Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC – Appellants convicted for the murder of Amar Tanti based on the testimonies of the deceased's parents, alleged eyewitnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) – Supreme Court finds inconsistencies and improbabilities in their testimonies, leading to reasonable doubt about the appellants' guilt – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 1-22].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – PW-2 and PW-3 claimed to have witnessed the assault but their conduct post-incident was deemed unnatural and unreasonable – Supreme Court highlights the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies in criminal cases – Absence of independent witness support weakens prosecution case [Paras 15-18].

Reasonable Doubt – Benefit to Accused – Emphasizes the principle that any reasonable doubt arising in a criminal case must be resolved in favor of the accused – In this case, the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt warrants acquittal of the appellants [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Ordered immediate release unless held in other cases [Paras 21-22].

Land Allotment – Disabled Ex-Servicemen – Allotment Cancelled Due to Non-Compliance – Appeal concerns land allotment to a disabled ex-serviceman which was deemed canceled due to non-possession within six months as per Rule 7(4) – Supreme Court emphasizes that inter-departmental communication cannot be treated as a letter of allotment, and claims based on such communication after 30 years are invalid [Paras 1-18].

Inter-Departmental Communication – Legal Status – Inter-departmental letters do not constitute enforceable orders – Supreme Court reiterates the principle that official actions and decisions must be formally expressed and communicated as required by law – Previous judgments cited to affirm this principle [Paras 14-15].

Alternative Land Allotment – High Court Overreach – Criticism of the High Court’s intervention in directing the allotment of land close to a National Highway – Supreme Court finds the High Court’s actions unwarranted and the writ petition to be without merit [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – No order as to costs [Paras 19].

Judicial Service Examination – Procedural Fairness – Appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition concerning discrepancies in the written examination for direct recruitment to Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Services. The appellant's objections regarding missing questions in the Criminal Law paper, lack of instructions for the General Knowledge paper, and the non-disclosure of marks were considered [Paras 1-22].

Examination Irregularities – Missing Question in Criminal Law Paper – The court found merit in the appellant's claim about the missing question in the Criminal Law paper, acknowledging the procedural lapse. The respondents' defense of an inadvertent error was not accepted, leading to the direction for reevaluation of the remaining questions in the paper [Paras 30-33].

Right to Information – Non-disclosure of Marks – The appellant's request for marks under the Right to Information Act was initially denied. The court upheld the principle that marks should not be disclosed before the completion of the selection process to ensure impartial evaluation [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Respondents directed to reevaluate the marks for the valid questions in the Criminal Law paper and declare fresh results for the written examination. Candidates qualifying in the revised result to be called for viva-voce with a common interview board [Paras 34-37].

Gratuity for Teachers – Constitutional Validity – The appeal addresses the constitutional validity of amendments extending gratuity benefits to teachers with retrospective effect. The Supreme Court upheld the amendments, emphasizing their purpose to rectify the omission of teachers from gratuity benefits and to ensure equitable treatment [Paras 1-22].

Retrospective Legislation – Judicial Review – The court examined the power of the legislature to enact retrospective laws, affirming that such amendments can correct legislative mistakes and extend intended benefits. The challenge to the retrospective effect on grounds of separation of powers and unreasonableness was rejected [Paras 12-14].

Financial Implications – Reasonableness – Arguments that the amendments impose unreasonable financial burdens on private schools were dismissed. The court noted the amendments’ role in correcting discrimination against teachers and upheld the statutory cap on gratuity payments, mitigating financial concerns [Paras 15-20].

Repealing Act – Legal Effect – The court clarified that the Repealing and Amending Act, 2016, does not affect the amendments made by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009. The continuity of the amendments was affirmed under Section 4 of the Repealing Act and Section 6A of the General Clauses Act [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Constitutional validity of the amendments upheld – Directions for payment of gratuity to teachers along with interest, with enforcement mechanisms specified for default [Paras 25-26].

Iron Ore Mining – Ceiling Limit Relaxation – Appeal to lift/relax the ceiling limit on iron ore production in the districts of Bellary, Chitradurga, and Tumkur. Supreme Court increases the ceiling limit from 28 MMT to 35 MMT for Bellary and from 7 MMT to 15 MMT collectively for Chitradurga and Tumkur, balancing economic development with environmental conservation [Paras 1-18].

Historical Context – Court-imposed Limits – Initial ceiling limits imposed by the Supreme Court in 2011 due to rampant illegal mining and environmental degradation. Incremental relaxations granted based on improvements and expert recommendations, leading to the current consideration of further relaxation [Paras 6-12].

