Criminal Appeal – Leave Granted – Appeals arise from orders of the High Court in an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC – Appellant challenges High Court’s decisions to allow amendment of application and to set aside prior orders by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM). [Para 1-3]

Factual Background – Appellant alleges attack on his family by respondents, leading to serious injuries – Respondents initially discharged by CJM but subsequently summoned after appellant’s Protest Petition – Appellant challenges High Court’s order allowing amendment of respondent’s Section 482 application and setting aside CJM’s orders. [Para 4-7]

High Court’s Observations – High Court finds Magistrate’s decision to treat the protest petition as a complaint to be erroneous – Points out absence of certain procedural compliances by the Magistrate. [Para 8]

Supreme Court’s Opinion – Supreme Court finds High Court’s observations erroneous – Reiterates Magistrate’s options upon receipt of a police report under Section 173 CrPC, including the discretion to proceed on a Protest Petition. [Para 9-11]

Discretionary Orders of CJM – Supreme Court asserts CJM was within his legal right to reject the Final Report and proceed with the Protest Petition – High Court should not have interfered with CJM’s orders after such a long gap, especially given the proper application of law by the CJM. [Para 12]

Decision – High Court’s erroneous orders quashed – Case to proceed at the level of CJM in accordance with law. [Para 13]

Criminal Appeal – Habeas Corpus Proceeding – The appellant approached the court alleging illegal detention of his wife, Mathithra, by her family – The Court, after facilitating the recording of Mathithra's statement, found that she wishes to reside with the appellant of her own free will – Respondents directed to ensure her joining with the appellant. [Para 1-5]

Hindu Marriage Act, Section 7A – Court notes the erroneous view of the High Court regarding the necessity of public solemnization for marriages under Section 7A – Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act does not necessitate public declaration and the court found that imposing such a condition could be violative of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 6-8]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life under Article 21 – Court emphasized that the right to exercise free choice in matters of marriage is an intrinsic part of the right to life – High Court's view in narrowing the scope of Section 7A was deemed as inconsistent with Article 21. [Para 8]

Decision – High Court's view set aside – Respondents directed to ensure that Mathithra joins the appellant – Court clarifies the wide import of Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act and reiterates that the need for public declaration is not a mandate under the said section. [Para 4, 8]

Civil Appeal – Property Partition and Mesne Profit – Dismissal by Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court - appellants filed a suit for partition and mesne profit in 1988, claiming ancestral rights over certain properties. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, stating that the land in question is agricultural, and the plaintiffs/appellants cannot claim any right over it. This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. [Para 1, 2]

Community Laws – Thiyyas of Kozhikode – Hindu Mitakshara Law - parties belong to the "Thiyyas" community of Kozhikode, Kerala, governed by Hindu Mitakshara law. According to this law, ancestral property devolves only on male children, while daughters have a right to maintenance until marriage. [Para 2]

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – Limited Application - appellants argued that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically Section 14(1), should apply. However, the courts found that the essential ingredient for the application of this section is possession, which the plaintiffs never had. [Para 4, 5, 6]

Agricultural Land – Nature and Use - appellants contested the classification of the land as agricultural, arguing that the presence of coconut trees does not necessarily make it so. However, the courts found that the land was indeed agricultural, based on overwhelming evidence and revenue records. [Para 6, 7]

Adverse Possession – Unchallenged Finding - Trial Court's finding of adverse possession in favor of the defendants was not challenged by the plaintiffs in the First Appellate Court, adding another ground for the dismissal of the appeal. [Para 9]

Final Decision – Dismissal of Appeal - Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal, stating that no special circumstances exist to warrant interference. [Para 8, 11]

Employment Dispute – Lecturer Appointment – Open Category vs Scheduled Caste Category - The appellant, a lecturer in English, was appointed in the open category by the second respondent-College. The fifth respondent was appointed in the Scheduled Caste category but contended that she should have been appointed in the open category based on the order of merit. [Para 2-9]

Selection Process – NET Qualification – PhD Exemption - Both the appellant and the fifth respondent lacked NET qualification initially. However, the appellant had a PhD, which exempted her from the NET requirement as per the second advertisement. The fifth respondent did not possess a PhD. [Para 5-6]

Tribunal and High Court Decisions – Reinstatement and Termination - fifth respondent's termination was stayed by the Tribunal, and she was later reinstated. The appellant's appointment was turned into a part-time role due to the fifth respondent's reinstatement. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, leading to the present appeal. [Para 7-9, 14-15]

Seniority and Merit – Order of Appointment - appellant was appointed based on the first and second advertisements in the open category. The fifth respondent did not object to these appointments but later contended her seniority based on the first advertisement. [Para 10-11, 14]

