Constitutional Law – Pension Entitlement for High Court Judges – Petition filed by former Judges elevated from the Bar, challenging the discriminatory pension provisions which did not consider years practiced as an advocate towards pension – Held that denial of such addition violates Articles 14 and 16(1) – Directed that 10 years of practice be added to the service of Judges for the purposes of pension calculation – Court observed that differential treatment between Judges elevated from the Bar and those from subordinate judiciary is arbitrary and unconstitutional. [Paras 1-29]

Judicial Service – Post-Retirement Benefits – Appeal concerning the order of the High Court of Rajasthan directing the State to provide monthly financial benefits for domestic help and other expenses to retired Chief Justices and Judges – Supreme Court upheld the order with modifications – Recommended all States to implement similar schemes within six months. [Paras 30-35]

Decision – Addition of 10 Years Practice for Pension Calculation – Supreme Court allowed the addition of 10 years of practice as an advocate for High Court Judges elevated from the Bar for pension purposes – Directed requisite amendments in the High Court Judges Rules, 1956, analogous to those made in the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959 – Appeals and writ petitions disposed of accordingly. [Paras 29, 35]

Waqf Law - Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Waqf Tribunal – Civil Appeal against the High Court's order upholding the Waqf Tribunal's jurisdiction to try a suit for eviction – Appellant, tenant in waqf property, challenged the Waqf Tribunal's jurisdiction – Supreme Court held that eviction suits against tenants of waqf property are triable by civil courts and not by Waqf Tribunals – Jurisdiction of civil courts not excluded by Sections 6 and 7 of the Waqf Act for eviction suits – Order of Waqf Tribunal directing transfer of plaint to civil court restored – Appeals allowed. [Paras 1-19]

Exclusive Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal – Interpretation – Held – Sections 6 and 7 of the Waqf Act confer exclusive jurisdiction on Waqf Tribunals for specific disputes regarding waqf properties, such as determining whether a property is waqf or if a waqf is Shia or Sunni – Eviction suits do not fall within these specific disputes – Civil courts retain jurisdiction over eviction suits. [Para 17]

Decision – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in Eviction Suits – Supreme Court set aside the Waqf Tribunal's order of recalling the plaint and restored its initial order transferring the plaint to civil court – High Court's dismissal of revisions against Waqf Tribunal's orders reversed – Civil appeals allowed with no order as to costs. [Paras 18-19]

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Validity and Interference – Criminal appeals against High Court orders quashing proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, due to sanction being granted by the Law Department instead of the parent department – Supreme Court emphasized that sanction errors, omissions, or irregularities do not invalidate proceedings unless a failure of justice has occurred – High Court's orders lacked findings on failure of justice and prematurely evaluated the validity of sanction – Held that criminal proceedings should not be nullified mid-course without determining failure of justice – Appeals allowed, orders set aside, proceedings to continue expeditiously. [Paras 1-12]

Requirement of Sanction – Analysis – Held – Object of sanction is to prevent frivolous prosecutions and to ensure public servants can discharge duties effectively – Error in sanction not fatal unless resulting in failure of justice – High Court's determination of mechanical sanction issuance premature – Proper stage for evaluating sanction validity is post-evidence. [Paras 5-11]

Decision – Continuation of Criminal Proceedings – Supreme Court set aside High Court orders quashing criminal proceedings against respondents – Directed that trials proceed without delay. [Para 12]

Contempt of Court - Contempt in the face of the court - Criminal Appeal against High Court order holding appellant guilty of contempt for misconduct and abusive behavior in court - Appellant, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, alleged violation of transfer policies - High Court found appellant's conduct intemperate, disrespectful, and obstructive - Appellant punished with 24 hours imprisonment by High Court - Supreme Court concurs with High Court's assessment and finds appellant guilty of contempt - Held, appellant's behavior lowered the dignity and authority of the court - Contempt in the face of the court requires strict and immediate action to maintain the honor and dignity of the judiciary - Appeal dismissed with fine imposed on appellant for contempt committed in Supreme Court. [Paras 1-21]

Contempt - Misconduct by Police Officer - Analysis - Held - Appellant, a senior police officer, exhibited rude and disruptive behavior in court - Produced a tampered copy of the High Court's order in the Supreme Court - Claimed false submissions and filed an unsigned bail application - Attempted to influence the court with a letter from a Cabinet Minister - Actions deemed to obstruct the administration of justice and undermine court authority - Strict disciplinary action required to uphold judicial dignity. [Para 9-18]

Decision - Contempt of Court upheld - Supreme Court directs appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, failing which to suffer seven days' simple imprisonment - High Court's punishment and rejection of intervention application upheld. [Para 20-21]

Service Law – Extension of Service – Judicial Review – Adverse Remarks – Non-communication of adverse remarks dated 15.12.1995 to respondent – Respondent promoted despite adverse remarks and granted selection grade – Evaluation of service record by High Court – Held, adverse remarks not acted upon, subsequent promotions wiped out earlier adverse remarks – Denial of extension of service beyond 58 years based on uncommunicated and unsubstantiated adverse remarks, set aside – Ordered, respondent to be treated as retired at age 60 with all consequential benefits. [Paras 1-10]