Environmental Concerns – Sustainable Development – Emphasis on balancing ecological preservation with economic activity. The court acknowledges improvements but adopts a cautious approach to avoid regression to past issues of unmitigated mining [Paras 13-17].

Committee Reports – Differing Views – The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the State of Karnataka support lifting the limits entirely, whereas the Monitoring Committee highlights infrastructural constraints. Oversight Authority seeks further evidence on transport infrastructure capacity before concluding [Paras 12-13].

Decision: IA Nos. 83141/2017, 72931/2017, and 218/2014 are disposed of with increased ceiling limits – IA No. 10973/2018 to be considered separately [Paras 16-18].

Electoral Law – Promises and Freebies – Political parties challenged for promising and distributing free goods ('freebies') in election manifestos and speeches – Petitioners argued that such promises impact the economy and misuse taxpayer money to attract votes – Supreme Court emphasized the need for regulation but acknowledged the limited judicial intervention in fiscal policies – Directed further examination by a three-Judge Bench [Paras 1-14].

Policy Matters – Judicial Intervention – Issues of policy and fiscal decisions generally outside the Court's jurisdiction – Court considered formation of an expert body or commission to address the issue – Judicial intervention deemed limited in the absence of legislative guidelines – Directed the matter for extensive hearing and further deliberation [Paras 8-11].

Directive Principles vs. Fundamental Rights – Reconsideration of S. Subramaniam Balaji case – Petitioners argued the misinterpretation of Directive Principles overriding Fundamental Rights – Supreme Court directed the reconsideration of the said judgment by a larger Bench due to its complexity and significance [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Directed listing of petitions before a three-Judge Bench for detailed examination – Emphasized the need for comprehensive judicial scrutiny before any enforceable orders can be passed [Para 14].

Environmental Law – Land Classification – State Government's refusal to change land classification from 'Johad' to 'Sawai Chak' challenged – High Court directed State Government to process the land allotment – Supreme Court upheld the decision, noting no environmental or catchment area concerns and compliance with necessary clearances [Paras 1-19].

Spot Inspection – Evidence of Land Status – Detailed inspections by Tehsildar confirmed no natural water bodies on the land – Reports unchallenged by State Government – High Court found no justification to deny land reclassification [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Review – Policy and Administrative Decisions – Court emphasized the importance of administrative fairness and adherence to factual reports by local authorities – State's reliance on misinterpreted precedents rejected [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – State Government directed to process land allotment within four weeks – Respondent-Company to file a fresh undertaking for compensatory measures [Paras 19].

Land Acquisition – Enhanced Compensation – Appeals filed by landowners challenging the High Court’s award of Rs. 780,000/- per acre – High Court had relied on previous decisions in Kapoor Singh and Surjit Singh cases – Supreme Court enhanced compensation further by Rs. 100,000/- per acre in cases relying on Kapoor Singh and Rs. 200,000/- per acre in cases relying on Surjit Singh – Interest on enhanced compensation denied from date of High Court judgment to filing of appeals [Paras 1-5].

Judicial Consistency – Application of Precedents – Supreme Court upheld the application of its earlier rulings in similar cases to ensure consistency and fairness in compensation awards – Emphasized the importance of uniformity in judicial decisions for similar fact situations [Paras 2-4].

Delay in Appeals – Interest Denied – Noted substantial delay in filing appeals – Denied interest on enhanced compensation for the period between High Court judgment and filing of appeals in Supreme Court [Para 4].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Enhanced compensation awarded with solatium as per statute – No interest on enhanced compensation for delay period – Compensation to be deposited within three months [Paras 5-6].

Service Law – Recovery of Excess Payment – Medical officers received benefits under a 2009 circular later withdrawn in 2012 – No misrepresentation by employees, benefits paid due to department's mistake – Supreme Court held recovery of excess payments with interest unjustified given the department's error – Partial relief granted to appellants, stopping recovery but affirming pay fixation per earlier orders [Paras 1-6].

Mistake by Authority – Employee Protection – Benefits granted under a circular issued without necessary approval – Court recognized mistake lay with the issuing authority, not employees – Emphasized fair treatment of employees, especially retirees, by halting recovery from pensions [Paras 4-5].

Equitable Consideration – Limited Application of Rafiq Masih – While Rafiq Masih principles not strictly applicable, equitable considerations led to partial relief – Ensured no recovery of excess amounts while correcting pay and pension calculations as per initial valid orders [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Recovery of excess amounts paid under withdrawn circular quashed – Pay fixation and pension to follow initial valid orders – No costs awarded [Para 6].