Administrative Law – Powers of Officer Commanding-in-Chief – Supreme Court held that the Officer Commanding-in-Chief the Command under Section 52(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, has the power to annul decisions of the Cantonment Board even if the matter was referred by an invalid or incompetent reference under Section 51(1) – This power is broad and expansive, meant to correct decisions prejudicial to the health, welfare, or discipline of the forces [Paras 6-10, 12-13].

Jurisdiction and Authority – Scope of Sections 51 and 52 – The Court clarified that Section 52 is in two parts: (1) for decisions coming to the Officer Commanding-in-Chief otherwise than by reference under Section 51(1); and (2) for decisions specifically referred under Section 51(1) – Both parts authorize annulment of Board decisions after providing an opportunity to show cause [Paras 9-11].

Judicial Precedents – Validity of Actions under Statutory Powers – Citing established legal principles, the Court emphasized that the validity of an action is not affected by incorrect recital of the statutory provision as long as the power exists under the statute – Referred to precedents supporting this view [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Case remanded to the High Court for consideration of other contentions raised in the writ petition by the respondent, to be decided expeditiously [Paras 14-15].

Right to Free Legal Aid – Constitutional and Statutory Provisions – Supreme Court emphasized that under Article 21 and Article 39A of the Constitution, as well as Sections 12 and 13 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, every person in custody is entitled to free legal aid at all stages of the judicial process, including appeals – The right to legal representation is an inalienable part of a fair trial and due process [Paras 5-9, 21].

Obligation of Courts – Ensuring Legal Representation – Courts are obligated to inform the accused or convict of their right to legal aid and ensure they are provided with legal representation if they are unable to afford it – Failure to provide legal aid violates the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21, rendering the trial or appellate proceedings constitutionally infirm [Paras 10-14, 21].

Judicial Precedents – Right to Legal Aid – The Court cited previous judgments affirming the right to free legal aid, including Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Khatri v. State of Bihar, and Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh – Highlighted that an accused need not request legal aid; it is the Court’s duty to offer and ensure it [Paras 10-14].

International Perspective – Right to Legal Representation – Referred to decisions from New Zealand and Australia, indicating the global recognition of the right to legal representation as essential for a fair trial – Noted the proactive approach of Indian courts in contrast to the more passive approach in other jurisdictions [Paras 17-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Case remanded to the High Court for a fresh hearing after providing the appellant with legal representation at State expense – High Court requested to expedite the hearing [Paras 21-22].

Estoppel – Tenant’s Denial of Landlord’s Title – Supreme Court upheld the principle under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, that a tenant who has been let into possession by the landlord cannot deny the landlord's title unless the tenant has openly surrendered possession to the landlord – The appellants (tenants) must first vacate the property before challenging the title of the respondents (landlords) [Paras 6, 8].

Plea of Mistake of Fact – Lease Execution and Rent Payment – The Court found that while the appellants claimed the lease and rent payments were made under a mistake of fact, no issue was framed or evidence led on this point during the trial – Consequently, the argument could not be considered at the appellate stage due to the absence of a factual determination by the trial court [Paras 4-5].

Relief of Eviction and Title Dispute – The suit filed by the respondents was for eviction based on non-renewal of the lease and non-payment of rent, not for a declaration of title – The trial court, appellate court, and High Court were not required to decide on the title – The Supreme Court set aside the findings on title but upheld the decree for eviction [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Findings on title by lower courts set aside – Decree for eviction maintained – Appellants granted six months to vacate the property and allowed to file a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief only after vacating the property [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Service – Compulsory Retirement – Supreme Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant, a District and Sessions Judge, in the public interest based on adverse entries in his service record – Emphasized that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not carry any stigma or adverse consequences, differing from dismissal or removal from service [Paras 27, 34].

Service Records – Consideration of Entire Service – The Court highlighted that the decision to retire an officer compulsorily must be based on the overall assessment of the service record, including both positive and negative entries – Earlier adverse entries, even if followed by promotions, do not get obliterated and can be considered in evaluating the officer's fitness for continued service [Paras 27, 34-35].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – The Court noted that judicial review of compulsory retirement is limited to assessing whether the decision was based on relevant material and not arbitrary or perverse – It is not the function of the courts to re-evaluate the merits of the decision or to substitute their judgment for that of the authority [Paras 33-34].

Unbecoming Conduct – Influence and Integrity – The appellant’s conduct of seeking external influence to expunge adverse remarks was deemed highly improper and unbecoming of a judicial officer, further justifying the decision for compulsory retirement – The integrity and impartiality of a judge are paramount for the credibility of the judiciary [Paras 37-40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The recommendation of the High Court for compulsory retirement and the subsequent order by the Government were upheld – The Court found no legal flaw in the process and determined that the decision was neither arbitrary nor irrational [Paras 43-44].

Specific Performance – Determinable Contracts – Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, a contract which is by its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced. The clause in the agreement allowing the seller to determine the agreement if the sale permission was not obtained within six months made the contract determinable and, thus, not enforceable by specific performance [Paras 22, 25].

Conduct of Parties – Readiness and Willingness – The Court held that the acceptance of the refund of earnest money by the appellant, even under protest, indicated that the appellant was not ready and willing to complete the transaction. The appellant’s delayed filing of the suit on the last day of the limitation period also reflected a lack of readiness and willingness [Paras 21, 27].