Judicial Review – Scope – Limited judicial review permissible in administrative decisions of the High Court regarding the continuation of judicial officers – Judicial review allowed only in cases where the decision is unsupported by any material or reflects an unsustainable conclusion – Evaluation by Full Court Committee not to be substituted unless decision is arbitrary or capricious. [Paras 8-9]

Decision – Denial of Extension of Service – High Court's decision to not extend respondent's service beyond 58 years due to adverse remarks set aside – Respondent to be considered retired at age 60 with all consequential benefits, including pay and pension. [Para 10]

Criminal Law - Corruption and Bribery - Proof of Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification - Criminal Appeal against the High Court judgment affirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Supreme Court emphasizes that the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for the conviction under Section 7 of the Act - Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to prove the offence without establishing the demand - Prosecution's failure to prove the demand led to the conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable - Conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court were set aside. [Paras 7-10]

Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Role and Impact - Analysis of the complainant (PW-2) turning hostile - The complainant disowned his earlier statements regarding the demand for a bribe - The court scrutinized the reliance on the hostile witness and additional corroborative evidence - Held that the evidence of PW-1 (panch witness) and the recovery of tainted money could not substantiate the demand alleged against the accused. [Paras 6-8]

Legal Presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Clarification on the applicability of the presumption of guilt under Section 20 - Such presumption arises only upon proof of acceptance of illegal gratification following a proven demand - Absence of demand negates the presumption - Conviction under Sections 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) cannot be sustained without proof of demand. [Paras 9-10]

Decision - Appeal allowed - Conviction and sentences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act set aside - The prosecution failed to prove the essential element of demand for illegal gratification - Acquittal of the appellant. [Para 10]

Constitutional Law - Panchayati Raj Institutions - No Confidence Motion - Constitutional validity of Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 - Petitioner challenged the legality of No Confidence Motion provision as being inconsistent with the constitutional scheme under Part IX of the Constitution - Supreme Court held that Section 28 is not inconsistent with Part IX, and the provision for No Confidence Motion is integral to democratic governance and transparency - Article 243N and the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact such provisions affirmed - Appeal dismissed. [Paras1-66]

Constitutional Law - Reservation - Impact of No Confidence Motion on reserved categories - Contention that No Confidence Motion undermines the reservation scheme for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Women in Panchayati Raj Institutions - Supreme Court held that No Confidence Motion provision does not frustrate the reservation scheme - Even if an Adhyaksha from reserved category is removed, the replacement must belong to the same category - Provision ensures accountability and does not negate reservation policy - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 23-24, 35]

Civil Procedure - Review - Scope and maintainability of review petition - Petitioner sought review of High Court order dismissing the writ petition challenging No Confidence Motion - Supreme Court reiterated principles governing review jurisdiction - Review not to re-argue the case on merits unless there is an apparent error - High Court's dismissal of review petition upheld - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 62-64]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals and contempt petition, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. The Court affirmed the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact provisions for No Confidence Motion and ruled that such provisions are not inconsistent with Part IX of the Constitution. The petitioner's contention regarding the impact on reservation policies was rejected, and the review petition was found to be without merit. [Paras 67-70]

Service Law - Appointment and Selection Process – Challenge to the selection and appointment of District and Sessions Judges under the Jammu and Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1983 – Appeals against High Court's dismissal of petitions challenging selection process and reservation policies – Appellant contended selection was unconstitutional and non-compliant with prescribed procedures – Supreme Court upheld High Court's findings, noting no substantial evidence of procedural violation or constitutional breach in reservation policies – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Constitutional Law - Reservation Policies – Evaluation – Court examined the validity of reservation in judicial appointments under the Jammu and Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1983 – Held that reservation policies were appropriately applied as per Full Court Resolution and relevant SRO – Found no merit in claims against reservation procedures – Submission that the reservation policy was not approved by the Governor rejected. [Paras 4-6]

Public Interest Litigation - Service Matters – Maintainability – Appeals essentially in nature of PIL against selection process – Court reiterated that PILs in service matters are not maintainable as per established guidelines and precedents – Found appellants had no specific grievance against selected candidates – Emphasized misuse of PIL for service disputes is impermissible – Appeals dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability as PIL. [Paras 7-10]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against the selection process for District and Sessions Judges – Found no procedural irregularities or misuse of reservation policies – Upheld High Court’s decision – Reiterated principles against the maintainability of PIL in service matters – Appeals dismissed with no costs. [Paras 10]

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Unauthorized Subletting – Evidence and Legitimate Inference – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision reversing the trial and appellate courts' findings of unauthorized subletting. It was held that mere inaction by the tenant (Defendant No. 1) to evict the alleged sub-tenant (Defendant No. 2) does not constitute subletting. The courts below incorrectly drew inferences of subletting based on circumstantial evidence without substantial proof of a legal arrangement for monetary consideration between the tenant and alleged sub-tenant. [Paras 16-28]

Legitimate Inference – Burden of Proof – Held, subletting can be established by legitimate inference from facts proven, but in this case, the inferences drawn by the lower courts did not flow clearly from the facts. The High Court rightly interfered in its revisional jurisdiction, finding that the conclusions of subletting were legally fallible. [Paras 17-23, 28]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order that the concurrent findings of the lower courts on unauthorized subletting were unsustainable. The High Court acted within its revisional jurisdiction to correct legally erroneous inferences drawn from the facts.