Public Interest Litigation – Appointment and Continuation of Police Officer – Challenge to appointment of Director General of Police, Gujarat, on the ground of alleged misconduct and failure during the 2002 communal riots – Allegation that his continuation would impede justice in riot-related prosecutions – State contended that review of all 2020 riot cases had been completed by Scrutiny Committee as per earlier Supreme Court directions – Only 30 “A” summary cases remained, which were also disposed of – Held: Petition has become redundant since all relevant cases were reviewed and the officer was due to retire shortly – No justification to interfere in service matters within executive prerogative [Paras 4–7].

Judicial Review – Scope – Appointment of Public Servants – Appointment to sensitive post such as Director General of Police lies within domain of the State Government – Courts ordinarily will not interfere unless clear illegality or mala fides shown – Doctrine of judicial restraint reiterated [Para 7].

Apprehension of Bias – Alleged Possibility of Influence over Trial Courts – Mere apprehension of possible pressure on subordinate courts is speculative – Courts in Gujarat presumed independent and not amenable to administrative pressure – No basis for such assumption [Para 6].

Administrative Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Decision to initiate disciplinary or criminal proceedings against a government officer lies within executive authority – Court declined to conduct fact-finding inquiry or issue directions for prosecution [Para 7].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous – Continuation of Shri P.C. Pandey as DGP held inconsequential – No order for disciplinary action – No interference warranted [Paras 5–9].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Exclusive Forum Clause – Validity – Purchase orders and agreements between the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (appellant) and the respondent contained clauses stipulating that all disputes shall be subject to jurisdiction of courts at Jaipur only – Respondent nevertheless filed petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before Calcutta High Court – Held: Where two or more courts have jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC, parties can by agreement restrict jurisdiction to one such court – Such an ouster clause is valid and not contrary to Section 28 of the Contract Act or public policy – Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction in view of express forum selection clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Jaipur [Paras 15–22].

Interpretation of Section 31(3) & 31(4), Arbitration Act, 1940 – Scope – Section 31(4) operates only where an application under the Act is made before a competent court having jurisdiction – Competency is determined with reference to Section 20 CPC and the arbitration agreement – Since parties agreed that only Jaipur Court shall have jurisdiction, application under Section 20 made before Calcutta High Court was not maintainable – Non-obstante clause in Section 31(4) does not override a valid ouster clause conferring jurisdiction on one competent court [Paras 23–28].

Contract – Ouster Clause – Construction and Enforceability – Clause 30 of General Conditions of Contract and Clause 7 of bank guarantee clearly provided that the contract shall be subject to jurisdiction of “courts only at Jaipur in Rajasthan” – Such wording is explicit, unambiguous and binding – Expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies – Mention of Jaipur courts excludes all others – Agreements validly restrict jurisdiction to Jaipur [Paras 17–22].

Precedents Followed – A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163; Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 1 SCC 286; M/s. Angile Insulations v. M/s. Davy Ashmore India Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 153; Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 671 – Principles reiterated that forum selection clause confining jurisdiction to one competent court is valid and binding [Paras 17–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court set aside – Held that only courts at Jaipur, Rajasthan have jurisdiction to entertain arbitration proceedings between the parties – Calcutta High Court directed to transfer records to District Judge, Jaipur for further proceedings [Paras 29–30].

Civil Procedure – Award of Costs – Section 35 and 35A CPC – Appellant filed suit for specific performance – Both trial court and High Court found plaintiff and defendants guilty of falsehood and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 1 lakh each to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee – Held: While costs are discretionary under Section 35 CPC, they are subject to statutory limitations – Compensatory costs under Section 35A CPC capped at Rs. 3,000 even for vexatious litigation – High Court exceeded jurisdiction by awarding Rs. 1 lakh as exemplary costs in civil litigation governed by CPC [Paras 5–6, 8]

