Service Law – Pay Discrepancy – Appellant, an Artificer III in the Indian Navy, challenged the lower grade pay granted to Artificers I, II, and III, compared to the non-technical Chief Petty Officers, despite their technical competence and relative ranks – The appellant contended this was discriminatory, arguing that Artificers of Class III and above should receive the same grade pay as non-technical Chief Petty Officers (Rs. 4200) based on Navy instructions and regulations – Held: The differentiation in grade pay based on the promotional hierarchy and responsibilities is neither arbitrary nor illegal [Paras 2, 4, 6, 12].

Navy Regulations – Command and Rank – Regulation 247 and other Navy instructions indicated that Chief Artificers hold command over Artificers I, II, and III – While the rank equivalency for seniority purposes was acknowledged between Artificers III and Chief Petty Officers, the Court emphasized the operational and hierarchical differences between these ranks – The promotional avenues available to Artificers and Chief Petty Officers justified the variance in grade pay [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Grade Pay Anomaly – Speaking Order – The 2009 speaking order clarified that while Artificers I to III are given relative ranks akin to Chief Petty Officers for seniority, they are not directly promotable to higher posts like Master Chief Artificers, unlike Chief Petty Officers – The appellant’s claim for equal grade pay was denied as Artificers I to III are positioned between Artificer IV and Chief Artificer in the pay structure, justifying the lower grade pay of Rs. 3400 compared to the Rs. 4200 granted to Chief Artificers [Paras 11, 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the pay disparity between Artificers III to I and Chief Petty Officers is lawful and not discriminatory – No merit in the appeal [Paras 13, 14].

Workman Classification – Definition under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act – Employee Not a Workman – The employee, who was employed as a Junior Engineer and later promoted to Assistant Engineer, claimed to be a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The management contended that he performed supervisory duties and earned more than the salary threshold applicable at the time of termination. The Supreme Court held that the employee, performing supervisory tasks and earning above the statutory limit, did not fall within the definition of “workman” under the pre-amended Act. Therefore, the provisions of the I.D. Act were not applicable to his case [Paras 11-16].

Termination Procedure – Section 25F of the I.D. Act – No Violation in Termination Process – The management terminated the employee’s service in compliance with the terms of his employment contract, paying one month's salary in lieu of notice, which the employee accepted and encashed. The Supreme Court held that there was no procedural violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, as the employee was not entitled to protection under the Act [Paras 13-17].

Reinstatement and Compensation – Labour Court’s Award – High Court's Partial Allowance Upheld – The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the employee with compensation in lieu of back wages, but the High Court set aside the reinstatement order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding no justification for reinstatement or further compensation since the employee was not a “workman” and the termination was lawful [Paras 17-19].

Decision – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the employee and allowed the appeal by the management, affirming that the employee was not entitled to reinstatement or compensation under the I.D. Act [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Remand of Trial – Appeal against acquittal – Appellant challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had remanded the case back to the Trial Court for retrial from the stage of testimony of PW 2 – The High Court found the trial process unfair due to the admission of prosecution documents without formal proof – Directed the retrial, allowing the defence to cross-examine witnesses and the prosecution to call formal witnesses – Held: High Court erred in ordering remand as the genuineness of documents had been admitted under Section 294 CrPC, rendering formal proof unnecessary – Appeals allowed, and the High Court's judgment set aside [Paras 1, 2, 8, 22, 23].

Section 294 CrPC – No formal proof of admitted documents – The prosecution's documents, including autopsy reports and police memos, were admitted by the defence during trial, making formal proof unnecessary – Trial Court had rightly relied on these documents under Section 294(3) CrPC – Reliance on judgments in Sonu v. State of Haryana, Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, and Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal to uphold the validity of reading such documents into evidence without formal proof – High Court’s reliance on Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar was misplaced, as it dealt with different legal issues [Paras 14-21].

Witness Testimony – Cross-examination of PW 2 – High Court’s order directing the cross-examination of PW 2 and summoning of additional witnesses was unnecessary since the defence had already admitted the genuineness of crucial documents – No compelling reason to remand the case for a retrial from this stage – High Court should have decided the appeals based on the evidence already on record [Paras 10, 16, 17].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court are set aside – The criminal appeals are restored to the High Court for fresh consideration on the merits, based on the existing record – Respondents to surrender within six weeks, and may apply for suspension of sentence before the High Court [Paras 23-25].

