Property Law – Coparcenary Property – Appellant claimed that property acquired by his father on partition retained its coparcenary character after his birth – Trial court ruled in appellant’s favor, finding property became coparcenary property on his birth – Lower appellate court reversed, treating property as self-acquired – High Court affirmed lower appellate court’s view – Supreme Court examined coparcenary property principles under Hindu law and reversed the High Court decision, reinstating trial court’s decree [Paras 1-15].

Coparcenary Property – Birth of Coparcener – Legal implications – Court clarified that property inherited by a single coparcener on partition is separate property until a son is born, at which point it acquires coparcenary character – Court noted this principle is well-settled and supported by precedent, including M. Yogendra and Others vs. Leelamma N. and Others (2009) 15 SCC 184 [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Property became coparcenary on the birth of the appellant – Sale deeds and release deed executed by appellant’s father without legal necessity were invalid – Lower appellate court and High Court judgments set aside, trial court decree restored [Paras 13-15].

Recruitment Process – Challenge to Selection Procedure – Petitioners challenged the selection process for the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, alleging midway changes in the criteria and lack of transparency in normalization of marks – High Court was empowered under Rule 7 and Rule 9(iv) to formulate its own procedure – Selection procedure upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 5-24, 45-48].

Normalization of Marks – Legality and Justification – The normalization process for evaluating answer sheets adopted by the High Court was justified to ensure fair selection – Marks awarded by different evaluators were standardized – No violation of constitutional or statutory provisions found [Paras 43-47, 57-58].

Statutory Empowerment – Rule-Making Authority of High Court – High Court's authority to prescribe selection procedures upheld – Advertisement and subsequent selection process were in accordance with the prescribed rules and did not deviate from constitutional mandates [Paras 6, 24-25, 66-67].

Decision – Appeals and Writ Petitions Dismissed – Held – High Court’s selection process upheld as fair and in compliance with the established rules and guidelines – No relief granted to petitioners [Paras 4, 46, 66].

Foreign Exchange Regulation – Contravention of FERA Provisions – Appellant challenged the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal against the Tribunal's decision setting aside penalties and confiscation under FERA – High Court held no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order – Supreme Court examined contraventions of Sections 19(1)(a) and (d), 29(1)(a) and (b), and procedural adherence under FERA – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-60].

Establishment of Place of Business – Corporate Veil – Examination of whether the foreign entities established a place of business in India without RBI's permission – Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that no contravention of Section 29(1)(a) occurred – Lifting the corporate veil deemed unnecessary as no fraudulent activity was established [Paras 40-45].

Foreign Investment Policy – Automatic Route – Court analyzed the compliance with the Foreign Exchange Management Act and relevant notifications – Emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions and notifications for foreign investments – Concluded that the activities undertaken were within the legal framework [Paras 46-59].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – High Court and Tribunal's decisions upheld – No contravention of FERA found in the business activities of the respondents – No costs awarded [Paras 60].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – Appellant, a retired Medical Officer, claimed non-payment of retiral benefits and filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – Supreme Court examined whether such matters fall under the Consumer Protection Act – Held that service-related disputes of government servants do not fall within the jurisdiction of consumer forums as they do not constitute 'consumer' disputes under the Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-17].

Service Law – Retiral Benefits – Government servant claimed deductions from retiral benefits without notice – Supreme Court reiterated that service matters, including payment of retiral benefits, should be adjudicated under relevant service rules and not consumer protection laws – Government assured refund of penal rent if charged [Paras 18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Government servants cannot approach consumer forums for service-related disputes – Appropriate forum is the State Administrative Tribunal or Civil Court – Assurances given by the government regarding payment of dues and penal rent recorded [Paras 16-18].

Administrative Law – Selection and Appointment – Suppression of Material Facts – Appellants, selected for the post of police constables, were discharged during training due to alleged suppression of their involvement in a criminal case – Tribunal and High Court upheld the discharge based on the suppression in attestation forms – Supreme Court found appellants were not aware of the criminal case registration at the time of filling forms – Held, appellants did not suppress any material fact intentionally [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Procedure – Preventive Arrest – Sections 151 CrPC – Appellants detained under Section 151 CrPC during a protest, unaware of formal case registration – No information provided about the arrest or registration of crime – Supreme Court held that preventive arrest under Section 151 CrPC does not constitute involvement in a criminal case requiring disclosure in attestation forms [Paras 4-7].

