Medical Education – Establishment and Recognition of Medical Colleges – Appeals by the Medical Council of India (MCI) challenging the High Courts' decisions allowing private medical colleges to increase their admission capacities without following the procedures outlined in Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – The Supreme Court held that recognition of medical colleges and the increase in admission capacities must follow the mandatory processes and requirements set by the MCI and the Central Government [Paras 1-6].

Regulatory Framework – Compliance with MCI Regulations – Supreme Court emphasized that the process of establishing new medical colleges and increasing seats must comply with the regulations laid out by the MCI – Any deviation from these regulations without proper approval from the MCI and Central Government would render the degrees awarded as unrecognized [Paras 7-12].

Role of MCI and Central Government – Decision reiterated that while the MCI plays a critical role in recommending the establishment and recognition of medical colleges, the final authority rests with the Central Government – Detailed analysis of Sections 10A, 10B, and 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act and the corresponding regulations emphasized the statutory framework guiding these processes [Paras 13-19].

Judicial Review – The Court criticized the lower courts for overstepping their jurisdiction by allowing increased admissions without adhering to the regulatory framework – Reaffirmed that the judiciary should respect the expertise and regulatory authority of the MCI in matters of medical education standards [Paras 20-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgments set aside – Directions given to medical colleges to comply with the MCI and Central Government's regulations for any future increase in admission capacities – Writ petitions dismissed as they conflicted with statutory provisions [Paras 50-54].

Criminal Law – Dishonor of Cheque – Appellant R. Mohan was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai – Sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant, A.K. Vijaya Kumar – Compensation awarded under Section 357(3) of CrPC with a default sentence of two months simple imprisonment – Conviction and sentence confirmed by the Sessions Court and High Court, but High Court set aside the default sentence for non-payment of compensation [Paras 1-7].

Compensation and Default Sentence – Supreme Court held that the power to award compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC includes the authority to impose a default sentence – Affirmed that compensation must have a deterrent effect and potential for enforcement through default imprisonment – Reiterated that courts can impose default sentences to ensure compliance with compensation orders, referencing prior judgments in Hari Singh, Suganthi Suresh Kumar, and Vijayan [Paras 10-18].

Judicial Reasoning – Examined the promissory note, cheque, diary entries, and tax returns – Concluded that the accused's defense lacked merit and the trial court's findings were justified – Compensation order with default sentence reinstated to ensure effective remedy for the complainant [Paras 8-9, 19-20].

Decision: Appeal by accused dismissed – Appeal by complainant allowed – High Court's decision to quash the default sentence set aside – Magistrate's order awarding two months simple imprisonment in default of compensation payment restored – Accused granted two months to pay the compensation [Paras 20].

Election Law – Improper Acceptance of Nomination Papers – Appellant challenged the acceptance of nomination papers of respondents in the election to the Korba Parliamentary Constituency, alleging defects in the affidavits required under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – High Court dismissed the petition for not disclosing a cause of action – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating the defects alleged were not of a substantial character as required by Section 36(4) of the Act [Paras 1-6, 12-15].

Material Facts and Cause of Action – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of disclosing material facts in an election petition – Held that the appellant failed to demonstrate how the alleged defects in affidavits materially affected the election results – Affidavits filed by candidates indicated no outstanding liabilities, thus non-substantial defects in format did not warrant rejection of nomination papers [Paras 8-11, 16].

Judicial Reasoning – Affirmed that substantial compliance with procedural requirements is sufficient unless defects are of a substantial character impacting the election outcome – The appellant's failure to allege or prove any substantial non-compliance or material effect on the election justified dismissal of the petition [Paras 12-16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's dismissal of the election petition upheld – No costs awarded [Para 17].

Compassionate Appointments – Eligibility and Timeliness – Appeals arise from similar High Court orders allowing claims for compassionate appointments – Petitioners sought appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of family members employed in various educational institutions – High Court directed institutions to appoint eligible respondents [Paras 2-6].