Role of Facilitator – Responsibility of Seller – The appellant’s role as a facilitator to obtain the necessary permissions did not absolve the respondents of their primary responsibility to secure the sale permissions. The Court found no evidence that the respondents made a sincere effort to comply with the requirements to obtain the sale permission [Paras 24-25].

Equity and Discretion – Rise in Property Value – Considering the substantial rise in property values since the agreement was executed, the Court held that granting specific performance would be inequitable. Instead, the Court awarded compensation for the appellant's efforts and costs incurred in litigation [Paras 26, 30].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Specific performance denied – Respondents directed to pay the appellant litigation costs of Rs. 25,00,000 within one month, failing which the amount would attract simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum from one month after the decree till realization [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law – Gang Rape Conviction – The appellants were convicted for the offence of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court, however, found significant contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimonies, lack of corroboration from other witnesses, and discrepancies in forensic evidence. The Court emphasized the need for a 'sterling witness' whose testimony remains consistent and reliable throughout.

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Contradictions – The prosecutrix's statements in court were inconsistent with her FIR and initial testimonies. The testimony of the prosecutrix's niece and nephew did not support the prosecution's case. The Court criticized the prosecution's reliance on an unreliable sole testimony without corroboration from other evidence.

Forensic Evidence – Discrepancies – The forensic report did not support the prosecution's claims, particularly regarding the absence of semen on the socks allegedly used by the accused and the prosecutrix. The Court found the medical and forensic evidence insufficient to substantiate the charges of gang rape.

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The appellants were acquitted of all charges due to the lack of credible evidence and significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

Jurisdiction – High Court's Power under Article 226 – The petitions raised the issue of the Kerala High Court's jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions against the orders of the NCDRC. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court lacked jurisdiction since the Consumer Protection Act provides for statutory appeals directly to the Supreme Court. The High Court's order was deemed a nullity for want of jurisdiction [Para 2].

Delay in Filing Petition – Condonation of Delay – The petitions were filed with an inordinate delay of 1314 days and 851 days, respectively. The Supreme Court found the reasons for the delay, including the petitioner's health issues, insufficient to condone such extensive delays. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory period of limitation, particularly in cases under the Consumer Protection Act, which aims to provide expeditious remedies [Paras 3-5].

Improper Exercise of Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court highlighted that it is inappropriate for High Courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 against orders of the NCDRC when a statutory appeal lies to the Supreme Court. The Court underscored the need for adherence to legislative provisions and proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts [Paras 2, 7].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – The petitions were dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay. The Supreme Court issued a direction of caution to High Courts, stating it is improper to entertain writ petitions against orders of the NCDRC when statutory appeals lie to the Supreme Court. The Registrar General of all High Courts was directed to inform the Chief Justices and Judges of the respective High Courts about this decision [Paras 6-7].

Medical Education – Admission to Post-Graduate Courses – The appellants, who qualified for admission to Post-Graduate (Medical) Courses as 'direct candidates' (Open Category), challenged Clause 11.2 of the Prospectus, which provided additional weightage for in-service candidates from Government or Government Undertakings in rural/tribal/backward areas. The Supreme Court held that providing weightage to in-service candidates applying through the direct candidate category is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that in-service candidates can compete in the 50% reserved seats for them but should not encroach upon the open category seats [Paras 3-9, 23-27].

Weightage for In-Service Candidates – The Court upheld the principle that weightage can be given to in-service candidates for rural/tribal service but only within their reserved category, not in the open category. The Court quashed the third proviso to Regulation 9(2)(d) of the MCI Regulations and Clause 11.2 of the Prospectus to the extent that it allowed in-service candidates to claim seats in the open category based on additional weightage [Paras 15, 20-22, 35].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the Division Bench and Single Judge of the Orissa High Court, and directed the State of Odisha and the Medical Council of India to re-arrange the merit list and fill the seats of the direct category excluding in-service candidates who got admission in the open category on the strength of weightage, within one week [Paras 35-36].

Legal Services Authorities Act – Permanent Lok Adalats – The challenge was raised against the provisions allowing Permanent Lok Adalats to decide disputes on merits if conciliation fails, alleging these provisions are arbitrary and violate the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court upheld the provisions, stating they aim to provide an affordable, speedy, and efficient mechanism to secure justice, particularly for public utility services. The Court emphasized that these mechanisms are in addition to and not in derogation of existing judicial forums [Paras 13-22, 27].

Jurisdiction and Procedure – Permanent Lok Adalats are designed to first attempt conciliation and, if it fails, to adjudicate disputes concerning public utility services without being bound by the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. This approach is intended to expedite dispute resolution while ensuring fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court found no merit in the argument that this framework undermines the rule of law or fairness [Paras 17-20, 29-31].

Finality of Awards – No Right of Appeal – The Court addressed concerns about the finality of awards by Permanent Lok Adalats and the absence of an appellate mechanism. It held that while the awards are final and binding, parties can still seek judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, ensuring that no injustice goes unaddressed. This provision does not render the law unconstitutional [Paras 33, 37].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of Sections 22-A to 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as amended, and confirming that they align with the constitutional mandate to provide access to justice [Paras 38].