Judgment Notes 1. Smalll Industries Development Bank of India ‘¥. Mis Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd. © “RBI has wide supervisory powers over financial institutions like SEDBI, in ‘furtherance of which, any direction issued by the RBI, deriving power from the RBI Act or the Banking Regulation Act is statutorily binding... Iris not necessary for RBI io mention a specific provision before issuing directions for it fo have statutory consequences. All that is required is the authority under the law, to issue such a direction.” 2. Bhadar Ram (D) v. Jassa Ram © The SC has noted that a person belonging toa Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe inrelation to his original State of which he is permanent or an ordinarily resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migration to that State, 3. Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay © “All decisions of tribunals created under Article 3234 and 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned tribunal falls (dictum laid down by the ‘Constitution Bench in Z. Chandrakumar decision.) 4, Neil Aurelio Nunes and Others v. Union of India ‘© The SC allowed the commencement of counselling process for NEET-PG and NEET-UG for 2021-22 admissions on the basis of the existing 27% quota for OBCs and 10% reservation for Economically The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)‘Weaker Sections (EWS) in the All India Quota. ‘© The Court upheld the constitutionality of 27% OBC reservation. 5. S.Amutha v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors, © The SC has noted that a Preventive Detention Order is liable to be quashed if the detenn’s representation is considered afiera Jong delay. © “\..in the matter of considering representation made against detention order, the Competent Authority is duty- bound to do so with "utmost despatch’. 6. Sukriti & Ors v. CBSE & Ors. © The SC stuck down Clause 28 of CBSE Policy which held that marks in the later (improvement) exams will be considered final for the assessment of Class 12 exams. for the last academic year and futher directed that the CBSE shall provide the option to the candidate to accept the better of the two marks obtained for the final declaration of the results. 7. State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan © The SC held that the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits at par with the Government employees. The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put at par and the ‘employees of the latter are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. 8. In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation The SC ordered the extension of limitation period for filing of cases and applications in courts and tribunals. The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)© “itis directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand exchuded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed undler any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.” 9. Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihat © The SC summarized the circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by it from an order of acquittal. © “itis only in the rarest of rare cases, where the High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case, ignoring some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the accused, that the same may be reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.” 10. Union of India and Anr. v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed and Ors. ‘© Intthis significant judgment, the SC laid down the prineiples for repatriation of prisoners in accordance with the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. © The SC discussed if the sentence imposed by the foreign court onan Indian convict who is repatriated back to India can be higher than the sentence for a similar offence in India and held that the duration of sentence shall be governed by the transfer agreement between the foreign country and India. The Indian Govt. can modify the foreign sentence only if such sentence is “incompatible with Indian law’—but merely because the foreign sentence is higher than that under the Indian law doesn’t make it incompatible with Indian Jaw— Incompatibility ought to signify The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)being contrary to the fundamental laws of India. 11. The Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others © The SC has held that an amendment which has retrospective applicability and which takes away the benefit that was already available to an employee under the existing set of rules would divest the employee of his or her vested/acerued rights and thus, will violate the rights guaranteed under A.14 and A. 21 of the Col. 12. Lawyers Voice v. State of Punjab ©) The SC has appointed former SC Judge Justice Indu Malhotra to head the Committee to inquire into the security lapse during the visit of PM to Punjab in January. 13. Shri Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh v. ‘The Manipur University & Ors. © The SChas dismissed an appeal against ‘Manipur HC’s order upholding the decision of Manipur University to reduce reservation in admission for Scheduled Castes candidates from 15% to 2%, OBC quota from 27% to 17% and increase the reservation for Scheduled Tribes. candidates from 7.5% to 31%, in terms of amendment to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006. 