Registration Act – Original Power of Attorney – Appeal against High Court's decision concerning the requirement of producing the original power of attorney – Supreme Court clarifies that Sections 32(c), 33, and 34(2)(c) do not necessitate the production of the original power of attorney if the power of attorney holder presenting the document is also the executant – The inquiry under the Registration Act does not extend to verifying the validity of the power of attorney – Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside [Paras 1-26].

Execution of Documents – Competence and Authority – Examines the competence of a power of attorney holder to execute a sale deed – The original power of attorney not required for registration if the executant is presenting the document – Emphasizes that the authority of the power of attorney holder must be evident from the power of attorney itself and the registration authority's role is to ensure the executant's identity and competence [Paras 24-26].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court judgment reversed – Trial court's findings restored – No need for original power of attorney if executant presents the document – Plaintiff's ownership and possession upheld [Paras 32-33].

Legislative Procedure – Suspension of MLAs – Challenge to the suspension of 12 MLAs for disorderly behavior – Supreme Court emphasizes that long-term suspension impacts the representation of the constituency more severely than expulsion, disqualification, or resignation – Held that the suspension for one year is unreasonable, irrational, and arbitrary – Impugned resolution quashed as it goes beyond the permissible period of suspension, impacting the democratic process and the rights of the constituency to be represented [Paras 1-14].

Rule 53 of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules – Procedural Requirement – Suspension beyond the remainder of the ongoing Session violates Rule 53, which allows for suspension only for the remainder of the Session – Supreme Court highlights that any extension of suspension beyond the session period would be illegal, irrational, and unconstitutional – The Court stresses the need for a rational and objective standard in disciplinary measures within legislative procedures [Paras 7-13].

Democratic Values – Right to Representation – Long-term suspension undermines democratic values by unrepresenting constituencies and enabling manipulation by the ruling party – Such actions deter meaningful debates and participation by the Opposition due to the fear of suspension – The Court underscores the importance of balancing disciplinary measures with democratic principles and representation rights [Paras 14-15].

Decision- Writ petitions allowed – Suspension beyond the remainder of the Monsoon Session of July 2021 declared null and void – Petitioners entitled to all consequential benefits of being members of the Legislative Assembly post the remainder of the concerned Session in July 2021 – Orders for quashing the resolution passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly suspending the petitioners for one year [Para 16].

Central Civil Services – Grade Pay under MACP Scheme – Appeal against the High Court’s decision to grant grade pay of Rs. 6600/- – Supreme Court holds that as per Clause 8.1 of the MACP Scheme, grade pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-2 and PB-3 are to be treated as separate grade pays – High Court’s allowance of grade pay of Rs. 6600/- was erroneous and contrary to MACP Scheme – Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside [Paras 1-26].

Government Policies – Judicial Interference – Supreme Court reiterates limited scope of judicial interference in government policies, especially pay commissions – High Court’s modification of MACP Scheme beyond its guidelines was incorrect – Court emphasizes that policy framed by expert bodies like pay commissions should not be interfered with unless patently unreasonable [Paras 7-13].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 23.10.2019 set aside – Central Administrative Tribunal’s order restored – Respondents entitled to grade pay of Rs. 5400/- as per Clause 8.1 of MACP Scheme – No recovery of excess pension paid till December 2021 – Pension to be refixed accordingly from January 2022 onwards [Paras 32-33].

Constitutional Law – Reservation in Promotions – Quantifiable Data Requirement – The Supreme Court emphasized that states must collect quantifiable data to show the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment before providing reservations in promotions. The yardstick for determining the adequacy of representation and the unit for collecting such data must be related to the specific grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought [Paras 1-10].

Constitutional Amendments – Enabling Provisions – The Court upheld the constitutional amendments enabling reservation in promotions (Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B)) but reiterated that they are enabling provisions, not mandatory. States have the discretion to implement these provisions based on collected data demonstrating inadequacy of representation and backwardness [Paras 11-20].

Application of Roster System – Cadre-Based Approach – The Court clarified that the roster system for reservation must be post-based rather than vacancy-based. Cadre strength should be used as the unit for the operation of the roster, ensuring that reservation does not exceed 50% of the total cadre strength [Paras 21-29].

Efficiency in Administration – Compliance with Article 335 – Any reservation in promotions must ensure that the overall administrative efficiency as stipulated under Article 335 of the Constitution is maintained. The states must balance the need for reservation with the requirement of maintaining efficiency in public administration [Paras 30-34].

