Civil Writ - Judicial Officers – Super-Time Scale and Selection Grade – Delay in Implementation – Directions Issued – The Supreme Court approved the SNJPC recommendations for increasing Selection Grade District Judges to 35% and Super-Time Scale District Judges to 15% of cadre strength, effective from 01.01.2020 – Several High Courts delayed implementation citing procedural review of service records – Held: All High Courts/States directed to implement the recommendations within four weeks – A retired District Judge to be appointed as a Nodal Officer with Rs. 75,000/- monthly remuneration for grievance redressal [Paras 1-19].

Constitution of Monitoring Committees – High Courts Directed to Ensure Regular Meetings – Grievance Redressal Mechanism Institutionalized – Supreme Court directed each High Court to constitute a Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJ) to oversee implementation – The committee to include two High Court Judges, the Law Secretary, Registrar General, and a retired judicial officer – The State Governments to clear arrears within three months – Failure to comply will entitle aggrieved officers to directly approach the High Court [Paras 20-27].

Judicial Pay and Allowances – Special Judicial Magistrates Entitled to Revised Remuneration from 01.04.2019 – Directions Clarified – The court had earlier enhanced Special Judicial Magistrates’ minimum remuneration to Rs. 45,000/- per month plus Rs. 5,000/- as conveyance allowance, effective from 01.04.2019 – Andhra Pradesh High Court wrongly interpreted the order and refused retrospective payment – Held: The arrears must be paid within three months, and all High Courts/States must comply [Paras 3-13].

Judicial Allowances – Risk Allowance and Higher Qualification Benefits – States Directed to Implement Recommendations – The States of Nagaland and Manipur sought clarification on risk allowance and additional increments for higher qualifications – Held: The risk allowance issue to be decided by respective CSCDJ Committees, and higher qualification increments must be granted at every ACP stage, as previously held in State of Maharashtra v. Tejwant Singh Sandhu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2286 [Paras 1-11].

Pension Discrepancies – Committee to Address Judicial Pension Issues – Telangana High Court Directed to Expedite Resolution – A retired judicial officer receiving Rs. 7,160/- per month as pension filed a contempt petition alleging violation of Supreme Court orders – The High Court of Telangana directed to address the issue within eight weeks and communicate the resolution to the Supreme Court [Paras 1-5].

Decision: Supreme Court directed all High Courts and State Governments to implement the SNJPC recommendations as per its orders dated 19.05.2023 and 04.01.2024. High Courts must establish a grievance redressal mechanism within four weeks, ensuring timely payment of arrears and enforcement of judicial allowances. The Special Judicial Magistrates are entitled to arrears from 01.04.2019, and the Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary must convene at regular intervals. The Telangana High Court to address pension grievances within eight weeks. Failure to comply will permit affected judicial officers to directly approach the High Court for redressal.
 

Criminal Law - False Promise of Marriage – Absence of Deception – Quashing of FIR – The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant engaged in sexual relations with her under the false pretext of marriage – The prosecution relied on Section 90 IPC, arguing that the prosecutrix’s consent was obtained through misconception of fact, thereby making it a case of rape under Section 376 IPC – The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual, and the promise of marriage was not false from the outset – Held: For a case of rape based on false promise of marriage, the prosecution must prove that the accused never intended to fulfill the promise from the beginning – In this case, no evidence suggested that the appellant’s promise was false at inception – The FIR is liable to be quashed [Paras 4-7].

Legal Position on ‘False Promise of Marriage’ as Rape – This Court reiterated that a mere failure to fulfill a promise to marry does not amount to rape, unless it is proven that the promise was made solely to obtain consent for sexual relations without any intention to marry from the outset – Reference made to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108, and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 – Held: The prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had no intention to marry from the beginning, making the charge of rape unsustainable [Paras 6-7].

Abuse of Criminal Process – FIR Quashed – The Court noted that the relationship ended due to intervening circumstances, not deceit, and the FIR was filed as a retaliatory measure – Letting the appellant face trial would amount to abuse of process of law – Held: Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent misuse of criminal law in personal disputes [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – FIR Set Aside – The Madras High Court’s order dated 29.06.2022 was set aside, and FIR No. 1/2019 under Sections 417, 376 & 506 Part I IPC was quashed – Held: No case of rape was made out, and allowing the trial would be an abuse of process [Paras 8-9].