14, Vasudha Sethi v, Kiran V. Bhaskar © The SC has reiterated that the “rights of the parents are irrelevant when a Court decides the issue of custody of their minor The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)child’. © “The issue of custody of a minor, whether in a petition seeking habeas corpus or ina custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration.” 15. Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India The SC had in 2017 (15.12.2017) held in Disabled Rights Group x. Union of India that educational institutions must ensure proper infrastructure including special classrooms, sports facilities, libraries, Iboratories, in teaching methods, etc. for the differently abled students. * Now, the SC has directed the UGC to finalize guidelines for the inspection of educational institutions for the supra facilities. 16. Devas Multimedia Private Ltd y. Antrix Corporation Ltd and Another (Antrix-Devas Case) * The SC dismissed an appeal filed by Devas Multimedia challenging the orders passed by NCLT and NCLAT allowing for the winding up on a petition filed by ‘Anttix Corporation Ltd, (ISRO’s commercial arm), It was contended by Devas that the failure to comply with the requirement of advertising the petition for winding up ‘would vitiate the entire proceedings. © The SC however noted that the purpose of such an advertisement is to provide an opportunity to all the stakeholders to either support or oppose the proceedings and to serve as a warning to all those dealing with the company that there is an element of risk involved — therefore, such an hitps:/Avww.business- standard, com/podeast/current- afftins/what-is-the-story-of- the-antrix-devas- covered in October, 2022. 4. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India This is the PMLA ‘© The SC upheld the wide investigative powers of | Challenge case > the Directorate of Enforcement and the restrictive | Covered elaborately in bail conditions under the Prevention of Money _| August, 2022. Laundering Act, 2002. 5. State of Haryana v Faridabad Industries Association The Basic Structure (An initiative by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)‘© The SC set aside the interim order passed by Punjab and Haryana HC staying the implementation of the Haryana State ‘+ Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 (provided 75% reservation for Haryana domiciles in private sector jobs). © The SC observed that the stay of legislation can only be granted when the Court is of the opinion that it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional. Furthermore, sufficient reasons should be given for staying legislations. ‘* SC did not deal with the merits of the matter and asked the Punjab and Haryana HC to decide the we. 6. Manjit v. Union of India ‘© Supreme Court upheld the termination of Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) for Railway Employees, The Court ‘was of the opinion that the Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways. 7. Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi * The SC while dismissing a plea to stay the release of film “Gangubai Kathiawadi” observed that the film certificate issued by CBFC prima facie showed that the film was not defamatory. © ‘Mere hurting of sensibility is not defamation if the person said to be defamed is not lowered in character or credit in the eyes of others.” © An injunction action can be initiated even after a certificate is issued under the Cinematograph Act. ‘The Court may examine the film and judge whether its public display, breaches the norms of decency or contravenes the law. A film which is defamatory or indecent or breaches copyright cannot be allowed to be exhibited only because a certificate has been issued. [8._Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana The Basic Structure (An initiative by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)‘© The SC has observed that the suspension of execution of sentence and to be released on bail being statutory rights of the accused, time-specific debarment on the same cannot be ereated by judicial orders. 9. State of UP v. Veerpal Ifthe Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, itean base its convietion on it without comoboration. © ‘Tecannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circtmstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner; that is 10 say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depenals upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character’ 10, Rina Kinnar and Anr:¥. State of Uttar Pradesh | ALLAHABAD HC and Anr. ‘© The Allahabad HC observed that for adopting a child, a marriage certificate is not a sine qua non, and evena single parent can adopt.a child under the HAMA, 1956. 1]. TRI Kroski Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. * The SC observed that ina cheque bounce case, when the complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent the company. ‘© ‘Indication in the complaint and the sworn statement (either orally or by affidavit) to the effect that the complainant (Company) is represented by The Basic Structure (An initiative by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)an authorized person who has knowledge, would be sufficient.’ 12. Aditya Ranjan & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ‘© SC dismissed a PIL filed by a group of advocates challenging the constitutionality of the offence of Sedition under Section 124 IPC, on the ground that the petitioners have no cause of action. 13. Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar v. State of BOMBAY HC Maharashtra and Anr. ‘* The Bombay HC observed that child born out of illicit acts/POCSO crime is also a victim as contemplated under Sec. 2(wa) of the CrPC. 14, Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar © The SC observed that a wift levelling allegations which affects career and reputation of husband is mental ernelty against him for the purpose of, seeking divorce. (In this case, the husband, an army officer, in his divorce petition, alleged that he was subjected to numerous malicious complaints by the wife which have affected his career and loss of reputation, resulting in mental cruelty.) 15, High Court of Judicature at Madras v. MC Subramaniam ‘© Court held that the parties who privately agree to settle their dispute outside the modes contemplated under Section 89 of CPC are also entitled to refiund of Court fees. The participants in private settlements will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore altemate dispute settlement methods. ‘© ‘The importance of private amicable negotiation between the parties cannot be understated.’ 16. Rachna v. Union of India ‘* The SC dismissed the petition seeking extra chance in UPSC CSE for the candidates who had exhausted their last attempt in October 2020. The Basic Structure (An initiative by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)‘© ‘What is being claimed and prayed for under the guise of COVID 19 pandemic is nothing but a lame excuse in taking additional attempt to participate in the Civil Service Examination 2021 to be held in the future if this Court shows indulgence to few who had participated in the Examination 2020, it well set down a precedent and also have a cascading effect on examinations in other streams, for which we are dissuaded to exercise plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.’ 17. Union of India v. Manprect Singh Poonam ‘* The promotion to a post should only be granted fiom the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen. 18. The Surat Parsi Panchayat Board & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. © Inview of the agreement between Surat Parsi Panchayat Board and the Cente over the SOP for disposal of bodies of individuals of Zoroastrian faith who succumbed to COVID, the Supreme Court gave it imprimatur to the protocol of placing iron rods and grills above the towers of silence across India so that no bird can feed on the bodies and carry COVID strains and the bodies are disposed of only by stn rays. 19. Siddharthshankar Sharma v. Union Of India And Ors. ‘* Recording the Centre's clarification that Aadhaar is neither mandatory for registration on the COWIN portal nor a precondition for availing of vaccination facilities at a COVID Vaccination Centre, and that any one of nine identity documents can be produced, the SC has directed all concerned authorities to act in pursuance of this stated policy. 20. Pradeep Kumar and Aur. v. Post Master General and Ors. The Basic Structure (An initiative by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)‘© “Dishonest acts of bankipost office employees, when done during their course of employment, are binding on the bank/post office at the instance of the affected person.” “the post office/bank can be held liable for the fraud or wrongs committed by its employees” 21. Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal © SC has ina significant judgment held that consumer complaint against telecom companies is maintainable before the Consumer Commission. Bench of Justices DY ‘Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath 22. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati vs State Of Uttar Pradesh ‘© The SC has reiterated that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to quash FR/criminal proceedings cannot be entertained, 23. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit 1 © The SC has held that pharma companies gifting freebies to doctors is prohibited by law and they cannot claim it as a deduction under the Income ‘Tax Act. ‘© “These freebies are technically not free’ — the cost of supplying such freebies is usually factored into the drug, driving prices up, thus creating a perpetual publicly injurious cycle.” ‘Smile ifs Remembering Case Title NOT important. ‘© SC has held that the land dedicated for pious and religious purposes is not immune from its vesting with the State. (State of Andhra Pradesh v. AP State Wakf Board) The Basic Structure (An initiative by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)‘© “An advocate is a guardian of constitutional morality and justice equally with the Judge. He has an important city as that of a Judge. He bears responsibility towards the society and is expected to act with utmost sincerity and commitment to the cause ofjustice. He has a duty to the court first. As an officer of the court, he owes allegiance to a higher cause and cannot indulge in consciously misstating the facts or for that matter conceal any material fact within his knowledge - An advocate ‘should be diligent and his conduct should conform to the requirements of the law by which he plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. As an officer of the court, he is under a higher obligation to uphold the rule of law and Justice system.” (NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty) * On Blacklisting - "Debarment" is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission. It is for the State or appropriate authority to pass an order of blacklisting/debarment in the facts and circumstances of the case - "Debarment" is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. Furthermore, duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence. Seriousness of