Civil Procedure Code Amendments – Operative directions – Section 89 CPC, ADR & Mediation, Case Flow Management – Writs disposed with comprehensive directions – Supreme Court approves Committee Reports (ADR/Mediation Rules and Case Flow Management) and issues binding guidance on amended CPC provisions to secure speedy justice – High Courts to frame rules within four months – Union/States to report on judicial impact assessment and ADR funding [Paras 1-3, 49-53, 54-67, 69-71, 72-74].

Affidavit with Pleadings – Section 26(2), Order VI Rule 15(4) – Validity upheld – Affidavit fixes additional responsibility as to truth but is not trial evidence – Fresh affidavit required upon amendment of pleadings [Para 4].

Evidence – Order XVIII Rule 4 – Chief-examination by affidavit valid – Cross-examination/re-examination may be before Court or Commissioner – Commissioner cannot declare witness hostile; such discretion lies with the Court under Section 154, Evidence Act – Commissioners must ensure safe custody of originals; HCs to frame protective practice directions [Paras 5-13].

Additional Evidence – Deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A – Inherent power restored – Even after deletion, Court may permit additional evidence where despite due diligence it could not be produced earlier – Terms may be imposed [Para 14].

Written Statement – Order VIII Rule 1 – 30 days extendable to 90 days is directory – Courts may permit filing beyond 90 days via Order VIII Rule 10 (“such order as it thinks fit”) – Extension only in exceptionally hard cases; avoid routine dilution of timeline [Paras 15-21].

Execution – Section 39(4) vs. Order XXI Rules 3 & 48 – No conflict – Section 39(4) does not dilute specific powers under O.XXI r.3 (estate in multiple jurisdictions) and r.48 (attachment of salary), which remain operative [Paras 22-24].

Attachment – Section 64(2) – Protection limited to transfers pursuant to registered pre-attachment contracts – Unregistered prior contracts not protected against subsequent attachment [Para 25].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 with Proviso – Post-trial-commencement amendments allowed only on showing due diligence – Provision valid; intended to curb dilatory amendments [Para 26].

Service of Summons – Order V Rule 9, 9-A, 17 – Service by plaintiff/courier permissible – Courts to be cautious with deemed service/refusal endorsements – HCs to issue safeguards (detailed affidavits, perjury, courier blacklisting) [Paras 27-28].

Adjournments – Order XVII Rule 1 (three adjournments) – Directory when circumstances are beyond party’s control – Discretion preserved for extreme cases; impose realistic/higher/punitive costs; adjournment is never a right [Paras 29-31].

Court’s Power to Call Witness/Manage Arguments – Order XVIII Rule 2 deletion & insertion of Sub-rules (3A)-(3D) – Inherent power to call witnesses remains – Written arguments/time limits are salutary to save Court time [Paras 32-33].

Production of Documents – Order VII Rule 14(4) – Drafting error – Words “plaintiff’s witnesses” to be read as “defendant’s witnesses” till legislature corrects – Harmonised with Order VIII Rule 1A(4) [Paras 34-36].

Costs – Sections 35, 35-A, 35-B, 95 CPC – “Costs follow the event” is the rule – Courts must award actual, reasonable, and where appropriate, exemplary/punitive costs; practice of “no order as to costs” deprecated [Paras 37-38].

Section 80 CPC Notices – Mandatory, reasoned replies by Government/statutory bodies – Nominate responsible officer within three months – Evasive/non-replies to invite heavy costs and departmental action/recovery from officer [Paras 39-40; see also Para 71(VI)].

Revisional/Constitutional Jurisdiction – Section 115 CPC and Article 227 – Curtailment of revision does not affect High Court’s constitutional superintendence – Power under Arts. 226/227 remains intact subject to self-discipline [Paras 41-43].

Enlargement of Time – Section 148 CPC (30-day cap) – Read down – Does not curtail inherent power under Section 151 to extend time beyond 30 days to prevent injustice; rigid reading leads to absurdity [Paras 44-46].

