Land Reforms – Compensation – Appellant was entitled to interest on the compensation amount for land vested with the State from the date of vesting (1st March 1974) until payment – The Karnataka High Court held the appellant was entitled to interest from 1st March 1984 – Supreme Court held interest was due from the date of vesting – Appellant awarded interest at 5% per annum from 1st March 1974 [Paras 1-24].

Interest on Compensation – Circular Clarification – Supreme Court clarified that the State Government's circular dated 24.11.1986, which specified calculation of interest from 1st March 1974, was applicable – Circular's examples were deemed confusing but the clarification prevailed – Appellant entitled to interest at 5% per annum on compensation amount for delayed payment [Paras 18-21].

Legal Principle – Compensation and Interest – Applied general legal principles that compensation for land acquisition should include interest from the date of possession – Cited past decisions emphasizing entitlement to interest when possession is taken before compensation payment [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Appellant entitled to interest at 5% per annum from 1st March 1974 on compensation amount until payment – Karnataka High Court's orders set aside – Respondents directed to pay interest within three months [Para 24].

Judicial Service – Seniority – Fast Track Courts – Supreme Court held that service rendered in Fast Track Courts by way of ad hoc promotion cannot be counted for seniority in the regular cadre of Senior Branch Superior Judicial Service – Appointment in Fast Track Courts was governed by separate rules (2001 Rules) and not by the 1963 Rules – Regularization of service in the Senior Branch cannot be backdated to include ad hoc service in Fast Track Courts [Paras 1-52].

Service Jurisprudence – Ad Hoc Appointment – The Court emphasized that ad hoc appointments made under a special scheme (2001 Rules) do not confer the same rights as appointments made under regular service rules (1963 Rules) – Ad hoc service cannot be equated with regular service for the purpose of seniority [Paras 31-51].

Legal Principle – Seniority and Regularization – Clarified that for an officer to be considered a member of the service and to claim seniority, the appointment must be made to a post in the service in a substantive capacity and not on an ad hoc basis – Regular service rules must be followed for determining seniority [Paras 40-41, 47-48].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The writ Petitioner’s service in the Fast Track Courts cannot be counted towards his seniority in the Senior Branch cadre of Orissa Superior Judicial Service – The High Court's decision to the contrary was set aside – The Appellants were given seniority over the Respondent [Para 52].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC – Held that the actions of the appellants, in holding the deceased while another stabbed him, demonstrated a common intention to commit murder – Mere presence and assistance in holding the deceased justified the inference of shared common intention [Paras 16-20].

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Eyewitnesses, including the deceased's family members, were found credible despite minor inconsistencies – Their testimonies were consistent with the sequence of events and the medical evidence – The Court rejected the defense's claim of non-visibility from the house's interior [Paras 12-14].

Legal Principle – Section 34 IPC – Emphasized that the principle of joint liability under Section 34 IPC does not require each participant to commit the criminal act but to share the common intention – Participation in the crime with knowledge of the intention suffices for liability [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – The conviction and life sentence under Section 302/34 IPC were upheld – The appellants' involvement in holding the deceased facilitated the fatal stabbing, demonstrating a shared common intention to kill [Para 21].

Election Law – Affidavit Requirement – Supreme Court held that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not mandate an election petitioner to file an additional affidavit as per Order VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC – Only a single affidavit in the prescribed form is necessary when alleging corrupt practices [Paras 21-30].

Substantial Compliance – The Court emphasized substantial compliance with the prescribed affidavit format under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 – A defective affidavit is curable, and the petitioner must be given an opportunity to correct it [Paras 31-35].

Legal Fiction – Verification and Affidavit – The Court discussed the separate roles of verification under Section 83(1)(c) and the affidavit supporting allegations of corrupt practices – Held that the affidavit required under Section 83(1)(c) forms an integral part of the election petition [Paras 38-40].

Doctrine of Substantial Compliance – The Court applied the doctrine of substantial compliance to uphold the validity of the petitioner's affidavit despite technical defects – Emphasized that minor defects in the affidavit do not warrant the dismissal of an election petition at the threshold [Paras 53-65].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – Defective affidavits are not fatal to the maintainability of an election petition – The petitioner’s affidavit substantially complied with the required format – High Court’s decision allowing correction of defects upheld [Para 67].

Caste Verification – Scrutiny Committee's Findings – Supreme Court upheld the Scrutiny Committee's findings that the petitioners did not belong to the 'Thakar Scheduled Tribe' – The Committee found discrepancies in the petitioners' documents and failed the affinity test – The decision was based on substantial evidence showing varied caste entries in historical records [Paras 2-8, 13-14].

Evidence – Affinity Test – The Court noted that the petitioners' information about community traits and customs was inconsistent with that provided by their family members – The Scrutiny Committee's reliance on the Vigilance Cell's report and historical school records was justified [Paras 4-7].