the lapse and the incident and/or gravity of commission and omission on the part of the contractor which led to the incident should be the relevant considerations. (State of Odisha v. Panda Infrapraject) ‘+ Inan interesting observation, the SC has remarked. that “..the IBC proceedings should not become recovery proceedings - IBC not akin to a recovery legislation for creditors, but is a legislation beneficial for the corporate debtor.” (Consolidated Construction Consortium Lid. v. Hitro Energy The Basic Structure (An initiative by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) SC has reiterated the principle for determining if a body is a ‘State’ under Article 12— “The determination of a body as a ‘State’ is not a rigid set of principles. What is to be seen is whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government, albeit if the control is mere regulatory, whether under statute or otherwise, it will not serve to make the body a State. Also, the presence of some element of public duty or. function would not by itself suffice for bringing a body within the net of Article 12.” The SC has held that the Automotive Research Association of India is NOT a State under A. 12 (Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India) “While exercising its flmctions on the administrative side, the High Court would also be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.” “There is a presumption of validity of the State action and the burden is on the person who alleges violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India 10 prove the assertion” (Ms. Xv. Registrar General) “Abhorrent nature of crime alone cannot be the decisive factor for awarding death sentence - Due consideration io be given to the equally relevant aspect pertaining to mitigating factors before arriving at a conclusion that option of any other ptnishment than the capital one was foreclosed.” (Pappu v. State of Uitar Pradesh) “Every action of a State is required to be guided by the touchstone of non-arbitrariness, reasonableness and rationality. Every action of a The Basic Structure (An initiative by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)State is equally required to be guided by public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee, whose highest duty is to the people of the country. The Public Authority is therefore required to exercise the powers only for the public good.” (Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. v. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd). “Consent of the parties is not necessary to declare a marriage dissolved.” (N. Rajendran. S. Vali) In cases where the decree passed by the Trial Court merges with the judgment and decree passed by the HC, the application for comection of decree can only be maintained before the HC where the decree was confirmed. (B. Boraiah Rep. Thr. Lrs. . MG Thirthaprasad and Ors.) In Hotel Priva v State of Maharashtra, the Police Commissioner's Order that an Orchestra Bar could only have four male and four female artists upon the stage at any point, was challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court. (Orchestra Bar Case) “The consumer complaints are filed under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, such consumer complaints cannot be transferred to the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” (Yes Bank Limited v.63 Moons Technologies Lid.) Pure ‘business to business’ disputes cannot be construed as ‘consumer disputes. (Shrikant G. ‘Mantri v. Punjab National Bank) The SC noted that a suit for declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership is maintainable. (Darshan Kaur Bhatia v. Ramesh Gandhi) ‘The SC directed the Madhya Pradesh HC to reinstate a resigned woman Additional District The Basic Structure (An initiative by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)Tudge, who had raised sexwal harassment allegations against a then sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh HC, after holding that her resignation, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be "construed as voluntary” (Ms. Xv: Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh) The Basic Structure (An initiative by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)MARCH 2022 MOST IMPORTANT CRAFTED AND DRAFTED WITH LOVE BY STUDENTS FROM SC JUDGMENTS NLSIU AND NLU-DELHI (JAN ‘22 — MAR ‘22)Judgment Notes 1. Lingeswaran y. Thirunagalingam # SC observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. 2. Binay Kumar Dalei v. State of Odisha ‘© SC directed the State of Odisha to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone. 3. Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education ‘The SC observed that the appointments to the reserved vacancies are meant only for those who are deserving by being members of reserved community alone~If any person other than a member of the reserved community is appointed, it would clearly constitute an inftingement of the rights of the germinely deserving members of the said community. 4. Loop Telecom and Trading Limited v. Union of India | Bench of Justices DY ‘* The principle of Restitution under Section 65 of the | Chandrachud, Surya Indian Contract Act will not apply when the party | Kant and Vikram claiming restitution was equally or more responsible | Nath for the illegality of the Contract. ‘© Inadjudicating a claim of restitution, the court must determine the illegality which caused the contract to become void and the role the party claiming restitution has played in it: 5. State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries Ltd. # The SC observed that the States have power to levy excise duty only in respect of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption. Aleoholic liquors other than for human consumption have been left to the Central Legislature for levy of duty ofexcise. 6. Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat And Ors. ‘© The SC held that the appointment of'a Vice Chancellor of a University, even under a State The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)Tegislation, cannot be contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations. ‘* The SC observed that in cases where the State legislature is repugnant to the Cental legislation, Central legislation is to prevail as per Article 254 as ‘education’ is an item in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule. 7. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam The SC observed that the mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion. The promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which the vacaney has arisen. 8. State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya ‘© The SC observed that the Constitution (Seventy- Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, does not take away legislative competence of the State Legislatures to legislate on the subject of local Government. + Itis the State Legislature alone which is competent to legislate in respect of the municipalities with only one limitation that the provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent with the mandate of the Scheme of Part IXA of the Constitution. 9. SK Naushad Rahman and others v. Union of India ‘© The SC observed that the State's transfer policy must give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life, uging the Union of India to revisit the policy relating to transfers in the tax administration department. 10. Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan The SC observed that a Court deciding a Bail application can’t completely divorce its decision from the material aspects of the case. ‘The material aspects include the following: i. allegations made against the accused; The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)i severity of the punishment ifthe allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt which would result ina conviction; iii, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; iv. tampering of the evidence; v._ the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; vi. criminal antecedents of the accused; and vii. a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. 11. M Kendra Devi v. Government of Tamil Nadu * The SC has strongly condemned the practice of the State of Tamil Nadu in making compassionate appointments to Group B posts in violation of the 1994 judgment which held that compassionate appointments must be restricted to Class II or Class IV or Group C or Group D Posts. 12. The Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. A Nishanth George; The General Manager V. P. Balamurugan © The SC has held that the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff notified by the Railways ("LARSGESS Scheme") provides an avenue for backdoor entry into service and is contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. 13. Mis. Puri Investments v. Mis Young Friends And Co. And Ors. * The SC has held that the HC while exercising powers ofa supervisory Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate body to re-appreciate evidence. i. The High Court, under Article 227, can interfere with the decisions of a fact-finding forum only when its findings are perverse ice. ii Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence, or The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)iii, Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or iv. Based on inferences that are impermissible in kaw. 14. Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan © The SC has reinstated a Judicial Officer while observing that mere negligence cannot be treated as misconduct to terminate services of a judicial officer. ‘* Disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer is not warranted merely because a wrong order has beet passed by hinvher or the action taken by him could have been different. 15. High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma ‘© The SC has upheld the minimum age requirement of 35 years for applying for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination after holding that the principle of prescribing a minimum age limit for the selection of District Judges is not contrary to the Constitution. ‘+ “Article 233(2) of Constitution only prescribes a minimum eligibility that an advocate should have at least 7 years practice for selection as a District Judge and that this does not preclude the stipulation of a minimum age requirement.” 