Animal Welfare – Transport and Slaughter – Compliance with Rules – The Supreme Court addressed concerns regarding the effective functioning of committees constituted to oversee the implementation of the Transport of Animals (Amendment) Rules, 2001, and other related regulations. The court emphasized the importance of proper implementation of these rules to prevent cruelty to animals during transportation and at slaughterhouses [Paras 1-3].

Committee Functioning – State Compliance Reports – The court directed all State Governments and Union Territories to file action taken reports detailing the functioning of the committees constituted to oversee the implementation of animal welfare regulations. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) was instructed to finalize guidelines for the effective and proper functioning of the state committees [Para 2].

Guidelines for Animal Transportation and Slaughterhouses – The court reiterated the importance of following the guidelines issued by the MoEF, which cover various aspects such as the certification of animals for transportation, loading and unloading supervision, provision of shelter, food, and water, and inspection of slaughterhouses. These guidelines aim to ensure humane treatment of animals and proper waste management at slaughterhouses [Paras 3-4].

Decision: The court directed all State Governments and Union Territories to follow the MoEF guidelines and submit action taken reports within three months. The States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh were specifically instructed to implement the provisions of the relevant Acts and guidelines, and to file compliance reports [Para 4].

Service Law – Appointment – Eligibility and Selection Process – The appellant challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as the Managing Director of the Nigam, arguing that the respondent did not meet the required experience and had pending disciplinary charges that were not disclosed to the Selection Committee. The Supreme Court found the appointment process faulty due to non-disclosure of material information and the respondent's ineligibility under the relevant rules [Paras 4-7, 16-21].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Effect on Promotion – The court held that pending charge-sheets against an employee should be disclosed to the Selection Committee, as they impact the assessment of the candidate’s integrity and merit. The court emphasized the principle that an employee facing disciplinary action cannot be considered for promotion, and the selection should be kept in a sealed cover until the proceedings are concluded [Paras 8-17].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Error – The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not considering the impact of pending charge-sheets on the respondent’s selection. The court reaffirmed that the integrity of a candidate is a critical factor in promotions and must be thoroughly assessed by considering all relevant information [Paras 12, 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Managing Director set aside – The Nigam to conduct a fresh selection process considering all eligible candidates and the full record. Respondent No. 4 to be placed in his previous position and costs imposed on Respondent No. 4 and the Nigam [Paras 21, 23].

Eviction – Landlord’s Bona Fide Requirement – Section 13(1)(h) – The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for starting a business. The trial court and the first appellate court ruled in favor of the landlord, but the High Court reversed the decision following the death of the landlord’s wife. The Supreme Court noted that the eviction suit did not solely plead the wife’s need but included the needs of the landlord and his family, thus sustaining the bona fide requirement even after the wife’s death [Paras 2-4, 8].

Subsequent Events – Impact on Eviction Proceedings – The Supreme Court discussed the consideration of subsequent events, referencing the three-judge bench decision in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor and General Traders, which allows courts to consider events occurring after the initiation of proceedings if they affect the core issue. The court distinguished the present case from those where the sole need claimed was of the deceased wife, emphasizing the landlord’s continuous need [Paras 5-7].

Settlement – Terms Agreed by Parties – Given the uncertainty and to avoid prolonged litigation, the parties reached a settlement where the rent was increased to Rs. 1500 per month, and the tenant was allowed to remain in the premises for three more years. The tenant agreed to hand over vacant possession by 31st August 2016 and to pay the arrears and future rent timely [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Eviction decree restored with modifications per the settlement agreement. Respondent-tenant to vacate by 31st August 2016, with rent increased to Rs. 1500 per month starting September 2013, and undertaking to be filed within four weeks [Paras 9-10].

Education Law – Renewal of Permission – Natural Justice – The petitioner, a dental college, was denied renewal of permission to continue two specialty courses for the academic session 2013-14. The denial was based on deficiencies found by the Dental Council of India (DCI) during inspections. The petitioner contended that the denial without a personal hearing violated the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 10A(4) of the Dental Council of India Act, 1948 [Paras 1-12].

Requirement of Hearing – Section 10A(4) of the Act – The Supreme Court held that Section 10A(4) mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard before disapproving a scheme for starting or renewing courses. This requirement applies to both new courses and renewals. The Central Government must provide a personal hearing or at least communicate the deficiencies and allow the institution to respond before making a final decision [Paras 14-20].

Deficiencies and Compliance – The court noted that while some deficiencies pointed out by the DCI might have been valid, others were contested by the petitioner. The lack of a hearing denied the petitioner the chance to address these issues adequately. Therefore, the decision of the Central Government was set aside on this ground [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The case was remitted to the Central Government to decide afresh after giving a hearing to the petitioner. However, given the timing, this decision would not affect the academic session 2013-14 but would apply to future academic sessions [Paras 28-31].

