Accident Claim - Just Compensation – Determining Compensation for Minor Victims – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Losses – The Court addressed the criteria for determining compensation for parents of minor victims, incorporating inflation-adjusted notional income with future prospects and applying multipliers to reflect financial dependency and emotional loss – The Court mandated that compensations include pecuniary loss calculations and significant non-pecuniary awards to acknowledge parental grief and future dependency [Paras 7, 10-11, 45-47].

Legal and Moral Dependency on Minors – Future Financial Dependency and Societal Norms – Recognizing the unique cultural and statutory expectations in India, the Court observed that parental dependency on children extends beyond immediate financial support, meriting compensation for future dependency as a moral and legal right of parents under relevant statutes, including the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Held: Parents are entitled to compensation reflecting cultural norms of lifelong dependency on children [Paras 22-27, 33-34].

Statutory and Judicial Remedies for Minors' Death Compensation – Uniformity and Practical Implementation – Adopting two methodologies for calculating compensation—the inflation-adjusted notional income and the lump-sum method for railway accident compensation—the Court established an averaging approach to ensure fairness and consistency in awards for minor deaths, with inflation adjustments annually [Paras 69-73, 99-102].

Medical and Financial Safeguards – Investment and Insurance Mandate for Parents of Deceased Minors – The Court mandated that awarded compensation be invested in a cumulative fixed deposit, accessible upon parents reaching 60 years, with provisions for early withdrawal under certain circumstances – Further directed insurers to issue a minimum health insurance policy of Rs. 10 lakhs for parents, effective from the age of 60, covering potential medical needs in recognition of the dependency on minor children for long-term care [Paras 115-120].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded as per methodology outlined with directives for fixed deposit investments and health insurance for parents, reaffirming financial security and societal care standards.
 

Compensation – Death Due to Negligence – Maintainability Under Article 226 – The petitioners sought compensation for the death of their minor son caused by the alleged negligence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in maintaining its premises – Held: The High Court can entertain writ petitions under Article 226 for compensation in cases of violation of fundamental rights, including Article 21, where the State's negligence is evident – The Court found sufficient evidence of negligence by MCD in failing to maintain the premises, leading to the death – The writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 15-18].

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Application in Public Law Remedy – The Court applied the maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitur,' presuming negligence on the part of MCD – It was established that the falling of a slab from the MCD-owned premises caused the death, indicating clear negligence in maintaining a safe environment for the public – Held: The principle allows for the presumption of negligence based on the circumstances surrounding the case, justifying the awarding of compensation [Paras 19-21].

Quantum of Compensation – Calculation – The petitioners sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 – The Court applied principles from prior judgments, considering factors such as the age of the deceased, potential future prospects, and minimum wage rates – The Court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of death until realization – The compensation was computed based on loss of dependency and pecuniary losses, with the amount being adjusted for inflation [Paras 22-34].

Decision – Compensation Awarded – The Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of death – In case of non-compliance, the petitioners would be entitled to an additional simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum – The writ petition was disposed of with these directions [Paras 34-35].

Constitutional Law – Citizenship – Cessation of Citizenship – The appellant was disqualified from the post of Mukhiya on the ground of having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Nepal, resulting in the cessation of his Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – The appellant contended that the State Election Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter, which should have been referred to the Central Government under the Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Held: The Election Commission does not have the authority to adjudicate on the cessation of citizenship; such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government – The decision of the Election Commission was set aside, and the matter was directed to be referred to the Central Government [Paras 11-13, 15].

Election Law – Disqualification – Jurisdiction of State Election Commission – The State Election Commission disqualified the appellant for alleged foreign citizenship – Held: As per the Full Bench decision in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission, the State Election Commission can consider disqualification issues based on unimpeachable materials, provided it is not purely an election dispute – However, contentious issues, especially those concerning citizenship cessation, should be decided by a competent court or the Central Government, not the Election Commission [Paras 14-20].

