Civil Appeal – Symbol Allocation for Elections – Appeal against the High Court's decision upholding the Single Judge's interim order directing the allocation of the 'Plough' symbol to the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (R1) for the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) elections. [Para 3-5]

Legal Framework – Applicability of 1968 Order – Appellants argue that the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, does not apply to LAHDC elections, which are governed by the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (Election) Rules, 1995. [Para 6-8]

Legal Provisions – 1968 Order and 1997 Act – The court outlines the relevant paragraphs of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, and Sections 12 and 13 of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, 1997, which govern election disputes and procedures. [Para 14-15]

Constitutional Powers – Unabridged Authority – The court emphasizes that the powers of Constitutional Courts cannot be restricted or taken away, citing multiple landmark judgments. It asserts that the availability of alternative remedies does not bar the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction. [Para 16]

Judicial Review and Restraint – The Court emphasized the importance of judicial review and restraint, stating that while the judiciary has the power to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, it should not encroach into the legislative domain. The Court also noted that judicial restraint should not amount to judicial abdication or passivism. [Para 41-47]

Fundamental Rights – The Court stressed that it has the constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. It emphasized that the Court should adopt a liberal approach in interpreting fundamental rights and should act as a sentinel to guard these rights. [Para 45-47]

Election Symbols – The Court examined the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, and noted that the Election Commission of India (ECI) does not allocate symbols for local body elections. However, it was pointed out that a recognized State Party in one Union Territory could avail concession under Paragraph 10 of the 1968 Order for another Union Territory. [Para 14, 23]

High Court's Power under Article 226 – The Court affirmed that the High Court, being a Constitutional Court, has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions even if such directions do not find mention in the provisions concerned. The Court cited previous judgments to support this view. [Para 21]

Election Authority's Role – The Court questioned the shifting stands of the Appellants regarding who the competent authority is to allot election symbols. It emphasized that any decision taken should not be whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious and must be in accordance with lawful discretion. [Para 20]

Free, Fair, and Transparent Elections – The Court stated that elections are the core of democracy and should be free, fair, and transparent. It criticized the Union Territory of Ladakh for denying R1 the Plough symbol and for resisting and frustrating the cause. [Para 22, 23]

Legal Precedents and Constitutional Powers – The Court cited various legal precedents to underline the powers vested in Constitutional Courts, emphasizing that these powers cannot be abridged, excluded, or taken away as they are part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. [Para 16, 19]

Alternative Efficacious Remedy – The Court noted that the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy is not a bar to the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction. [Para 16]

Internal Advice and Legal Opinion – The Court held that internal advice or legal opinion remains just that and does not create or confer any right in favor of any party. [Para 17, 18]

Recognition of State Party and Allotment of Symbol: The Court discusses the issue of recognition of R1 as a State Party and the allotment of the Plough symbol for elections in the Union Territory of Ladakh. [Para 28]

Executive Inaction and Delay: The Court criticizes the Appellants for their inaction and delay in responding to R1's requests. [Para 27]

Judicial Powers and Election Matters: The Court emphasizes its powers to intervene in election matters, especially when there is unjust executive action. [Para 37]

Non-Compliance by Appellants: The Court criticizes the Appellants for not complying with the High Court's orders. [Para 38]

Arbitrary Use of Powers by Authorities: The Court warns against the arbitrary and complacent use of powers related to elections by authorities. [Para 39]

Consequences for Appellants: The Court states that the Appellants have invited the judgment upon themselves. [Para 40]

Importance of Election Symbol: The Court discusses the critical role of election symbols in a democracy. [Para 41-43]

Setting Aside Election Process: The Court sets aside the entire election process and orders a fresh notification for elections. [Para 44]

Dismissal of Appeal and Costs: The Court dismisses the appeal and imposes costs. [Para 45]

Appeal Background – Conviction Challenge 

The appellant appeals against the judgment of the Madurai bench of Madras High Court, which upheld his conviction under Sections 450 & 302 IPC. [Para 2-3]

Factual Background – Love Affair and Death 

The appellant and the deceased were in a love relationship. The deceased's change in behavior and her friendship with another man led to an altercation and her subsequent death. [Para 4-5]

Prosecution and Defense Arguments 

The prosecution argued for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, while the defense contended for Section 304 IPC, citing inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies. [Para 6-9]

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death

The post-mortem report indicated that the deceased died of a head injury. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem stated that the injuries could have been inflicted when a person slips and falls on the kitchen slab. [Para 11-12] Testimony of Witnesses 

Testimonies from the mother of the deceased and a neighbor were considered. The mother's testimony was particularly crucial in establishing the sequence of events leading to the death. [Para 13]

Legal Considerations – Intention vs. Knowledge 

Legal difference between 'intention' and 'knowledge' in the context of Sections 302 and 304 of IPC. It emphasized that the intention to cause death should be judged from various circumstances, including the nature of the weapon used, the force employed, and whether there was premeditation. [Para 14-17]

Recent Judgment Reference – Anbazhagan vs. The State 

The Court elaborated on the legal principles for determining the intention or knowledge of the accused, referring to a recent judgment. [Para 19]

