Constitutional Law - Validity of Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 - Writ petitions filed under Article 32 challenging the extension of the Lokayukta's term from six to eight years - Petitioners argued the amendment was unconstitutional and the procedure followed violated Articles 197, 198, and 199 - Supreme Court held that the Amendment Act is valid, the term extension is a legislative policy decision, and procedural irregularities cannot invalidate the Act - The decision of the Speaker on Money Bills is final and non-justiciable - Articles 199 and 212 protect legislative procedures from judicial scrutiny. [Paras 1-43]

Quo Warranto - Continuation of Lokayukta - The court upheld the validity of Justice N.K. Mehrotra's continuation as Lokayukta under the amended Act - Directed the State to expedite the appointment of a new Lokayukta within six months - Reaffirmed the principle that legislative actions conforming to constitutional provisions are valid. [Paras 21, 43]

Decision - Petitions dismissed, validity of Amendment Act upheld - Court recognized the legislative competence and procedural propriety in passing the Amendment Act as a Money Bill - Directed the State to appoint a new Lokayukta as per the amended Act's provisions within six months. [Para 44]

Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Appeal against High Court order dismissing writ petitions challenging the suspension of the managing committee and the auction of society land – Held, writ jurisdiction not the appropriate remedy for resolving disputes involving complex questions of fact and evidence such as fraud and valuation of property – Appropriate remedy would have been a civil suit. [Para 32]

Co-operative Societies - Suspension and Removal of Managing Committee - Challenge to Validity - Appeals against suspension and removal of managing committee under Sections 34(1) and 34(2) of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 – Suspension and removal found valid – No illegality in the decision of Registrar – General Body Meeting’s resolution to sell land considered valid – Held, suspension and removal decisions taken based on substantial evidence of irregularities. [Para 27-29]

Land Auction - Validity and Adequacy of Price - Challenge to auction sale of society land on grounds of under-valuation and procedural irregularities – Auction price enhanced from Rs. 46 lakhs per acre to Rs. 70 lakhs per acre by High Court – Held, auction conducted fairly under supervision of Sales Committee – No substantial evidence to prove under-valuation – Enhanced compensation upheld as fair and just. [Para 30-31]

Principles - Majority Decision in Co-operative Society - General Body Resolution to auction sale land taken by majority of members cannot be overruled by a minority of disgruntled members without substantial proof of fraud or mala fide – Held, resolution taken by majority members reflects collective decision and should be upheld unless proven otherwise. [Para 35]

Civil Procedure - Need for Civil Suit in Cases Involving Factual Disputes - Matters involving complex factual disputes such as allegations of fraud, malafide, and property valuation require evidence – Writ petitions not suitable for such matters – Civil suits in competent courts should be filed for adequate relief. [Para 32]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Auction sale held valid. Enhanced compensation of Rs. 70 lakhs per acre with 6% interest upheld. No order as to costs. [Paras 34, 39]

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Right to Equality – Institutional Preference in Admissions – Post Graduate Medical and Dental Courses – KarnatakaThe Supreme Court held that Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletins for PGET-2014, which provided for eligibility criteria favoring candidates of Karnataka origin, was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The clause was found discriminatory as it debarred candidates who studied MBBS/BDS in Karnataka but did not fulfill the Karnataka origin requirement from appearing in the entrance tests for postgraduate courses. The court reiterated the principles laid down in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case, emphasizing that institutional preference must not compromise merit and should ensure equality of opportunity. [Paras 1-25]