Procedural Law – Referral to Central Government – The court directed the State Election Commission to refer the dispute to the Central Government to determine whether the appellant had acquired foreign citizenship voluntarily, which could lead to the cessation of Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1955 [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The order of the State Election Commission and the judgment of the learned Single Judge were set aside – The State Election Commission was directed to refer the matter to the Central Government for determination – The appellant is entitled to continue in the post of Mukhiya until the Central Government's decision is made [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal Overturned – Eyewitness Testimonies – Three eyewitnesses, including the father and daughter of the deceased, testified against the accused, stating that he attacked his wife with a Kassi – Trial court disregarded these statements due to minor contradictions in timing and procedural flaws in the investigation – Held: The High Court found the contradictions insignificant and the testimonies credible and consistent on material facts – Acquittal overturned [Paras 9.3, 11].

Evidence – Recovery of Weapon – The Kassi used in the crime was recovered based on information provided by the accused – FSL report confirmed that human blood on the weapon matched the blood group of the deceased – Trial court dismissed this evidence due to contradictions regarding the timing of police arrival at the crime scene – Held: Recovery of the weapon was crucial evidence supporting the prosecution's case [Paras 12, 13].

Appellate Review – Standard of Interference – The appellate court is empowered to reverse an acquittal if the trial court's findings are based on misreading or omission of material evidence – In this case, the trial court failed to appreciate key evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and forensic findings – Held: Acquittal found to be perverse and legally unsustainable [Paras 14, 15].

Decision:  Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 302 IPC – Life imprisonment awarded with a fine of ₹10,000, in default of payment, six months' rigorous imprisonment – Bail bonds cancelled, respondent to be taken into custody to serve sentence [Paras 16, 17].

Murder Case – Conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Discrepancies in FIR and Witness Statements – Conviction Upheld - The appellants were convicted for murder based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and evidence linking the blood-stained weapons recovered from the appellants to the deceased. The defense argued discrepancies in the timing of the FIR, contradictions in the accident register, and doubts over the presence of eyewitnesses. Held: The conviction was upheld, as the prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the discrepancies were deemed minor and insignificant [Paras 12-13, 19].

Credibility of Injured Witnesses – High Reliability – Duty to Discredit through Concrete Evidence – The appellants contended that the injured witnesses were unreliable, particularly regarding their failure to help the deceased and the alleged contradictions in their testimony. Held: Injured witnesses are generally considered highly reliable, and the defense failed to provide concrete evidence to discredit their testimony. Minor inconsistencies did not affect the core of the prosecution's case [Paras 15, 19].

Discovery of Weapons – Link with the Crime – Matching Blood Groups – The appellants argued that the recovery of weapons was unreliable due to the presence of blood of different groups on the knives. Held: The prosecution proved the connection between the recovered weapons and the crime, as the blood found on the knives matched the deceased's blood group. The presence of an additional blood group was consistent with the injuries sustained by the witnesses [Paras 16-17].

Delay in FIR Filing – No Impact on Prosecution's Case – The defense highlighted a delay of 3 hours in the registration of the FIR and discrepancies in the accident register, where the injuries were allegedly caused by "unknown persons." Held: The FIR was registered promptly and reached the court prior to the preparation of the accident register, rendering the discrepancy in the register irrelevant [Paras 12-13].

Minor Contradictions in Witness Statements – No Ground for Acquittal – The appellants argued that minor contradictions in witness statements about the timing and sequence of events should lead to their acquittal. Held: Minor contradictions did not affect the core issue of the case. The testimony of multiple eyewitnesses was consistent and corroborated by forensic evidence [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The court upheld the conviction and sentences passed by the Trial Court in SC No. 10 of 2016. Both appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and fines under Sections 302 r/w 34, 341, and 323 of the IPC [Paras 20-21].

Consumer Law – Writ Petitions under Article 227 – Jurisdiction – Challenge to NCDRC Orders – Multiple writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Petitioners contended that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction as NCDRC is located in Delhi – Respondents argued that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the cause of action arose, relying on Siddhartha S. Mookerjee case – Held: Jurisdiction for petitions under Article 227 lies with the High Court where the original cause of action arose, not merely based on the location of the NCDRC in Delhi – Court followed Supreme Court’s ruling in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and other similar cases, emphasizing that jurisdiction should align with where the matter originated – Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-76].

Writ Jurisdiction – Cause of Action – Petitioners claimed that the NCDRC’s location in Delhi vested jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court – Court disagreed, holding that the cause of action determines jurisdiction, not the location of the appellate or revisional tribunal – The cause of action for each petition had arisen outside Delhi, and the petitions should have been filed in the respective jurisdictional High Courts – Situs of the tribunal not a decisive factor for jurisdiction [Paras 13-65].