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Initiation of Proceedings Near Retirement – Appellant, a Senior Medical Officer, subjected to disciplinary proceedings eleven days before retirement – Allegations included proceeding on leave without sanction, defiance of Election Commission directions, and non-participation in pulse polio program – Supreme Court found proceedings lacked fairness and evidentiary basis – Held: Disciplinary proceedings initiated with malafide intent to retaliate against appellant for earlier litigation against senior officials – Quashed [Paras 1, 2, 5, 38, 45].

Evidence – Lack of Substantiation – Charges Based on Telephonic Instructions – Prosecution relied on telephonic instructions purportedly informing appellant of non-sanction of leave – No evidence of such instructions produced in inquiry – Call details or corroborating records absent – Inquiry Officer found evidence hearsay, yet held charges partly proved – Supreme Court ruled: No legal evidence supports charges – Findings unsustainable [Paras 24, 25, 28, 38].

Natural Justice – Procedural Fairness – Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority failed to provide fair process – Appellant's detailed response to inquiry report dismissed without meaningful consideration – Supreme Court held: Procedural unfairness and lack of application of mind vitiated disciplinary proceedings – Punishment disproportionate to alleged misconduct [Paras 30, 36, 40].

Election Commission Directive – Exemption from Election Duty – Appellant, being within six months of retirement, exempt from election duties as per Election Commission order – No duty assigned to appellant during alleged period of misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings contrary to Election Commission’s directive – Held: Charges against appellant unfounded and malicious [Paras 44, 45].

Relief – Restoration of Full Pension – Supreme Court quashed orders of Disciplinary Authority and High Court – Directed full restoration of pension with 6% interest on withheld amounts – Awarded ₹50,000 costs to appellant for harassment – Liberty granted to Government of Punjab to recover costs from responsible officials [Paras 42, 45, 46].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Supreme Court reiterated: Judicial review confined to ensuring fairness in disciplinary proceedings – Orders based on extraneous considerations or unsupported by evidence liable to be quashed – Emphasized protection of public servants’ rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution [Paras 33–35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant entitled to full pension without deductions – Costs awarded for harassment – Proceedings declared arbitrary and vindictive.

Taxation Law - Excise Duty – Valuation of Goods – Price as Sole Consideration – Transaction Value Defined – Held: Sales between Oil Marketing Companies under an MOU did not satisfy conditions under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the price was not the sole consideration for the sale – The MOU primarily aimed to ensure uninterrupted supply, not commercial transactions – Revenue's determination under Section 4(1)(b) upheld [Paras 22-28].

Limitation – Extended Period Under Section 11A – Justification Lacking – Held: The extended limitation invoked on grounds of suppression of facts was unjustified as the MOU was known to the Department through prior Tribunal decisions and Board circulars – Demand for differential duty under the extended limitation period quashed [Paras 31-34].

Penalty – Applicability of Section 11AC – No Allegation of Fraud or Wilful Misstatement – Held: Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC requires proof of intent to evade duty – Absent allegations of fraud, collusion, or wilful suppression, penalty was unsustainable [Paras 35-36].

Judicial Review – Scope of Tribunal's Decision – Tribunal's Reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Case – Held: Tribunal failed to consider the conditions under Section 4(1)(a) – Summary dismissal by Supreme Court in earlier appeal did not bind lower authorities on omitted issues – Orders remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 29, 39].

Relief – Setting Aside Demands – BPCL Appeal Allowed – Held: Entire demand quashed on limitation grounds – Connected appeals remanded for reconsideration in light of principles laid down [Paras 38-40].

Decision: BPCL appeal allowed, other appeals remanded – No costs awarded.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Abetment of Suicide – Framing of Charges – Discharge of Accused - Mens Rea and Instigation Required – For an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of direct or indirect acts of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding by the accused to commit suicide – Held: Mere heated exchanges or demands for loan repayment do not constitute instigation or abetment in law. (Paras 12–17, 19)

Suicide Note and Transcripts – Threshold for Abetment Not Met – The deceased left a suicide note and audio recordings accusing the appellant of harassment related to a loan dispute. The court held that the appellant's conduct, even if heated, did not create circumstances that left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. (Paras 5, 6, 19)