Employment Law – Continuity of Service – Supreme Court directed reinstatement of appellants with continuity of service but without back pay for the period of exclusion – Ordered immediate re-induction for training and restoration of seniority – Emphasized non-discrimination for other similarly situated candidates [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and Administrative Tribunal set aside – Appellants to be re-inducted into training immediately with original seniority restored – No entitlement to back pay for the period of exclusion unless there is a delay in implementation [Paras 8-10].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Powers – Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Challenge to Validity – Petitioners challenged the validity of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 on the grounds that it was ultra vires the Constitution – Supreme Court held that the affirmative words in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) confer power on Parliament to make one law laying down the same disqualifications for both candidates and sitting members of Parliament or State Legislature – Articles 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) prohibit Parliament from deferring the date of disqualification – Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution and invalid [Paras 1-20].

Constitutional Law – Disqualification on Conviction – Different Treatment for Sitting Members – Supreme Court examined whether sitting members could be treated differently under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 – Held, the same disqualifications apply to both candidates and sitting members, and any provision deferring the date of disqualification for sitting members is unconstitutional [Paras 14-20].

Criminal Law – Stay of Conviction – Appellate Court Powers – Supreme Court clarified that a sitting member convicted of an offence can seek stay of conviction from the Appellate Court under Sections 389(1) and 482 CrPC – This provides adequate remedy without needing Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act [Paras 21-22].

Decision:

Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, declared ultra vires the Constitution – Writ petitions allowed [Paras 20, 24].

Election Law – Right to Vote – Disqualification of Prisoners – Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that individuals confined in prison or in lawful custody are disqualified from voting – High Court held that such individuals are also disqualified from being "electors" and thus cannot contest elections – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the right to vote is statutory and can be taken away by law [Paras 1-6].

Electoral Law – Qualification for Contesting Elections – Definition of Elector – Sections 4 and 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 require a candidate to be an "elector" – Supreme Court agreed with High Court that individuals disqualified from voting under Section 62(5) are not "electors" and therefore cannot contest elections [Paras 1-6].

Decision:

Civil appeals dismissed – High Court's order affirmed – Individuals confined in prison or lawful custody are disqualified from voting and contesting elections [Paras 7].

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Appellant claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offence in 1988 – Supreme Court ordered an inquiry into the appellant's age – Inquiry confirmed appellant's date of birth as 31st August 1974, making him a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Conviction upheld but sentence remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders [Paras 1-21, 41-42, 68].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – Appellant convicted for causing dowry death by setting wife on fire – Conviction based on evidence of dowry demands and harassment – Conviction upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 22-27, 75-77].

Juvenile Justice – Sentencing – Special Provisions – Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Juvenile to be forwarded to Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders – Supreme Court directed imposition of fine and compensation to the victim's family [Paras 41-46, 68].

Criminal Procedure – Duties of Police – Compliance with CrPC Sections 41B, 50, 50A, 54 for juveniles in conflict with law – Mandated procedures to minimize risk of juveniles being treated as adults [Paras 63-67].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence set aside – Matter remanded to Juvenile Justice Board for determining appropriate fine and compensation [Paras 72-71].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Appellant challenged FIR registered in 2000 alleging embezzlement during his tenure as LDC-cum-Cashier – High Court refused to quash FIR despite lack of evidence and prolonged investigation – Supreme Court emphasized constitutional right to speedy trial and investigation – Held, continuation of investigation without evidence violates Article 21 – FIR quashed [Paras 1-34].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of Constitution – Investigating Agency failed to produce evidence despite repeated requests – Departmental inquiry exonerated appellant – Supreme Court held continuation of FIR proceedings without evidence as abuse of process – Directed quashing of FIR [Paras 30-34].

Criminal Law – Investigation and Evidence – Section 156(3) CrPC – Direction by CJM to reinvestigate with assistance of complainant – Original records not made available – Inquiry report exonerated appellant – Supreme Court noted lack of cooperation by respondent in providing evidence – Directed quashing of FIR [Paras 25-33].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – FIR No. 10/2000 lodged at Police Station Dausa against appellant quashed [Para 34].