Civil Procedure – Costs Payable to State – Misdirection – High Court imposed costs for misuse of judicial infrastructure and stated that amount be paid to “State” – However, directed payment to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee – Held: Legal Services Committee is not ‘State’ for this purpose – Direction corrected by Supreme Court – Amount to be remitted to State Government, not Legal Services Committee [Paras 10–11]

Litigation Ethics – Perjury – Whether Prosecution Mandatory – High Court found both parties had lied on oath but opted to impose costs in lieu of prosecution, citing judicial burden – Supreme Court noted the issue involves moral and ethical questions and kept it open for future consideration – Courts should not avoid prosecution for perjury solely due to caseload [Para 9]

Judicial Discipline – Supreme Court’s Limited Interference under Article 136 – Even though costs order may not be strictly correct, Court declined to interfere since no injustice caused – Appellant granted extended time to deposit amount [Paras 3–4, 8]

Legal Reform – Need for Realistic Cost Regime – Supreme Court observed that current system of nominal costs fails to deter frivolous or abusive litigation – Suggested that more realistic and deterrent cost model may be necessary – Matter left to Law Commission for future consideration [Para 7]

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Costs order not interfered with – However, direction modified – Amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to be transferred by Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to State Government.

Slum Rehabilitation – Competing Claims – Developer’s proposal rejected due to overlap with already approved scheme and lack of Annexure I for one of the plots – Held: SRA's rejection justified – Composite application without complete documentation for F.P. No. 569 (Part) was invalid – Developer had not annexed Annexure I with original proposal [Paras 29, 54–56, 62]

Development Control – No Objection Certificate – NOC issued by Ward Officer held invalid – Officer not competent to bind the Municipal Corporation – Certificate could not create vested rights or bar consideration of alternative proposals – Such NOCs cannot remain operative indefinitely in absence of statutory authority [Paras 41–42, 47–48, 63]

Administrative Law – Delay by Planning Authorities – Criticism by Court – SRA and Municipal Corporation failed to process applications efficiently – Application kept pending for years without scrutiny or rejection – Such delay unjustified, particularly in schemes affecting urban poor – Attracts arbitrariness under Article 14 [Paras 63–64]

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Developer had locus standi – High Court erred in dismissing writ solely on ground of lack of standing – Petitioner was competent to invoke Article 226 – However, dismissal upheld on merits due to incomplete application and pre-existing sanctioned scheme [Paras 31, 63]

Policy Guidelines vs. Statutory Authority – Guidelines issued under 1971 Act are binding unless ultra vires – While not having statutory force, application process was governed by these circulars – No law cited to show inconsistency or invalidity of guidelines – Held: Application rightly rejected for non-compliance [Paras 11, 53]

Property Rights – Article 300A – Whether circulars mandating lease of private land violate constitutional right to property – Issue raised but not decided – Court notes that validity of such non-statutory schemes affecting landowners' rights remains open for future adjudication [Paras 45–46]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Rejection of developer’s proposal by Slum Rehabilitation Authority upheld – Application was materially defective due to lack of mandatory Annexure I – High Court’s decision affirmed on different reasoning – Directions issued for better regulation and administrative efficiency [Paras 63–64]

Criminal Procedure – Revision – Right of Hearing – Section 401(2) CrPC – Magistrate had taken cognizance and proceeded under Section 200 CrPC after rejecting prayer for police investigation under Section 156(3) – High Court reversed that order in revision filed by complainant without notice to the appellant – Held: Even at pre-summoning stage, where Magistrate has taken cognizance and the accused is likely to be prejudiced, High Court is required to give such person a hearing under Section 401(2) – Non-hearing renders impugned order unsustainable [Paras 6, 10–12, 18–19]

Cognizance – Meaning and Effect – Once Magistrate applies mind to complaint and opts to proceed under Section 200 CrPC instead of directing police investigation, it amounts to taking cognizance – Such decision creates procedural rights for persons named in the complaint [Paras 9–10, 18]