High Threshold for Section 306 IPC – The court reiterated the consistent jurisprudence requiring clear intent, proximate causation, and active participation to establish abetment of suicide – Held: The FIR and chargesheet failed to meet the legal threshold for framing charges under Section 306 IPC. (Paras 13–19)

Delay in Filing FIR – The FIR was lodged nearly 2 months and 20 days after the suicide, casting doubt on the veracity and credibility of the allegations. (Para 19)

Framing of Charges – Role of Trial Courts and Investigating Agencies – The court emphasized the need for caution and sensitivity by police and trial courts when dealing with cases under Section 306 IPC, to prevent abuse of process and baseless prosecutions. (Paras 20–21)

Discharge from Proceedings – Absence of Mens Rea and Proximate Cause – Held: The appellant was discharged as the case against him was found groundless for framing charges under Section 306 IPC. The trial court and High Court orders were quashed. (Paras 19, 21)

Decision:

Appeal Allowed:

i) The appellant is discharged from Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone District, Mandleshwar.

ii) The High Court judgment dated 25.07.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 is set aside.

iii) Proceedings against the appellant under Section 306 IPC are quashed.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Questions of Law Mandatory – Interim Orders Without Framing Substantial Questions Invalid – The High Court granted interim relief directing status quo in a second appeal before framing substantial questions of law – Held: Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal is maintainable only if the case involves substantial questions of law, which must be framed before any substantive orders – The impugned interim relief was contrary to Section 100 CPC and therefore set aside [Paras 2, 9–10].

Civil Procedure – Interim Orders – Application of Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Limited Scope in Second Appeals – High Courts may invoke inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to prevent abuse of process or meet the ends of justice – Held: The use of inherent powers cannot override or nullify specific provisions of the CPC, such as the mandatory requirement to frame substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC before granting interim relief [Paras 10.3–10.4].

Injunction Suit – Suit for Bare Injunction Without Declaration of Title – Not Maintainable – The plaintiff had sought an injunction without establishing title – Held: Following Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, bare injunction suits are not maintainable without a declaration of title where ownership is disputed – The First Appellate Court correctly overturned the trial court's decree based solely on revenue records, which do not confer title [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Doctrine of Substantial Question of Law – Precedents – Jurisdictional Limits of High Courts in Second Appeals – Reiterated principles from Ram Phal v. Banarasi and Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt, that substantial questions of law must be framed before hearing or granting relief in a second appeal [Paras 9, 10.3].

Decision: Appeal allowed: The High Court’s interim order dated 20.09.2024 in SA No. 518 of 2023 is set aside. The matter remanded to the High Court for compliance with Section 100 CPC.

Civil Law - Specific Relief Act – Extension of Time for Deposit – Rescission of Contract Denied – Appellants (judgment debtors) challenged the High Court's dismissal of their application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking rescission of a contract due to the plaintiffs’ (decree holders’) alleged failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time – High Court upheld the executing court’s decision allowing the plaintiffs to deposit the amount and rejecting rescission – Held: The trial court retains discretion to extend time for compliance with a conditional decree; the delay was not unreasonable, and the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in favor of the plaintiffs – Appeals dismissed [Paras 3–6, 13–15, 60–61].

Doctrine of Merger – Impact on Conditional Decree – The trial court’s decree merged with the High Court’s judgment in the second appeals, making the latter operative – No specific time for deposit of the balance sale consideration was fixed by the High Court in its judgment – Held: Plaintiffs were entitled to execute the High Court's decree, and the argument that the original 20-day period revived post-merger was untenable [Paras 27–34, 46–49].

Rescission Under Section 28 – Judicial Discretion – Section 28 allows the court to rescind a contract or extend time for compliance with a decree for specific performance – Court retains control over the decree even after its issuance and may grant extensions to prevent injustice – Held: Executing court acted within its discretion in permitting the plaintiffs to deposit the amount post-judgment, particularly as there was no willful default by the plaintiffs [Paras 24–26, 35–37, 44–46].

Precedents – Application of Judicial Principles – Reiterated the principles from Sardar Mohar Singh v. Mangilal, (1997) 9 SCC 217, and Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh, (2009) 8 SCC 766, affirming that courts retain jurisdiction to extend time under Section 28 – Distinguished the decision in Prem Jeevan v. K.S. Venkata Raman, (2017) 11 SCC 57, where unexplained and prolonged delays led to rescission [Paras 36–59].