16. Indian Ex Servicemen Movement (An All India Federation Of Military Veterans Organisation Represented) v. Union Of India Department Of Ex- Servicemen Welfare © The SC upheld the manner in which the Central Govt. introduced the OROP (One Rank One Pension) scheme in defence forces. ‘* The SC summarized the principles relating to pension and cut-off dates as under: i. Allpensioners who hold the same rank may not for all purposes form a homogenous class. For example, amongst Sepoys differences do exist in view of the MACPand ACP schemes. Certain Sepoys ‘Bench of Justices DY Chandrackud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)receive the pay of the higher ranked personnel; ii, The benefit ofa new element ina pensionary scheme can be prospectively applied, However, the scheme cannot bifurcate a homogenous group based on a cut-off date; iii, ‘The judgment of the Constitution Bench in| *D.S. Nakara v. Nakara* cannot be interpreted to read the | Union of India one rank one pension rule into it. twas | (7983) only held that the same principle of computation of pensions must be applied uniformly to a homogenous class; As per the OROP iv. Itisnota/legal mandate that pensioners _| scheme, uniform who held the same rank must be given the | pension is to be paid same amount of pension. The varying to armed services benefits that may be applicable to certain _| personnel retiring in personnel which would also impact the | the same rank with pension payable need not be equalised with | the same length of the rest of the personnel. service, irrespective of the date of ‘© The Bench further held that the doctrine of legitimate | retirement and the expectation cannot be invoked in the present case. _| rates of pension would be revised at periodic intervals, 17. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sadique Bench of Justices ‘© The SC dismissed a Review Petition filed by the ‘Uday Umesh Lalit, Madhya Pradesh Govt. against the SC judgment S. Ravindra Bhat and holding that the Magistrates would not be competent | Belam M Trivedi. to extend the time to complete investigations in UAPA. cases. 18. N. Karthikeyan And Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu And Ors. ‘© The SC expressed a prima facie view that the states are competent to provide reservation for in-service doctors in super-speciality medical courses. ‘* Observing thus, the SC refused to stay the Govt, Order dated 07.11.2020 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu purporting to reserve 50% seats at the Super Specialty level in Government Medical Colleges to in- The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)service doctors. 19. Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer v. Chiggan Lal ‘© The SC observed that the date from which regularization of services has to be granted is a prerogative of the employer and no parity can be claimed based on regularization made in respect of earlier years. 20. M Gopalakrishnan & Ors. v. Pasumpon. Muthuramalingam & Anr. ‘© The SC noted that when petitions seeking directions to trial court to expedite the trial are filed before the higher courts, the same need to be examined fiom all angles. 21. Mohinder Singh (D) The. Lrs. And Ors. v. Mal Singh (D) Through. Lrs) © The SC has reiterated that while determining the validity of a gift deed, Courts should not pass "value judgment" on the relationship between the donor and the donee, and the only thing which matters is ifthe deed was validly executed. 22. N.G. Projects Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain ‘* The SC observed that a Court should reffain from interfering in the grant of tender even if it suffers from total arbitrariness and malafides. It should instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongfial exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. ‘© The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. 23. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sanjesh and Anr. © The SC has held that a condition in the insurance policy which bars the filing of the claim after the specified time-period is contrary to Section 28 of the The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)Indian Contract Act, 1872 and is thus void. 24. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal ‘© The SC has observed that a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating. A mere breach of contract is not in itself.a criminal offence and shall only give rise to the civil liability of damages. 25, Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya The SC has reiterated that an order allowing a review petition should be a speaking and reasoned order as to ‘what was the error apparent on the fice of the record. ‘© "Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the ‘face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated.” 26. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka ‘* The SC has observed that the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised ina case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved. © “Adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue, would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision.” 27. The State of Maharashtra and another v. Madhukar Antu Patil and Another @ The SC has held that the services rendered by an employee on work charge basis cannot be considered for the grant of benefit of first time bound promotion if the employee is absorbed in service on a different payscale. ‘© The benefit of Time Bound Promotion scheme shall be applicable when an employee has worked for twelve years in the same post and in the same pay The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)scale. 28. State of Karnataka and Another v. State of ‘Bench of Justices Meghalaya and Another and Other Connected Cases | MR Shah and BV ‘© The SC has held that State legislatures have the Nagarathna competence to levy tax on the lotteries organized by other states. 29. Union of India & Ors v Lt Gen SK Sahni (Ration Scam Case) ‘* The SC setaside the conviction and dismissal fom service of former Lt Gen SK Sahni for allegations relating to procurement of ration by Army purchase organisation. 