Contempt Jurisdiction – Appointment Process – The SCSC recommended 41 persons for appointment as ITAT members (28 in the main list and 13 in the waitlist) – The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) selected 22 persons, leaving 19 unappointed – The Court found the Government's selective appointment process lacked transparency, especially in handling subsequent feedback and Intelligence Bureau (IB) reports not presented to the SCSC – The feedback lacked underlying material, affecting the fairness of the selection process [Paras 4-12].

Procedural Fairness – Subsequent Inputs – All inputs, including IB reports and other feedback, must be presented to the SCSC before finalizing recommendations – In exceptional cases where new material emerges post-recommendations, it should be referred back to the SCSC for consideration to ensure procedural integrity – The Attorney General's submissions were noted, and the Government was directed to submit all relevant materials to the SCSC for reevaluation [Paras 11-13].

Pending Vacancies – The pendency position before the ITAT was reviewed, highlighting the need for filling vacancies to manage the backlog – Contempt proceedings were not pursued further; instead, the petition was converted to an interlocutory application – The Court scheduled a follow-up hearing to monitor the final decision and appointment orders [Paras 14-19].

Decision: Contempt Petition re-numbered as interlocutory application – Government directed to submit all relevant materials to SCSC within one week – Final decision on appointments to be reported to the Court – Case listed for further hearing on 12 July 2022 [Paras 18-20].

Quashing Criminal Proceedings – Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – The High Court must provide a reasoned and speaking order while quashing criminal proceedings – The ground "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings" is inadequate for quashing proceedings when a clear case for the offences alleged is made out – High Court's cryptic, non-reasoned order quashing the proceedings is unsustainable [Paras 3, 6.2-6.4].

Application of Mind – The High Court failed to apply its mind independently to the allegations and the legality of the Magistrate's order – The Magistrate issued summons after due application of mind and considering the statements and evidence on record – The High Court's order lacked proper reasoning and independent assessment of the case [Paras 6.1-6.4].

Restoration of Magistrate’s Order – The Supreme Court restored the Magistrate’s order summoning the accused, emphasizing the need for a thorough judicial approach when dealing with serious allegations under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the SC/ST Act [Paras 6.4-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashed – Magistrate’s order summoning the accused restored – No useful purpose served ground rejected – High Court must provide reasoned orders in such matters [Para 7].

Restoration of Forfeited Property – Rule 119(2) – The Government amended Rule 119(2) to allow restoration of forfeited property if applications were made within one year from the date of the amendment – The appellant applied for restoration within the prescribed period – The High Court quashed the Forest Department’s transfer of the property and restored it to the respondent, who continued possession despite forfeiture for non-payment of revenue [Paras 4-5, 10-11].

Forest Department’s Intervention – The property was transferred to the Forest Department for a land bank, not as a reserved forest – The Government Order did not affect the respondent’s right to restoration under the amended Rule 119(2) – The respondent's possession and cultivation of the property were recognized, and the Forest Department's objections were found impermissible [Paras 12-17].

Judicial Review – Factual Findings – The High Court’s findings on possession and restoration were based on factual records and reports, which are not subject to reappreciation under the limited scope of Article 136 – The factual continuity of possession by the respondent supported the restoration claim under the amended rule [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Property restored to respondent – No order as to costs [Paras 18-19].

Ex-Parte Decree – Setting Aside – When an ex-parte decree is set aside and the suit is restored, the defendants cannot be relegated to the position prior to the date of hearing of the suit – Defendants are debarred from filing any written statement but can participate in the hearing of the suit, cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses, and address arguments [Paras 6, 7].

High Court's Scope – Beyond Jurisdiction – The High Court's observation that defendants cannot file their written statement after setting aside the ex-parte decree was beyond the scope and ambit of the matter before it – The Trial Court should consider the prayer of the defendants to file their written statement [Paras 3.2, 6].

Remand to Trial Court – The issue of whether the defendants may be allowed to file their written statement should be remanded to the Trial Court – The Trial Court should decide this issue based on law and its merits, allowing the original plaintiff to resist the application [Paras 6, 7].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court's order quashed to the extent it barred defendants from filing their written statement – Matter remanded to the Trial Court to decide the issue within three months from the first date of hearing – No order as to costs [Paras 7-8].

