Service Law – Suppression of Criminal Cases in Attestation Form – Probationer in RPF – Termination Upheld - Respondent appointed as probationary constable in RPF in 1993, suppressed pendency of criminal cases under IPC including Section 376 in attestation form – Services terminated during probation upon verification report – High Court quashed termination for being stigmatic and violative of natural justice – Held: Suppression of material facts itself justified discharge under Rules 57 and 67; termination was due to false declaration, not criminal involvement; probationary appointment tenuous and could be ended without enquiry – Integrity essential for uniformed service – Appeal allowed, writ petition dismissed [Paras 3, 5-8].

Employment in Uniformed Services – Higher Standard of Integrity – Principle Reaffirmed - Applicants for police or paramilitary service must demonstrate unimpeachable character; concealment of pending criminal cases in attestation forms amounts to deceit and forfeits right to appointment – Later acquittal or discharge immaterial as suppression vitiates appointment from inception [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed — High Court judgments set aside — Writ petition dismissed — Termination of respondent’s probationary service for suppression of criminal cases in attestation form held valid.

PIL - Motor Vehicles – High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) – Enforcement of Statutory Scheme – States directed to take final decision within six months – Petitioner sought implementation of Supreme Court's earlier judgment in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India regarding mandatory use of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) under Rule 50 of CMV Rules – Grievance raised that despite judgment, most States and UTs failed to implement the scheme or cancelled tenders – Court noted that public safety and national security are underlying objectives – Held: States and Union Territories must take definitive decision on implementation of amended Rule 50 and HSRP scheme within six months – Decision must align with earlier judgment of the Court [Paras 1, 5, 6, 8, 9].

Public Interest Litigation – Commercial Interest Alleged – Court avoids ruling on maintainability – Respondents alleged petitioner was a proxy for private manufacturers aiming to secure commercial benefit under guise of public interest – Court declined to examine locus standi but emphasized that State action must reflect statutory and constitutional responsibility towards public safety [Paras 7–8].

Administrative Law – Implementation of Judicial Directives – Inaction or delay by State governments in executing centrally mandated schemes – Despite prior directions and detailed guidelines issued by the Union, several States failed to act or deviated from upheld tender norms – Court categorized States based on compliance status and recorded concern over delay – Urged all States and UTs to act in public interest without lethargy [Paras 5–6, 8–9].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of with direction to States and Union Territories to take decision on implementation of amended Rule 50 and HSRP scheme within six months – No order as to costs.

Constitutional Law – Writ - Article 14 – “One-man legislation” – Proviso to Section 11(1A), AIIMS (Amendment) Act, 2007 – Held unconstitutional – Amendment directed only against incumbent Director P. Venugopal, prematurely terminating his five-year tenure without justifiable reasons or safeguards – Such singling out constitutes naked discrimination, impermissible classification, and arbitrary deprivation of tenure rights – Proviso struck down as ultra vires Article 14 [Paras 6, 19-21, 30-32].

Service Law – Tenure Appointment – Director of AIIMS – Appointment is for fixed tenure of five years, not subject to premature termination except on justifiable grounds – Tenure distinct from superannuation; incumbent cannot be retired or removed prematurely by legislative device – Principle reaffirmed in Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India – Impugned proviso equating tenure curtailment with superannuation held erroneous [Paras 25-29].

Legislation – Validity – Article 13(2) – Any statutory provision violating fundamental rights void – Though legislature has power to regulate service conditions under Article 309, it cannot enact targeted provisions depriving a single individual of equal protection of law – Impugned proviso not based on intelligible differentia with rational nexus – Similar to vice-chancellor removal provision struck down in D.S. Reddy v. Chancellor, Osmania University – Hence unconstitutional [Paras 14-18, 31].

Judicial Review – Effect of prior High Court orders – Delhi High Court had recognized petitioner’s right to continue till July 2008 – Parliament’s amendment frustrated binding judicial directions – No non-obstante clause or validating Act included – Impugned proviso could not override prior mandamus and prohibition writs – Comparable to Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Proviso to Section 11(1A), AIIMS (Amendment) Act, 2007 struck down as ultra vires Article 14 – Petitioner restored as Director, AIIMS to complete tenure till 02/07/2008 – Entitled to pay and emoluments from date of termination – No order as to costs [Para 32].