Delayed Judgment Delivery – Timeliness and Judicial Conduct – Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Judgment Set Aside - The appellants contended that the judgment of the High Court dated 1st March, 2023, dismissing their petition, was issued without reasons and that reasons were provided more than a year later, violating judicial discipline. The Supreme Court held that a delay in providing reasons for a judgment breaches judicial ethics and undermines trust in the system. It stressed the importance of delivering timely and reasoned judgments to uphold the rule of law, setting aside the High Court judgment for being improperly timed [Paras 5-11, 17-19, 23-24].

Pronouncement of Judgments – Requirement of Reasons Following the Decision – High Court's Failure to Follow Precedents – The Court reiterated that reasons for judgments should be provided promptly after the decision, referring to previous cases like Anil Rai vs State of Bihar. The failure of the High Court to adhere to these standards was a serious violation. The Court noted that not delivering the reasons immediately after the dismissal led to substantial prejudice against the appellant, rendering the decision unsustainable [Paras 12-16, 20-22].

Judicial Accountability – Ethical Conduct in Judgment Writing – Judge Overstepped Ethical Boundaries – The High Court Judge failed to issue a reasoned order after pronouncing the dismissal of the petition. The Supreme Court observed that this was an act of judicial indiscretion, as the reasons were given after more than a year, and advised that a better course would have been to recall the order and reassign the case. Upholding judicial integrity and ensuring transparency in the decision-making process are paramount [Paras 14-19].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 1st March, 2023, and directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to restore the petition and assign it to a different Bench for fresh consideration [Paras 23-26].

Land Acquisition – Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act – Compliance with Procedure – Objections Dismissed – The respondents challenged the acquisition of their land, asserting that their objections under Section 5A were not duly considered and that similarly situated lands were exempted from acquisition – Held: The State Government complied with the mandatory procedure of Section 5A, including hearing and report stages, and was entitled to disagree with the Collector's recommendation based on a High-Powered Committee's findings. The objections were not automatically binding on the Government [Paras 11-18].

Discrimination – Article 14 of the Constitution – Claim of Discriminatory Treatment – The respondents alleged discrimination in the acquisition, claiming that similarly situated lands were exempted – Held: The High Court’s finding of discrimination was erroneous as the State had acquired 99.78% of the notified land, including the exempted land at a later stage. Negative equality cannot be claimed to invalidate the acquisition [Paras 27-31].

Doctrine of Merger – Appeals Dismissed for Non-Prosecution – Whether the present appeals are maintainable – Held: The doctrine of merger does not automatically apply in cases of dismissal for non-prosecution. The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, holding that the previous dismissal did not bar the present appeal [Paras 47-53].

Settlement Between Parties – Agreement to Release Land – State’s Decision to Release the Land During Appeal Scrutinized – Held: The decision to release the land was arbitrary, lacked due consideration of public interest, and was not accepted by the Court. The land was ordered to be acquired for the intended public purpose [Paras 32-46].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and directed the acquisition of the respondents' land to proceed in accordance with the original notifications under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court further directed the State to take possession and utilize the land for public purposes, with appropriate compensation to be awarded. The Court also granted liberty to the respondents to seek higher compensation under Section 18 of the Act, if applicable [Paras 54-57].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Admonition – The appellant, an Airman in the Indian Air Force, was charged with insubordination and violation of good order after an incident at a railway crossing – The appellant was admonished and later sought quashing of the Admonition, arguing the proceedings were flawed due to lack of proper sanction under Section 83 of the Air Force Act – The Armed Forces Tribunal quashed the Admonition but did not grant compensation – Held: The Tribunal's order was upheld, and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded for the undue hardship caused by the long-drawn litigation and disproportionate punishment [Paras 1-12].

Vindictiveness – Handling of Minor Infraction – The Tribunal noted that the incident could have been handled more appropriately by the superior officer without escalating it – The conduct of the officer was decried as vindictive, resulting in the appellant’s unnecessary detention and punishment – Held: The disproportionate response to a minor infraction was inappropriate, and the appellant was entitled to compensation for the harassment and humiliation suffered [Paras 6.1-6.2, 8-12].