Kerala Education Rules – Rule 51B and Rule 9A – Statutory provisions require managers of aided schools to appoint dependants of deceased employees – Applications for compassionate appointments must comply with government orders stipulating eligibility, income, and timing – Claims made within prescribed periods are valid if conditions are met [Paras 7-10].

Delay in Applications – Significant delays in filing applications for compassionate appointments generally invalid – High Court found in error where delays exceeded stipulated periods – Compassionate appointments aim to provide immediate relief to families in distress – Excessive delays undermine scheme’s purpose [Paras 14-24].

Marriage and Eligibility – Marriage does not automatically disqualify claimants under the compassionate appointment scheme – However, substantial delay and change in circumstances, such as settling in another family, may affect eligibility – Claims must be filed within time limits and demonstrate continued financial distress [Paras 21-24].

Judicial Review – Orders by lower authorities and High Court reviewed for compliance with statutory rules and government orders – High Court orders upheld where claims met requirements; reversed where claims were delayed or ineligible [Paras 25-30].

Decision:

Civil Appeal No. 4848 of 2012 dismissed.

Civil Appeal No. 4954 of 2009 allowed; High Court’s order set aside.

Civil Appeal No. 33421 of 2009 dismissed.

Civil Appeals Nos. 31908 of 2010 and 6607-08 of 2011 allowed; High Court’s orders set aside; claims for compassionate appointment rejected.

Civil Appeal No. 4467 of 2010 dismissed.

Parties to bear their own costs [Para 30-31].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 460, and 34 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act – High Court affirmed conviction and sentencing to rigorous imprisonment for life – Appellant contended lack of direct evidence and erroneous reliance on circumstantial evidence [Paras 1-5].

Identification and Recovery – PW 1 failed to identify the appellant as one of the assailants – Recovery of .380 calibre revolver and cartridges from appellant's possession after two years of the incident – Ballistic reports linked bullets from the crime scene to the recovered firearm, but the prosecution failed to establish continuous possession of the weapon by the appellant [Paras 7-11, 17-18].

Principles of Circumstantial Evidence – Prosecution required to prove circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt – Circumstances must exclude all other hypotheses except guilt – Failure to establish exclusive link between appellant and the crime weapon led to reasonable doubt [Paras 15-16, 19-20].

Judgment and Sentencing – Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act upheld due to proved recovery – Conviction under Sections 302, 460, and 34 IPC set aside due to insufficient evidence establishing direct involvement – Appellant to be released if no longer required in custody under other charges [Paras 18, 21].

Decision: Appeal partially allowed – Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act upheld – Convictions under Sections 302, 460, and 34 IPC set aside – Appellant to be released if sentence under Arms Act completed and not wanted in other cases [Paras 21].

Narcotic Drugs – Seizure and Destruction – Respondents acquitted by the High Court due to lack of evidence regarding destruction of seized contraband – Appeal filed by the Union of India – Supreme Court directed examination of compliance with Standing Order No. 1/89 and Circular dated 22nd February 2011 regarding destruction procedures [Paras 1-3].

Procedure for Destruction – Need for strict adherence to prescribed procedures for seizure, storage, and destruction of narcotics to prevent pilferage and recirculation – Emphasis on systemic changes and collection of data from States and Central agencies to ensure compliance [Paras 2, 5-7].

Judicial Supervision – Directions issued to Chief Secretaries, DGPs, and Registrar Generals of High Courts to provide detailed reports on seizure, storage, and destruction practices – Judicial officers to oversee proper implementation of NDPS Act provisions [Paras 7-10].

National and International Obligations – Reference to Article 47 of the Constitution and UN Conventions against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs – Importance of compliance with international obligations and safeguarding against misuse of seized drugs [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with directions for comprehensive data collection and reporting by State and Central authorities – Focus on preventing systemic lapses in handling seized narcotics [Paras 10-12].