Motor Accident Claim – Minor Claimant – Contributory Negligence – Driving Without Licence – Tribunal reduced compensation from ₹30,000 to ₹12,000 on ground that appellant (aged 17½ years) was not holding a driving licence and thus guilty of contributory negligence – High Court upheld the decision – Held: Mere absence of licence does not automatically establish contributory negligence unless rash or negligent driving by claimant is proved – No finding that appellant drove negligently – Tribunal and High Court erred in conflating absence of licence with contributory negligence [Paras 3, 8, 9]

Contributory Negligence – Applicability to Minors – Doctrine not applied with same force to minors as to adults – Whether a child is guilty of contributory negligence is a question of fact – In this case, no evidence that appellant contributed to the accident – Therefore, contributory negligence not established [Paras 4–5]

Composite Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence – Tribunal failed to distinguish between the two – Concept of composite negligence involves multiple negligent parties – In this case, entire liability lay with the mini-truck driver – Appellant’s role did not meet threshold of contributory negligence – Automatic 50:50 apportionment of blame unsustainable [Paras 6–7]

Driving Without Licence – Legal Consequence – Driving without licence is an offence but not equivalent to negligence unless shown to have contributed to the accident – Absence of licence cannot, by itself, reduce compensation – Clear judicial error in equating unlawful act with negligent conduct [Para 8]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Finding of contributory negligence set aside – Appellant entitled to full compensation of ₹30,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of award until payment – No costs [Para 10]

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Marriage solemnized in 1974, wife allegedly insisted husband live separately from parents, frequently quarrelled, and ultimately deserted matrimonial home in 1984 leaving minor daughter – Husband filed divorce petition in 1992 – Family Court, after detailed evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, granted decree of divorce on both grounds – High Court reversed decree holding allegations vague and unsupported – Supreme Court held: High Court failed to consider detailed reasons of Family Court, relied on speculation and defence evidence without analysis – Order set aside [Paras 3-16, 21-24, 34-36].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reappreciation of Evidence – Principles – Appellate court has power to reconsider facts and law but must exercise caution when reversing trial court’s findings based on oral evidence – Trial court’s advantage of observing witness demeanour must be respected – Interference permissible only when findings are perverse, against law, or unsupported by probabilities – High Court erred in upsetting Family Court’s findings without cogent reasoning [Paras 25-33].

Family Court – Findings on Cruelty – Wife’s persistent misbehaviour, false allegations of second marriage, abandonment of minor daughter, refusal to attend daughter’s wedding, and continuous hostility towards husband and family established cruelty – Family Court rightly disbelieved wife’s testimony and accepted husband’s evidence – Such findings could not be lightly overturned by High Court [Paras 14-16].

Remand – Supreme Court declined to decide on merits, holding that High Court, as first appellate court, must exercise its statutory power of reappreciation – Matter remanded for fresh disposal, High Court directed to decide expeditiously, given parties’ separation of over two decades [Paras 37-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Allahabad High Court set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 38-40].

Customs – Duty Drawback – DEPB Scheme – Re-export of Defective Goods – Refund Mechanism – Appellant imported watch parts, paid duty via DEPB debit – Upon finding parts defective, re-exported the same and claimed duty drawback under Section 74 – Department rejected claim on ground that duty was not paid in cash – Held: Once goods are re-exported, assessee is entitled to refund or re-credit of duty irrespective of mode of payment – Denial of both refund and DEPB adjustment amounts to unjust enrichment by Revenue – Public Notice dated 30.06.2000, though issued after re-export, was procedural and applicable retrospectively [Paras 5, 10]

Procedural Law – Retrospectivity – Interpretation – Public Notice inserting Para 7.50A in Handbook permitting DEPB re-credit on re-export – Held: Being procedural in nature, the provision applies retrospectively and cannot be used to deny relief for transactions occurring before issuance – Revenue's stand untenable as it seeks dual benefit contrary to principle against unjust enrichment [Paras 10]

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Arbitrary Denial of Certificate – Assessee’s request for issuance of DEPB re-credit certificate wrongly declined solely due to date of public notice – Held: Once goods were re-exported and claim not pressed, rejection of certificate was arbitrary – Authorities directed to issue certificate to enable assessee to approach DGFT [Paras 6, 11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Revenue directed to issue certificate for re-credit in DEPB book or for issuance of fresh DEPB – Relief to be granted notwithstanding date of public notice – No costs [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Public Servant – Sanction for Prosecution – Appellant, a government officer, took action against a medical shop under Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Complaint later filed against him by shop owner alleging forgery and corruption – Held: Actions taken were in discharge of official duties – No cognizance could have been taken without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – District Magistrate had no authority to grant sanction under Section 196 CrPC – Proceedings vitiated for want of valid sanction [Paras 3, 10–14]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Complaint found to be a retaliatory measure (counterblast) against appellant’s official acts – Delay in filing complaint and absence of initial allegations of bribery or forgery noted – Continuance of proceedings amounts to abuse of court’s process – Fit case for interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 6, 9, 20]