Order IX Rule 5 & Order XI Rule 15 – Time stipulations directory – Inspection not confined to pre-issue settlement alone; may be allowed later in Court’s discretion [Paras 47-48].

Judicial Impact Assessment – Legislative bills should include assessment of case-load, number of courts/judges/staff, and budget – Union directed to examine and report within four months [Paras 49-53].

Section 89 CPC – ADR Framework – Harmonious reading of Section 89 with Order X Rules 1A–1C – Court shall formulate terms and direct parties to opt for ADR; “may” applies to reformulation – Arbitration/Conciliation Acts apply post-reference; Part X CPC empowers HCs to frame rules up to reference – Mediator facilitates; Court records compromise and passes decree; same Judge not disqualified on return from failed ADR – Govt. to examine bearing ADR costs; HCs/District Courts to empanel trained mediators/conciliators; ADR rules applicable to Family Courts; States to consider court-fee refund on ADR settlement [Paras 54-67; esp. 57-66].

Model ADR & Mediation Rules, 2003 – Text settled and annexed – Procedure for opting/referring, Govt./PSU authorised officers, mediator panels/qualifications/disqualifications, confidentiality/immunity/ethics, settlement recording and decree, fees/costs including legal-aid coverage – To be adopted by High Courts with modifications [Para 68].

Case Flow Management – Model Rules – Categorisation into tracks with timelines for Trial Courts/First Appellate Courts/High Courts – Monthly registry monitoring, computerisation, day-to-day trials, strict interlocutory discipline, written submissions, realistic costs, perjury proceedings, and structured timelines for writs (fast/normal/slow), habeas (15 days), civil/criminal appeals – High Courts to consider/adopt within four months [Paras 69-71].

Final Directions – Writ petitions disposed of with directions – High Courts to examine and finalise ADR/Mediation/Case Flow Rules within four months – Union/States to examine ADR funding and judicial impact assessment and file reports – Circulation of judgment to all High Courts and Governments; Registrar Generals and Governments to file progress reports within four months [Paras 53, 61, 72-74].

Land Reforms – Fraudulent Surrender of Acquired Land – Tribunal Entitled to Reopen – Respondent surrendered land under the Land Reforms Act that had already vested in the State under land acquisition – Held: This act amounted to fraud and misrepresentation – Tribunal was justified in reopening and modifying surrender orders – High Court erred in interfering with findings of fraud – Fraud vitiates every proceeding irrespective of the stage of enquiry or acceptance [Paras 3, 7, 17].

Statutory Powers – Tribunal's Power to Review in Case of Fraud – Sections 10(3) and 21 of A.P. Land Reforms Act – Though initial acceptance of surrendered land was made after enquiry, Tribunal retains inherent power to correct orders tainted by fraud – Once fraud is established, procedural finality cannot override substantive justice – Reiterated that fraud on the statute or court unravels even the most solemn orders [Paras 4–6, 16–17].

Fraud – Definition, Scope and Legal Effect – Misrepresentation of Facts – Citing established precedents, the Court reiterated that fraud includes suppression of material facts, intentional deceit, and obtaining advantage by trickery – Misrepresentation that induces a statutory authority to act is sufficient to constitute fraud – Motive is irrelevant where benefit is secured through deceit – Fraud on statute or fraud on the court is fatal to legality of any action or order [Paras 8–12, 15–16].

Public Law – Distinction Between Fraud in Private and Public Law – Held that the test for fraud in administrative law is not the same as in private commercial contracts – Fraud in public law includes colourable exercise of power, suppression of facts to mislead statutory authorities, and subversion of statutory provisions – Reference made to English and Indian authorities on evolving standards of administrative fraud [Paras 10–11].

Suppression of Material Facts – Concealing Acquired Status of Land – Respondent failed to disclose that the land offered for surrender was already acquired by the State – Such non-disclosure held to be deliberate and material – It induced the Tribunal to accept surrender which it otherwise would not have – Held: This was a classic case of suppression leading to fraud on the statute [Paras 3, 14].

Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Tribunal's Order Restored – Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal correctly modified the earlier surrender acceptance based on discovery of fraud – The High Court’s interference was legally unsustainable – Appeal allowed [Paras 17–18].

Murder – Sudden Fight – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Not Applicable – The appellants argued that the killing occurred in a sudden quarrel without premeditation and hence fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Held: Though the quarrel was sudden and without pre-planning, the appellants acted in a cruel and unusual manner by firing at unarmed victims with firearms at close range – This established intention to kill or cause such bodily injuries as are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – Hence, Exception 4 does not apply and conviction under Section 302 IPC is justified [Paras 6–7].

Reliance on Precedents – Distinction from Sukhbir Singh and Surinder Kumar – The appellants relied on precedents where injuries with sharp weapons in sudden fights attracted Exception 4 – Held: Distinguishable as those cases involved lesser weapons and absence of cruelty – Use of guns aimed at vital parts from close range in the present case indicates clear intention to kill – Precedent of Sunder Singh also not applicable as it involved possible exercise of self-defence – Thus, precedents cited cannot aid appellants [Para 8].

Defence of Non-functional Gun – Rejected – Appellant Suresh Chandra contended that his gun was damaged and incapable of firing – Held: Ballistic expert’s report confirmed the gun had fired cartridges – Partial damage did not render it non-functional – Argument of accidental firing also rejected as all three appellants fired simultaneously, corroborated by injured eyewitnesses – Hence, no benefit of doubt available [Para 9].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Attracted – Even though there was no prior plan, common intention developed on the spot when appellants simultaneously opened fire – Acts showed deliberate intention to kill – Conviction under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC stands justified [Paras 10–11].

Sentence – Life Imprisonment – Possibility of Remission – Court noted that while it cannot reduce the sentence for Section 302 IPC, appellants are at liberty to seek commutation or remission from the State Government – Observation made considering long lapse of time since the incident and advanced age of appellant Suresh Chandra [Para 12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC upheld – However, liberty given to appellants to apply for commutation or remission of sentence [Paras 11–12].

Article 136 – Scope of Interference with Concurrent Findings – Principles Reiterated – The Court restated that while powers under Article 136 are wide, interference with concurrent findings in criminal matters occurs only in exceptional circumstances where findings are perverse, improperly reached, or shock the conscience – Applied the settled tests and found the appreciation of evidence by the courts below vitiated [Paras 7-10, 11, 26].

PC Act Prosecution – Sanction under Section 6 – Question Left Open – In view of allowing the appeal on merits for evidentiary infirmities, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the contention regarding invalid sanction under Section 6 of the 1988 Act [Para 13].

Alleged First Payment on 25.06.1985 – Accused’s Absence on Casual Leave – Finding of Presence Unsustainable – Defence produced leave application (Ext. E) and departmental officer (DW1) confirming casual leave and visit to Darbhanga – Courts below erred in discarding defence for non-production of leave register or sanctioning officer – Adverse inference unwarranted – Held: Prosecution failed to prove payment of ₹100 on 25.06.1985 beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18-19].

Trap on 28.06.1985 – Non-use of Phenolphthalein – Possibility of Planting Currency Not Ruled Out – Recovery of ₹150 from pocket of bush-shirt undisputed, but evidence of PW10 (I.O.) recorded that watcher had said accused came in ganji and lungi and wore the hanging bush-shirt – Absence of phenolphthalein test undermined prosecution – In line with Som Prakash and Raghbir Singh, science-oriented detection should be used to avoid sole reliance on dubious oral evidence – Defence version held probable – Demand and acceptance not proved [Paras 20-22].

Prior Grant of Electricity Connection – Motive for Bribe Undermined – Documentary evidence (Exts. F, G, I, K, L series, M) established electric connection given on 22.06.1985 and re-connected on 08.07.1985 – If connection already granted, demand/acceptance on 25.06.1985 and 28.06.1985 improbable – Courts below erred in discarding defence documents [Paras 23-24].

