Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for the murder of Archideb Bhattacharjee – Trial court sentenced all accused to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court – Supreme Court examined reliability of witness testimonies, evidence of motive, and procedural propriety [Paras 1-12].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Reliability – Court scrutinized testimonies of witnesses who saw the deceased last with the accused and those who witnessed the disposal of the body – Witnesses’ statements were found credible despite some delays in recording and minor inconsistencies [Paras 13-24, 32-35].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Events – Court emphasized the importance of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct evidence is lacking – Established that the prosecution proved a complete chain linking the accused to the crime [Paras 25-31, 36-38].

Motive – Demand for Money – Prosecution established that the motive for the crime was the accused’s demand for money from the deceased, which was not met – Witnesses corroborated this motive, establishing a clear reason for the murder [Paras 15-16, 39-40].

Absconding – Adverse Inference – Court noted that the accused absconded immediately after the incident – Absconding was considered a significant factor corroborating the guilt of the accused [Paras 41-44].

Last Seen Theory – Application – Court applied the 'last seen theory' due to the proximity of time between when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the discovery of his body – Held that the accused failed to explain the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased [Paras 42-44, 50-53].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences as awarded by the High Court, finding no merit in the appeals and reinforcing the adequacy of the prosecution’s case [Paras 54-55].

Preventive Detention – Pre-Execution Challenge – Supreme Court examined the legality of challenging preventive detention orders at the pre-execution stage – Held that grounds for such challenges are not limited to the five exceptions set out in Alka Subhash Gadia's case (1992) 1 SCC 496 – Judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be restricted by judicial pronouncement [Paras 1-12, 24-29].

Right to Information Act – Applicability – Detenus not entitled to grounds of detention at the pre-execution stage under the Right to Information Act 2005 – Constitutional provisions under Article 22(5) prevail over statutory rights under the RTI Act – Disclosure of grounds only after actual detention [Paras 20-23].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court emphasized the untrammeled nature of judicial review powers under Articles 226 and 32 – Self-imposed restraints by courts do not limit their powers but are exercised to prevent abuse – Judicial review extends to examining all relevant aspects beyond the five exceptions in Alka Subhash Gadia's case [Paras 24-29].

Grounds for Detention – Disclosure Requirements – Under Article 22(5), grounds for detention are to be communicated to the detenu as soon as possible after detention – Right to receive grounds prior to detention under RTI Act not supported [Paras 20-23].

Decision – The Court did not find merit in the argument for extending RTI provisions to pre-execution challenges – Affirmed that judicial review can extend to additional grounds beyond those enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia's case – Ordered listing of the petitions for final hearing and disposal on a specified date [Paras 30].

Civil Law – Eviction and Tenancy Rights – Petitioner claimed tenancy rights over the property mortgaged to Indian Bank and contested the eviction order – Supreme Court examined the legality of eviction without adjudicating tenancy rights – Court held that recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, including eviction, must follow due process of law [Paras 21-27].

Recovery of Debts – Jurisdiction – Tribunal's jurisdiction over eviction disputes – Petitioner contended Debts Recovery Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to evict non-debtors – Supreme Court held that tribunals can evict persons under possession if mortgagee rights are established, but disputes over tenancy need adjudication in civil courts [Paras 27-30].

Abuse of Process – Delayed Suits – Petitioner had previously filed and allowed dismissal of a suit claiming tenancy rights and later filed a fresh suit after a significant delay – Court found this conduct as an abuse of legal process and barred fresh suits under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC [Paras 38-44].

Mortgage and Tenancy – Validity of Claims – Mortgage created prior to the petitioner’s possession – Supreme Court found petitioner’s tenancy claims dubious and emphasized legal procedures to ascertain possession rights – Directed eviction could proceed under statutory recovery process while allowing petitioner to pursue restitution claims in appropriate forums [Paras 37-40].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the eviction orders by lower courts and tribunals, allowing Indian Bank to proceed with recovery and sale of the property – Petitioner's right to seek restitution subject to outcomes in civil suits was preserved [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Ishwari Verma – Supreme Court upheld conviction based on the credibility of the dying declaration, corroborative witness statements, and recovery of the weapon used in the crime [Paras 1-12].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Court found the dying declaration made to PW14 credible, reliable, and consistent with the sequence of events – Dying declaration was supported by other evidence including medical reports and witness testimonies [Paras 10-11].

Injuries on Accused – Explanation Requirement – Appellant claimed self-defence due to injuries inflicted by the deceased – Prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused did not negate the credibility of the evidence against the accused – Court found the injuries could be self-inflicted or incurred in another manner [Paras 13-16].

Self-Defence – Rejected Claim – Appellant’s claim of self-defence was rejected based on the nature of injuries on the deceased and the improbability of the accused’s version of events – Appellant's explanation found implausible and contradictory [Paras 14-16].

Hostile Witness – FIR and Corroboration – Court held that turning of PW1 hostile did not undermine the FIR's relevancy, corroborated by other substantial evidence – Hostile witness did not discredit the prosecution's case [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and life sentence awarded by the High Court, finding no merit in the appellant’s arguments and upholding the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence [Paras 17].

Interest on Delayed Payments – Applicability – Supreme Court examined whether the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act 1993 applies to contracts concluded before the Act came into force – Held that the Act is a substantive law creating new liabilities and therefore does not have retrospective effect – The Act applies only to contracts entered into after the Act's commencement on 23rd September 1992 [Paras 1-6, 22-40].

