Preventive Detention – Validity – AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act – The appeal challenges the detention order against the appellant’s husband under the AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act for alleged bootlegging activities – Supreme Court held that the preventive detention order was invalid as the offences could be addressed under the ordinary legal provisions of the AP Prohibition Act – Emphasized that preventive detention should not substitute normal legal processes [Paras 3-6, 10-11].

Ordinary Legal Procedure – Applicability – The Court reiterated that preventive detention laws should be used with caution and only when necessary to prevent activities that are prejudicial to public order or security – Found that the detaining authority had improperly resorted to preventive detention instead of using the normal legal procedures available under the AP Prohibition Act [Paras 7-9, 11].

Constitutional Rights – Articles 19, 21 – The Court highlighted the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and protection against arbitrary detention under Articles 19 and 21 – Preventive detention should comply with constitutional safeguards and should not be used as an easy alternative to proper investigation and trial [Paras 10-11].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order dated 20th July 2011 set aside – Detention Order dated 15th February 2011 quashed – Appellant’s husband to be released immediately unless required in any other case – Directed that this order should not prejudice the outcome of any pending cases against the appellant [Paras 11-12].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Bona Fide Requirement – U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972 – The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment that allowed the respondent to retain possession of three rooms out of the four despite acknowledging the bona fide requirement of the appellants for the eviction to start a business for their sons – Supreme Court held that once the landlord's bona fide need is established, the tenant cannot dictate terms on the landlord's use of the property [Paras 2, 6-7].

Comparative Hardship – Section 21(1) – The Court found that the lower courts erred in their assessment of comparative hardship by considering the financial status of the appellants and suggesting they could purchase another property – Emphasized that comparative hardship should be assessed based on the necessity and availability of alternative accommodation for both parties [Paras 5, 10-15].

Length of Tenancy – Not Sole Criterion – The Supreme Court noted that while the length of tenancy is a factor, it should not be the sole determinant in deciding the outcome of eviction proceedings, especially when the landlord's need is bona fide and pressing [Paras 12-13].

Financial Status – Irrelevance in Hardship Assessment – The Court reiterated that the financial ability of the landlord to purchase another property should not be held against them in assessing comparative hardship – The purpose of the purchase and the genuine need must be given due weight [Paras 14-15].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – The High Court’s order allowing the respondent to retain three rooms was set aside – The respondent was directed to hand over possession of all four rooms to the appellants – The respondent was granted six months to vacate, provided they file an undertaking with the Supreme Court's Registry within eight weeks – No costs [Paras 17-18].

Public Officer – Definition – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – The appeal deals with whether the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner qualifies as a "public officer" under Section 2(17) of the CPC, requiring the Union of India to be joined as a party in a suit against the Commissioner – Supreme Court affirmed that the Commissioner is a public officer and thus, notice under Section 80 CPC is necessary before filing a suit [Paras 3-4, 10-11].

Mandatory Joinder – Order 27 Rule 5A – The Court reiterated that suits against public officers for actions done in their official capacity must include the Government as a party – This principle was upheld to maintain consistency with previous decisions and to ensure adherence to procedural rules [Paras 6-7, 14].

Binding Precedent – Article 141 – The Supreme Court emphasized the binding nature of its previous judgment, holding the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner as a public officer – The lower courts' failure to follow this precedent constituted a serious legal error [Paras 9, 13-14].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the necessity to join the Union of India as a party in suits against the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner – No costs awarded [Paras 14].

Preventive Detention – Awareness of Bail Order – Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 – The appellant challenged the detention order dated January 10, 2011, on the ground that the detaining authority was unaware of the bail order granted to the detenu on August 15, 2010 – Supreme Court held that non-awareness and non-consideration of the bail order by the detaining authority vitiated the detention order, as it could have affected the detaining authority’s satisfaction regarding the need for detention [Paras 9-10].

Proximity and Remoteness of Offences – The Court emphasized that the offences referred to in the detention order should be proximate to the order of detention – In this case, except for the offence registered on August 14, 2010, other offences were too remote to justify the detention order – The last offence alone was insufficient to sustain the order [Paras 14-15].

Legal Precedent – Applicability – The Court referred to the cases of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reinforcing that the detaining authority must consider the bail status of the detenu, and that preventive detention based on old offences lacks justification unless proximate and relevant to the detention order [Paras 11-13].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order dated May 13, 2011 – The detention order dated January 10, 2011, was quashed – Ordered the immediate release of the detenu, Tanaji Keshavrao Bhoite, unless required in any other case – No costs [Paras 15-18].

Preventive Detention – Legality – National Security Act, 1980 – The appellant challenged the detention order against her husband under the NSA on the grounds of mere apprehension of release on bail and the lack of material basis for such detention – Supreme Court held that preventive detention based solely on the likelihood of release on bail, without concrete material, is unjustified and contravenes Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution [Paras 6-8, 13].

Proximity and Relevance – Offences and Detention Order – The Court emphasized that there must be a live link between the past conduct of the detainee and the grounds for detention – The detention order, based on FIRs from 1994, 1995, and 1998, was found to be too remote to justify detention in 2011 without recent prejudicial activities [Paras 14-15].