Civil Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Plaintiffs sought specific performance of a sale agreement, initially presenting the plaint with deficit court fee – Delay in representing the plaint with the requisite fee was condoned by the trial court without notifying the defendants – High Court struck off the suit, holding that the trial court erred in exercising its discretion without analyzing the plaintiffs' bona fides [Paras 2-10, 38-39].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Second defendant, a pendente lite purchaser, challenged the delay condonation – Supreme Court reiterated that a pendente lite purchaser is entitled to protect their interest and can be impleaded to contest the suit – High Court found valid grounds for the second defendant’s challenge [Paras 15-19].

Court Fees and Limitation – Proper valuation and payment of court fees is primarily a matter between the plaintiff and the court, but the Tamil Nadu Act permits defendants to raise objections – Court's discretion under Section 149 CPC allows for deficit court fee to be paid after the limitation period if the initial filing was within time – Trial court’s exercise of discretion was found lacking due to insufficient explanation for delay [Paras 20-37].

Legal Principles – Court emphasized that discretion under Section 149 CPC must be exercised judiciously, ensuring no unfair advantage is conferred – Plaintiffs failed to provide legally acceptable explanation for the delay in paying the deficit court fee, leading to rejection of the condonation of delay [Paras 36-37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's order striking off the suit and setting aside the condonation of delay upheld – Plaintiffs failed to justify the delay in representing the plaint with the required court fee [Paras 40].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Appellant challenged the High Court's decision that reversed the trial court's order rejecting the plaint filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell property – Trial court rejected the plaint for not disclosing a cause of action and for non-compliance with Order 7 Rule 14(2) CPC – High Court allowed the appeal against rejection of the plaint [Paras 2-3, 6].

Specific Performance and Powers of Attorney – To succeed in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must show a subsisting agreement and the authority of the agent under a power of attorney – In this case, the plaintiff failed to produce the power of attorney document, nor provided reasons for not filing a registration copy, thereby violating Order 7 Rule 14(2) CPC [Paras 11-12].

Cause of Action – Supreme Court emphasized that the plaint must disclose a complete cause of action – A power of attorney must explicitly authorize the agent to execute the sale deed – Here, the power of attorney only specified limited acts, not including the execution of a sale agreement [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Review – Supreme Court reaffirmed that the trial court can reject a plaint at any stage if it does not disclose a cause of action – High Court erred in allowing the appeal by overlooking the absence of material facts in the plaint – Principles from previous judgments emphasized the need for clear cause of action in plaints [Paras 6-10, 17-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Order of the learned single Judge rejecting the plaint restored – Costs awarded to the appellant [Paras 22].

Preventive Detention – Constitutional Validity – Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA to the extent it empowers the competent authority to order preventive detention for activities prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange – Supreme Court upheld the validity of COFEPOSA, stating it is a constitutional measure aimed at preventing greater evils impacting national security and economic stability – The Court reiterated the principle that preventive detention can be used to prevent acts prejudicial to state security even if such acts are not criminal offenses per se [Paras 1-5, 27-29, 36-39].

Legislative Power – The Court reaffirmed the Parliament’s authority to enact preventive detention laws under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution – Held that COFEPOSA serves the legitimate purpose of protecting state security and the national economy, thus falling within the constitutional mandate [Paras 48-49].

Judicial Precedents – Cited various precedents where preventive detention laws were upheld – Noted that preventive detention laws must conform to the constitutional safeguards, including procedural protections under Article 22 [Paras 40-46].

Impact of Repeal of FERA – Petitioners argued that the repeal of FERA and the enactment of FEMA, which treats foreign exchange violations as civil offenses, made preventive detention under COFEPOSA obsolete – Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that COFEPOSA addresses broader security concerns that go beyond the scope of FEMA [Paras 50-56].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA upheld – Preventive detention under COFEPOSA deemed necessary for the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange and for preventing activities detrimental to national security [Paras 47, 52].