Suit for Interest Alone – Maintainability – Court upheld the view that a suit for interest alone is maintainable under the Act – Suppliers can file suits for higher interest on delayed payments even if the principal amount has been paid, in line with the Full Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court and subsequent affirmation by the Supreme Court [Paras 10-12].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective vs. Prospective Application – Reaffirmed the principle that substantive laws are presumed to operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise – Discussed the scope, object, and remedial intent of the Act to conclude that it cannot be applied retrospectively to contracts concluded before its enactment [Paras 22-27, 30-31].

Binding Precedent – Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Emphasized the importance of adhering to precedent, particularly when four decisions of the Apex Court have consistently interpreted the applicability of the Act – Rejected the plea to reconsider the settled position to maintain judicial consistency and certainty [Paras 41-50].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court confirmed that the Act does not apply retrospectively to contracts concluded before its commencement, and upheld the validity of suits for interest alone on delayed payments post-commencement [Paras 51].

Admissions – Rule of Merit – The Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to the rule of merit for admissions to medical courses – Held that merit, fairness, and transparency are crucial in the selection process and should not be compromised by procedural lapses or arbitrary actions by authorities [Paras 1-6, 22].

Cut-off Date – Exceptions – The cut-off date for admissions (30th September) must be observed strictly – However, exceptions may be made in rare and exceptional cases where arbitrary actions or errors by authorities have denied admission to a meritorious candidate – Relief can be granted by courts in such cases [Paras 6, 26, 31-32].

Counseling Process – Transparency and Record-Keeping – The Court directed that the counseling process must be conducted with utmost transparency – Records of counseling must include clear documentation of the presence, choices, and allocation of seats to candidates, signed by both the candidate and the authorities [Paras 28-29, 38].

Judicial Review – Relief and Compensation – Courts can grant relief and compensation to candidates who have been denied admission due to arbitrary or faulty processes – Authorities may also face disciplinary action and contempt proceedings for non-compliance with established procedures and judicial directions [Paras 26, 33, 36-38].

Decision – The appeal was allowed, directing Pt. B.D. Sharma University to admit the appellant to the MBBS course in the current academic year – The appellant must start the course from the beginning without any advantage from her BDS course – The University was directed to ensure no disturbance to other candidates’ admissions [Para 39].

Criminal Law – Murder and Unlawful Assembly – Appellant Anand Mohan convicted for abetting the murder of the District Magistrate Gopalganj – Initial conviction by the Sessions Court upheld by the High Court but sentence reduced from death to life imprisonment – High Court found no unlawful assembly with a common object of murder among the accused [Paras 1-40].

Evidentiary Standards – FIR and Witness Testimonies – Court held FIR was not fabricated despite allegations of being ante-dated – Evidence from witnesses consistently identified Anand Mohan as instigating the shooter – Reliance on witness testimonies and cross-examinations upheld the conviction [Paras 28-38].

Abetment and Common Object – Distinction in Liability – High Court differentiated between the roles of various accused, acquitting some while convicting Anand Mohan based on reliable witness accounts – Emphasis on the requirement of clear, cogent, and reliable evidence for abetment [Paras 33-37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction of Anand Mohan under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment confirmed – No grounds to interfere with the High Court’s judgment on acquittal of other accused [Paras 39-40].

Environmental Law – Import of Hazardous Wastes – Petition filed to ban imports of hazardous/toxic wastes into India – Allegation that imports contravened Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and violated the Basel Convention – Court's interim orders included appointment of High-Powered Committee and directions to State and Central Governments for implementation of Hazardous Wastes Rules – Orders for destruction of hazardous waste oil in 133 containers by incineration [Paras 1-19].

International Conventions – Basel and MARPOL Conventions – Court examined compliance with Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and MARPOL Convention on Marine Pollution – Directed Central Government to align Hazardous Wastes Rules with Basel Convention and enforce bans on identified hazardous substances – Emphasized polluter-pays and precautionary principles [Paras 20-32].

Regulatory Compliance – Implementation of Hazardous Wastes Rules – Court found Hazardous Wastes Rules in aid of Articles 21, 39(e), 47, 48A and not unconstitutional – Directed stringent enforcement of Rules, proper disposal of waste oil, and stringent action for illegal imports – Reiterated importance of protecting environment and public health from hazardous wastes [Paras 33-36].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Court reiterated interim directions for handling hazardous wastes and ship breaking – Directed Central Government to ban import of hazardous/toxic wastes identified under Basel Convention – Rejected declaration that Hazardous Wastes Rules are unconstitutional without adequate worker/public protection [Para 35].

Criminal Law – Scope of Investigation – Petition by Ms. Mayawati challenging the registration of FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 by CBI under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for investigating disproportionate assets – Claimed FIR was beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's directions dated 18.09.2003 which focused on the Taj Heritage Corridor Project [Paras 1-10].

Jurisdiction and Consent – Compliance with Section 6 of the DSPE Act – Petition argued CBI required State Government consent to investigate matters not directly connected to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project – Supreme Court found CBI exceeded its jurisdiction by registering a second FIR without specific directions from the Court or consent from the State Government [Paras 17-22].

Validity of FIR – Supreme Court scrutinized its orders from 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003, 11.09.2003, and 18.09.2003 – Concluded no directions were given to investigate Ms. Mayawati's assets separately from the Taj Corridor Project – Emphasized that disproportionate assets case was not within the scope of the Court’s monitoring of the Taj Corridor matter [Paras 14-21].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 and subsequent investigation quashed – CBI's actions held to be without jurisdiction and illegal [Para 24].