Defence Version More Probable – Prior Enmity and Retaliatory Trap – Background of criminal case initiated by appellant against complainant for electricity theft suggested motive to fabricate trap – On totality, prosecution evidence fell short of reliability and acceptability – Unsafe to sustain conviction [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) PC Act set aside – Appellant exonerated of all charges [Paras 26-27].

Section 498A IPC – Constitutional Challenge – Misuse Plea – Provision Upheld – Petition sought declaration that Section 498A is unconstitutional or, alternatively, guidelines to curb alleged rampant misuse – Held: Mere possibility or instances of misuse cannot invalidate a statute otherwise intra vires – Courts interpret law, not legislate – Abuse, if any, is to be addressed by the legislature or corrected case-by-case by courts – Section 498A has a clear object of combating cruelty/dowry menace and passes constitutional muster [Paras 9, 11–15, 17].

Cruelty, Dowry Death and Abetment of Suicide – Sections 498A, 304B, 306 IPC – Distinct Offences – “Cruelty” under Explanation to Section 498A informs the understanding under Section 304B – Section 306 requires intention/abetment whereas Section 498A targets cruelty that may drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury – Presumption in Section 113B Evidence Act applies to dowry death within seven years of marriage [Paras 6–10].

Judicial Restraint – Generalised Observations – Delhi High Court in Savitri Devi – Supreme Court Disapproved Broad, Seminar-Style Remarks – Courts should avoid sweeping generalisations about social policy in judgments and confine to facts and law – Prior disapproval reiterated [Para 16].

Guarding Against Misuse – Role of Courts and Investigators – While misuse concerns are real, investigation and courts are watchdogs, not bloodhounds – No straitjacket approach – Aim is to reach truth, punish guilty, protect innocent – Statutory presumptions are rebuttable – Courts should deter frivolous/vexatious prosecutions within existing framework until legislature acts [Para 18].

CBI Investigation Sought by Appellant – Relief Declined – Innocence to be established in trial if held – No ground to transfer investigation to CBI in the present context [Para 19].

Decision – Writ petition disposed of – Challenge to Section 498A rejected – No guidelines issued beyond reiteration of judicial caution – No CBI direction – Observations confined to ensuring proper application and preventing abuse within existing law [Para 20].

Labour Law - Industrial Dispute – Retrenchment – Section 25F read with Section 25B(2) – Reinstatement Upheld; Back Wages Denied – Workman engaged on daily wages from 16.03.1988 to 28.02.1989 with breaks; Labour Court held 264 days’ work in 12 months and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages; High Court affirmed – Held: After the 1964 amendment, a workman who has actually worked 240 days in 12 months is deemed in continuous service for one year; Section 25F attracted despite not serving a full calendar year – Reinstatement with continuity sustained; however, back wages not automatic and depend on multiple factors; on facts, no back wages awarded [Paras 3, 5, 12].

Section 2(oo)(bb) Plea – Not Pressed/Proved – Employer’s contention that engagement was for a fixed term falling under Section 2(oo)(bb) neither pursued before the Labour Court nor raised before the High Court; no evidence led – New plea cannot be entertained at Supreme Court stage – Termination amounts to retrenchment attracting Section 25F [Para 4].

Continuous Service – Post-1964 Position – Section 25B(2) – Sur Enamel distinguished; Surendra Kumar Verma applied – It is sufficient that the workman worked 240 days in the twelve months preceding the reference date; actual employment for a full 12 months is not necessary – Finding of 264 days not challenged and binds parties – Non-compliance with notice, notice pay, and retrenchment compensation renders termination invalid [Para 5].