Article 142 – Exercise of Supreme Court's Jurisdiction for ‘Doing Substantial Justice’  - Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed the reinstatement of the appellant as a full-time lecturer without affecting the fifth respondent's post and status. The State Government was directed to release grant-in-aid for the appellant's salary. [Para 15-16]

Decision – Reinstatement of Appellant - Supreme Court modified the impugned order and directed the reinstatement of the appellant as a full-time lecturer in English, effective from January 5, 1995, without disturbing the fifth respondent's status. The State Government was directed to release the necessary grant-in-aid for the appellant's salary. [Para 16]

Applications before the Judicial Magistrate seeking a Hindi translation of the charge sheet - rejected the applications - respondents were educated and could understand English - High Court held that the respondents were entitled to a translation of the charge sheet into Hindi, the official language of the State's Criminal Courts. [Para 2-5, Pages 1-3]

Language of Charge Sheet - there is no specific provision in the CrPC requiring the charge sheet to be filed in the language of the Court - proceedings will not be vitiated if the charge sheet is not in the language of the Court, unless it results in a failure of justice. [Para 15-18]

Obligation of Court - to interpret evidence, examination, and judgment to the accused or his pleader if they do not understand the language - accused must get a fair opportunity to defend himself and must understand the material against him in the charge sheet. [Para 15-19]

Central Agencies like the CBI may not always be able to file the final report in the language of the concerned Court - respondents educated and understood English - absence of a translated charge sheet not result in a failure of justice. Appeals allowed. [Para 20-23]

Civil Appeal – Retirement Age – Medical Faculty

Appellants, members of teaching faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges in Kerala, appeal against High Court's denial of extension of retirement age from 55 to 60 years. High Court held the matter as a policy decision not open for judicial review. [Para 1-4]

Government Policy – Exclusion of Homeopathic Faculty

State of Kerala issued a Government Order enhancing retirement age for Medical Doctors but explicitly excluded faculties in Dental, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Homeopathic Medical Colleges. [Para 2-3]

Kerala Service Rules – Retirement Policy

Kerala Service Rules govern retirement age of State employees, including teaching staff, allowing them to continue service until the end of the academic year if they turn 55 during it. [Para 5-7]

Subsequent Government Orders – Prospective Effect

During pendency of appeal, State issued new Government Orders extending retirement age for Dental and Ayurvedic faculties to 60 years. These were not given retrospective effect. [Para 8-10, 14-15]

State's Discretion – Policy Matter

Court emphasized that retirement age is a policy matter within the State's domain. Courts should not interfere in such policy decisions, including whether they should be given retrospective or prospective effect. [Para 11-13, 16-17]

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Inapplicability

Appellants could not claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement to them retrospectively based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. [Para 18]

Judicial Review – Limited Scope

Court should not unduly interfere in matters that are strictly governed by service regulations. Extension of retirement age is a public function. [Para 19]

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed

Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgement and dismissed the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own expenses. [Para 20]

Writ Petition under Article 32 – Petitioner serving life sentence seeks premature release after 24 years of actual imprisonment without remission or parole – Writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Conviction Background – Petitioner convicted for triple murder, including two police personnel – Conviction affirmed by High Court in 2005 – Application for premature release rejected by Remission Board despite favourable reports [Para 2-5].

Legal Framework – Discussion on Section 432(1) of the CrPC and discretionary nature of executive power for granting remission – Emphasis on fair and reasonable exercise of discretion [Para 7, 10].

Judicial Critique of Remission Board – Over-reliance on presiding judge's opinion criticized – Failure to consider other authorities like Probation Officer and Jail Superintendent noted [Para 15-16].

Holistic Approach for Remission – Court emphasizes need for balanced consideration of various factors including convict's post-conviction conduct, age, and health – Suggests inclusion of psychologist's report [Para 17-21].

Police Bias – Caution against potential biases in police reports, especially when victims are police personnel – Such biases should not be determinative [Para 20].

Reconsideration Directed – Remission Board and presiding judge directed to reconsider petitioner's application for premature release – Various factors to be considered including age, health, and post-conviction conduct [Para 25].

Final Decision – Writ petition allowed – Remission Board advised to make its decision within three months – Presiding judge to provide new opinion within one month [Para 25-26].

