Civil Law - Horizontal Reservation – Right of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PWBDs) – The petitioner, with a locomotor disability of 60%, sought quashing of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examinations, 2024 results for not applying separate cut-offs for PWBDs – The petitioner argued that the denial of such benefit violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution – Held: The principle of horizontal reservation for PWBDs must be respected as it cuts across vertical reservations, ensuring fair representation within each category [Paras 3-5, 8].

Eligibility Criteria – Distinction Between Vertical and Horizontal Reservations – Clarified that horizontal reservations are applied across vertical categories, and candidates are adjusted within their respective vertical reservation categories – Cited Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) and its clarification on horizontal reservation, ensuring PWBDs are considered in each category [Paras 7-8].

Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination – Upholding Constitutional Mandates – The refusal to apply a distinct cut-off for PWBDs in the main examination violated constitutional provisions ensuring equality and non-discrimination – The petitioner, who met the lower cut-off threshold prescribed for PWBDs, was entitled to an interview – The Court directed the respondent to include the petitioner in the interview process [Para 9].

Provisional Inclusion in Interview Process – Interim Relief Granted – Similar to the relief granted in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 710 of 2024 involving a blind candidate – Directed that the petitioner be included in the ongoing interview process, pending the final hearing [Paras 5, 7].

Decision: The petition was allowed in part as an interim measure. The respondents were directed to call the petitioner for an interview as part of the ongoing process. The case was listed for further hearing along with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 710 of 2024 [Paras 7-9].

Consumer Law - Medical Negligence – Allegation of Negligent Surgery – Complainant claimed that surgery for congenital ptosis (drooping eyelid) in minor patient, performed by Dr. Neeraj Sud at PGI, Chandigarh, was conducted negligently, worsening the patient’s condition instead of improving it – State Commission initially dismissed complaint, finding no evidence of negligence, but NCDRC reversed this decision, awarding compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 and costs to complainants for alleged negligent treatment by the doctor – Supreme Court held that mere deterioration of condition post-surgery does not imply actionable negligence without evidence showing lack of due skill or care by the medical professional – Appeal allowed and judgment of the NCDRC set aside – Held: Negligence cannot be presumed without proof of failure to exercise requisite skill and due care by a qualified doctor [Paras 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16].

Standards for Medical Negligence – Duty of Care – Supreme Court reiterates the three key components of actionable negligence in medical cases: duty of care, breach of duty, and consequential harm – Reference made to Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee and Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that a doctor is not liable for negligence if he acted in accordance with acceptable medical practice – Bolam’s Test applied, wherein a doctor is deemed not negligent if treatment follows accepted norms within the medical community, absent evidence from an expert body to show a deviation from standard practice – Held: No actionable negligence was established as the doctor possessed requisite skill and performed surgery as per acceptable medical norms [Paras 14, 16, 17].

Evidence – Lack of Proof of Negligence – Complainants relied on medical records indicating deterioration post-surgery but did not provide expert testimony to substantiate negligence or deviation from standard medical practices by the doctor – The Court observed that worsening condition alone does not suffice to prove negligence in the absence of evidence showing inadequate care or lack of skill – Held: Without clear evidence showing that Dr. Neeraj Sud lacked the requisite skill or failed to exercise due diligence, allegations of negligence are unsubstantiated [Paras 8, 13, 15, 18].