Legal Analysis and Conclusion 

The Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, concluding that the appellant's act was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of the moment. [Para 20-21]

Final Order 

The appeal was partly allowed, and the conviction was altered. The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone. [Para 21-22]

Civil Appeal – Interest on Refund – Appellants, charitable institutions, deposited amounts with Delhi Development Authority for additional FAR benefits. Appeals arise from High Court's refusal to grant interest on refunded amounts. [Para 1-2]

Statutory Notifications – Delhi Development Authority issued notifications under Section 57 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, fixing rates for additional FAR. Appellants challenged these notifications in High Court. [Para 2-3]

Interim Relief – High Court granted interim relief, allowing appellants to deposit disputed amounts and proceed with construction. High Court indicated that the question of refund with interest would be examined later. [Para 9-10]

Subsequent Amendment – Delhi Development Authority amended notifications, exempting certain categories, including appellants, from additional FAR charges. High Court disposed of writ petitions and directed refund of deposited amounts without interest. [Para 4, 12]

Legal Principles – Appellants relied on various Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the principle of restitution and 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit'. Court found these principles not applicable in the present case. [Para 8, 13-14]

Contempt Proceedings – Appellant in second appeal initiated contempt proceedings for non-refund of deposit. High Court disposed of contempt petition, stating that payment of interest or compensation would not arise. [Para 15-16]

Decision – Appeals disposed of without any order as to costs. Appellants free to initiate separate proceedings for claiming interest for the period of retention of their deposits. [Para 17-18]

Appeal – Conviction for Murder – Appellants convicted by the High Court and Trial Court for the murder of Ellahabadiya alias Vijay under Section 302 of the IPC – Appeals filed against the conviction. [Para 1, 7]

Eyewitness Testimony – Inconsistencies and Contradictions – PW-2 and PW-6 identified as the main eyewitnesses – PW-2's testimony found inconsistent with his previous statements and not corroborating with other evidence – PW-6's testimony also found unreliable due to inconsistencies and failure to explain key aspects of the case. [Para 5, 20-23]

Delayed FIR – Questionable Credibility – FIR lodged the next day by PW-9, a village chowkidar from a neighboring village, who was not an eyewitness – The delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the statements of eyewitnesses raise questions about the credibility of the prosecution's case. [Para 16-19]

Discovery of Evidence – Lathi and Clothes – Seizure of lathi and clothes from the accused not considered conclusive evidence due to inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and failure of serologist report to confirm the origin of blood stains. [Para 25]

Mob Violence – Possibility – Evidence suggests the possibility of mob violence against the deceased, rather than a targeted attack by the accused – Prosecution fails to provide a clear motive or account for the crime. [Para 14, 24]

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Due to inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, delayed FIR, and lack of conclusive evidence, the appellants are acquitted and given the benefit of the doubt. [Para 24-26]

Writ Petition under Article 32 – Juvenility Claim – Petitioner seeks verification of his claim of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Court allows the Writ Petition based on the report confirming the petitioner's juvenility at the time of the offense. [Para 1]

Criminal History – Petitioner convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for life imprisonment – Conviction upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court – Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition two months after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. [Para 2-3]

Juvenility – Right to Raise at Any Stage – Court acknowledges that the question of juvenility can be raised at any stage and directs an enquiry – State confirms petitioner's date of birth based on school records. [Para 4]

Judicial Enquiry – Additional Sessions Judge confirms petitioner's juvenility based on detailed examination of documents and oral evidence – Court accepts the report without hesitation. [Para 5]

Age at Time of Crime – Petitioner was 16 years and 7 months old at the time of the crime, confirming his status as a juvenile in conflict with the law. [Para 6]

Maximum Statutory Punishment – Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the maximum period of custody for the petitioner should have been three years – Petitioner has already undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment. [Para 7]

Decision – Writ Petition allowed – Petitioner to be released forthwith, unless required to be detained in another case – No order as to costs. [Para 8]

Bail Application – Multiple Offences – Accused nos. 5 and 6 sought bail for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 – Applications filed in connection with FIR No. RC-BD1/2014E004-CBI/BS&FC/New Delhi and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 326 of 2023 – No connection with pending transferred cases in TC (Crl.) No. 1 of 2016 and TC (Crl.) No. 3 of 2016. [Para 2-3]

Criminal Investigation – Siphoning of Funds – Applicants, being Directors at the relevant time, were accused in a case where the amount siphoned off exceeds 40 thousand crores – Limited recovery made despite efforts by the investigating agency and a Committee constituted under Justice R.M. Lodha. [Para 3]

Scope of Relief – Omnibus Relief – Applicants sought bail in all pending cases across different jurisdictions and investigating agencies – Court emphasized that one bail order cannot be applied to all other subsequent cases. [Para 5, 8]

Arguments for Bail – Incarceration and Good Faith – Applicants argued they have been in jail for over 7 years and acted in good faith – No evidence of tampering with witnesses or non-cooperation with the investigating agency. [Para 6]

Arguments Against Bail – Public Interest – Learned Additional Solicitor General argued against bail citing the large number of investors duped and the international scope of the financial trail – Recommended that applicants approach jurisdictional courts for bail. [Para 7]

