Civil Procedure – Amendment of Written Statement – Defendants sought amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after 13 years, during trial – Supreme Court held that amendment application filed after long delay and commencement of trial is misconceived – Defendants previously filed applications under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to withdraw admissions, both rejected – Successive applications for same relief not permissible – High Court's order dismissing amendment application upheld [Paras 14-25].

Admissions in Pleadings – Withdrawal of Admissions – Defendants admitted plaintiff's claim and agreed to transfer patta in written statement – Defendants’ subsequent attempt to withdraw admissions through fresh written statement and amendment application disallowed – Courts emphasized that admissions once made cannot be retracted to introduce a contradictory case [Paras 13-14, 19, 24].

Procedure – Abuse of Process – Multiple applications by defendants to amend written statement and withdraw admissions considered abuse of court process – High Court and Supreme Court rejected successive applications to maintain procedural integrity and fairness [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Orders of High Court and trial court affirmed – Amendment of written statement disallowed [Para 25].

Sentencing Policy – Proportionality – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – High Court reduced sentence to period already undergone citing long pending trial and potential revival of enmity – Supreme Court held reduction unjustified – Emphasized need for sentences to reflect gravity of offence and ensure justice – High Court's reasons found irrelevant and unsustainable [Paras 5-26].

Evidence – Injuries and Medical Reports – Prosecution proved injuries and involvement of accused through eyewitnesses and medical evidence – Trial Court's sentences based on grievous nature of injuries and role of each accused justified – High Court failed to adequately consider medical evidence and impact of injuries [Paras 17-18, 25].

Undue Leniency – Impact on Justice System – Supreme Court reiterated principle that undue leniency undermines public confidence in law – Sentences must be commensurate with crime to maintain justice and deterrence – Emphasized judicial responsibility to impose appropriate sentences [Paras 7-13, 20-24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's reduction of sentence set aside – Sentences imposed by trial Court restored – Respondents to be taken into custody to serve remaining period of sentence [Paras 26].

Environmental Law – Forest Clearance – OMC challenged MOEF's order rejecting Stage-II forest clearance for 660.749 hectares of forest land for bauxite mining – Supreme Court reviewed compliance with forest rights and environmental statutes – Court emphasized procedural safeguards under the Forest Rights Act and the role of Gram Sabha in protecting community resources and cultural rights [Paras 1-29].

Tribal Rights – Forest Rights Act – Court stressed the importance of recognizing and vesting forest rights in scheduled tribes and traditional forest dwellers – Directed MOEF to take a final decision on forest clearance based on Gram Sabha proceedings – Protection of tribal habitat and cultural rights highlighted as integral to forest conservation [Paras 31-49].

International Conventions – Indigenous Peoples’ Rights – Court referred to various international conventions supporting indigenous peoples' rights to maintain cultural identity and manage community resources – Emphasized adherence to international norms alongside national legislation [Paras 33-38].

Judgment Analysis – Gram Sabha Authority – Supreme Court underscored the authority of Gram Sabha in recognizing forest rights under the Forest Rights Act – Directed MOEF to consider Gram Sabha decisions before granting forest clearance – Reiterated need for state and central authorities to work in consultation with tribal communities [Paras 40-41].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Directed MOEF to make a final decision on Stage-II forest clearance for bauxite mining project based on Gram Sabha proceedings within two months [Para 49].

Environmental Law – Illegal Mining – Massive illegal mining operations in Bellary, Tumkur, and Chitradurga districts of Karnataka – Court noted extensive damage to environment and forest wealth – Central Empowered Committee (CEC) reports highlighted unauthorized mining, encroachment on forest land, and violations of statutory provisions – Court imposed a complete ban on mining activities in affected districts until proper reclamation and rehabilitation plans were implemented [Paras 1-10, 15-22].

Jurisdiction – Article 32 and 142 – Court exercised powers under Article 32 and 142 of Constitution – Upheld CEC’s recommendations for categorization of mining leases into Categories A, B, and C based on extent of violations – Ordered implementation of Reclamation and Rehabilitation (R&R) plans and directed state to ensure compliance with environmental norms – Emphasized that judicial intervention was necessary due to extraordinary environmental damage and ineffective regulatory mechanisms [Paras 24-32, 38].

Tribal Rights – Scheduled Tribes and Forest Dwellers – Court recognized the impact of illegal mining on tribal communities – Directed protection of forest rights under Forest Rights Act, 2006 – Stressed the importance of Gram Sabha consent for any mining activity in forest areas – Affirmed the need for state and central authorities to work with tribal communities in preserving their rights and habitat [Paras 31, 33-35].

Rehabilitation and Compensation – R&R Plans – Approved detailed guidelines for preparation and implementation of R&R plans for each mining lease – Imposed penalties for illegal mining activities – Ordered the creation of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for the socio-economic development of affected areas using funds from penalties and compensation – Emphasized that funds should be used for rehabilitation, environmental conservation, and infrastructure development [Paras 14, 27, 36].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Mining ban continued until implementation of R&R plans – Directed Central and State Governments to comply with CEC recommendations – Emphasized urgency in addressing environmental degradation and protecting tribal rights [Para 49].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentence – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of five persons – Supreme Court considered recovery of the murder weapon pursuant to the appellant's disclosure, forensic evidence matching blood on the weapon and appellant’s clothes with the deceased, and appellant's absconding as corroborative evidence supporting conviction – Court found no proper explanation for appellant’s sudden departure, supporting prosecution's case [Paras 8-10, 12-15].

Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Appellant made an extra-judicial confession to PW-4 – Supreme Court held that extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, true, and trustworthy, can form the basis for conviction – Court found the confession reliable and corroborated by other evidence [Paras 10-11].