Back Wages – No Rule of Thumb – Factors and Discretion – Awarding back wages requires consideration of delay in raising dispute and reference, nature and tenure of employment, availability of alternative work, and “no work no pay” principle – Here: less than one year’s short, intermittent daily-wage service with breaks; demand after ~2½ years; reference after ~8 years; nature of work readily available locally – Award of 50% back wages set aside; no back wages payable – Precedents: Saran Kumar Gaur; Atal Behari Shastri; Virender Kumar; Surjit Ghosh; Anil Kumar Gupta [Paras 6–11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Reinstatement with continuity of service maintained; direction for 50% back wages set aside; no order as to costs [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Sections 307, 333 IPC – Undue Leniency by High Court – Order reducing sentence to period undergone set aside – Trial court convicted one accused under Sections 307 & 330 IPC and the other under Sections 307/34 & 333/34 IPC for assault on a constable with sharp weapon on a railway platform – High Court reduced sentence to about six months already undergone citing youth, poverty and illiteracy – Held: Courts must impose sentences reflecting societal conscience and gravity of offences; undeserved sympathy undermines public confidence – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration on sentence in light of governing principles [Paras 2–4, 6–10, 18–19].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Nature of Injury Not Determinative – Conviction sustainable even if injuries are simple – What matters is intention/knowledge coupled with overt act; Section distinguishes between act and result – Accused cannot be acquitted of Section 307 merely because vital organ not cut or injury is minor [Paras 11–13, 15–16].

Hurt to Public Servant – Sections 333 vs. 325 IPC – Distinction – Section 333 attracts when grievous hurt is caused to a public servant while deterring him from duty; Section 325 applies to grievous hurt simpliciter – Maximum punishments (life under Section 307 when hurt caused; up to 10 years under Section 333) underscore gravity ignored by High Court [Paras 16–17].

Appellate Interference on Sentence – Remand for Limited Purpose – Though Supreme Court could have finalized sentence, respondents urged other mitigating factors not considered below – High Court directed to rehear on sentence alone and decide per sentencing principles laid down [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – Convictions untouched – Sentencing aspect remitted to High Court for reconsideration consistent with principles stated [Para 19].

PIL – Constitutional Validity of IMDT Act & Rules – Articles 14 & 355; Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 9 – IMDT Act Struck Down – Petitioner challenged IMDT Act, 1983 and Rules, 1984 as ultra vires; sought application of Foreigners Act, 1946/Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 in Assam – Held: IMDT Act/Rules unconstitutional; negate Union’s duty under Article 355, are discriminatory vis-à-vis rest of India (Article 14), and create virtually insurmountable barriers to detection/deportation by omitting Section 9-type burden and interposing restrictive screening – Directions issued transferring all cases to Foreigners Tribunals; IMDT tribunals to cease – Reliefs granted as per para 58(1)–(6) [Paras 1–13, 20–29, 31–42, 43–45, 57–59].

External Aggression & Internal Disturbance – Article 355 – Large-scale illegal migration from Bangladesh into Assam – Duty of Union to protect State – Influx altered demographics, fueled insurgency, and threatens security; Governor’s 08.11.1998 report and Union/State affidavits noted strategic consequences – Held: Situation constitutes “external aggression” and “internal disturbance” within Article 355; IMDT regime defeats constitutional mandate [Paras 11, 32–38, 39–42].

Burden of Proof – Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 9 vs. IMDT Act (silence) – Proof especially within knowledge – Comparative law – Held: Citizenship/residence facts lie peculiarly with the person; Section 9 rightly places onus on alleged foreigner; IMDT’s silence casts impossible burden on State/citizens and is contrary to Section 106 Evidence Act; UK/US/Canada/Australia practices align with burden on entrant – IMDT regime thus structurally unfit for detection [Paras 14–19, 25–28].

IMDT Procedure – Screening Committee/Competent Authority gatekeeping – Restrictive complaints architecture – Time-consuming inquiry – One-sided appellate structure – Held: Rules 3–9 (screening), provisos to Sections 8(2), 8A(2) (locality/affidavit/10-application cap), Forms requiring exact date of clandestine entry, threat of prosecution to complainant, lack of enforceable compulsion on suspects; executive can reject majority at threshold with no appeal, but only a judicial tribunal can declare migrant – Design shelters illegal migrants, impedes objective of Act [Paras 22–29, 30].