Judicial Review – Importance of Personal Liberty – The Court reiterated the importance of personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution and stressed that preventive detention laws should be used sparingly and with caution – Highlighted that an individual offence under the IPC does not automatically justify preventive detention unless it significantly threatens public order [Paras 10-12, 15].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the detention order dated 31st January 2011 issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur – Directed the immediate release of YummanSomendro, the appellant's husband, unless required in any other case – No costs [Paras 16-17].

Land Acquisition – Urgency Provisions – Sections 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The appeal questioned the Government's decision to invoke the urgency provisions for acquiring land for establishing an electric sub-station and to dispense with the rule of hearing under Section 5A(2) – Supreme Court held that there was a substantial time gap between the initiation of the proposal and the notification, indicating a lack of genuine urgency – Highlighted the importance of adhering to the rule of hearing unless an actual emergency exists [Paras 2, 6, 10, 12, 15-16].

Application of Mind – Section 17 Invocation – The Court emphasized that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi did not apply his mind independently and mechanically approved the proposal for invoking urgency provisions without adequately assessing the necessity and urgency of the situation – Found the justifications for invoking Section 17(1) and (4) unconvincing given the five-year delay in processing the proposal [Paras 22, 23, 27].

Judicial Precedents – Distinguishing Factors – Referred to multiple cases, distinguishing between valid urgency and misuse of urgency provisions – Emphasized that development projects should follow due process unless an emergency is unequivocally established [Paras 11-12, 14-15, 27].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and quashed the notifications issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and (4) for the acquisition of the appellants' land – Held that the State must exercise power of compulsory acquisition with care and only in genuine cases of urgency – Directed that the judgment does not preclude fresh proceedings for acquisition with proper adherence to Section 5A [Paras 28].

Family Law – Illegitimate Children – Property Rights:

Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, legitimizes children born from void or voidable marriages and grants them rights to the property of their parents – Question of whether this includes ancestral property in addition to self-acquired property of the parents [Paras 12-13, 26].

Interpretation of Section 16(3) – Legislative Intent:

The use of the word "property" in Section 16(3) is broad and not restricted to either self-acquired or ancestral property – Historical interpretations of property rights of illegitimate children among Sudras noted – Section aims to remove the stigma of illegitimacy and grant equal rights to such children [Paras 14-18, 25].

Judicial Precedents – Reconsideration of Previous Interpretations:

Court questions prior interpretations in Jinia Keotin, Neelamma, and Bharatha Matha, which limited rights of illegitimate children to self-acquired property of parents – Emphasizes need for purposive interpretation to advance social reform and remove stigma, aligning with constitutional values and Directive Principles of State Policy [Paras 22-24, 36-38].

Directive Principles and Constitutional Rights – Article 39(f) and 300A:

Judiciary's role in applying Directive Principles in interpretation of laws – Emphasizes protection of children's rights and dignity (Article 39(f)) and right to property (Article 300A) [Paras 38-40].

Decision:

Matter referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration – Current interpretation under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act viewed as inconsistent with constitutional values and principles of social reform [Paras 42-43].

Administrative Law – Accelerated Promotion – Exemplary Performance:

Appellant sought retrospective promotion for outstanding performance during a militant attack at Charare Sharif – Appellant was commended for bravery by senior officers but was only granted a cash reward and not out-of-turn promotion, unlike his colleagues [Paras 4-7, 9].

Promotion Policy – Relevant Circulars:

Appellant’s claim based on Circular No. 14-GR of 1990, which provided for accelerated promotion for exemplary performance in combating militancy – High Court’s dismissal based on later Circular dated 6th January 2000, which introduced criteria of "consistently exceptional performance" [Paras 8, 14].

Judicial Review – Consideration of Material Evidence:

Court’s role to ensure no injustice caused – Recommendations by senior officers and commendations suggest appellant’s performance merited special consideration – High Court overlooked the difference in criteria between the two circulars [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench set aside – Case remanded to be reconsidered under the Circular No. 14-GR of 1990 – Appellant’s promotion to be reconsidered for retrospective effect, and if granted, corresponding benefits to be awarded – Exercise to be completed within three months [Paras 16-18].

Service Law – Promotion – Amendments to Eligibility Criteria:

Appellants were rendered ineligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner due to amendments in the Uttar Pradesh Excise Group 'A' Service Rules, 1983, effective 17th May 1999 – Appeal against non-consideration under pre-amendment rules for vacancies arising prior to the amendment [Paras 1-7, 16-19].

Prospective vs. Retrospective Application – Right to Promotion:

Appellants argued that vacancies arising before the amendment should be filled under the old rules – Court held that the right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration, and the current rules apply – No statutory duty to fill vacancies within a specified timeframe under the 1983 Rules [Paras 20-22].

Government Discretion and Stagnation:

State's discretion to amend eligibility criteria was based on administrative rationale – Technical and Statistical Officers deemed unsuitable for Deputy Excise Commissioner roles due to lack of relevant experience – Court suggested government reconsider promotion avenues to prevent stagnation of affected officers [Paras 24-26, 29-30].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Amendments valid and applicable to all considerations post-amendment – Government advised to re-evaluate promotion policies for impacted roles to address stagnation concerns [Para 31].