Conduct of Appellant – Appellant absconded immediately after the incident and provided a false name upon arrest – Court held that these actions indicated guilt and supported the prosecution's case – Appellant's failure to provide a credible explanation during Section 313 CrPC statement further reinforced this conclusion [Paras 12-13].

Sentencing – Commutation of Death Sentence – High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a direction that the appellant shall not be released unless he serves at least 20 years – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that it aligns with precedents where courts impose minimum imprisonment periods without remission for serious crimes [Paras 18-31].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld – High Court's commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment with restrictions affirmed [Paras 32].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Plaint – Suit for injunction by plaintiffs challenging amalgamation of plots and redevelopment – Plaintiffs sought to amend plaint to include declaration of conveyance deed as illegal, claiming unawareness of the deed until receiving documents under RTI – Supreme Court found plaintiffs, especially respondent No. 1 who was an office-bearer, were aware of the conveyance deed and had authorized the transaction – Amendment was belated and appeared to be an afterthought to avoid adverse consequences – High Court erred in setting aside trial court's order dismissing amendment [Paras 6-8].

Evidence – Office-Bearer’s Knowledge – Plaintiffs, particularly respondent No. 1, had knowledge of the conveyance deed and transactions as they were involved in the society’s resolutions – Delay in seeking amendment post-awareness of conveyance deed further weakened plaintiffs' case – High Court's allowance of amendment without considering these facts was legally unsound [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Error – Setting Aside Trial Court Order – High Court's general application of principles under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC without considering specific case facts led to erroneous decision – Supreme Court upheld trial court's dismissal of amendment for lack of due diligence and being an afterthought [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Trial court's order dismissing amendment of plaint restored – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Contract Law – Acceptance of Bids – Plaintiff's highest bid for a plot in an auction conducted by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad was not accepted by the Housing Commissioner – Supreme Court held that no vested right accrues to the highest bidder unless the bid is formally accepted by the competent authority – Rejection of the bid and refund of the deposited amount indicated no concluded contract – High Court's decision in favor of the plaintiff was erroneous [Paras 9-14, 24-27, 29-35].

Administrative Law – Delegation of Authority – Assistant Housing Commissioner conducted the auction but did not have the authority to accept the bid – Only the Housing Commissioner had the power to accept or reject the bid – Lack of delegation of acceptance power to the Assistant Housing Commissioner confirmed – Auction terms required approval from the Housing Commissioner, which was not granted [Paras 9-14, 24-27].

Procedural Compliance – Notice Requirement – Suit against U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad was instituted without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 88(2) of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam – Supreme Court held that non-issuance of notice rendered the suit not maintainable – Trial court and High Court erred in overlooking this procedural requirement [Paras 31].

Declaratory Relief – Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff sought a declaration that the auction was final and binding despite non-acceptance of the bid – Supreme Court held that without a concluded contract, no legal right existed for the plaintiff to seek declaratory relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Suit was not maintainable [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Trial court's judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s suit restored – No order as to costs [Paras 38].

Criminal Law – Espionage – Appellant convicted under Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act – Conviction based on recovery of documents alleged to be useful to enemy country – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through evidence, including the recovery of a trace map and expert testimony on its significance [Paras 1-29].

Evidence – Expert Opinion – Admissibility and reliability – Appellant contended that the experts (PW-27 and PW-32) were not qualified under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to render opinions on the recovered documents – Supreme Court held that the experts were competent and their opinions corroborated the prosecution’s case – Expert testimonies demonstrated the potential threat posed by the documents if disclosed to enemy countries [Paras 10-13, 19, 25-27].

Witness Testimonies – Hostile Witnesses – Appellant argued that key witnesses (PW-2) were hostile and their testimonies should be disregarded – Court noted that the prosecution relied on other credible evidence, including police witnesses and independent recovery witnesses – Held that non-examination of certain witnesses did not adversely affect the prosecution case [Paras 14, 18, 20, 24].

Judgment Analysis – Concurrent Findings – Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court – Both courts properly appreciated and re-appreciated the evidence, affirming the conviction and sentence – No procedural irregularities or misapplication of legal principles found in lower courts’ decisions [Paras 26-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment upheld [Para 29].

Administrative Law – Amenability to Writ Jurisdiction – VSNL/TCL – The appeals question the maintainability of writ petitions against VSNL/TCL post-disinvestment – Supreme Court held that VSNL/TCL is not a State under Article 12 – The Government of India holding only 26.12% shares does not result in pervasive control – Post-disinvestment, VSNL operates as a private entity, not performing a public function that would make it amenable to writ jurisdiction [Paras 39-45].

Contract Law – Employee Rights – Appellants argued termination of their services breached assurances given during disinvestment – Supreme Court noted the assurances were limited to non-retrenchment for a specific period – Termination of services post this period does not attract writ jurisdiction but contractual remedies – Employees directed to pursue normal legal remedies for breach of contract [Paras 13, 54].

Public Function – Nature of Telecom Services – Court distinguished between sovereign functions and commercial services – Telecom services provided by VSNL/TCL considered commercial, similar to services offered by other private entities – Does not equate to public function warranting writ intervention [Paras 47-52].

Human Rights – Right to Communication – Argument that telecom services are essential for exercising fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) rejected – Court emphasized commercial nature of services provided by VSNL/TCL – Public duty element absent in a purely commercial operation [Paras 23, 52].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgments affirmed – VSNL/TCL not amenable to writ jurisdiction – Employees to seek remedy through appropriate legal channels for breach of contract [Para 55].