Decision – Judgment Reversal – Supreme Court reverses NCDRC’s judgment which had partly allowed the complainants’ appeal by awarding compensation for alleged negligence – Court restores the State Commission’s original order, which found no evidence of negligence on part of the doctor or the PGI – Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012 by Dr. Neeraj Sud allowed, while Civil Appeal No. 5526 of 2012 by complainants dismissed – Held: No compensation awarded as complainants failed to establish negligence, no enhancement possible [Paras 19, 20, 21].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of the deceased, Naseem Khan, under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, based on testimonies of the deceased’s family members as eyewitnesses and corroborative medical evidence – Upon appeal, the High Court reversed the conviction, granting benefit of doubt to the accused due to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s acquittal, emphasizing that appellate interference in acquittal judgments is warranted only when there is clear perversity in evidence appreciation by the lower courts [Paras 1, 5, 8, 24, 30].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Contradictions – Family Members as Eyewitnesses – Key witnesses (PWs 5 and 9, minor brothers of the deceased, and PW 8, the mother) claimed to have seen the attack – The Trial Court relied on their testimonies, finding corroboration with medical evidence – The High Court, however, deemed their testimonies unreliable due to contradictions and omissions, noting significant discrepancies between their court statements and earlier police statements – Testimonies were found to be inconsistent, as witnesses failed to mention crucial details in initial statements, such as the specifics of the alleged attack and an oral dying declaration, undermining credibility [Paras 5, 20, 23, 28, 29].

Oral Dying Declaration – Veracity and Evidentiary Value – The mother (PW-8) claimed that the deceased made a dying declaration implicating the accused – The High Court questioned its reliability, highlighting that neither this statement nor corroborative evidence of the deceased’s ability to speak was present in initial police records or statements of other witnesses – The Court cited legal principles on caution in accepting verbal dying declarations, especially when first introduced in court testimony – Absence of corroboration and significant omissions justified rejection of the dying declaration as evidence [Paras 10, 17, 20, 22].

First Information Report (FIR) – Evidentiary Role and Limitations – The Court clarified that while an FIR is not an exhaustive account, it serves as an important document for setting the criminal law in motion – Omissions of vital facts in the FIR, like the alleged dying declaration, raised concerns about witness reliability and the prosecution’s case – These omissions affected the credibility of PW-8, weakening the prosecution’s stance, as such information was expected to be present in initial reports if genuine [Paras 11, 13, 15, 16].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Inconsistencies Among Witnesses – Other eyewitnesses, including PWs 2 and 17, either turned hostile or provided contradictory accounts – PW-17’s testimony that the accused threw the deceased on a stone boulder was inconsistent with the medical evidence, which did not support this mode of injury – Such contradictions, coupled with the absence of corroborative detail from PW-8 and other witnesses, led the High Court to reject these testimonies as unreliable [Paras 27, 28].

Necroscopical Evidence – Cause of Death – The medical evidence, presented through the testimony of PW-1 and the postmortem report, confirmed that the injuries sustained by Naseem Khan were sufficient to cause death – Both the Trial Court and High Court agreed on the homicidal nature of the death but diverged on the identification of the perpetrators due to the inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts [Paras 24, 25].

Judgment on Acquittal – Scope of Appellate Review in Acquittal Cases – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, reiterating that appellate courts should interfere in acquittals only if there is a clear perversity or error in evidence appraisal – Referring to precedents, the Court emphasized that if the view taken by the High Court is reasonable, even if not the sole possible view, it should be upheld to avoid unwarranted appellate interference in acquittal judgments [Paras 7, 8, 26, 29].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, acquitting the accused based on inconsistencies and gaps in witness testimonies – The accused were acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 30].

Arbitration Award - Stay of Execution - Section 36 of the Arbitration Act - The appellant challenged the High Court's order granting a stay of the arbitral award, conditional on furnishing a bank guarantee instead of requiring a deposit of the awarded amount - Held: Under Section 36(3), the Court should prioritize conditions to protect the decree-holder’s rights, generally requiring a deposit rather than a bank guarantee to secure awarded amounts [Paras 8-11, 15-17].

Government Entities and Arbitral Award Security - Equal Treatment - The High Court’s reasoning for accepting a bank guarantee based on the respondent's status as a statutory authority was incorrect - Public and private entities in arbitration are subject to similar conditions for stays, without privilege based solely on government or statutory status [Paras 13-15].

Modification of Stay Conditions - The Supreme Court directed the respondent to deposit 75% of the award amount, including interest, by 30 November 2024 to sustain the stay on enforcement - Failure to comply would result in immediate enforceability of the award in favor of the appellant [Para 17].

Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 of the CrPC – Suspension of Fine Allowed – The respondent’s sentence, including a fine of Rs.95,00,000, was suspended by the High Court pending appeal – Held: Section 389 of the CrPC empowers the appellate court to suspend both the sentence of imprisonment and the fine – The High Court’s suspension of the fine was valid, but the respondent’s deposit of Rs.15,00,000 would be treated as a condition for suspension of the fine [Paras 5-12].

Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Fine – Section 64 of the IPC – Fine Constitutes Part of Sentence – The court emphasized that the imposition of a fine is a form of punishment under Section 64 of the IPC, and non-payment can result in additional imprisonment – The respondent’s partial payment of Rs.15,00,000 would not exempt him from serving the sentence in default of the remaining fine [Paras 13-18].

Power of Appellate Court – Conditional Suspension of Fine – Judicial Discretion – While the appellate court can suspend fines, it must ensure that any conditions imposed for suspension are reasonable and do not violate the appellant's right to appeal or fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution – The court modified the High Court’s order to make the deposit of Rs.15,00,000 a condition for suspending the sentence of fine [Paras 19-22].

Decision: The appeal is disposed of with a modification to treat the deposit of Rs.15,00,000 as a condition for suspending the fine. The remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000 shall be transferred to the Delhi High Court and invested until the appeal is decided.

Motor Accident Compensation – Notional Income – Reduction of Compensation Reversed – The High Court reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), applying minimum wage rates instead of the special Deputy Commissioner rates for calculating the deceased’s notional income – Held: There was no evidence to support the High Court’s finding that the special rates did not apply to the deceased – The MACT’s use of the special rates was reinstated [Paras 4-8].

Age Determination – Conflict Between Documents – Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – School Leaving Certificate Prevails – The deceased’s age was disputed based on the Aadhar Card and School Leaving Certificate – Held: As per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, statutory recognition is given to School Leaving Certificates for determining age – The School Leaving Certificate, recording the deceased’s date of birth as 7th October 1970, was accepted, and the multiplier was adjusted accordingly [Paras 9-12].

Interest on Compensation – Increase Ordered – The High Court reduced the interest on compensation from 7.5% to 6% – Held: In the context of compensation claims for death, the interest rate must be just and reasonable – The rate was increased to 8%, payable from the date of filing the claim [Paras 14-16].

Decision: The appeals are allowed, and the compensation amount is recalculated to Rs.15,00,000 with 8% interest.

Gift Deed – Validity and Acceptance – Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Gift Deed Upheld – The appellant challenged the validity of a registered gift deed dated 05.03.1983 executed in favor of the respondent – The appellant revoked the gift on 17.08.1987, claiming non-acceptance – Held: The gift deed was validly executed and accepted as it was acted upon, evidenced by possession and construction on the suit property by the respondent – The donor had no right to revoke the gift in the absence of any clause permitting revocation [Paras 6-12].

Revocation of Gift – Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Revocation Denied – The court examined whether the revocation of the gift deed was valid under Section 126 – Held: Revocation can occur only under specified contingencies agreed upon by the donor and donee or as per rescission conditions akin to a contract – As none of these conditions applied, the revocation deed was declared void ab initio [Paras 13-18].

Limitation Act – Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Recovery of Possession – Suit Within Limitation – The appellant argued that the suit was barred by limitation – Held: A suit for recovery of possession based on title falls under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which provides for a limitation period of 12 years – The suit was filed within the permissible period [Paras 19-24].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.

Civil Law - Co-Tenancy Rights – Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Share of Land Modified – The appellants challenged the order allotting them a reduced share in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 – Held: The High Court correctly found that principles of Hindu law could not be applied to determine shares among Mohammedan parties – The appellants are entitled to only a 1/12 share, not 1/2 as claimed, in the disputed plots [Paras 14-17].

Relinquishment Deed – Registered Document – Presumption of Genuineness – The appellants disputed the relinquishment deed executed by their predecessor – Held: The relinquishment deed, being a registered document and not contested by Zahoor Ahmed during his lifetime, was valid and upheld by the High Court – The plots covered by the deed were rightly excluded from the appellants' share [Paras 10-12].