Institutional Preference – Admission Criteria – Validity – Held – Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 struck downThe court examined the legitimacy of institutional preference as defined in the Information Bulletins and concluded that the exclusion of certain candidates based on Karnataka origin was contrary to the constitutional mandate of equality. The preference should be limited to those who have passed MBBS/BDS from Karnataka institutions without additional domicile restrictions. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Declaration of Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 as Ultra Vires – Direction for Fresh Information BulletinsThe court allowed the petitions, declaring the impugned sub-clause as null and void. The respondents were directed to issue fresh Information Bulletins and conduct admissions based on the entrance test results, adhering to constitutional principles and ensuring equality. The specific time schedule for admissions was adjusted for the academic year 2014-2015. [Paras 12-25]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Charges – High Court's Refusal – Appeal: The Supreme Court addresses the appeals challenging the High Court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal charges framed against the appellants. The appellants, accused of conspiring to execute a sting operation to expose corruption by a Union Minister, sought quashing of the charges, asserting the lack of criminal intent. The High Court's decision to not interfere with the trial court’s framing of charges was upheld, as prima facie evidence supported a fuller investigation into the accused's roles in the alleged conspiracy. [Paras 1-18]

Sting Operation – Legal and Ethical Considerations – Journalistic Intent vs. Criminal Liability: The Court delved into the legitimacy and ethical considerations of sting operations, emphasizing that such operations, even if claimed to be in public interest, do not inherently extinguish criminal liability. The necessity of establishing mens rea (criminal intent) was highlighted, noting that this could only be determined through evidence presented at trial. The potential implications for journalistic integrity and public interest were considered, with the Court noting that where a journalist has no stake in the favour sought in exchange for a bribe, criminal intent might not be imputed. However, a deeper probe is warranted when such a stake is alleged. [Paras 10-16]

Entrapment – Jurisprudence in Different Jurisdictions – Applicability in India: The judgment compared the jurisprudence of entrapment in jurisdictions like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, where sting operations are recognized within certain parameters. In India, the legal acceptance of such operations by private individuals, as opposed to state agencies, remains unestablished. The Court refrained from endorsing a blanket principle for sting operations, advocating for a case-specific approach to determine criminal liability. [Paras 11-13]

Prima Facie Evidence – Necessity for Trial – Criminal Intent and Conspiracy: The judgment underscored that the presence of prima facie evidence necessitates a trial to ascertain the true nature of the accused's actions and their intent. The appellants' assertion of a journalistic purpose behind the sting operation requires verification through witness testimonies and material evidence. The gap between the sting operation and its public release, along with potential misuse for ensuring delivery of favours, were noted as relevant aspects for examination during the trial. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's order dated 30th May 2008, thereby allowing the trial to proceed on the charges framed against the appellants under Section 120B IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. [Para 18]

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Calculation – Civil Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court – Deceased, a government employee, died in a road accident – Tribunal and High Court calculated compensation based on 'take home salary' after deducting contributions like GPF, house rent, insurance, and income tax – Supreme Court ruled that only income tax deductions should be considered for net salary calculation – Contributions towards GPF, insurance, etc., are savings and should not reduce compensation – Appellant entitled to higher compensation. [Paras 1-14]

Net Salary Determination - Contributions Exclusion – Held – For calculating net monthly income of the deceased, voluntary contributions towards GPF, insurance, house rent should not be deducted – Only income tax should be deducted from gross salary – Applying this principle, net salary of the deceased was recalculated, enhancing the compensation. [Para 13]

Interest Rate Adjustment – Held – Appellant entitled to an interest rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of filing the petition till payment. [Para 14]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of the Tribunal and High Court set aside – Compensation recalculated considering the revised net salary – Enhanced compensation awarded with adjusted interest rate. [Paras 14-15]

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against High Court judgment affirming death sentence – Appellant convicted of murdering Pushpa Devi and her two children, with their bodies found in a soak-pit near their home – Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including appellant’s inconsistent statements and his intimate relationship with the deceased – Sessions Judge and High Court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Supreme Court reaffirms conviction and modifies death sentence to 30 years of incarceration without remission. [Paras 1-9]

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence – Analysis – Supreme Court holds that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, indicating the appellant’s guilt – Evidence included appellant’s intimate relationship with the deceased, discovery of bodies in proximity to appellant’s residence, and lack of plausible explanation from the appellant – Considers case law on circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the appellant. [Para 7]