Comparative Outcomes – Assam (IMDT) vs. West Bengal (Foreigners Act) – Efficacy – Data shows inquiries in 3,10,759 resulted in only 1,481 expulsions; in West Bengal 4,89,046 deportations under Foreigners Act – Held: IMDT the “main impediment” to detection/deportation; aids creation of official “clean chit” where proceedings fail [Paras 4, 5, 8, 11, 39].

Override/Supersession – Section 4 IMDT v. Passport (Entry), Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act – Held: IMDT’s override stripped Central Govt of swift removal/arrest powers under Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and neutralized Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 enacted to address precisely such migration – IMDT reintroduced disturbance and undermined national powers [Paras 40–41].

Article 14 – Geographical Classification – Nexus test – Held: A special Assam-only regime could be valid if more stringent and rationally connected to objective; but IMDT is more lenient and counterproductive relative to Foreigners Act; classification lacks nexus, violates Article 14 [Paras 43, 45].

Article 21 – Procedural fairness for deportation – Scope – Held: Deportation is not a criminal prosecution; Foreigners Act/Tribunal Order provide just, fair, reasonable procedure; argument that IMDT is needed to satisfy Article 21 rejected [Paras 47–53].

Deportation & Sovereignty – International/Comparative Law – States’ sovereign power to exclude/expel aliens; due process satisfied by executive processes authorized by law; aliens unlawfully present have no right to remain – Applied in India; Louis De Raedt affirmed – Held accordingly [Paras 48–53].

Maintainability – PIL under Article 32 – Political motive plea rejected – Citizen’s duty (Article 51A(d)) to defend country; standing to challenge unconstitutional regime aiding illegal migrants – Maintainable [Para 56].

Assam Accord & Citizenship Act, Section 6A – Detection must be under Foreigners Act/1964 Tribunal Order; IMDT inconsistent with framework implicit in Section 6A definitions – Tribunals under 1964 Order must function in Assam for detection [Paras 2, 12, 20].

Final Directions/Decision – IMDT Act & Rules unconstitutional – Tribunals ceased – Transfer of all pending matters to Foreigners Tribunals – Fresh proceedings open where screening/competent authority had blocked reference – Appeals abated – Govt to constitute sufficient Foreigners Tribunals – Costs/IA disposed – [Paras 57–59; operative directions at Para 58(1)–(6)].

PIL – Civil Writ - Inter-State Water Dispute – Jurisdiction – Articles 262(2), 131, 32, Constitution – Section 11, Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 – Petitioners sought to restrain Karnataka and private company from constructing Mini Hydel Project at Rajolibanda Diversion Scheme alleging diversion of Krishna river water to detriment of Andhra Pradesh farmers – Held: Dispute squarely falls under Inter-State Water Disputes Act – Section 11 bars jurisdiction of all courts including Supreme Court – Petition under Article 32 not maintainable – Remedy lies before Tribunal – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 21-33, 44].

Right to Water – Article 21 – Petitioners argued right to water is part of right to life – Court recognized fundamental right to water and sustainable environment – Nevertheless, where Constitution and statute exclude jurisdiction, individual petitioners cannot invoke Article 32 – Remedy only through State Government before Tribunal [Paras 29, 39-40].

Pending Adjudication – Tribunal already seized of issue – Andhra Pradesh had raised dispute before Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal regarding Rajolibanda Hydel Project – Tribunal considered interim applications and framed specific issues – Matter sub judice before Tribunal – Supreme Court declined interference [Paras 46-51].

Duty of State – Fair disclosure – Andhra Pradesh failed to disclose pendency and orders of Tribunal in counter affidavit – Court observed State ought to have fairly placed all facts, but since writ itself was not maintainable, no action taken [Para 52].

Decision – Writ Petition under Article 32 dismissed as not maintainable – No costs [Para 53].