Legal Principle – Judicial Review – The Court reiterated that High Courts should not act as appellate bodies over the Scrutiny Committee's findings – Judicial review is limited to checking whether the Committee considered all relevant materials and followed due process – Findings supported by evidence should not be overturned [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Special Leave Petitions Dismissed – Held – The decisions of the Scrutiny Committee and the High Court were upheld – The petitioners' claim to 'Thakar Scheduled Tribe' status was rejected based on substantial evidence and proper application of the law [Para 15].

Consumer Rights – Labeling of Products – The Supreme Court held that consumers have the right to know the ingredients of the products they use, but the implementation of labeling cosmetics and drugs with vegetarian or non-vegetarian symbols involves practical difficulties and legal considerations – The High Court's directive to label such products was set aside as it was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court to mandate such changes through a writ of mandamus [Paras 1-30].

Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Regulatory Framework – The Court noted that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the associated Rules do not currently mandate the disclosure of vegetarian or non-vegetarian origin on labels – The decision to amend such regulations falls within the purview of the Central Government and the Drugs Technical Advisory Board – Past deliberations by the Advisory Board concluded that labeling drugs and cosmetics as vegetarian or non-vegetarian was not feasible [Paras 16-18].

Judicial Review – Limits of Judicial Intervention – Emphasized that while the judiciary can ensure that laws are implemented fairly, it cannot compel the legislature or the executive to enact laws or regulations in a particular manner – The power to make such amendments lies with the appropriate legislative and regulatory bodies [Paras 25-29].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – The High Court's order directing the labeling of cosmetics and drugs was beyond its jurisdiction and was accordingly set aside – The Central Government and the Drugs Technical Advisory Board retain the discretion to decide on such regulatory matters [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Illegal Transport of Liquor – The Supreme Court dealt with the quantum of sentence awarded under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act – The appellant, a driver by profession, was found guilty of transporting a large quantity of spirit (218 cans, each containing 33 liters) – The Court noted the lack of evidence showing the appellant’s financial interest in the contraband and emphasized the need to prosecute the major players behind the illegal trade [Paras 1-7].

Sentencing – Mitigating Factors – The Court considered the appellant's role as merely a carrier and not the owner or financially interested party – The emphasis was on the failure of the investigating agency to apprehend the main culprits involved in the trade – In light of these factors, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from five years to three years rigorous imprisonment and upheld the fine of one lakh rupees with a default sentence of one year [Paras 6-7].

Legal Principle – Quantum of Sentence – The Court reiterated the principle that sentencing should consider the role of the accused, the nature and quantity of the contraband, and the need to identify and prosecute the key figures in illegal trade – Mere conviction of minor players does not fulfill the legislative intent of deterrence [Para 6].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – Sentence reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of one lakh rupees – Default sentence of one year imprisonment upheld – Orders of the trial court and High Court modified accordingly [Para 7].

Medical Education – Permission for Admissions – The Supreme Court considered whether institutions teaching Indian medicine (Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha) had rectified deficiencies in infrastructure and staff to meet the minimum standards for granting admission permissions – The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining high standards in medical education and rejected the plea to admit students for the academic year 2011-12 due to the substantial period elapsed and the impossibility of making up for lost time [Paras 1-15].

Regulatory Compliance – The Court observed that despite multiple extensions and conditional permissions, the institutions failed to rectify the deficiencies as required by the Indian Medicine Central Council Act and the associated regulations – Emphasized that the practice of medicine could not be compromised by lowering standards [Paras 2-12].

Judicial Review – Limits – The Supreme Court reiterated that the role of judicial review is limited and does not extend to interfering with the expert bodies' assessments regarding educational standards – The Court should not substitute its judgment for that of the regulatory authorities [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – The appeals against the High Court's decisions were dismissed – Institutions were not permitted to admit students for the academic year 2011-12 – The parties were directed to bear their own costs [Para 15-16].

Service Law – Promotion Eligibility – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the respondents were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director under the 1987 Rules, as they had completed the requisite five years of experience as Scientific Officers by the time the amended rules were published in the Gazette in 1990 – The Court rejected the state's contention that the experience should be counted from the date of preparation of the rules [Paras 1-15].

Legal Principle – Rule Publication – Emphasized that rules attain legal sanctity and are enforceable only upon publication in the official Gazette, not from the date of preparation – The respondents had completed the necessary experience by the time the 1990 amendments were published [Paras 9-10].

Proviso Application – The Court also noted the proviso to Rule 5 of the 1987 Rules, which allowed consideration of temporary and officiating personnel for promotion if permanent officers were unavailable – The respondents' eligibility was thus confirmed even under the proviso [Paras 11-15].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – The High Court's judgment was upheld, confirming the respondents' eligibility for promotion and directing the state to grant consequential benefits if found suitable – The appeals by the State of U.P. were dismissed [Para 16].