Mercy Petition – Constitutional Powers – Supreme Court analyzed the nature of powers vested in the President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161 – Reiterated that these powers must be exercised with aid and advice of the Council of Ministers – Emphasized that delay in disposal of mercy petitions can be a ground for commutation of death sentence, but each case must be examined on its own merits, including the nature of the crime and its impact on society [Paras 18-21].

Delay in Execution – Commutation of Death Sentence – Noted that inordinate delay in execution due to the pendency of mercy petitions causes psychological stress, which can be grounds for commutation – Cited international jurisprudence and emphasized that the delay attributable to state authorities should not result in inhumane treatment [Paras 10-13].

Mental Illness – Human Rights – Highlighted that mental illness developed during incarceration can be a mitigating factor for commutation – Relied on medical reports indicating the appellant's severe mental illness, making the execution incompatible with contemporary standards of human decency [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Clarified the limited scope of judicial review in examining the President's or Governor's decision under Articles 72 and 161 – Stressed that the decision must be based on relevant considerations and free from arbitrariness, and that judicial intervention is warranted if there is evidence of non-application of mind or extraneous considerations [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar to life imprisonment, citing inordinate delay in the disposal of his mercy petitions and his deteriorating mental health – Directed the authorities to provide appropriate medical treatment to the appellant [Paras 22-24].

Civil Procedure – Striking Out Pleadings – Supreme Court held that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be decided based on the face of the plaint or petition to determine if a cause of action is made out – Once a party consents to the court hearing a petition under Order 7 Rule 11, the same party cannot later seek to strike out pleadings under Order 6 Rule 16 for being unnecessary, vexatious, or scandalous – All necessary pleas should be raised at the same time – Court emphasized procedural consistency and not allowing new objections post-consent order [Paras 1-28].

Election Petition – Recrimination Petition – Election of appellant contested by respondent on grounds of improper vote counting – Appellant’s recrimination petition raising issues of criminal cases against respondent and allegations of corrupt practices – High Court’s dismissal of recrimination petition under Order 7 Rule 11 set aside by Supreme Court, allowing recrimination petition to be heard on merits [Paras 2-8].

Verification and Corrupt Practices – Affidavit Requirement – Supreme Court clarified that defects in verification or affidavit in election petitions are curable and not fatal to the maintainability of the petition – Emphasized the need for material facts and specific allegations in the petition – Allowed consideration of corrupt practices alleged by appellant, directing expeditious trial [Paras 21-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order striking off pleadings – Directed the High Court to proceed with the hearing of the recrimination petition – Each party to bear its own costs [Paras 31].

Compensation – Future Prospects – Supreme Court directed that for self-employed or fixed-wage earners, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased if below 40 years, and 30% if aged between 40 to 50 years, while computing future prospects – The actual income should be considered after tax deductions – For victims aged 50 to 60 years, an addition of 15% is deemed just and equitable [Paras 11-12].

Just Compensation – Determination – Emphasized that 'just compensation' must be adequate, fair, and equitable, aligning with the settled principles – Relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd., and other precedents to standardize norms for assessing damages in motor accident claims [Paras 7-10].

Conventional Heads – Updated Amounts – Directed courts to award at least Rs. 1 lakh for loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000 for funeral expenses, acknowledging inflation and the increased cost of living – Revisited the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness [Paras 20-21].

Excess Compensation – Tribunal’s Power – Affirmed that the Claims Tribunal can award compensation in excess of the amount claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, provided it is just, equitable, fair, and reasonable – Highlighted the duty of the Tribunal to award proper compensation irrespective of the claimed amount [Paras 13-19].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and the Award of the Tribunal – Directed enhanced compensation of Rs. 22,81,320 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 26.11.2007 till realization – Specific instructions for distribution of compensation among the claimants, including the deposit of amounts in the names of minor children in a nationalized bank till they attain majority [Paras 24-25].

Urban Development – Applicability of Government Order – Supreme Court held that the Government Order dated October 22, 2002, issued by the Housing Department, did not apply to NOIDA, an industrial development authority constituted under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act 1976 – Emphasized the distinct administrative controls and the specificity of the order to the development authorities under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 [Paras 15-18].

Khodaiji Committee Recommendations – Cooperative Housing Societies – Supreme Court determined that the Khodaiji Committee’s recommendations, which limited benefits to societies existing before May 1, 1976, did not apply to Sarvpriya and Shivalik cooperative housing societies as they were registered after this date – High Court's contrary interpretation was held erroneous [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Review – Administrative Orders – Examined the scope of judicial review of administrative orders and the applicability of inter-departmental directives – Clarified the non-applicability of orders addressed to specific administrative domains to entities outside those domains unless explicitly stated [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court – Directed that the writ petitions filed by the respondents be dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Rape – Appellant convicted for the rape and murder of Seeso – Trial court's judgment affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court reverses conviction due to major discrepancies in witness testimonies and procedural errors – Appellant's presence at crime scene not conclusively proven [Paras 1-35].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Discrepancies – Key witnesses PW-8 and PW-9 provided contradictory statements about the appellant's presence – Testimonies found unreliable due to inconsistencies – Prosecution failed to establish a coherent narrative [Paras 6-10, 20-21].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility and Reliability – PW-7's testimony about extra-judicial confession made by co-accused after 16 days deemed unreliable – Delay in reporting confession rendered it suspicious – Supreme Court emphasizes caution in relying on weak evidence of extra-judicial confessions without corroboration [Paras 11-13, 23-25].

