Disability Pension – Attributability to Military Service – The Supreme Court addressed whether an injury sustained by military personnel while on annual leave at home could be considered attributable to or aggravated by military service. The Court reaffirmed that for disability pension to be granted under Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, the injury must be attributable to or aggravated by military service [Paras 7-9].

Medical Board’s Primacy – The Court emphasized the primacy of the Medical Board's opinion in determining the attributability and aggravation of the injury by military service. The opinion of the Medical Board, being a specialized authority, is to be given due weight and should not be ignored by the courts [Paras 7, 9, 11].

Case Law – Judicial Precedents – The Court referred to several precedents, including Union of India v. Baljit Singh and Union of India v. Jujhar Singh, to support the principle that courts should not interfere with the Medical Board’s findings unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The Court reiterated that the claimant must establish a reasonable nexus between the injury and military service [Paras 7-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It restored the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had denied the respondent's claim for disability pension. The Court concluded that the respondent's injury, sustained while on leave at home, was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service [Paras 11-12].

Fast Track Courts – Ad Hoc Appointments – The Supreme Court addressed the legality and propriety of appointing ad hoc judges to FTCs under various state rules. It held that such appointments, being temporary and ad hoc, did not confer any right to regularization or permanent absorption into the regular judicial service cadre. The Court emphasized that the appointments were made under special schemes intended to deal with the backlog of cases, and these schemes did not create permanent posts [Paras 2-7, 29-32].

Judicial Independence – Funding and Infrastructure – The Court recognized the critical need for adequate funding and infrastructure for the judiciary to ensure timely and fair trials. While the FTC scheme had been successful in reducing pendency, the Court noted that discontinuation of central funding posed challenges. The Court urged state governments to consider continuing the scheme using their resources and emphasized the judiciary's role in maintaining public trust through efficient administration of justice [Paras 46-50].

No Right to Regularization – The Court reiterated that judicial officers appointed on an ad hoc basis under the FTC scheme had no right to claim regularization or absorption into permanent posts. The appointments were purely temporary, aimed at addressing specific administrative needs. The Court referred to its earlier decisions in the Brij Mohan Lal and Madhumita Das cases to underline this principle [Paras 51-52].

Equitable Considerations – Compensation – Acknowledging the hardships faced by ad hoc judges, the Court directed that no adverse remarks should be made against those whose services were terminated and that they should be compensated appropriately for their services. The Court emphasized the need for fair treatment of these judges while upholding the temporary nature of their appointments [Paras 35-36].

Decision – Appeals and Writ Petitions Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions seeking regularization and continuation of ad hoc appointments under the FTC scheme. It upheld the temporary nature of these appointments and directed state governments to manage the FTCs' continuation based on their financial capabilities and policy decisions [Paras 38-39].

Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Conviction – The Supreme Court addressed the involvement of the accused in forming an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder. It held that the presence of multiple injuries on the deceased and the evidence presented established the common intention to kill. The convictions under Sections 148, 302/149, and 325/149 IPC were upheld [Paras 1-12, 27-29].

Testimony of Related Witnesses – Reliability – The Court emphasized that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be disregarded merely due to their relationship with the deceased. The statements of the witnesses, if found credible and corroborated by other evidence, hold substantial value. The presence of PW-4 and PW-5 was natural and their statements were consistent and trustworthy [Paras 13-20].

Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence – The Court reiterated the double presumption of innocence in cases of acquittal. It emphasized that to overturn an acquittal, compelling reasons must be provided. The High Court's judgment in acquitting three of the accused was upheld due to lack of compelling evidence to the contrary [Paras 36-40].

Plea of Alibi – Rejected – The Court discussed the plea of alibi raised by some of the accused and found it untenable. The evidence presented by the prosecution effectively countered the alibi claims. The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court were upheld [Paras 31-34].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused as well as the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of conviction and acquittal. The convictions of the remaining accused were upheld, and the acquittal of three accused was confirmed [Paras 42-43].

Election Law – Recognition of Political Parties – The Supreme Court dealt with the challenge to the amendment in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which required political parties to secure at least 6% of the total valid votes and return at least two members to the Legislative Assembly for recognition as a state party. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment, stating that it was not unreasonable and was aimed at ensuring that recognized political parties had substantial support in the electorate [Paras 1-36, 33-35].

Right to Information – Voter's Right to Know – The Court emphasized the importance of a voter's right to know the antecedents of candidates, which includes knowing whether the candidates belong to a recognized political party. However, the Court balanced this right with the practicalities of conducting state-wide elections, affirming the benchmarks set by the Election Commission [Paras 19-24, 34].

Judicial Review – Legislative and Administrative Actions – The Court reiterated that it has the power to review legislative and administrative actions that are alleged to violate fundamental rights. The bench referred to the case law which establishes that while the judiciary can review such actions, it must do so with deference to the legislative and executive branches' authority to make policy decisions [Paras 31-34, 66].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions and special leave petitions, upholding the amendments to the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The Court found no merit in the arguments against the Election Commission's criteria for recognition of state parties [Paras 35-36].