Compensation – Monetary Award for Loss of Dignity – The Court observed that while monetary compensation cannot fully restore lost dignity, it serves as a token of recognition of the appellant’s identity and rights – Rs. 1 lakh was granted as compensation for the emotional and financial distress caused by the unjust disciplinary action [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Admonition order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh in compensation to the appellant within 30 days [Paras 12-13].

Power under Section 319 CrPC – The scope and timing for the Trial Court to exercise discretion on summoning additional accused based on Examination-in-Chief without waiting for cross-examination – Held: The High Court misinterpreted the mandate under Section 319 CrPC – It is for the Trial Court to decide whether or not to proceed solely based on Examination-in-Chief or wait for cross-examination – The discretion remains with the Trial Court [Paras 13-17].

Case of No Evidence – Application of Section 232 CrPC – Acquittal restored by Supreme Court – Prosecution failed to present witnesses for cross-examination despite repeated opportunities, leading to inadmissible evidence – Held: The Trial Court was justified in closing the evidence and acquitting the appellant – High Court's order set aside, acquittal order by Trial Court restored [Paras 18-20].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court order, and restored the Trial Court's order acquitting the appellant. The decision to dismiss the Section 319 CrPC application was upheld due to lack of admissible evidence [Paras 19-20].

Child Marriage – Constitutional Guarantees – Writ Petition filed under Article 32 – Petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking stronger enforcement of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) – Court noted that child marriage violates fundamental rights to life, liberty, health, education, and autonomy – Directed the Union Government and States to implement effective measures to prevent child marriages, ensure education, and protect children at risk – Held: Guidelines issued to enhance enforcement and protect children from child marriages [Paras 1, 4, 171, 173, 181].

International Law – Compliance with International Standards – Court traced India’s international obligations under treaties such as CEDAW and CRC, emphasizing their relevance in preventing child marriages – Noted that international law recognizes child marriage as forced marriage, violating human rights, particularly those of girls – Directed that Indian laws and policies should align with these international commitments to combat the practice [Paras 123, 146, 150].

Child Marriage Prevention Officers (CMPO) – Legal Enforcement – Directed States and UTs to appoint dedicated CMPOs at the district level and ensure they are not burdened with additional duties – Quarterly performance reviews to assess their effectiveness – Specialized police units to handle child marriage cases to be considered – Legal accountability for public officials failing to act on child marriages emphasized [Paras 210, 211, 212].

Judicial Measures – Fast-Track Courts and Suo Moto Actions – Directed the Union to assess the feasibility of establishing special fast-track courts for child marriage cases – Empowered Magistrates to take suo motu action to prevent child marriages, particularly on auspicious days known for mass weddings [Paras 210, 211].

Community Involvement – Child Marriage Free Villages – Encouraged the launch of a “Child Marriage Free Village” initiative to mobilize local communities and Panchayats – Emphasized awareness campaigns in schools and religious institutions to educate communities about the consequences of child marriages – Directed regular capacity-building programs for local leaders, teachers, and health workers [Paras 209, 210].

Right to Education – Mandatory Reporting – Stressed the importance of education in preventing child marriages – Directed schools in high-risk regions to report potential cases such as sudden dropouts of girls to authorities – Schools must also integrate sexuality education and raise awareness about the legal and health impacts of child marriages [Paras 189, 190, 192].

Social Support and Financial Incentives – Directed States to consider educational incentives and scholarships for at-risk girls to keep them in school – Suggested conditional cash transfers and vocational training for families to reduce reliance on child marriages for economic reasons [Paras 191, 210].

Technological Interventions – Centralized Reporting Portal – Directed the creation of an online portal for reporting child marriages, ensuring anonymity and swift interventions by authorities – Recommended leveraging data analytics to identify high-risk areas and monitor school attendance [Paras 210, 211].

Constitutional Interpretation – Right to Life and Liberty – Child marriage violates Article 21 of the Constitution, depriving minors of autonomy, health, and education – Court reiterated that child marriage infringes on the right to self-determination, reproductive rights, and dignity – Emphasized the State’s duty to protect children from such practices [Paras 171, 179, 180].