Promotion Criteria – Medical Fitness – The Indian Army's promotion to higher ranks, including that of Major General, requires meeting medical fitness criteria – Regulation 67(b) allows officers with specific medical classifications to be considered for promotion if certain conditions are met – The No.1 Selection Board considered the respondent's medical status and recommended his promotion, which was approved by the Chief of Defence Staff and the competent authority [Paras 8-11].

Medical Classification – SHAPE-2 to SHAPE-1 – Despite initial SHAPE-2 classification due to hypertension, the respondent's medical condition improved to SHAPE-1 as per the Re-Medical Board on 20.09.2021 – The respondent was found asymptomatic and without medication – The Military Secretary's objections to the promotion based on medical fitness were overruled by the tribunal, considering the improved medical status and performance of duties [Paras 12-16].

Authority and Procedure – The No.1 Selection Board's recommendations, endorsed by the Chief of Defence Staff and other high-ranking officials, were found valid – The tribunal emphasized that the selection process considered all relevant medical records and the respondent's ability to perform duties in the next higher rank [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Armed Forces Tribunal's order promoting Brigadier Javed Iqbal to Major General upheld – No order as to costs – Immediate implementation of the tribunal's order directed [Paras 17-19].

Constitutional Law – Contempt of Court – Compensation for Endosulfan Victims – Petitioners affected by Endosulfan sought enforcement of the Supreme Court's order dated January 10, 2017, directing the State Government to compensate affected persons and provide medical facilities – State Government's inordinate delay in compliance exacerbates the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 – Right to health integral to the right to life – State directed to disburse compensation and provide medical facilities promptly [Paras 1-5].

Contempt of Court – Enforcement of Court Orders – Directions issued for monthly meetings by the Chief Secretary to ensure diligent implementation of the Court's judgment – Costs awarded to petitioners for delayed compensation – Compliance report to be filed indicating progress [Para 5].

Decision: Petition partially allowed – State Government directed to compensate victims and provide medical facilities – Compliance to be monitored through monthly meetings and reports [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law – Cruelty – Appellant convicted under Section 498A IPC for subjecting his wife to cruelty, leading to her suicide – High Court acquitted appellant under Section 304B IPC but confirmed conviction under Section 498A IPC – Supreme Court examined admissibility of deceased’s statements under Section 32(1) of Evidence Act – Held, evidence of deceased wife regarding cruelty is admissible under Section 32(1) if cause of death comes into question and evidence relates to circumstances of death [Paras 1-28].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Statements by Deceased – Section 32(1) of Evidence Act – Statements by deceased admissible if they pertain to cause of death or circumstances leading to death – Acquittal under death-related charges does not bar admissibility under Section 32(1) if death cause is in question – Supreme Court clarified scope and applicability, overruling limited extent of previous judgments [Paras 9-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC upheld – Appellant to surrender within one week to serve remaining sentence [Para 27-28].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act – Death sentence for the offence under Section 300 IPC punishable under Section 302 IPC commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years – Failure to conduct DNA profiling under Section 53A CrPC not fatal if other evidence suffices to form a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused [Paras 1-31].

Evidence Law – Last Seen Theory – Applicability – Victim last seen with the appellant – Recovery of the victim’s body at the appellant’s instance – Last seen theory strengthens the prosecution’s case when coupled with other incriminating circumstances – Conviction upheld based on credible witness testimonies and corroborative evidence [Paras 32-35].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act upheld – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment with a stipulation of no premature release before 30 years [Para 43].

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition – Maintainability – High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain writ petitions against orders passed by the NCDRC in appeals under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Supreme Court held such writ petitions maintainable – Emphasized that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, High Court must adhere to its parameters [Paras 1-17].

Consumer Protection – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Writ Petition – High Court jurisdiction under Article 227 – High Court’s interim orders must respect the limited jurisdiction of superintendence – Orders by NCDRC in appeals under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) not subject to further appeal to Supreme Court under Section 67, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 upheld – Matter remanded to High Court for consideration on merits without expressing opinion on merits [Para 17].