30. Gauray Kumar Bansal v. Union of India ‘¢ The SC has‘et out an outer limit of sixty days to file claims for ex-gratia compensation of deaths due to COVID-19 which had occurred prior to 20.03.2022 and for future deaths, a period of 90 days from the death has been determined to be proper to file @ claim for compensation. 31. State of Gujarat v. RJ. Pathan: © The SC has held that a HC cannot direct regularisation of temporary employees by creating supemumerary posts while setting aside the Gujarat High Court direction to the State to consider the cases of some temporary employees for regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creating supemumerary posts 32. Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee The SC has reiterated that a litigant cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/couts. 33. Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd v. Dastak NGO * The SC has noted that the Environmental Protection Acct does not not prohibit grant of ex post facto environmental clearance absolutely and although not to be granted routinely, ex-post facto clearance can be The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)granted in exceptional circumstances while taking into account all the relevant environmental factors. 34, State of Uttarakhand And Ors. v. Sanjay Singh Chauhan And Ors. © “Ayurvedic doctors will be entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM/NHM) Scheme.” 35. Bata India Ltd v. Workmen of Bata India Ltd and Another ‘* Anemployer must give proper opportunity of hearing to the workmen before deducting their wages for "go slow" approach by which they had failed to produce the agreed output. 36. Swarnalatha v. Kalavathy ‘* The SC observed that the exclusion of one of the natural heirs fom the bequest ina Will, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances. ‘* “Inthe matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will.” 37. Pattali Maklal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal And Ors. © The SC has held the 2021’ Tamil Nadu Act that provided 10.5% reservation in educational institutions and government jobs for the Vanniyar community out of the 20% reservation available to the Most Backward Classes to be violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 and unconstitutional, as there ‘was no substantial basis for differentiating the ‘Vanniyar community from the other MBCs and DNCs. * The classification had been effected solely on the basis of population data, in the absence of any objective criteria, and was thus in contravention of the The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)decision of the Apex Court in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) wherein it was held that adequacy of representation is different from roportionate representation. ‘¢ The SC abso clearly reiterated that sub-classification amongst backward classes is permissible. “Zt is crystal clear from the Indra Sawhney judgment that backward classes can be sub-classified.. No doubt can be entertained about the permissibility of sub-classification amongst backward classes.” 38. State of Karnataka v. Umesh ‘* The acquittal ofthe delinquent employee in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding with disciplinary enquiry. ¢ A Court in the exercise of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings must restrict its review to determine whether: i. the rules of natural justice have been complied with; ii. the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; ili. the statutory rules governing the conduet of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed: iv. the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity: y. the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. 39. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v. Rambha Devi & Ors. Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ‘¢ A 3:judge Bench of the Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the issue whether a person, on the strength of a driving licence for Light Motor Vehicles (LMY)., can drive a Transport Vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kilograms — the Bench doubted the correctness of the decision given by a coordinate bench in the case Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)(© InMukund Dewangan, a 3-judge Bench had held that a person holding a driving licence in respect of "light motor vehicle", could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a "ansport vehicle of light motor vehicle class" having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. (No separate endorsement in the DL required) [ais Tb i Sateen Princeton Remembering Case Title NOT important. 24, It may not be safé to sustain a conviction for murder merely on the basis of recovery of artiele (Tilesh Kiumar Saucy State of Chattisgarh) The Bench referred to Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh (2019): “Theat thing to beetblaed thatthe thet and mde forms prt one tranaction |. The nature of the stolen aie i. The manne ofits acquisition bythe owner ‘iv. The nature of evidence about its identification; ve The manera whch twas eat with by the accuse vi The place and the circumstances of its recovery; ‘vil The length of the intervening period; Yi, Abuity oF otherwise of the accused to explain ts possession” 25. Complete absence of motive in a casé based on circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of accused: SC (Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Reliance was placed on Amwar Ali. State of Himachal Pradesh 1995 and Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 26. SC criticized the last moment filing of additional documents in SLPs, mentioning that it causes “great