Appeal – State of Punjab Against High Court's Directions  - State of Punjab appeals against the High Court's order directing the initiation of criminal proceedings against an Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (AETC) for allegedly taking a false defense in a case related to the sealing of a shop. The Supreme Court scrutinizes the basis of the High Court's directions. [Para 1, 2]

Natural Justice – Opportunity to Defend - Supreme Court questions the High Court's failure to afford the AETC an opportunity to defend himself, thereby violating principles of natural justice. [Para 7, 11]

Judicial Conduct – Principles for Adverse Remarks - judgment elaborates on the principles that should guide a court in passing adverse remarks against an individual. The Court emphasizes the need for caution, evidence, and necessity for the case at hand. [Para 14-19]

Expunction – Removal of Adverse Remarks and Directions - Supreme Court expunges the High Court's adverse remarks and directions against the AETC, citing them as against settled principles of law. Proceedings initiated pursuant to the High Court's directions, including the FIR, are ordered to be closed with immediate effect. [Para 21, 22]

Decision – Appeal Allowed, High Court's Directions Expunged - Supreme Court allows the appeal of the State of Punjab and expunges the adverse remarks and directions issued by the High Court. Any proceedings initiated, including the FIR, are ordered to stand closed with immediate effect. [Para 21, 22, 23]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal against conviction under Sections 302, 392, 394, and 397 read with Section 34 of the IPC – Appellant challenging the judgment and order of the High Court affirming the Trial Court’s decision – Appellant convicted along with co-accused for robbery and causing injuries resulting in the death of one person – Appeal dismissed by the High Court – Special leave granted by the Supreme Court. [Para 1-13]

Identification Procedure – Role of Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Whether an accused can decline to submit himself to the TIP on the ground that it violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution – Interpretation of Section 54A of the CrPC – Importance and Evidentiary Value of TIP.

Identification Procedure – Article 20(3) of the Constitution – Compulsion for Test Identification Parade (TIP) – An accused cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be forced or coerced for the same – Coercion sought for getting evidence through positive volitional act is prohibited by Article 20(3) – TIP involves compelled attendance, but not a positive volitional evidentiary act by the accused – An accused may have legitimate grounds to challenge TIP's legitimacy, but cannot decline to participate. [Para 22-36]

Section 54A of the CrPC – Identification of Arrested Person – Introduction of Section 54A in the CrPC empowers the Court, on the request of the police, to direct an arrested person to undergo identification by others – First proviso mandates supervision by a Judicial Magistrate when the identifier is mentally or physically disabled – Second proviso requires videography if the suspect is mentally or physically disabled – Section 54A does not apply to identification of articles – Accused's obligation to stand for TIP under Section 54A – Accused cannot decline TIP based solely on the fact that witnesses saw him before – Accused can raise legal objections regarding TIP's legitimacy or evidentiary value during the trial. [Para 29-36]

Importance and Evidentiary Value of TIP – Identification as Relevant Evidence – Identification is relevant evidence to establish the identity of a person or thing – Identification has no independent value and is used to prove that the witness identified the accused at the time of the incident – TIP is an act of the mind and usually involves the witness's belief or opinion – Primary purpose of TIP is to establish the credibility of the witness's identification. [Para 37-42]

Identification Process – Refusal of Accused to Participate in TIP – Impact on In-Court Identification – Weight of In-Court Identification – Evaluation of Witness Credibility – Assessment of Identification Factors – Opportunity to Observe Accused – Degree of Witness Attention – Prior Descriptions and Recognition – Reliability of Witness Testimony – Consideration of Time Gap between Crime and Identification. [Para 67-71]

Discovery of Evidence – Conduct of Accused – Relevance of Conduct as Evidence – Interpretation of Section 8 of the Evidence Act – Role of Conduct in Establishing Circumstantial Corroboration – Connection between Discovery and Identification – Application of Conduct Evidence in Determining Accused's Guilt. [Para 76-78]

Prejudicial Refusal to Participate in TIP – Impact on Accused's Credibility – Analysis of Conduct Leading to Refusal – Absence of Sufficient Foundation for Refusal – Consideration of Preponderance of Probability – Necessity for Credible Explanation for Refusal – Refusal and its Implications in Criminal Trials. [Para 75]

Reliability of In-Court Identification – Weight Given to Identification by Injured Eye Witness – Factors Influencing Trustworthiness of In-Court Identification – Clear Opportunity of Witness to View Assailants – Witness's Degree of Attention during Incident – Significance of Accurate Prior Descriptions – Relationship between Time of Crime and In-Court Identification – Application of American Supreme Court Factors in Assessment of Reliability. [Para 70]

Refusal to Participate in TIP and Discovery of Evidence – Connection between Refusal, Discovery, and Identification – Conduct Leading to Discovery as Indicator of Guilt – Role of Relevant Conduct in Establishing Accused's Involvement – Interpretation of Conduct Evidence as Per Section 8 of the Evidence Act – Corroboration of Witness Testimony through Conduct. [Para 78]

Conviction Upheld – Adequate Evaluation of Identification Evidence – Examination of Multiple Factors Influencing Identification Reliability – Consideration of Witness Testimony and Conduct Evidence – Conclusive Consequences of Reliable Identification – Decision in Favor of Prosecution's Case – Appellant's Refusal to Participate in TIP as Inconsequential – Reliability of In-Court Identification and Discovery of Evidence. [Para 79]