Sentencing – Appropriateness of Death Penalty – Analysis – Supreme Court evaluates the appropriateness of the death penalty, considering the brutality of the crime and previous case law – Modifies death sentence to a 30-year term of incarceration without remission – Notes that while the crime was brutal, long-term incarceration is a fitting punishment in line with precedents. [Paras 8-9]

Decision – Modification of Death Sentence – Supreme Court modifies the death sentence to a 30-year incarceration term without remission, in addition to the time already served – Holds that this is appropriate given the nature of the crime and the circumstantial evidence presented. [Para 9]

Criminal Law - Conviction for Rape and Intimidation – Appeal against High Court judgment upholding conviction – Prosecutrix, a minor, alleged rape by appellant, supported by circumstantial evidence and delay in filing FIR explained – Court rejected appellant’s defense of false implication due to previous enmity and examination stress – Importance of victim's consistent testimony and Section 114A of Evidence Act emphasized – Held: Conviction and sentence affirmed. [Paras 1-17]

Credibility of Victim's Testimony – Analysis – Held – Victim's testimony found credible despite medical report indicating intact hymen – Delay in lodging FIR satisfactorily explained by trauma and fear – Section 114A presumption applied to uphold lack of consent. [Paras 12-15]

Circumstantial Evidence – Role in Sexual Assault Cases – Held – Circumstantial evidence and victim's consistent statements support prosecution's case – Delay in FIR and medical inconsistencies do not negate reliability of victim's account. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Appeal dismissed with reaffirmation of trial and High Court judgments – Emphasis on legislative intent behind Section 114A of the Evidence Act to strengthen victim's testimony in rape cases. [Paras 17]

Civil Procedure - Substantial Question of Law - Formulation - Appeal against High Court’s judgment allowing a second appeal by setting aside concurrent findings of lower courts - High Court formulated substantial question of law post-admission but before hearing - Appellants argued error in formulation at a late stage - Held, formulation at a later stage permissible if fair opportunity provided to opposing party - No prejudice caused to appellants by delayed formulation - High Court's judgment upheld. [Paras 5-12]

Property Law - Boundary vs. Area Discrepancy - Dispute over land boundaries and area in conveyance deed - High Court held boundary description prevails over area description - Findings of lower courts on adverse possession and ownership overturned - High Court correctly interpreted conveyance deed dispute in favor of respondents. [Paras 3-4, 7]

Procedure - Rules of Justice - Substantial question of law can be framed at a later stage provided fair notice and opportunity given - High Court’s judgment valid despite late formulation - Over-technical objections to procedure should not override justice. [Paras 8-11]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - No merit found in appellants' challenge - High Court's judgment upheld - No costs awarded. [Para 13]

Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Misuse of Public Funds for Political Advertising – Writ petitions filed under Article 32 by registered societies seeking to prevent the misuse of public funds for political advertising – Supreme Court held that such use of public funds is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution – Court noted the lack of existing guidelines to regulate government advertisements – Directed the formation of a committee to draft appropriate guidelines to regulate government advertising until the legislature enacts a relevant law – Committee to submit guidelines within three months. [Paras 1-26]

Maintainability of Writ Petitions – Objection to maintainability on grounds of res judicata and previous decisions in similar cases – Supreme Court overruled the objections, emphasizing the significant public interest and the need for judicial review in cases of misuse of public funds. [Paras 6-9]

Guidelines for Government Advertising – Examination of existing DAVP guidelines found them inadequate to address the misuse of public funds for political purposes – Comparative analysis of guidelines from other jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada highlighted the need for depoliticizing public advertising – Committee formed to suggest new guidelines based on best practices from other jurisdictions. [Paras 10-25]

Decision – Formation of Committee to draft guidelines – Committee consisting of Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon, Mr. T.K. Viswanathan, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, with the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as Member Secretary – Committee to submit guidelines within three months – Matter to be posted for further directions post submission of guidelines. [Paras 24-26]