Administrative Law – Rule Making Power – The Supreme Court scrutinized the rule-making power of the Central Government under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, emphasizing that rules must conform to the enabling Act and not expand beyond its scope – Declared the first and second proviso to Rule 5 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange Rules, 2000 as ultra vires the Act [Paras 8-13].

Judicial Appointments – Qualifications and Tenure – Section 21 of the Act requires Chairperson and Members of the Appellate Tribunal to have specific qualifications – Supreme Court reiterated that qualifications for judicial positions must align with constitutional provisions and statutory requirements, rejecting the concept of part-time members introduced by the impugned rule [Paras 9-11, 27-28].

Ultra Vires Doctrine – Consistency with Parent Statute – The introduction of part-time members through subordinate legislation was found inconsistent with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – Supreme Court underscored that any rule inconsistent with the parent statute is void [Paras 14-17, 28-29].

Appointment Validity – Actions of De Facto Officers – Supreme Court clarified that orders and judgments passed by the Appellate Tribunal, despite being chaired by unqualified individuals, remain valid – This decision aimed to uphold the larger interest of justice and avoid administrative chaos [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Provisions introducing part-time members declared ultra vires – Appointments of Respondents quashed – Orders and judgments previously passed by unqualified Chairpersons or Members upheld as valid to maintain judicial consistency and avoid nullification of past decisions [Paras 21, 28-36].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal by High Court – The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the respondent for the murder of Kaku Singh – The evidence provided by the deaf and dumb wife of the deceased was deemed unreliable due to procedural issues and the interested nature of the interpreter, her father [Paras 1-25].

Competent Witness – Deaf and Dumb Persons – The Supreme Court elaborated on the admissibility and credibility of testimony given by deaf and dumb persons – Emphasized that such witnesses can be competent if their testimony is properly recorded through writing or with the aid of a non-interested interpreter – Highlighted the necessity of following proper procedures to ensure the reliability of such evidence [Paras 16-21].

Oaths and Affirmations – Importance in Credibility – Although the absence of an oath does not invalidate evidence, it affects its credibility – In the present case, neither the witness nor the interpreter was administered an oath, impacting the trustworthiness of their testimonies [Paras 16-23].

Evaluation of Evidence – Major Contradictions – The Court noted significant discrepancies between the medical evidence and the statements of key witnesses – Highlighted that the medical reports did not support claims of intoxication and that the forensic evidence did not link the murder weapon to the crime, leading to the acquittal [Paras 15-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision to acquit the respondent affirmed – Supreme Court found no compelling reason to overturn the acquittal, citing procedural inadequacies and the unreliability of evidence provided by the sole eyewitness [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Reduction of Sentences – High Court reduced sentences of the respondent convicted of rape and conspiracy to commit rape from seven years to five years and eleven months, respectively – Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to provide adequate and special reasons for such reduction, as required under Section 376 IPC – Restored original sentences imposed by the trial court [Paras 1-23].

Mandatory Minimum Sentences – Requirement of Adequate and Special Reasons – Supreme Court emphasized the statutory requirement to record adequate and special reasons when imposing a sentence lesser than the minimum prescribed – Highlighted the importance of maintaining the legislative intent behind mandatory minimum sentences in cases of serious offenses like rape [Paras 7-20].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise and Limits – Supreme Court reiterated that judicial discretion in sentencing must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine or casual manner – Exceptional reasons must be explicitly stated to justify any deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence [Paras 8-9, 15-19].

Conduct and Gravity of Offense – Considerations for Sentencing – Supreme Court underscored the necessity to consider the gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the impact on the victim when determining the appropriate sentence – Rejected socio-economic factors as irrelevant in deciding the quantum of punishment [Paras 13-14, 18-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Sentences reduced by the High Court were set aside – Original sentences of seven years rigorous imprisonment for both accused restored – Respondents directed to surrender to custody to serve the remaining part of their sentences [Paras 21-23].

Preventive Detention – Legality and Justification – Supreme Court emphasized that preventive detention of a person already in custody requires compelling reasons and cogent material indicating a real possibility of release on bail and subsequent engagement in prejudicial activities – The Court found the detention order of the appellant’s son lacked such material, rendering it unsustainable [Paras 9-14].

Personal Liberty – Fundamental Rights – The Court reiterated the sacrosanct nature of personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, cautioning against its infringement without due process – Highlighted the necessity for state authorities to strictly adhere to legal procedures in cases of preventive detention [Paras 4-5].

Bail and Detention Orders – Requirement for Specificity – Merely citing the possibility of bail without evidence of a co-accused being granted bail in the same case is insufficient – The Court criticized the detaining authority for relying on general instances of bail in similar cases, emphasizing the need for concrete and specific grounds [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Detention order dated June 30, 2011, quashed – Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court, highlighting procedural inadequacies and lack of specific grounds for detention [Paras 14-15].

Judicial Conduct – Use of Temperate Language – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of restraint, sobriety, and judicial decorum when making observations about the conduct of subordinate judicial officers – The remarks made by the High Court were deemed unwarranted and were expunged to maintain the dignity and credibility of the judicial system [Paras 9-21].