Investigation – Transfer to CBI – Seriousness of Incident – The Supreme Court was approached to transfer the investigation of a violent incident involving advocates, police personnel, and media persons at the Bangalore City Civil Court Complex to the CBI. Despite the High Court's order constituting an SIT and subsequent Supreme Court orders modifying the SIT, the investigation had not commenced due to delays in constituting the SIT. The Supreme Court directed the CBI to take over the investigation to ensure a fair and thorough inquiry [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Review – Powers under Article 226 and Article 32 – The court reaffirmed that under Articles 32 and 226, the judiciary has the power and obligation to ensure fundamental rights are protected. In extraordinary situations where local investigations lack credibility or efficiency, the court can transfer cases to the CBI to instill confidence and ensure justice [Paras 10-11].

Constitution Bench Principles – Applicability – Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in State of West Bengal v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Supreme Court reiterated the conditions under which it can direct the CBI to investigate a case, emphasizing the need for such an order in exceptional circumstances to maintain credibility and ensure a fair investigation [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The investigation into the incident at the City Civil Court Complex was transferred to the CBI. The SIT's composition and previous orders were set aside. The CBI was directed to complete the investigation and submit a report to the appropriate court in Bangalore within six months [Paras 12-13].

Rape – Sentencing – Section 376(2)(g) IPC – The appellants were convicted for gang rape and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. They sought a reduction of their sentence based on a compromise with the victim, the long duration since the crime, and the victim's subsequent marriage and family life. The Supreme Court emphasized that such crimes warrant stringent punishment and compromise cannot justify a reduced sentence [Paras 1-8, 21-22].

Legislative Intent – Minimum Sentence – The court highlighted the legislative mandate of a minimum sentence for gang rape and stressed that any reduction must be supported by adequate and special reasons, which were not present in this case. The court noted the removal of the proviso allowing for lesser sentences in the 2013 amendment to the IPC [Paras 9-13, 23].

Sentencing Policy – The court reiterated that punishment must be proportionate to the crime, and factors like social status, the passage of time, or the victim's marital status do not qualify as special reasons to reduce the sentence for serious crimes like rape. The power to reduce the sentence must be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases [Paras 14-20, 24-25].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for each appellant, rejecting the request for a reduced sentence based on the purported compromise and other factors. The court underscored the need for proportional punishment in cases of heinous crimes [Paras 25].

Death Sentence Commutation – Fixed Term Imprisonment – Judicial Power – The petitioner, convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC for multiple murders, sought conversion of his sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of remission. The Supreme Court addressed whether it is permissible for the court to impose a fixed term of imprisonment without remission when commuting a death sentence [Paras 1-9].

Judicial Review – Clemency Powers – The court emphasized that the clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution or statutory remission rules should not be restricted by judicial orders. It was reiterated that remission and commutation powers are executive functions and judicial interference is limited to exceptional circumstances [Paras 3-9].

Precedents – Consistency in Judicial Approach – The court referred to prior decisions, including Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, where it was held that the court can prescribe a specific term of imprisonment exceeding 14 years without remission for heinous crimes. The judgment noted that while Sangeet v. State of Haryana raised doubts about this approach, subsequent decisions affirmed the court's authority to set a minimum term [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the fixed term of 30 years without remission, aligning with the established judicial practice of imposing stringent sentences for grave offenses. The court found no merit in altering the prescribed sentence, confirming the lower court's decision [Para 9].

Conviction – Dowry Death – Appellate Review – The appellants were convicted for dowry death and related offenses. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had adequately reappraised and analyzed the evidence, emphasizing the duty of appellate courts to provide thorough reasoning when affirming convictions [Paras 7-12].

Duty of Appellate Court – Reassessment of Evidence – The court reiterated that appellate courts must independently reassess and appreciate the evidence to confirm the guilt of the accused. It highlighted that the High Court had failed to provide detailed reasons or a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, thereby not fulfilling its duty as an appellate court [Paras 8-12].

Lack of Adequate Reasons – The court criticized the High Court's judgment for lacking sufficient reasons and merely echoing the trial court's findings without proper scrutiny. It stressed the importance of a detailed and reasoned judgment, particularly in criminal cases where the liberty of individuals is at stake [Paras 7-12].

Decision: The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2004 were set aside. The case was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh disposal with directions to reappraise the evidence and provide a reasoned judgment. The appellants, who were on bail, were allowed to continue on bail under the same terms and conditions until the disposal of the appeal by the High Court [Paras 14-15].

Excise Duty – Deemed MODVAT Credit – Notification Compliance – The respondent availed deemed MODVAT credit based on invoices from a supplier who had not fully paid the excise duty. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit and imposed penalties, which was upheld by the appellate authority but reversed by the tribunal and High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent met the conditions of the notification and whether the term "appropriate duty" was properly interpreted [Paras 1-26].

Conditions for Availing MODVAT Credit – Interpretation of Notification – The court highlighted that Rule 57A(6) and the relevant notification required the manufacturer of final products to ensure that the inputs were received under invoices declaring that the appropriate excise duty had been paid. The respondent met these conditions, and the court found that the obligation did not extend to verifying actual payment with authorities [Paras 18-25].

Reasonable Steps – Manufacturer's Responsibility – The court emphasized that the manufacturer of final products must take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the notification. This involves ensuring that the inputs are received with proper invoices but does not require further verification from excise authorities. The court concluded that the respondent had taken reasonable steps as required by the notification [Paras 25].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the respondent complied with the notification conditions and was entitled to the deemed MODVAT credit. The adjudicating authority's order was overturned [Paras 26].