inconvenience’ (Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. v The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)‘Mitrajyoti Deka) 27. The SC observed that mere filing of representation before authorities does not extend the period of limitation. Ifit is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and cought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the vit petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation. (Siurjeet Singh Sahni v. State of UP) 28, The prosecution is required to prove ifs case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all iota of doubt. (Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh) 29. The SC observed that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. The acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding a public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held. (State of Ptmjab v. Mehar Din) 30. The SC observed that an unblemished or clean record of an employee is a significant factor while considering his/her suitability for promotion to a''selection post. ‘A marred service record, though not an insurmountable bar, must carry some consequences, and it could be a comparative disadvantage in promotion for a selection ‘post’ (Rama Negi v. Union of India) 31. The SC observed that courts carinot interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless it is grossly disproportionate. “Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision-making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved.” (Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray) 32. The SC has reiterated that Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life. The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)(Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan) 33, There must be an independent application of mind and at least some independent reasoning to be given by the appellate Court while deciding and disposing of the writ appeal. (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla) 34. The SC has reinstated a judicial officer whose appointment was cancelled for not joining service during nationwide lockdown, calling it an ‘unprecedented situation’. (Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar) 35, The SC has reiterated that the evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they were relatives of the deceased vietim. (I. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) 36. Once it is established that all the accused came atthe place of the incident with a common intention to kill the deceased, itis immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the CI had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury to the deceased. (State of MP v. Ramyi Lal Sharma) 37. An Executive magistrate can onder detention of persons for breach of bond for good behaviour. (Devadassan v. The Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram & Ors.) 38, SC quashed the interim diteetions issued by the Punjab and Haryana HC to OLX India to adopt a screening mechanism wrt the sellers who could post an advertisement on its platform. (OLX India BY v, State of Haryana) 39, Failure to pay rent may have civil consequences but is not apenal offence under the Indian Penal Code. (Neetu Singh v. State of UP) 40. The SC observed that the severity of sentence is not the only determinant for doing justice to the victims. (ipul The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)Rasikbhai Koli Jankher) 41, Owner should always have the freedom to provide the eligibility criteria and/or the terms and conditions of the bid unless itis found to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made - a biddertenderer cannot be permitted to challenge the bid condition/clause which might not suit him and/or convenient to him. (Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Lid) 42. The opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of proving the signature and handwriting of person, The signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. (Manorama Naik-v. State of Odisha) 43, A mandatory ditection to arest the accused cannot be issued by a Court ordinarily while rejecting his petition for anticipatory bail. When the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, itis for the investigating agency to take further steps in the matter. (S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu) 44, The Court cannot grant additional period for acquisition, of land if the law does not contemplate any further period for acquisition, (Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra) 45, No one can be permitted to take the benefit of the wrong order passed by the court which has been subsequently set aside by the higher forunvcout. (Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan) 46. Asociety registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its bye-laws — local unit of a registered society can’t institute suit unless bye-laws authorise it. (P Nazeer Etc. v. Salafi Trust & Anr) 47, The judgment must have a clarity on the exact relief that is granted by the Court so that it may not create further complication and/or difficulty in the execution. (Pramina The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)Devi (Dead) Thr Lrs. v. State Of Jharkhand) 48, Real Estate Regulatory Authority can entertain complaints by home buyers against the bank which took possession of a real estate project as a secured creditor. (Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority). The Basic Structure (An ideation by NLSIU and NLU-Delhi students)