Decision – Appeals Disposed – The Supreme Court directed the states to follow the principles laid down in the judgment, ensuring that reservation in promotions is based on adequate quantifiable data. The states must periodically review the representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts to assess the need for continuation or adjustment of reservation policies [Para 35].

Trust Law – Disposal of Trust Property – Registrar's Authority – The Supreme Court held that the Registrar of Public Trusts cannot impose conditions beyond those stipulated in the trust deed or by law. The Registrar's authority to refuse sanction for the disposal of trust property is limited to situations where such disposal would be prejudicial to the interests of the trust as defined by law or the trust deed. The Registrar must base decisions on objective criteria provided in the trust instrument or law, rather than personal notions of what is beneficial or prejudicial [Paras 1-10, 20-28].

Autonomy of Trusts – Principle of Democratic Decision-Making – The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the autonomy and democratic decision-making of self-governed organizations. Public control over trusts is intended to ensure efficient administration without overriding the decisions made by the trust's members. Any measure of public control should not undermine the right to freedom of association under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution [Paras 27-28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and the Registrar's decision, allowing the trust to proceed with the sale of its properties subject to fresh valuation and public tender to ensure transparency and fairness [Para 29-30].

Landlord-Tenant Law – Statutory Tenancy – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in matters covered by the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973, which provides a complete code for determining the rights of tenants and landlords. The appropriate remedy for eviction in such cases lies with the Rent Controller under the Act 1973, not with the Civil Court [Paras 1-11, 25].

Effect of Special Legislation – Burmah Shell Act – The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act 1976 confers tenancy rights to BPCL and overrides other inconsistent laws. The tenants under this Act are considered statutory tenants, and their eviction must be pursued under the specific provisions of the Rent Control Act applicable to the region [Paras 17-19, 21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession. The remedy for the appellants lies in initiating eviction proceedings under the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 [Paras 25-26].

Service Law – Pension – Application of Amended Pay Rules – The Supreme Court held that the amended pay rules, which came into effect after the retirement of the respondent, could not be applied retroactively to revise his pension. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" was found inapplicable in this case as the upgraded post and apex scale were created after the respondent's retirement, and the post was to be filled by selection, not automatically by seniority [Paras 7-13].

Jurisdiction of High Courts – Power of Superintendence – The Court emphasized that the High Courts' power under Article 227 of the Constitution should be used sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts within their bounds. The interference by the High Court in the Tribunal's order was deemed unwarranted as there was no jurisdictional error or failure of justice [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, which had erroneously applied the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and directed the revision of the respondent's pension based on the apex scale. The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's original order dismissing the respondent's claim was restored [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Bail – Relevant Considerations – The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must consider the nature and seriousness of the offense, character of the evidence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, impact on prosecution witnesses, societal impact, and likelihood of tampering with evidence while granting bail. The High Court's failure to consider these factors and reliance on insufficient reasoning rendered its order unsustainable [Paras 9-11].

Bail – High Court's Error – The High Court erroneously granted bail without assigning cogent reasons, failing to appreciate the gravity of the offenses, and ignoring the accused's criminal antecedents and involvement in other serious cases. The High Court's mechanical approach to granting bail necessitated the Supreme Court's intervention [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail, directing the accused to surrender immediately. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in bail matters, requiring courts to provide brief but sufficient reasons for their decisions [Paras 12].

Criminal Law – Revisional Jurisdiction – Conviction from Acquittal – The Supreme Court held that under Section 401(3) CrPC, the High Court does not have the authority to convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The correct approach would be to set aside the acquittal and remit the matter for retrial or rehearing by the appropriate court [Paras 8-9].

Right of Victim to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – The Court emphasized that the victim has a statutory right to appeal against an acquittal under Section 372 CrPC without the need for special leave. If the victim has not availed this remedy, a revision application should not be entertained, and the victim should be directed to pursue an appeal [Para 10.1].

Procedural Requirement – Conversion of Revision to Appeal – Under Section 401(5) CrPC, the High Court must pass a judicial order to treat a revision application as an appeal, provided the application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies and it is necessary in the interest of justice [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order converting acquittals into convictions and remitted the matter to the High Court to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 CrPC and decide them in accordance with the law [Paras 12-14].