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Regional Benches and Jurisdiction – NCDRC, as a national-level tribunal, exercises jurisdiction across multiple states – Petitions challenging its orders must be filed in the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the original cause of action – Establishment of regional benches by the central government could further guide jurisdictional filings – [Paras 49-56].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – Petitioners directed to pursue remedies in the appropriate jurisdictional High Courts – Delhi High Court cannot entertain petitions solely based on the situs of the NCDRC [Paras 73-76].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Bail Granted – The appellant, Manik Bhattacharya, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for allegedly receiving Rs. 7,00,000 from 44 candidates – Charged under Section 3, read with Section 70, and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 – His bail applications were denied twice by the trial court – Upon appeal, the High Court considered his prolonged detention, health issues, and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Noting the delay in framing charges and the unlikelihood of a trial conclusion soon, the High Court granted bail with stringent conditions – [Paras 24-25, 27-28]

Investigation and Witness Testimony – The ED alleged the appellant's involvement in illegal appointments in primary education – Evidence included statements from co-accused Tapas Kumar Mondal, who stated that Rs. 3.25 crores were collected to secure appointments for 325 candidates – The appellant argued these statements did not directly implicate him, and the ED failed to establish a money trail to him – Furthermore, no money was recovered from his possession, and he challenged the authenticity and completeness of the evidence – [Paras 6, 14]

Grounds for Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – The High Court referred to the principles established by the Supreme Court concerning the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty – Considering the appellant's nearly two-year detention without trial and the vast amount of documentary evidence, the Court found that further detention would breach his fundamental rights – The improbability of a near-future trial conclusion indicated that prolonged pre-trial detention would equate to punishment without trial – [Paras 22, 23, 29, 30]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Bail Granted – The High Court granted bail, subject to stringent conditions: surrendering the passport, restricted movement without court permission, and no tampering with evidence or witness intimidation – The appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties – It was clarified that the observations in this judgment were solely for the bail application and would not influence the trial court's assessment of the case's merits – [Paras 31-34]

Criminal Law – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissed - Exercise of Extraordinary Power – The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for offenses under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC – The deceased had given a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. alleging harassment by the petitioners – The Court found that the petitioners were prima facie involved in the offenses and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide – Held: The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious cases where custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the truth – Petitions dismissed [Paras 25, 67, 83].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Investigation – The Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious allegations like abetment to suicide – Held: Effective interrogation of a suspect is crucial and may be rendered ineffective if the suspect is granted pre-arrest bail – The need for custodial interrogation outweighs the liberty of the individual in this case [Paras 67, 83].

Consideration for Grant of Anticipatory Bail – The Court referred to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which highlight the necessity to balance individual rights, public interest, and fair investigation while considering pre-arrest bail – The grant of pre-arrest bail is not a rule but an exception and should be granted only when the court is convinced of exceptional circumstances [Paras 21, 25].

Decision:

Petitions for pre-arrest bail dismissed – The nature of the offense and the necessity for custodial interrogation disentitled the petitioners from the concession of bail – Observations made are confined to the disposal of these petitions and shall not impact the merits of the case [Para 83].

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce Granted – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion - The appellant alleged that the respondent-wife insisted on moving to her parental home and later deserted him without consent - The respondent claimed harassment and demand for dowry - The Court noted the absence of denial by the respondent that she left the matrimonial home and the omission to explain the circumstances of her departure - Held: The evidence pointed towards desertion and cruelty by the respondent – The marriage is dissolved on these grounds [Paras 7-10].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Evidence - In cross-examination, the appellant confirmed his modest income, supported by a certificate of net salary - The respondent and her father’s claims of a higher income could not be substantiated, and they failed to explain the departure from the matrimonial home - Held: The appellant's contentions were supported by evidence, and the respondent's objections were not upheld [Paras 12-15].

Permanent Alimony – Consideration of Appellant's Income - Considering the appellant's current income and the respondent's age and education, the Court directed a permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court - Held: The alimony is justified in exercising the Court's discretion, given the dissolution of marriage [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition is reversed – The marriage solemnized on 9th March 2015 is dissolved by a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court within two months – The decree to be drawn up expeditiously [Para 17].