Natural Justice – Applicability at Pre-Summoning Stage – Though the accused has no right to participate in inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, once a Magistrate has applied mind and rejected request under Section 156(3), accused is entitled to hearing in any revisional challenge to that order under Section 401(2) – High Court’s failure to hear appellant violated principles of audi alteram partem [Paras 12–13, 19]

Power of Magistrate – Scope of Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – Inquiry under Section 202 is meant to assess whether there is sufficient ground to proceed – It is not a trial – Magistrate may defer issuance of process to ascertain truth of complaint through complainant's own evidence – Defence of accused not relevant at that stage – However, revisional interference with such order requires hearing of prejudiced party [Paras 14–17]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Matter remitted to High Court to decide afresh after impleading and hearing the appellant.

Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Appellant convicted for causing death of wife by poison four years after marriage – Prosecution relied on general allegations of harassment due to infertility and dowry insufficiency – No specific evidence of dowry demand or cruelty “soon before death” – Held: Prosecution failed to establish key ingredient of proximity – Presumption under Section 113B not attracted – Conviction under Section 304B IPC unsustainable, Acquittal [Paras 10–17, 21–22]

Criminal Law – Presumption and Burden of Proof – Section 113B Evidence Act – Presumption arises only when prosecution proves that deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry "soon before death" – Mere allegations of past harassment without proximity to death insufficient – Dowry-related cruelty must have live link with death to invoke presumption – Held: Legal fiction under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B requires strict proof of statutory ingredients [Paras 12–17]

Evidence – Section 106 Evidence Act – Failure to Explain Circumstances of Death – Death occurred in matrimonial home due to poison – Though Section 106 could have been invoked to shift burden to accused, prosecution chose to proceed only under Section 304B and failed to prove ingredients – High Court did not convict under Section 302 – Held: Conviction cannot be altered to Section 302 in absence of appropriate charge and trial [Paras 19–21]

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Effect – FIR implicated three relatives of accused – All acquitted by High Court – No evidence that appellant alone had exclusive access to victim or caused her death – Held: Acquittal of co-accused renders prosecution version doubtful – Conviction of appellant alone cannot be sustained [Paras 22–23]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304B IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Power to summon additional accused – Object is to ensure that real culprits do not escape trial and entire offence is tried together – Court may summon any person not shown as accused if evidence indicates involvement – Power is extraordinary and to be used sparingly and only on compelling reasons – Safeguards under Section 319(4) protect rights of newly added accused, as proceedings against him commence afresh and witnesses are reheard [Paras 26-33, 60].

Section 319 CrPC – Stage of Exercise – Conflict of judicial opinion – In Rakesh v. State of Haryana (2001), held that even examination-in-chief without cross-examination constitutes "evidence" enabling court to summon accused – In Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq (2007), held that power can be exercised only after completion of cross-examination and upon satisfaction that accused so summoned is likely to be convicted – Court noted conflict and referred matter to larger Bench [Paras 45-58, 73-79].

Investigation – Section 173 CrPC – Role of Investigating Officer – Final report under Section 173 must be factual and not contain findings of innocence or guilt – In present case, SP’s report giving clean chit to Vijay Preet Singh and Jagtar Singh held beyond permissible scope of Section 173 – Such satisfaction of IO cannot override evidence before court under Section 319 [Paras 66-72].

Case against Discharged Accused – Vijay Preet Singh – Name found in FIR, arrested from scene of offence with weapon – Deleted from charge-sheet allegedly due to influence of father, Chairman of Panchayat Samiti – Witnesses at trial deposed to his active participation – Court held prima facie case made out and application under Section 319 ought to have been allowed [Paras 65, 73].

Case against Jagtar Singh and Kashmir Singh – Jagtar Singh’s name not in FIR, no role disclosed during investigation; Kashmir Singh found innocent in police report accepted by courts – Evidence against them emerged only at trial – Trial and High Court orders rejecting Section 319 application against them not interfered with [Paras 63-64].