Application of Hindu Law – Error in Applying Hindu Principles to Mohammedans – The authorities below erroneously applied Hindu law regarding joint family property to the parties, who were Mohammedans – Held: The High Court correctly set aside this approach and re-determined shares based on Muslim law, limiting the appellants’ share to 1/12 [Paras 18-19].

Decision: The appeals are dismissed, and the appellants are entitled to 1/12 share of Khata Nos. 98 and 99, excluding certain plots. No order as to costs.
 

Constitutional Law – Right to Legal Aid – Fundamental Right under Article 21 – Writ Petition under Article 32 filed seeking humane treatment for prisoners, decongestion of jails, and access to legal aid – NALSA's efforts in ensuring legal aid for prisoners emphasized – Court acknowledges the importance of legal aid in ensuring equal justice as per Article 39-A of the Constitution – Held: Right to legal aid for indigent prisoners is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution – Ensuring this right is not merely a formality but must be actively implemented through effective legal representation [Paras 5, 7, 8, 10, 11].

Overcrowding in Prisons – Degrading Treatment of Prisoners – Issue raised regarding overcrowded prisons leading to inhumane conditions – Petitioner sought relief for prisoners facing overcrowded and unhygienic conditions – Court stressed the importance of addressing the issue through systemic reforms, including the establishment of Open Correctional Institutions – Held: The matter of overcrowded prisons will be addressed separately [Paras 1, 3].

Role of Legal Aid Clinics in Prisons – NALSA SOP-2022 – Legal aid provided through Prison Legal Aid Clinics (PLACs) established by NALSA across 1265 prisons – Detailed functions of PLACs outlined, including providing legal representation, bridging communication gaps between prisoners and courts, and facilitating the filing of appeals – Held: PLACs play a crucial role in ensuring prisoners' access to justice, particularly for vulnerable groups such as women and foreign nationals [Paras 11-13].

Jail Visiting Lawyers and Paralegal Volunteers – Role and Responsibilities – Jail Visiting Lawyers (JVLs) and Paralegal Volunteers (PLVs) designated to provide legal assistance to prisoners, including filing bail applications, parole, and other petitions – Their role extends to monitoring prison conditions and ensuring the rights of prisoners are upheld – Held: The roles of JVLs and PLVs are vital in bridging the information gap and ensuring that prisoners are not left without legal representation [Paras 13-14].

Statistical Data on Legal Aid Services – NALSA’s Performance – Court reviewed the statistical data on the number of prisoners who received legal aid – 324,867 inmates assisted in 2023-24 – Emphasis placed on continuing to address the gaps between those eligible for legal aid and those receiving it – Held: NALSA’s performance is commendable, but gaps in service provision must be addressed for effective implementation [Paras 15-16].

Pre-Litigation Assistance – NALSA’s Early Access to Justice Framework – NALSA introduced measures to provide legal assistance to suspects at the pre-arrest, arrest, and remand stages – Court emphasized the importance of legal representation at these crucial stages to prevent unlawful detention – Held: NALSA’s pre-litigation assistance is crucial for safeguarding the rights of suspects and arrestees, and its implementation should be diligently pursued [Paras 24-26].

Recommendations and Directions – Court issued detailed directions to NALSA, SLSAs, and DLSAs to ensure the efficient operation of PLACs and legal aid systems – Regular monitoring and audits of Legal Aid Defence Counsels, periodic interaction with convicts, and increased awareness campaigns were emphasized – Steps to strengthen the infrastructure and service conditions of legal aid lawyers were recommended – Held: Legal aid should not merely be available in theory but must be accessible and effective in practice, ensuring that the right to legal representation for indigent prisoners is realized [Paras 34-35].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Directions issued to NALSA, SLSAs, DLSAs, and relevant authorities to ensure efficient implementation of legal aid services – High Courts directed to issue practice directions to inform convicts of their right to legal aid when furnishing judgments – Appreciation expressed for the contributions of the Amicus Curiae and NALSA representatives in advancing the case [Paras 34-36].