Motor Insurance – Limits of Liability – The Supreme Court addressed whether the insurer is absolved of its obligations to third parties under the insurance policy if the cheque for the premium is dishonoured and the policy is subsequently cancelled after the accident. The Court held that the insurer remains liable to indemnify third parties for claims arising from an accident if the policy was in force at the time of the accident and was cancelled only afterward [Paras 1-20].

Insurance Contract – Dishonour of Cheque – The Court reiterated that if a policy of insurance is issued on receipt of a cheque for the premium, and the cheque is dishonoured, the insurer must cancel the policy and notify the insured before the accident occurs to avoid liability. If the accident occurs while the policy is still in effect, the insurer cannot deny liability based on the dishonour of the cheque [Paras 7-20].

Public Interest – Protection of Third Parties – Emphasizing public interest, the Court held that insurance companies must fulfill their obligations to third parties even if there is a dispute over the payment of the premium by the insured. The insurer's remedies lie against the insured for recovery of the premium amount, but this does not affect the rights of third parties who rely on the existence of the policy at the time of the accident [Paras 12-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the insurer was liable to satisfy the award of compensation to the claimants. The insurer was granted the liberty to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the insured [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for the murder of Raja Ram Singh and Kunj Behari Singh with firearms. Eyewitness accounts from PW-1 (the complainant) and PW-2 (Hari Prasad Singh) were critical in establishing guilt. The appellants' enmity with the complainant due to a previous case was considered, but the court found the witnesses credible despite their hostile relationship [Paras 1-88].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Key eyewitnesses, despite having previous enmity with appellants, provided consistent and detailed accounts of the incident. The court emphasized that the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the crime scene was corroborated by circumstantial evidence, such as the discovery of the motorcycle and the torn pant of PW-1. The credibility of these witnesses was upheld [Paras 12-17].

Investigative Lapses – The court acknowledged several lapses in the investigation, including the non-recovery of firearms and empty cartridges, delayed commencement of the investigation, and absence of serological reports. However, these were not deemed sufficient to discredit the prosecution case, which was strongly supported by direct eyewitness testimony and medical evidence [Paras 18-20].

Medical Evidence – The medical evidence provided by Dr. Anand Swarup (PW-3), describing gunshot wounds and confirming that the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock, corroborated the eyewitness accounts. Discrepancies regarding the number of gunshots were considered minor [Para 19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed. The court did not find the investigative lapses sufficient to undermine the prosecution's case [Paras 20-21].

Civil Procedure – Remand – High Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for de novo consideration of applications filed by the appellants. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need to expedite the trial process given the protracted litigation history and various earlier orders [Paras 5-9].

Injunction and Undertakings – The respondents had demolished a residential bungalow despite an undertaking not to part with specific properties. The court took note of the respondents' affidavit affirming no sale or encumbrance of the newly constructed bungalow on the same plot. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to verify the facts and proceed accordingly [Paras 6-7].

Property Rights – The respondents' affidavit clarified their ownership and entitlement to the property in question, including the newly constructed bungalow. The court recorded the undertaking that pending the disposal of the suits, the respondents would not part with the possession of the said bungalow or encumber it in any manner [Para 7].

Decision – Appeals disposed of – The Supreme Court confirmed the remand order made by the High Court and directed the trial court to pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably within three months [Para 9].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Imposition of Unauthorized Penalty – The appellant, a Sub-Inspector, was punished by withholding his integrity certificate for not recording the past criminal history of an accused in a bailable offence. The Supreme Court held that the punishment was not prescribed under the statutory rules governing the appellant's service, making it unauthorized and invalid [Paras 7-10].

Integrity Certificate – Not a Prescribed Penalty – Integrity can be assessed during annual reviews or as per statutory rules, but withholding it as a punishment without statutory basis is illegal. The order of the disciplinary authority was outside the scope of the rules and therefore void [Paras 8-9].

Quasi-Judicial Function – Disciplinary authorities must adhere strictly to statutory rules when imposing penalties. Any deviation renders the punishment null and void [Para 11].

Judicial Review – Non-Application of Mind – The revisional authority failed to rectify the disciplinary and appellate authorities' errors despite recognizing that withholding integrity was not a valid punishment under the rules. This reflected a lack of proper judicial application [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The order dated July 8, 2010, withholding the integrity certificate, and all subsequent orders were quashed. The respondents were directed to reconsider the appellant’s case for all consequential benefits, including promotion, in accordance with law [Para 17].

Juvenile Justice Act – Determination of Age – The courts must be cautious in applying the Juvenile Justice Act, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. The benefit of the Act cannot be extended if the accused’s age is not conclusively proven to be below 18 years at the time of the offence [Paras 3, 20-21].

Medical Evidence vs. School Records – In cases where school records are ambiguous or disputed, medical evidence, such as ossification and radiological examinations, should be given precedence in determining the age of the accused [Paras 17, 24].

Plea of Juvenility – The plea of juvenility should be scrutinized rigorously, especially when the accused is involved in serious offences. A casual or cavalier approach in accepting such pleas undermines the justice system [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The accused, Vijay Kumar, was found not to be a juvenile based on medical evidence and discrepancies in school records. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the accused be tried in a regular court [Paras 25-26].