Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The acquisition proceedings cannot be declared lapsed merely because possession could not be taken or compensation could not be deposited due to pending litigations [Paras 7-8].

Subsequent Purchaser – Locus Standi – The respondent, being a subsequent purchaser through an Agreement to Sell dated May 22, 2016, lacks locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per established legal principles, subsequent purchasers cannot claim benefits under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 [Paras 7-7.1].

Litigation and Compensation – The Court emphasized that the inability to take possession or deposit compensation due to ongoing litigations does not justify invoking Section 24(2) to declare the acquisition lapsed. The High Court failed to consider this aspect, resulting in an erroneous decision [Paras 7.2].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The High Court's judgment and order dated July 25, 2017, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11735 of 2016, is quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed [Paras 8].

Income Tax – Leave Travel Concession (LTC) – TDS – The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court, affirming that the appellant, State Bank of India (SBI), was in default for not deducting tax at source on the LTC payments made to its employees. The Court ruled that LTC claims involving foreign travel are not exempt under Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court clarified that LTC must be for travel within India and on the shortest route between designated places within India. Any travel involving a foreign leg is not covered under the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Act, and thus, the appellant was required to deduct TDS [Paras 3-6, 10-14].

Legislative Intent – Purpose of LTC – The Court emphasized that the LTC scheme was designed to encourage tourism within India and to provide employees with an understanding of Indian culture. The inclusion of foreign travel undermines this objective and is not in consonance with the legislative intent behind the LTC provisions [Paras 15].

Obligation to Deduct TDS – The appellant’s failure to deduct TDS was not considered a bona fide mistake, as the travel details of employees were available during the settlement of LTC bills. The obligation to deduct TDS is distinct from the payment of tax, and the appellant was in a position to calculate the estimated income of its employees, thus it was obligated to deduct TDS under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act [Paras 16].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Delhi High Court is upheld, and the appellant, State Bank of India, is held to be an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source on LTC payments involving foreign travel [Paras 17].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Life – Compensation to Riot Victims – The Supreme Court held that the victims of the 1992-93 Bombay riots, due to the failure of the State Government to maintain law and order, were entitled to compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to live with human dignity. The State Government’s failure led to violations of Article 21, and the affected persons have a right to seek compensation from the State Government. The Court mandated the formation of a committee to ensure compensation is paid to the victims or their legal heirs and provided directives for the disbursement of such compensation, including interest for delayed payments [Paras 20-26].

Mandamus for Implementation of Commission Recommendations – The Court recognized that while the recommendations of the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, are not binding, once accepted by the Government, a writ court can issue a mandamus for their implementation. The Court directed the State Government to implement the recommendations for police reforms and to compensate the victims adequately [Paras 10, 19].

Police Reforms – Implementation of Recommendations – The Court emphasized the need for the State Government to implement the recommendations made by the Srikrishna Commission regarding police reforms, which included improvements in training, physical fitness, weaponry, and communication systems, and measures to reduce political interference in police functioning [Paras 18, 26].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The State Government is directed to pay compensation to the victims of the 1992-93 riots as per the guidelines and to implement the police reforms recommended by the Srikrishna Commission. A committee is formed to oversee the process, and the State Government is required to submit reports of compliance within specified timeframes [Paras 28-29].

Contract Law – OTS Scheme – Extension of Time – The Supreme Court held that the borrower cannot claim an extension of time under the OTS Scheme as a matter of right. The High Court erred in granting further time for the borrower to make the balance payment under the OTS Scheme beyond the stipulated period, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bank is permitted to mutually agree to extend the time, but such extensions cannot be enforced by the borrower through judicial orders. The High Court's decision was quashed, emphasizing the necessity to adhere strictly to the terms and conditions of the OTS Scheme [Paras 7-8].

Negative Discrimination – Not Applicable – The Court rejected the claim of negative discrimination, stating that the borrower must establish a right to claim such extensions. The bank's extension of time to other borrowers does not create a precedent or entitlement for the respondent [Paras 7.1].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The High Court's judgment and order dated March 10, 2022, granting an extension for the respondent to make the balance payment under the OTS Scheme, is quashed and set aside. The original writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed [Paras 8].

Employees' Pension Scheme – Amendments – Validity – The Supreme Court examined the amendments to the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, made by the Central Government through the notification dated 22nd August 2014. The Court upheld the legality of the amendments, including the revised method for determining pensionable salary based on the average of the last 60 months instead of 12 months and capping the maximum pensionable salary at Rs. 15,000 per month. The Court found the amendments to be within the power of the Central Government under Section 7 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and justified based on relevant material and not arbitrary or whimsical [Paras 1-12, 36].

Requirement for Employee Contribution – Ultra Vires – The Supreme Court held that the requirement for employees to contribute 1.16% of their salary exceeding Rs. 15,000 per month to remain in the pension scheme was ultra vires the parent Act. The Act does not contemplate any contribution by employees to the pension fund, and such a stipulation in the scheme without legislative backing was illegal. The Court suspended the operation of this part of its judgment for six months, allowing the legislature time to bring appropriate amendments if deemed necessary. In the interim, employees are required to make the 1.16% contribution as a stop-gap measure [Paras 13-15, 35].

