- Every person, more so, a major, has right to live his / her life with a person of his/ her choice -- Respondent No.2 directed take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 13, 14)

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (20 of 1959), Section 13(2) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Creation of Sub-divisions in a district – Writ of mandamus -- Creation of a new sub-division is a considered policy decision of the State Government for good governance -- No mandamus can be issued directing the State Government to constitute new sub-division under Section 13(2) of the Code, 1959 -- Government is expected to act and must act in a way which would make it consistent with the good administration – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of  India, Article 226 – Writ of mandamus -- Service matter -- Contractual employment – Renewal of contract – Right of -- Petitioner engaged for a specific term under an agreement and its term has expired -- As such the petitioner ceases to be in the employment of the respondents, who have taken a conscious decision, not to renew the contract -- At this stage, the respondents can neither be forced to reinstate the petitioner nor to renew the agreement.

(Para 9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 32 -- National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980), Section 2(3), 3(3) -- Detention under NSA -- Revenue officials went to the property to recover their dues, allegation that petitioner was of endeavoring to obstruct locking of premises -- Subsequently added that on a phone call he threatened the officers -- Assuming all the facts to be correct, the exercise of the said Act (NSA) in respect of the incident is shocking and unsustainable – Proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-10)

B. National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980), Section 1, 2(3), 3(3) -- Detention order under NSA – Object and reason -- Statement of object and reasons of the Act would show that it was to control the antisocial and antinational elements including secessionist, communal and pro-caste elements, that affect the services essential to the community, thereby posing a grave challenge -- This was particularly in respect of defence, security, public order and services essential to the community which have resulted in the National Security Ordinance, 1980 being promulgated and the Act was to replace the ordinance.

(Para 9)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Only manner in which such special conditions as enacted u/s 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty -- Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted u/s 37 of the NDPS Act.

(Para 19)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 25, 29, 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable – Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling – Incarceration has further deleterious effects, where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society -- The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials, especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily -- Appellant directed to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 21-23)

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A -- Public auction – Market value of property – Additional stamp duty – Demand of -- Property sold by the Company Court in an open auction conducted by the Official Liquidator and the sale stands confirmed by High Court itself -- Registering authority is unjustified in demanding additional stamp duty -- Order impounding the sale deed set aside, sale deed directed to be released immediately, after its due registration.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Deficient stamp duty -- Additional stamp duty – Demand of -- Alternative remedy – Writ jurisdiction -- Objection as to availability of alternate remedy of appeal -- There is no specific bar to a writ court exercising its jurisdiction if alternate remedy has not been availed of – Objection held to be not tenable – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 15, 16)

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (19 of 1976), Section 16, 17 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Bonded labour -- Life and liberty – Release of detenues -- Writ of habeas corpus -- Direction issued to District Magistrate to treat this petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law within a period of one week.

(Para 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Allotment of land to family member of martyr in Indo-Pak-War-1971 – Delay in Sanad – Compensation for -- State in the year 1974 merely handed over possession of 3 biswas of land to the father of the deceased martyr -- Sanad not entered, revenue record not updated -- State of Punjab directed forthwith make atonements by remitting forthwith a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs to the petitioner as compensation for the above procrastinated delay and, for its devaluing the eminent services as a soldier in the Indian Army, as rendered by the deceased brother of the petitioner -- Rigorous condition imposed against the allottee barring him to mortgage or alienate the allotted land is oppressive and also contrary to the completest rights as owner vested in the allottee.

(Para 4, 7, 8)

A. Service Rules – Government Resolution – Effect of -- In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail -- There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same -- Government resolutions issued by the Administrative Department cannot have the status of a statutory rule although such resolutions may have their own effect.

(Para 25)

B. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Maharashtra Forest Service, Group A (Junior Scale) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998, Rule 2, 3B, 6 -- Appointment of Divisional Forest Officer – Appointment by promotion from amongst officers of the Maharashtra Forest Service -- Exclusion of period of probation -- Proviso to Rule 2 is unambiguous and quite clear, i.e., the period spent on training at Government Forest Colleges and other period of probation including extended period of probation, if any, “shall not be counted towards the requisite period of service.” -- Even if the Government Resolution upgraded the post of ACF from Class II to Class I, the Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules will continue to hold valid in determining the period of service -- Rules 3B and 6 of the 1988 Rules also leave no ambiguity in this behalf and in fact read in consonance and the period of probation has to be necessarily excluded from period of service – Grant of monetary benefit is a different aspect – Held, Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules, and the resolutions neither speaking about promotion to the post of DFO nor about seniority conclusively, the Proviso would operate with full force.