Equity and Fairness – Plaintiffs’ Conduct – Plaintiffs promptly filed execution petitions and deposited the balance sale consideration after obtaining the High Court’s decree – Defendants' applications for rescission were dismissed, as no willful failure or unreasonable delay was demonstrated – Held: Equity favored the plaintiffs, ensuring that the decree for specific performance was not frustrated [Paras 14–15, 40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirming the executing court’s order upheld – Plaintiffs’ right to enforce the decree for specific performance validated – Appellants' arguments based on delay and revived time periods rejected [Paras 60–61].

Constitutional Law – Article 32 – Scope and Limitations – Challenging High Court Judgments – Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to declare a High Court judgment as illegal. The appropriate remedy lies in filing a review/recall application before the High Court or challenging the judgment under Article 136. (Para 3)

Judicial Review – High Court Judgment – Remedy for Non-Participation of Affected Parties – Petitioners claiming they were not heard in a High Court judgment must approach the High Court for recall of the order or challenge the judgment through a petition under Article 136 before the Supreme Court. Article 32 cannot be invoked for such purposes. (Para 3)

Survey and Regularization of Encroached Properties – Relief Denied – The petitioners sought regularization and survey of their apartments allegedly constructed on government land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioners to avail remedies under applicable laws. (Paras 2–4)

Finality of High Court Decisions – Dismissal of SLP and Modification Application – A Special Leave Petition against the High Court judgment had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court, and an interlocutory application for modification was also rejected. The Court emphasized the need to follow proper procedural remedies. (Paras 2, 3)

Dismissal of Petition – Availability of Alternate Remedies – The Supreme Court dismissed the petition under Article 32 while clarifying that the dismissal does not preclude the petitioners from availing alternative remedies under law. (Para 4)

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed:

i) The Supreme Court held that it cannot declare the Bombay High Court’s judgment as illegal under Article 32.

ii) Petitioners were advised to pursue alternate remedies, such as a review/recall application or a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.

iii) Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Criminal Law - Prisoner Transfer – Administrative Discretion – Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 – Validity of Transfer – Rule 770(B) of the State Jail Manual – The Inspector General of Prisons transferred the respondent, a life convict and a known gangster, to another jail citing administrative grounds, including the threat of gang wars and insufficient vigilance resources – Held: The transfer was lawful and justified under Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900, as well as Rule 770(B) of the State Jail Manual – The decision was based on rational grounds to ensure prison safety and prevent gang violence – High Court’s reliance on precedents involving undertrial prisoners was misplaced [Paras 8–13, 16].

Prison Administration – Gang Violence – Security Measures in Prisons – Role of Jail Authorities – The jail authorities identified credible threats posed by the respondent and another notorious inmate, prompting the request for transfer – Held: Transfer of prisoners, particularly those with criminal antecedents or risks of gang influence, is a matter of prison security and administrative discretion – Such decisions must be respected unless they are arbitrary or violate specific provisions of law [Paras 9, 11, 16].

Fundamental Rights of Prisoners – Right to Safety – Article 21 of the Constitution – The fundamental rights of a prisoner, including the right to safety, are not absolute and must align with prison security requirements – Held: The transfer was a preventive measure aimed at safeguarding both the respondent’s life and the security of the prison environment – Such actions are permissible and consistent with Article 21 [Paras 15–16].

Judicial Oversight of Prison Administration – Limited Scope of Interference – The court reiterated that the place of detention is an administrative decision within the purview of prison authorities and should not be interfered with unless arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to law – Held: The High Court erred in quashing the transfer order, which was backed by concrete security concerns and issued within the statutory framework [Paras 15, 16].

Prison Reform – Implementation of Model Prison Manual, 2016 – Role of States – Emphasized the need for states to adopt and implement the 2016 Model Prison Manual to standardize prison administration and ensure prisoner welfare – Directed the State of Jharkhand to formulate a State Jail Manual in line with the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and ensure its compliance [Paras 17–17.3].

Decision: The High Court’s order dated 21/08/2023 is set aside. The Inspector General of Prisons’ order/memo dated 17/05/2023 transferring the respondent is restored. Directions issued to the State of Jharkhand to expedite the formulation and implementation of a Jail Manual based on the 2016 Model Prison Manual. Appeal allowed [Paras 18–19].