Decision – Dismissal of Applications – Court dismissed the bail applications and the writ petition, directing the applicants to approach the jurisdictional courts for bail – Interim bail extended for 3 months to facilitate the same. [Para 9-10]

Consumer Law – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Appellant challenging the decision of the NCDRC which dismissed his complaint against the respondent for an alleged defect in a drug. NCDRC held that there was no evidence of defect or negligence on the part of the manufacturer. [Para 1]

Medical Negligence – Vaccine Administration: Appellant claimed to have an adverse reaction to the Hepatitis B vaccine Engerix-B, manufactured by the respondent, leading to 'myositis' and permanent disability in his shoulder. The Court found no documentary evidence or medical records to substantiate the claim. [Para 2-3, 8-9]

Evidentiary Value – Affidavits: Appellant relied on affidavits from his family physician and his uncle, both doctors, to establish his case. The Court found these affidavits lacking in evidentiary value and not sufficient to establish medical negligence or a defect in the drug. [Para 5, 12-13]

Burden of Proof: The appellant failed to discharge the initial burden of proof. No muscle biopsy was furnished despite being requested by the respondents, leading to an adverse inference against the appellant. [Para 14, 17]

Deficiency of Service: The Court found that the non-mentioning of 'myositis' as a potential adverse reaction in the vaccine's literature was not a 'deficiency of service,' given the minimal incidence rate of 0.02 per million doses and the detailed certification procedure followed for the drug. [Para 6, 15-16]

Decision: NCDRC's decision upheld. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. No error was found in NCDRC's judgment. [Para 17-18]

Probationary Employment – Discharge of Probationary Constable – Respondent Jaswant Singh discharged from Punjab Police during probation under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (PPR) – Discharge challenged on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. [Para 1, 5]

Appellate Proceedings – First Appellate Court and High Court – Both courts upheld the respondent-plaintiff's claim and dismissed the State's appeal – Held that the discharge was not legally sustainable and granted all service benefits to the respondent-plaintiff. [Para 2-3, 8]

Legal Framework – Rule 12.21 of PPR – Allows for the discharge of a constable found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer within three years of enrolment – No appeal against an order of discharge under this Rule. [Para 11]

Supreme Court Precedents – Cited various judgments to distinguish between simpliciter termination and punitive termination – Emphasized the need to examine the "nature" and "purpose" of the enquiry leading to termination. [Para 12-18]

Case Facts – Respondent-plaintiff was absent from training without intimation – Recommendation for discharge made by the Superintendent of Police of the Training Centre – No formal departmental inquiry held. [Para 18]

Decision – Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and lower courts – Held that the discharge was simpliciter and not punitive in nature – Suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff dismissed. [Para 21]

Detention Order – Challenged - Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, issued Detention Order under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1986, categorizing the Detenu as a ‘Goonda’ for his habitual criminal activities. The Commissioner opined that ordinary law was insufficient to curb his activities. Representation and Advisory Board – Appellant submitted a representation under section 10 of the Act, which was reviewed by the Advisory Board. The Board found “sufficient cause” for detention, and the Government confirmed the Detention Order for a period of 12 months. Detention order - challenged – High Court of Telangana upheld the Detention Order dated 24th March 2023 against the appellant’s husband, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.  [Para 1-4]

High Court’s Dismissal – High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition after hearing both parties, leading to the current appeal in the Supreme Court. [Para 5]

Preventive Detention – Scope and Purpose – Discussion on the constitutional and legal framework governing preventive detention in India – Emphasis on the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards. [Para 1-15]

Constitutional Law – Article 22 – Examination of the constitutional safeguards under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution in the context of preventive detention – Importance of procedural compliance for the validity of detention. Constitutional provision limiting preventive detention to 3 months unless extended by an Advisory Board [Para 16-20, 59]

Preventive Detention – Advisory Board’s Role – The role of the Advisory Board in preventive detention laws as a safeguard against abuse of power – Emphasis on the need for the detaining authority to specify the duration of detention rather than routinely extending it to the maximum permissible period. [Para 58-64]

Public Order – Distinction from Law and Order – Elaboration on the difference between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ – Criteria for preventive detention based on activities affecting public order. [Para 21-30]

Evidence – Reliability and Sufficiency – Scrutiny of the evidence presented by the detaining authority – Court finds the evidence insufficient to establish a threat to public order. [Para 31-45]

Procedural Lapses – Non-Compliance with Safeguards – Identification of procedural lapses in the detention order, including failure to provide materials relied upon – Detention order found unsustainable. [Para 46-57]

Discretionary Power – Exercise of discretion by the detaining authority to fix the period of detention – Critique of a mechanical approach that treats the maximum period as the standard duration. [Para 60-63]

Fundamental Rights – Article 14 – Discussion on the need for the detaining authority to exercise discretion in a manner that meets the test of Article 14, ensuring fairness and reasonableness. [Para 70]

Decision – Detention Order Quashed – The Court found the Detention Order unsustainable and quashed it along with the impugned judgment of the High Court – Detenu to be released forthwith. [Para 81-82]