Benefit of Doubt – Inconsistencies and Lack of Substantive Evidence – Supreme Court grants benefit of doubt to appellant due to discrepancies and lack of substantial evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence without a complete chain of events was insufficient for conviction [Paras 18, 31-32].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant and other accused acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence – Supreme Court orders release of appellant and extends the benefit to non-appealing co-accused under Article 142 [Paras 34-35].

Civil Procedure – Setting Aside Decree – Appeals against High Court's order setting aside trial court's rejection of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – High Court's order deemed unsustainable – Application under Order 9 Rule 13 not maintainable by non-party – Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to reopen settled matters unless no other remedy exists [Paras 1-22].

Inherent Powers – Scope and Limitations – Section 151 CPC allows for procedures consistent with justice – Cannot be used to conflict with express provisions or where specific remedies are provided – Appropriate in cases of fraud upon the court but not for fraud upon a party [Paras 8-13, 20].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Claims – Legal heirs and vested remainder interests – Proper procedure under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Reference Court's jurisdiction limited to matters referred by the Land Acquisition Collector [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court's order set aside – Respondents directed to seek appropriate remedy through permissible legal proceedings [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment – High Court affirmed trial court's judgment – Supreme Court dismisses appeal, upholding conviction based on victim's age and clear evidence of non-consensual sexual assault [Paras 1-14].

Victim’s Age and Consent – School certificate and testimony established prosecutrix's age as 13 years 9 months at the time of the incident – Issue of consent irrelevant due to her minor status – Medical evidence indicating previous sexual activity immaterial to the determination of rape [Paras 2-4].

Medical Examination and Two-Finger Test – Critique of the two-finger test as violating rape survivors' rights to privacy, physical and mental integrity, and dignity – Even if the test indicates habitual sexual intercourse, it does not negate the occurrence of rape – Medical opinion on prior sexual activity does not affect the finding of rape on the occasion in question [Paras 7-13].

Victim's Character – Irrelevance of the victim's sexual history – Supreme Court emphasizes that a woman of easy virtue or previous sexual activity has the right to refuse sexual intercourse – Character evidence inadmissible unless directly in issue under Sections 53 and 54 of the Evidence Act, 1872 [Paras 9-10].

International Standards – Reference to international covenants affirming the rights of rape survivors to dignity and humane treatment – States' obligations to ensure non-retraumatizing legal recourse and appropriate medical care [Para 12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Conviction and sentence affirmed – No special circumstances warranting interference [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Gang Rape – Appellants convicted under Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) IPC – Victim's consistent testimony over multiple dates – Trial court criticized for lengthy adjournments enabling witnesses to turn hostile – High Court affirmed convictions and sentences – Supreme Court upholds convictions emphasizing fiduciary duty of teachers and applicability of Section 114A of the Evidence Act [Paras 1-22].

Witness Testimony – Hostility and Reliability – Victim and her mother initially supported prosecution case but later turned hostile due to alleged pressure – Court underscores responsibility of witnesses to testify truthfully – Hostile witness testimony can still support prosecution's case to the extent it is consistent with other evidence [Paras 4-8].

Adjournments and Fair Trial – Critique of trial court for allowing extensive adjournments in rape case – Emphasis on the need for continuous and expeditious trial under Section 309 CrPC – Delayed trials enable manipulation of witnesses and undermine justice [Paras 10-15].

Section 114A of Evidence Act – Presumption Against Consent – Applicability in cases involving fiduciary relationships like that between teachers and students – Prosecution's burden eased by presumption against consent which was not rebutted by the appellants [Paras 18-21].

Teacher-Student Relationship – Elevated Duty of Care – Teachers' role in protecting and nurturing students – Breach of trust in cases of sexual violence by teachers warrants severe punishment – Supreme Court suggests life imprisonment would have been appropriate given the gravity of the offense and relationship dynamics [Paras 16-22].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – Conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment affirmed – No interference warranted given the facts and legal principles involved [Para 23].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Appeals against compensation awarded for land acquisition in various states – Different districts and notifications considered – High Court's uniform rate of Rs. 235/- per sq. yard challenged – Supreme Court reassesses compensation based on potentiality for development and proximity to developed areas – Uniform compensation for similar lands determined with cumulative annual increase of 12% [Paras 1-48].

Development Deductions – Calculation and Justification – High Court's imposition of 60% development deduction deemed excessive – Appropriate deduction for developed municipal areas set at 33 1/3% – Courts instructed to consider location and existing amenities in determining development deductions [Paras 26-28, 45].

Annual Increase – Cumulative Basis – 12% annual increase to be calculated on a cumulative basis – Enhancements in line with potential and actual rise in land values – Methodology reaffirmed to ensure fair compensation [Paras 19-23, 42].

Comparative Sales – Reliability and Adjustment – Use of sale transactions for determining market value – Adjustments made for size and development stage of plots – Court emphasizes need for realistic comparison with similar lands [Paras 15-18, 40].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Held – Compensation re-assessed at Rs. 325/- per sq. yard with 33 1/3% development deduction – Cumulative annual increase applied – Modified compensation to reflect fair market value and potential for future development [Paras 34-48].