Suggestions for Legislative Amendments – Court suggested that Parliament consider amending the PCMA to outlaw child betrothals and clarify its precedence over personal laws – Suggested introducing measures to prevent child marriages from being legitimized through customary practices like betrothal [Paras 213, 215].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Directions issued to Union and States as follows:

Appointment of CMPOs: States and Union Territories (UTs) must appoint dedicated Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs) at the district level, without additional duties – Quarterly performance reviews of CMPOs to be conducted – CMPOs to submit quarterly reports detailing child marriage prevention efforts [Paras 210, 211].

Specialized Police Units: The Union Government and State Governments to assess the feasibility of integrating the Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPU) into the child marriage prevention framework – Reports on actions taken against perpetrators and community engagement efforts to be submitted biannually [Paras 211, 212].

Fast-Track Courts: Union Government, in consultation with States, to assess the viability of setting up special fast-track courts for child marriage cases – Status report to be submitted within one year [Paras 210, 211].

Suo Moto Actions by Magistrates: Magistrates are empowered to take suo motu action to prevent child marriages, especially during mass weddings or auspicious days [Paras 211].

Community Involvement: States to launch the "Child Marriage Free Village" initiative – Panchayats and local leaders must report suspected child marriages within 48 hours and actively participate in awareness campaigns [Paras 210, 211].

Educational Incentives: States directed to provide scholarships and stipends to girls at risk of child marriage to encourage continued education – Conditional cash transfer programs for families delaying marriages until legal adulthood to be considered [Paras 210, 211].

Sexuality and Rights Education: Comprehensive sexuality education to be integrated into school curricula – Awareness campaigns in schools, religious institutions, and Panchayats to highlight the legal and health impacts of child marriages [Paras 210, 211].

Centralized Reporting Portal: Union Government to establish an online portal for anonymous reporting of child marriages – Use of technology and data analytics to identify high-risk areas for child marriage prevention [Paras 210, 211].

Support Programs for Victims: States to develop Individual Care Plans (ICPs) for at-risk girls, including access to education, psychological support, and regular monitoring – Juvenile Justice Fund to be institutionalized for financial assistance to girls opting out of child marriages [Paras 210, 211].

Legal Amendments: Parliament may consider amending the PCMA to outlaw child betrothals and explicitly state its overriding effect over personal laws – Issue of interface with personal laws kept open for future determination [Paras 212, 213, 215].

Compliance: Ministry of Women and Child Development to circulate this judgment to Chief Secretaries of all States and UTs, NALSA, and NCPCR within four weeks for strict compliance with the above directions [Paras 216, 217].

Auction Sale – Setting Aside of Auction – Equitable Relief Granted – The auction sale in favor of the appellant was set aside on equitable grounds after the borrowers repaid the amount due to the bank. The High Court’s decision was not based on any illegality of the auction but on the equitable consideration that the debt had been repaid shortly after filing of the writ petition – Held: The cancellation of the auction was appropriate due to the full deposit of the due amount by the borrowers [Paras 12-13].

Compensation for Auction Purchaser – Rule 38(4)(b) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules – Compensation Enhanced – The appellant, originally compensated with 5% of the deposited auction amount under Rule 38(4)(b), was found to have been inadequately compensated. The Court ordered additional compensation in the form of interest – Held: The appellant is entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 81,20,000 from the date of its deposit (21st July 2019) until the date of refund, ensuring fair compensation for the loss of use of his funds [Paras 13-14].

Interest Liability – Respondent Bank Held Responsible – The 4th respondent, the co-operative bank which initiated the auction, was held liable for the payment of interest to the appellant. The fact that the money was with the 3rd respondent (Recovery Officer) does not absolve the 4th respondent, who did not challenge the High Court’s findings – Held: The 4th respondent must pay the appellant the calculated interest within six weeks from the date of the judgment [Paras 14-15].

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed. The High Court’s judgments are modified, directing the 4th respondent bank to pay simple interest at 6% per annum on the sum of Rs. 81,20,000 from 21st July 2019 until the actual refund. The entire interest amount is to be paid within six weeks from the date of this judgment [Paras 15-16].