Official Duty – Scope of Protection under Section 197 CrPC – Protection not limited to acts strictly within duty but extends to acts reasonably connected with official duty – Public servants cannot be prosecuted for such acts without sanction – Liberal and purposive interpretation of Section 197 affirmed – Trial barred where acts relate to discharge or purported discharge of official functions [Paras 10–18]

Mala Fide Prosecution – Complaint lodged months after official action and after conviction of complainant in related case – No allegations of bribery in earlier applications – Held: Complaint actuated by malice – Proceedings unsustainable [Paras 6, 9, 20]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Abuse of Process – Case falls within Category (7) of Bhajan Lal guidelines – Frivolous and vexatious prosecution intended to harass a public servant – Quashing justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings in Begusarai P.S. Case No. 63/1993 quashed – Held: Prosecution without valid sanction and initiated with mala fide intent amounts to abuse of process of law [Para 20]

Delhi Rent Control – Constitutionality of Section 14(1)(e) – Article 14 – Discrimination between Residential and Non-Residential Premises – Partly Struck Down – Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which confined landlord’s right of eviction on bona fide requirement to residential premises, held unconstitutional under Article 14 – Classification held arbitrary in present circumstances – Discriminatory words severed – Landlords can now seek eviction from both residential and non-residential premises on bona fide requirement [Paras 15, 29-32, 41-44].

Reasonable Classification – Passage of Time Rendering Classification Arbitrary – A legislative classification valid at inception may become unconstitutional with change in social/economic conditions – Refugee influx of 1947 justified distinction initially – But after 50 years, with growth in commercial property, justification lost – Doctrine from Bhopal Sugar Industries and Motor General Traders applied [Paras 31-36].

Doctrine of Equality – Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Classification must have intelligible differentia with rational nexus to object – Courts caution against overreliance on classification – Law should treat similarly situated alike – Outdated distinctions cannot survive constitutional scrutiny [Paras 16-19].

Severability – Only Discriminatory Portion Struck Down – Section 14(1)(e) not struck down in entirety – Only limitation to residential premises removed – Remaining part survives – Explanation below Section 14(1)(e) declared redundant – Severability principle applied [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court set aside – Section 14(1)(e) partly struck down – Provision now applies to both residential and non-residential premises for bona fide requirement – Writ petitions allowed, impugned orders quashed – No costs [Para 44].

Delhi Rent Control Act – Constitutionality of Section 14(1)(e) – Bona fide requirement – Discrimination between residential and non-residential premises – Section 14(1)(e) held partly unconstitutional – The classification restricting landlord’s right of eviction to residential premises only held violative of Article 14 – Provision read down to apply uniformly to all premises, residential or non-residential – Explanation to Section 14(1)(e) treated as redundant – Appeals allowed [Paras 13-15, 27-29, 38-41].

Reasonable Classification – Passage of Time – Doctrine of equality – A legislative classification valid at the time of enactment may become arbitrary and unconstitutional with lapse of time and change of circumstances – Differential treatment to non-residential tenants introduced in 1947 continued without rational basis in 2008 – Held: justification no longer survives, classification struck down [Paras 28-30, 32-34].

Judicial Review – Scope – Courts can strike down discriminatory legislative provisions – Rule of severability applied – Where the unconstitutional part of a statute can be severed, courts may strike only that part while saving the rest – Section 14(1)(e) modified accordingly [Paras 39-40].

Rent Control Jurisprudence – Shift in judicial approach – Earlier judgments tilted in favour of tenants – Later rulings emphasise balancing rights of landlords and tenants – Courts should not perpetuate undue hardship to landlords under the guise of tenant protection [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 declared discriminatory and partly struck down – Provision now enables eviction of tenants from both residential and non-residential premises on ground of landlord’s bona fide requirement – Appeals allowed, impugned Delhi High Court judgment set aside [Paras 38-41].