(Para 25-30)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 313, 376(2)(n), 34 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(5), 14A(2) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix stands examined, in her examination as well as FIR, the allegation that physical relations with appellant on the pretext of marriage and now he is not solemnizing marriage -- Prosecutrix is major, she met appellant in Jail which prima facie shows that there was consensual relation -- Appellant is in custody since 25.02.2022 and he is not involved in any other offence – Out of 12 prosecution witnesses till date only 5 have been examined, thus, there is abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future -- In view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India appellant has right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody -- Prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of appellant being flee from justice or tampering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses – Appeal allowed, appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, Rule 5(1)(b) -- Constitution of India, Article 233 – Appointment of District Judge through limited departmental competitive examination – Appointment above 10% Quota – Challenge to -- Any appointment beyond 10% seats filled up by limited departmental competitive examination shall have to be considered appointment excess in quota -- No relief can be granted to the original writ petitioners in absence of those selected/appointed candidates -- High Court directed to see that 10% seats are filled up by limited departmental competitive examination on and from 1.1.2011 and if it is found that in any recruitment subsequent to 1.1.2011, the 10% quota is breached, all such posts shall be adjusted in the future recruitments. All India Judges’ Association case (2010) 15 SCC 170 relied.

(Para 7-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Change of name in educational certificate – Writ of mandamus – Petitioner permitted to file representation keeping in view the parameters laid down in the judgment in Jigya Yadav (minor)’s case 2021(7) SCC 535 through the school -- Respondents to decide the representation within a period of six weeks in accordance with law.

(Para 1-8)

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 16 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 1 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Written statement filed after one year – Application for placing on record rejected -- Revisional jurisdiction – By Sec.16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Code of Civil Procedure stands amended, which mandates that the defendant(s) has to file the written statement within 120 days from the date of service of summons, failing which the defendant(s) right to file the written statement will stand forfeited and the Court shall not accept the written statement on record – Held, there is no error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 6-11)

Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (42 of 1976), Section 246-A -- Ludhiana Municipal Corporation Building Bye-Laws, 1997, Bye-law 2(lix) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Illegal and unauthorized commercial constructions – Removal of -- Writ of mandamus -- Case of the petitioner that construction is against the provisions of Chapter XIV of “Building Regulations” of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation Building Bye-Laws, 1997 -- Writ Petition disposed of with directions to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to look into the representation and after considering the same take appropriate action as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the persons against whom the action is sought to be taken.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226(2) – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act, 1985), Section 25 – Transfer of Original Application/ O.A. -- Challenge to -- Territorial jurisdiction of High Court -- Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench Delhi transferred Original Application / OA pending from Allahabad Bench (Nainital Circuit Bench) to the Principal Bench, New Delhi – Order challenged in Nainital High Court, writ was allowed and order passed by the Principal Bench, New Delhi set aside – Matter involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court referred to larger Bench.

(Para 1,6)

Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (16 of 1994), Section 408, 408-A – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Illegal encroachment – Unauthorized possession / construction -- Removal of – Writ of mandamus – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to consider the legal notice, in accordance with law and also to take appropriate action therefrom after following due procedure of law as expeditiously as possible.

(Para 3)

A. Constitution of India, 1950, Article 167(b), 174(1) – Summoning of House of Legislature – Non-calling of Budget Session by Governor – Power of -- Whether discretion of Governor -- Authority which is entrusted to the Governor to summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Minsters -- This is not a constitutional arena in which the Governor is entitled to exercise his own discretion -- Governor was not summoning the House for the first time following a general election, but was advised by the Council of Ministers to convene the Budget Session, at the behest of a government which has been duly elected in the general election -- Plainly, the Governor was duty bound to do so.

(Para 22)

B. Constitution of India, 1950, Article 167(b), 174(1) – Summoning of House of Legislature -- Non-calling of Budget Session by Governor – Power of -- Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) on matters relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation -- Once such information is sought, the Chief Minister is duty bound to furnish it -- Not furnishing the information which was sought by the Governor would be plainly in dereliction of the constitutional duty which is imposed on the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) -- Dereliction of the Chief Minister to do so would not furnish a justification for the Governor not to comply with the constitutional obligation to summon the House for its Budget Session in terms of the advice which was tendered by the Council of Ministers.