Subordinate Judiciary – Protection and Guidance – The Court reiterated that the High Court, under Article 235 of the Constitution, has a constitutional obligation to protect and guide subordinate judicial officers, ensuring their actions are corrected without damaging their reputation or the public’s faith in the judicial system [Paras 11-19].

Corrective Measures – Administrative vs. Judicial – The decision highlighted the need for superior courts to take corrective measures on the administrative side rather than through harsh judicial comments, which can cause irreparable harm to a judicial officer’s career and public perception of the judiciary [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Remarks and directions made by the High Court against the appellant were expunged – If the remarks had been entered into the judicial officer's confidential records, they were ordered to be removed – The decision aimed to uphold the respect and credibility of the judicial system while correcting procedural errors [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 324, 326, 34, and 452 IPC, emphasizing that the common intention of the accused persons was proved through consistent witness testimonies and corroborative evidence – The appellant’s active participation and the coordinated attack with co-accused demonstrated shared common intention [Paras 32-37].

Evidence – Witness Testimony – The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and reliable, noting that minor discrepancies did not undermine the core prosecution case – Eyewitnesses were deemed natural witnesses, and their consistent accounts were supported by medical and forensic evidence [Paras 19-30].

Explanation of Injuries – The Court rejected the defense argument regarding unexplained injuries on the accused, stating that the injuries were superficial and did not affect the prosecution’s overall case, which was based on substantial and credible evidence [Para 23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences for the appellant under the relevant sections of IPC affirmed – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and supported the trial and High Court’s findings [Paras 38].

Wakf Law – Formation of Wakf Board – The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the formation and functioning of the Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs, emphasizing the necessity for a properly constituted Board under Sections 13 and 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The establishment of the Board and its actions, including the publication of a list of Wakfs, were contested on grounds of procedural deficiencies and lack of proper constitution [Paras 1-13].

Jurisdiction – Charity Commissioner – The Court examined whether the Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction over Muslim Wakf properties in light of the Wakf Act, 1995. The judgment emphasized the distinction between Muslim Wakfs and public trusts, with Wakf properties vesting in God and public trust properties managed under the Indian Trusts Act [Paras 27-29].

Repeal and Savings – Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995 – The Supreme Court discussed the impact of the repealing provisions of the 1995 Act on previous laws governing Wakfs, highlighting the inapplicability of the Bombay Public Trusts Act to Wakf properties after the enactment of the 1995 Act [Paras 14-28].

Interim Orders – Status Quo Maintenance – The Court directed the maintenance of status quo regarding the management and alienation of Wakf properties during the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions. It was ordered that no encumbrance or alienation of Wakf properties should be permitted until the final decision [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Interim orders issued – All concerned, including the Charity Commissioner, were restrained from permitting any encumbrance or alienation of Wakf properties pending the final decision in the Special Leave Petitions – The Court maintained the status quo regarding the management of Wakf properties [Paras 30-31].

Postal Charges – Demand Notice – The Supreme Court found that the demand notice issued by the Postal Authority for Rs. 18,389,410 for the period from June 1, 1997, to October 29, 1998, was invalid – The Postal Authority had previously misled the appellant with incorrect tariff information, leading to the lower franking of postal articles – The Court held that the sender could not be retrospectively charged due to the Postal Authority’s mistake [Paras 36-37].

Liability for Postage – Section 11 of the Post Office Act, 1898 – The Court clarified that liability for postage primarily rests on the addressee upon acceptance of the postal article – The sender is only liable if the postal article is refused, returned, or if the addressee is dead or cannot be found – Since none of these conditions were met, the appellant could not be held liable for additional postage [Paras 30-31].

Applicability of Postal Guide – The Court rejected the application of Clauses 11(10)(xv) and 34 of the Post Office Guide, which relate to breaches of franking license conditions – No breach of conditions by the appellant was alleged, and thus, these clauses were inapplicable [Paras 24-27].

Post Office Responsibility – The Court emphasized the duty of the Postal Authority to check the franking of postal articles before dispatch – The failure to do so cannot be grounds to charge the sender retroactively [Paras 34-35].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Demand notice dated September 10, 1999, quashed – Postal Authority directed to refund Rs. 50 lakhs deposited by the appellant with 6% interest – The High Court’s judgment and the learned Single Judge's direction to allow the Postal Authority to retain the deposited amount pending a fresh decision were set aside [Paras 36-37].

Environmental Law – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in permitting the respondent to run a resort in violation of the CRZ Notification, 1991, and without obtaining necessary clearances – The Court emphasized the need for compliance with environmental regulations to protect the fragile ecosystem of Lakshadweep [Paras 1-17].

Judicial Orders – Equity and Environmental Compliance – The Court ruled that equitable considerations cannot override statutory requirements and environmental protections – Development activities must adhere to the Integrated Island Management Plan (IIMP) and CRZ norms [Para 17].

Expert Committee – Formulation of IIMP – The Court constituted an Expert Committee to evaluate and finalize the draft IIMP for Lakshadweep, ensuring sustainable and planned development – The Committee was tasked with examining alleged violations by resorts and recommending appropriate actions [Paras 21-29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order permitting the respondent to run the resort set aside – Expert Committee constituted to finalize IIMP and address alleged violations – Preliminary report to be submitted within two months [Paras 30-36].