Reasonable Classification – Validity – The Court rejected the argument that all employees constitute a homogeneous class and held that the Central Government is within its power to differentiate between employees based on their salary levels and offer improved social benefits to those in the lower wage bracket. This classification meets the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 29-31, 33].

Decision: The appeals are partly allowed. The amendments to the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, made by the notification dated 22nd August 2014 are upheld, except for the provision requiring employees to contribute 1.16% of their salary exceeding Rs. 15,000 per month, which is declared ultra vires the parent Act. The operation of this part of the judgment is suspended for six months to allow for legislative amendments. During this period, employees will continue to make the 1.16% contribution as a temporary measure [Paras 35-36].

Criminal Law – Death Sentence – Solitary Confinement – The Supreme Court held that the appellant's solitary confinement from 2006 to 2016, including during the pendency of his mercy petition, was illegal and in violation of principles established in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration. This confinement, coupled with the resultant psychological impact on the appellant, justified commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment with a condition of serving a minimum of 30 years [Paras 20-25].

Mercy Petition – Delay in Disposal – The Court found that the delay in deciding the mercy petition (from 3.3.2011 to 15.5.2013) was not inordinate and was partly due to procedural requirements and the stay of execution ordered by the Court. The time taken for each level of consideration by the Governor and President was found to be justified under the circumstances [Paras 13-17].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The appellant's death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment with a stipulation that he must serve a minimum of 30 years. Any application for remission will be considered on its merits after he has served 30 years. If no remission is granted, life imprisonment will continue for the remainder of his natural life [Paras 27-28].

Foreign Trade – Additional Licence – The Supreme Court upheld the denial of an additional licence to the appellant for exporting processed iron ore during the period April 1990 to March 1991 under the Exim Policy 1990-93. The Court held that merely because some other exporters were wrongly granted the benefit, the appellant could not claim the same. Negative discrimination to perpetuate illegality is not permissible [Paras 1-9].

Promissory Estoppel – Inapplicability to Policy Changes – The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply when the government modifies or withdraws an incentive scheme as part of a policy decision. Incentives under the Exim Policy are discretionary and can be changed by the government. The appellant, having exported processed iron ore under the new policy which listed it as ineligible, cannot claim benefits based on the previous policy [Paras 3.4, 6-7].

Discrimination – Non-Equivalence of Wrongful Benefits – The appellant’s argument that other exporters received similar benefits was rejected. The Court noted that wrongful benefits granted to others do not entitle the appellant to similar treatment. The legality of the scheme prevails, and the appellant's ineligibility under the current policy stands [Paras 3.5, 8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The High Court’s judgment confirming the denial of the additional licence is upheld. The appellant cannot benefit from the policy change and is not entitled to the additional licence based on earlier exports [Paras 9].

Constitutional Law – Article 243-Q – Entry Tax – The Supreme Court held that industrial areas or estates are included within the term 'local area' under Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Court clarified that local areas for taxation purposes can encompass industrial townships, which are administered by some form of municipal or state regulation and provide municipal services. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Part IX-A of the Constitution, introduced through the 74th Amendment, focus on local self-governance and democratic governance elements, which do not impact the issue of state taxation [Paras 29-48].

Taxation – Entry Tax – The object of the entry tax is to regulate the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use, or sale. The entry of goods into industrial areas or estates for manufacturing or processing purposes falls within this purview, and thus, such areas are subject to entry tax. The levy is attracted because the incidence is the entry into the local area, regardless of the specific end-use of the goods within the industrial area [Paras 48].

Decision: The appeals are dismissed. The decisions of the Orissa and Allahabad High Courts upholding the levy of entry tax on industrial townships are affirmed. The inclusion of industrial areas within the definition of 'local area' for the purpose of entry tax is constitutionally valid [Paras 50].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts – The Supreme Court disapproved the practice of High Courts ordering re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provisions in the relevant rules. The High Court, exercising powers under Article 226, is not justified in calling for the records and directing re-evaluation without such provisions. The decision highlights that the absence of re-evaluation regulations in MCI or University rules does not justify High Court orders for re-evaluation [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Courts should refrain from re-evaluating answer scripts or scrutinizing academic assessments due to lack of expertise. Academic matters should be left to academic authorities. Judicial interference in such processes can lead to unnecessary delays and practical problems in the finalization of examination results [Paras 5-8].

Digital Evaluation – Implementation and Acceptance – The University adopted a digital evaluation system approved by the Executive Council and subsequently improved the process based on High Court directives. The digital evaluation process, as modified, has been approved by the High Court in a recent decision, emphasizing the adequacy and accuracy of the evaluation [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The appeals are allowed, setting aside the High Court orders for re-evaluation. However, the results declared on the basis of the re-evaluation shall not be disturbed. The practice of ordering re-evaluation without specific rules is disapproved, but the outcome for the original writ petitioners remains unaffected [Paras 11-12].