SAFEMA – Forfeiture of Property – Illegally Acquired Property – Property forfeited under SAFEMA if acquired by persons involved in smuggling or foreign exchange manipulation – SAFEMA's stringent provisions aim to discourage illegal activities by forfeiting such properties – Forfeiture order upheld as the property was transferred after issuance of SAFEMA notice, rendering the transfer null and void under Section 11 [Paras 22-28].

Constitutional Law – Due Process – Principles of Natural Justice – Appellants' claim of being bona fide purchasers not sufficient to invalidate forfeiture – SAFEMA places a moratorium on property transfers after notice issuance – Appellants not entitled to notice as the property transfer was prohibited by law [Paras 23-28].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Forfeiture order under SAFEMA upheld – Sale of property by vendors after issuance of SAFEMA notice deemed null and void – Appellants cannot claim any legal right to the property [Para 29].

Right to Education – Implementation of RTE Act – School Infrastructure – Directions to ensure proper infrastructure including toilets, drinking water, classrooms, and staff appointments – Emphasis on providing a clean and healthy environment for children – Failure of some states to comply with directives – Supreme Court orders immediate implementation within six months [Paras 1-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 21A – Right to Free and Compulsory Education – Courts must ensure states comply with constitutional mandate – Statutory bodies like National Commission for Protection of Child Rights tasked with monitoring and reviewing safeguards and recommending measures for effective implementation – Non-compliance can lead to further judicial intervention [Paras 7-10].

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of – Directions to all states to implement necessary measures for school infrastructure within six months – Applicability extends to all schools, state-owned or privately owned, aided or unaided, minority or non-minority – Aggrieved parties may seek further judicial intervention if directions are not fully implemented [Para 10].

Right to Information – Exemption of Personal Information – Information relating to the personal matters of a public servant, such as service career details, assets, and liabilities, is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act – Disclosure of such information must serve a larger public interest – Appellant failed to establish bona fide public interest – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Privacy and Public Interest – Performance of an employee/officer is a matter between the employee and employer – Disclosure of personal information without public interest constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy – Income tax returns also qualify as personal information exempt from disclosure unless larger public interest is demonstrated [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Information requested qualified as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act – No larger public interest established – Disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy [Para 16].

Civil Procedure – Special Leave Petition – Withdrawal and Finality – An SLP withdrawn without liberty to file afresh precludes subsequent challenge under Article 136 – Review petition rejection not appealable under Order 47 Rule 7 CPC – Earlier SLP withdrawal bars re-litigation on the same grounds [Paras 1-12].

Town and Country Planning – Unauthorized Construction – Coastal Regulation Zone – Legal implications of unauthorized constructions within CRZ areas and the powers of municipal and planning authorities to issue stop work notices and revoke permissions – Court did not express opinions on the merits of these issues [Para 12].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Earlier withdrawal of SLP without liberty to refile renders subsequent appeals not maintainable – Rejection of review petition not appealable under Article 136 due to Order 47 Rule 7 CPC [Paras 8-12].

Banking Regulations – Pension Eligibility – Resignation vs. Retirement – Officers who resigned before the implementation of the Canara Bank Pension Regulations, 1995, are not entitled to pension benefits as resignation does not equate to retirement under the Regulations – Distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-21].

Pension Regulations – Application and Interpretation – The term 'retirement' under the 1995 Regulations includes voluntary retirement but explicitly excludes resignation – Regulatory definitions and the absence of specific provisions for resignation in pension eligibility clauses examined – Legal precedents confirming the distinction between resignation and retirement referenced [Paras 13-20].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Resignation does not qualify for pension benefits under the Canara Bank Pension Regulations, 1995 – No pre-existing right for pension established for appellants who resigned before the regulation's effective date [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Hearing in Revision – Suspects in criminal complaints are entitled to be heard in revision petitions filed by complainants challenging the dismissal of complaints by Magistrates under Section 203 CrPC – High Court's order rejecting the application of suspects for impleadment in revision proceedings overturned – Emphasized the requirement of Section 401(2) CrPC for ensuring fairness and adherence to natural justice principles [Paras 1-59].

