Criminal Practice – Supply of Documents – Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 – Rule 4 – Right of accused to receive the list of documents, material, etc. – Supreme Court highlighted the need for uniform guidelines for criminal trials – Noted that the right to receive documents applies after adoption of the Draft Rules – Emphasized the importance of equal rights for accused across states to avoid prejudice – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-24].

Right to Fair Trial – Disclosure of Evidence – Judicial oversight and public prosecutor’s role in ensuring fair trial – Supreme Court reiterated the importance of disclosure of all material, including exculpatory evidence – Noted gaps in current practice where some states have not adopted Draft Rules, impacting accused’s rights – Directed High Courts and State Governments to expedite the adoption of the Draft Rules [Paras 11-19].

Procedural Compliance – Implementation of Draft Rules – Emphasized the need for High Courts and State Governments to incorporate Draft Rules into existing frameworks – Directed that Draft Rule 4, concerning the supply of documents, be implemented at the trial stage, not at appellate stages – Observed misuse of procedural delays by accused to hamper justice – Appeal dismissed with directions to expedite trial proceedings [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Courts directed to adopt Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 – Accused's request for documents denied due to procedural stage – Trial courts to ensure compliance with Rule 4 once adopted – No costs [Paras 13-14].

Corporate Governance – Election of Office Bearers – Regulation 92(2) applicable only in cases of absence, not vacancy – Regulation 117(2) applicable when post vacated due to disqualification – Election of new Chairman held under Regulation 119(2) valid – High Court erred in quashing election on grounds of meeting not chaired by Vice-Chairman [Paras 4-4.4].

Regulation Interpretation – Distinction Between Absence and Vacancy – Absence pertains to temporary non-attendance, while vacancy arises from disqualification or resignation – Regulation 92(2) not applicable to vacancies – Regulation 119(2) mandates election to fill vacancies – High Court's interpretation incorrect [Paras 4.4-4.5].

Election Validity – Challenge by Non-Contestant – Writ petition challenging election invalid as respondent did not contest election – Regulation 114(4) requires disputes to be referred to President within 30 days – High Court erred in entertaining petition by non-contestant [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgments quashing election set aside – Election of office bearers of EIRC of ICSI on 27.12.2021 upheld – Writ petitions dismissed – No costs [Paras 6-6.1].

Property Tax – Capital Value System – Amendments to MMC Act, 1888 – High Court upheld amendments but struck down Rules 20, 21, and 22 of 2010 and 2015 Capital Value Rules – Supreme Court reinstated these rules, holding them intra vires the MMC Act – Emphasized legislative competence and rational basis for amendments aimed at modernizing property tax assessment – Appeals allowed, High Court decision set aside [Paras 1-88].

Tax Law – Legislative Competence – State Legislature's power under Entry 49, List II – Adoption of capital value system for property tax assessment upheld – Distinguished from Entry 86, List I – Tax on lands and buildings not encroaching upon central subjects – Supreme Court confirmed validity under state legislative domain [Paras 155-158].

Water and Sewerage Taxes – Vacant Lands – Upheld imposition on vacant lands – Rejected argument that taxes are fees requiring quid pro quo – Affirmed as valid tax measures aimed at revenue generation for municipal services – Recognized statutory framework allowing recovery of charges where services provided [Paras 158-159].

Education Cess – Validity – Submissions challenging levy under Section 140(1)(ca) dismissed – Court confirmed cess as a legitimate municipal tax component – Emphasized comprehensive statutory basis and municipal need for education funding [Paras 160-162].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment striking down Rules 20, 21, and 22 of 2010 and 2015 Capital Value Rules set aside – MMC Act amendments and capital value system for property tax assessment upheld – Contempt petition segregated for separate hearing – No costs [Paras 10-12].

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – High Court erred in entertaining PILs without verifying credentials and adherence to procedural rules – PILs alleged corruption by Chief Minister without prima facie evidence – Non-disclosure of previous similar petition dismissed with costs – Violation of Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, and 5 of Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 – High Court's order quashing PILs upheld [Paras 1-22].

Judicial Review – Abuse of Process – Supreme Court emphasized bona fides of petitioner in PILs – Petitioners must approach statutory authorities first – High Court not a forum for preliminary investigation based on unsubstantiated allegations – PILs dismissed as abuse of judicial process [Paras 10-22].

Credibility of Petitioner – Importance in PILs – Petitioner’s failure to disclose previous similar dismissed petition – Bad faith and ulterior motives inferred – Clean hands doctrine reiterated – High Court's oversight corrected by Supreme Court [Paras 11-22].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order allowing PILs set aside – PILs dismissed at threshold – Petitioner directed to approach appropriate statutory authorities if genuine grounds exist – No costs [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Death Penalty – Acquittal – Investigation Lapses – No Test Identification Parade conducted – Witnesses failed to identify the accused during depositions – Prosecution failed to prove arrest, identification, discoveries, recoveries, and medical/scientific evidence – No cogent and clinching evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt [Paras 1-88].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence – Legal standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence not met – Circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis except guilt of accused – Prosecution's evidence inconsistent and unreliable – Accused acquitted due to failure to form a complete and conclusive chain of evidence [Paras 6-48].

Fair Trial Rights – Cross-examination Deficiencies – Trial Court's passive role resulted in inadequate cross-examination of material witnesses – Accused deprived of fair trial rights – Emphasized active role of trial judges in ensuring justice [Paras 34-35].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and death penalty quashed – Appellants acquitted and to be set free forthwith unless required in another case – Family of victim entitled to compensation under Section 357(A) Cr.PC [Paras 36-38].

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].

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].

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].

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].