(Para 24)

C. Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1)(a), 167(b), 174(1) – Parliamentary democracy – Non-calling of Budget Session by Governor – Power of – Requirement of Court’s interference – Genesis of the controversy has required the intervention of this Court at two distinct levels: first, to ensure that the constitutional duty of the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers to summon the Legislative Assembly is fulfilled without delay or demur; and second, to ensure that the obligation of the Chief Minister to furnish information to the Governor in terms of Article 167(b) of the Constitution is fulfilled – There are two equally important aspects for the functioning of a parliamentary democracy – First, the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfill its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional obligation – Second, while this Court is cognizant of the importance of free speech and expression and the fundamental value embodied in Article 19(1)(a), it becomes necessary to emphasize that constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship.

(Para 25)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 506 – Murder -- Appeal against acquittal -- Trial Court acquitting all the respondents/ accused holding that none of the eyewitnesses supported the case of the prosecution – In appeal High Court found that acquittal by Trial Court  was based on proper appreciation of evidence and facts – Held, in cases where a reversal of acquittal is sought, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, on grounds of it surviving the rigours of a full trial, is strengthened and stands fortified -- An additional layer of protection is granted to an accused -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6, 11,12)

Constitution of India, Article 217 – Elevation as High Court judge from District and Session judges – Counting of period as Fast Track Court/ Adhoc Judges – Permissibility of -- Since the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges have not been recognized by Supreme Court for the purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retiral benefits, the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution is not legally sustainable.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Equal pay for equal work – Job evaluation – Though the doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value -- The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary -- The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions -- There could be more than one grade in a particular service -- The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.

(Para 14)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Eviction from shamilat deh – Writ of mandamus -- Mandamus cannot be made as yet the statutorily prescribed remedies are still available to become recoursed at the instance of BDPO or by the petitioner or at the instance of the Gram Panchayat, through the institution a petition u/s 7 of the PVCL Act, 1961 – Directions given that BDPO, does forthwith draw a petition u/s 7 of the Act, against the encroachers, upon the petition land(s) -- On such a motion being drawn, thereupon, a lawful order, positively within five months from its preferment, and, but after hearing all the affected persons be made.

(Para 1)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Misrepresentation -- Rule of natural justice -- Once a person misrepresents in getting certain benefit, for withdrawal of the same, principles of natural justice are not required to be followed.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 46 -- Constitution (SC) Order, 1950, Order 2 – Schedule caste in one State – Status after marriage in Punjab -- Writ petitioner-wife was born in Maharashtra and belongs to Mahar Caste, which is Scheduled Caste category as per the Constitution (SC) Order, 1950 for the said State -- On account of her marriage with an Ad-dharmi caste person she had started residing at Phagwara (Punjab) – Held, mere marriage would not make a person as such to claim that she belongs to an Ad-Dharmi caste for the State of Punjab.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Interim order by Single judge – Letter Patent Appeal against interim order – Special Leave Petition -- It would be appropriate that the main dispute itself pending adjudication before the learned single Judge be decided on merits -- Pendency of the LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court against an interim order will serve no useful purpose -- LPA stands dismissed, Ld. Single Judge of the High Court requested to decide the proceedings on its own merits expeditiously preferably within a period of three months -- Status quo ordered to be maintained.

(Para 2-6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 13, 368 – Constitutional Validity of Statute -- When a party wants to challenge the constitutional validity of a statute, he must plead in detail the grounds on which the validity of the statute is sought to be challenged -- In absence of the specific pleadings to that effect, Court cannot go into the issue of the validity of statutory provisions -- Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the law made by the Legislature unless it is specifically challenged by incorporating specific grounds of challenge in the pleadings -- Reason is that there is always a presumption of the constitutionality of laws -- Burden is always on the person alleging unconstitutionality to prove it -- A Constitutional Court cannot casually interfere with legislation made by a competent Legislature only by drawing an inference from the pleadings that the challenge to the validity is implicit.

(Para 14)

B. Constitution of India, Article 170, 239A -- Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019), Section 1 – Conflict with Article 170 of Constitution -- Article 170 will have no application to Legislative Assembly of the Union territory of J & K as it forms a part of Chapter III of Part VI which deals with only the State Legislature -- Legislative Assemblies of the concerned Union Territories will be governed by the law made by the Parliament in accordance with Article 239A and not by the provisions of Chapter III of Part VI -- Argument that certain provisions of the J&K Reorganisation Act and actions taken thereunder are in conflict with Article 170 and in particular Clause (3) thereof is clearly misconceived and deserves to be rejected.

(Para 23)

C. Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019), Section 11, 60, 62, 63 – Constitution of India, Articles 81, 82, 170, 330, 332, 370 -- Increase and adjustment of Legislative Assembly/ Parliamentary seats – Appointment of Delimitation Commission – Challenge to -- There is no illegality associated with the delimitation/readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K -- No illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission -- Once the Delimitation Commission was established, there is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed.

(Para 31-36)