Revisionary Jurisdiction – Applicability – Section 401(2) of CrPC mandates that no order prejudicial to the accused or other persons can be passed without providing an opportunity to be heard – Applies to revisions challenging pre-process dismissals under Section 203 CrPC – Differentiates between pre-cognizance dismissal and post-cognizance processes, asserting suspects' right to defend favourable orders [Paras 40-58].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court order set aside – Suspects granted the right to be heard in the criminal revision petition filed by the complainant – High Court directed to dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law after hearing the appellants [Paras 59].

Criminal Procedure - Remand of Accused - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Appellant challenged the legality of detention following remand orders passed by a competent Magistrate under Sections 167 and 309 CrPC - Supreme Court held that a writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained if detention results from a judicial order that is not without jurisdiction or wholly illegal - Detention affirmed [Paras 1-34].

Remand and Custody - Judicial Function - Emphasized that remand orders are judicial acts requiring application of mind to justify detention - Magistrate must ensure compliance with legal standards, including examination of case diary and materials presented by the investigating agency - Supreme Court underscored non-mechanical issuance of remand orders [Paras 24-26, 32].

Scope of Investigation - Defined under Section 2(h) CrPC - Investigation includes proceedings for evidence collection by police officers, not control by Magistrate - Supreme Court clarified the distinction between judicial remand and executive investigation activities [Paras 26-31].

Habeas Corpus - Criteria for Grant - Writ not granted when detention is based on valid judicial order - Court reviews legality of detention at the time of habeas corpus application, considering jurisdiction and legality of remand orders [Paras 17-23, 32-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Detention by judicial order valid - Supreme Court requested High Court to expedite pending application related to FIR quashing - Appellant granted liberty to seek bail from appropriate court [Para 34].

Constitutional Law – Jurisdiction of High Court – Interim Orders – High Court issued interim orders restraining MLAs from functioning as members of the Assembly during pendency of disqualification petitions before the Speaker – Supreme Court held High Court had no jurisdiction to pass such interim orders – Speaker’s decision under Paragraph 6 of Tenth Schedule must precede judicial review [Paras 41-49].

Disqualification of Members – Powers of Speaker – Speaker’s jurisdiction to decide disqualification petitions under Paragraph 6 of Tenth Schedule to Constitution – Interim orders affecting functioning of MLAs cannot be passed by High Court – High Court can intervene only post-Speaker’s decision [Paras 43-45].

Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Scope – Not applicable in constitutional matters relating to Tenth Schedule – High Court’s powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC limited to statutory appellate jurisdiction – Cannot override constitutional provisions and Speaker’s exclusive jurisdiction under Tenth Schedule [Paras 46-47].

Decision: Appeal by Speaker dismissed – Interim order by High Court restraining MLAs from functioning set aside – Speaker directed to decide disqualification petitions within three months – MLAs entitled to function as members of Assembly pending Speaker’s decision [Paras 47-50].

Arbitration – Reference to Arbitration – Section 45 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Court’s role in determining validity and applicability of arbitration agreement – Right to reference is legal, not absolute – Court must refer parties to arbitration unless agreement is null, void, or incapable of being performed – Greater obligation to refer matters to arbitration compared to earlier law under Arbitration Act, 1940 [Paras 53-64].

Non-Signatories – Composite Transactions – Group of Companies Doctrine – Non-signatory parties may be bound by arbitration agreements if transactions are intrinsically linked and performance of one agreement depends on others – Courts can refer non-signatories to arbitration in cases involving composite transactions – Intent of parties to refer disputes to arbitration is crucial [Paras 65-71].

Jurisdiction – Court’s Discretion – Section 45 empowers Court to refer parties to arbitration if conditions are met – Court must examine arbitration agreement’s validity, scope, and parties’ intention – Non-signatories can be included if claiming through or under signatories [Paras 54-72].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court's order referring entire suit to arbitration upheld for signatory parties – Non-signatories referred to arbitration based on their intrinsic link to agreements and transactions – High Court directed to dispose of disqualification petitions within three months [Paras 47-50].