Guidelines – Section 319 CrPC – Court must reach reasonable satisfaction from evidence that person committed offence – Discretion to be exercised judicially keeping stage of trial and available evidence in view – No need to await conclusion of trial of existing accused – Larger Bench reference made to settle scope of “evidence” and test of satisfaction under Section 319 [Paras 73-79].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Matter concerning scope of Section 319 CrPC and requirement of cross-examination referred to larger Bench of three judges – Orders rejecting summoning of Jagtar Singh and Kashmir Singh upheld – Orders deleting Vijay Preet Singh from charge-sheet found unsustainable – Registry directed to place matter before Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of Bench [Paras 79-81].

Municipal Law – Illegal Construction – Demolition – Respondent constructed marriage hall on sanctioned plan – Municipal Corporation issued demolition order alleging unauthorised construction without proper notice or hearing – Notices were vague, issued in name of deceased owner, and lacked property description – Despite pendency of civil suit and interim injunction, demolition carried out – Held: Corporation acted arbitrarily and in violation of Section 269 of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act – Demolition order invalid for failure to follow mandatory requirement of prior notice and opportunity to respond – Directions to restore sanctioned portion of structure upheld [Paras 3–17]

Natural Justice – Violation – Demolition without Show Cause – No opportunity given to respondent before demolition as required under proviso to Section 269 – Notice dated 14.12.2001, though styled as show cause, was in substance a final demolition order – No evidence of prejudice required where violation of mandatory natural justice provision is established – Held: Non-compliance with principles of natural justice renders action invalid [Paras 12–16]

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Scope – High Court rightly exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside illegal demolition order – Aligarh Muslim University principle on prejudice inapplicable where statutory notice requirement itself violated – Appellate court under Section 269 rightly set aside demolition order and directed restoration of sanctioned structure – Interference with findings not warranted [Paras 15–17]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Direction to restore sanctioned portion of construction upheld – Appellant to pay costs of ₹2,00,000 to Respondent No. 1

PIL - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Independence of Judiciary – Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 50, 323B – Validity of provisions on Adjudicating Authorities and Appellate Tribunal – Petition partly allowed – PIL challenged provisions of PMLA and Rules of 2007 alleging executive dominance in selection/removal of adjudicatory members – Held: Judicial independence must be safeguarded – Amendments ensuring CJI’s role in appointments, qualifications, and removal protection approved – Union directed to implement within six months [Paras 1-10].

Tribunals – Judicial Review – Principle in L. Chandra Kumar applied – Tribunals exercising judicial powers must be free from executive control – Separation of powers cannot be diluted – Safeguards are necessary to protect citizens’ rights and public confidence [Paras 8-9].

Appointment and Qualification of Members – Rule 3(3) amended to specify qualifications for finance/accountancy members – Rule 4 amended requiring Chairperson’s appointment on CJI’s recommendation – Rule 6(1) amended to include a Supreme Court Judge nominated by CJI in the Selection Committee – Held valid [Para 9, Issues 1-3].

Removal of Tribunal Members – Section 32(2) PMLA – Amendment proposed requiring mandatory consultation with CJI before removal – Held essential for tenure security – Draft Bill under preparation [Para 9, Issue 4].

Appointment Procedure – Rule 6(2) Appellate Tribunal Rules – Deletion of phrase “or on recommendations of appropriate authorities” upheld – Ensures transparent selection [Para 9, Issue 5].

Eligibility of Chairperson – Section 28(1) PMLA – Challenge to eligibility of those merely “qualified to be a judge of High Court” rejected – Appointment through CJI ensures independence – Comparable statutes allow similar criteria [Para 9, Issue 6].

Eligibility of Legal Members – Adjudicating Authority – Objection to inclusion of persons “qualified to be District Judge” rejected – Consistent with other statutes and justified given specialized nature of PMLA – Advocates or ILS officers may have equal expertise [Para 9, Issue 7].

Decision – Writ petition disposed – Amendments to 2007 Rules approved – Union directed to implement suggested provisions within six months – No costs [Para 10].