Judicial Appointments – Elevation to High Court – Writ petition under Article 32 challenging the process of reconsideration for elevation of two senior-most District and Sessions Judges in Himachal Pradesh High Court – Petitioners argued against the appointment of officers junior to them without reconsideration of their names as directed by the Supreme Court Collegium – High Court Chief Justice's individual decision found inconsistent with collective decision-making required by Collegium system – Court emphasized the necessity of plurality in decision-making for judicial appointments – Writ petition allowed, directing fresh reconsideration of petitioners' names for elevation as Judges of the High Court [Paras 1-32]. 

Judicial Review – Limited scope – Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review in matters of judicial appointments – Distinction between 'eligibility' and 'suitability' emphasized – Judicial review limited to assessing 'eligibility' and 'lack of effective consultation' while 'suitability' remains non-justiciable [Paras 11-17]. 

Collegium Process – Collective Decision-Making – Supreme Court reiterated that elevation for judgeship in a High Court requires collective decision-making by the High Court Collegium – Chief Justice acting alone cannot make decisions regarding reconsideration for elevation – Lack of plurality in the reconsideration process vitiated the decision [Paras 18-32]. 

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – The High Court Collegium to reconsider the names of the petitioners for elevation to the High Court in compliance with the Supreme Court Collegium’s decision and the Law Minister’s communication – The individual decision of the Chief Justice found procedurally and substantially flawed – Writ petition allowed [Para 32]. 

Consumer Law – Filing of Written Statement – Appellant’s Right Foreclosed – The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) foreclosed the Appellant’s right to file a written statement in response to the complaint due to the failure to submit it within the 45-day statutory period – The Appellant argued that the delay was due to the non-receipt of the complaint copy, as the counsel had only appeared based on the cause list and accepted notice without being served with the complaint – Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating that the foreclosure was too harsh, given that the complaint copy had not been served with the notice – The Appellant was granted time to file the written statement with costs imposed [Paras 1-9].

Consumer Law – Limitation for Filing Written Statement – New India Assurance Case – The Respondents argued that under the New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. ruling, the limitation period of 45 days begins from the date of notice, and the Commission rightly foreclosed the right of the Appellant – The Supreme Court, however, noted that without the service of the complaint copy, the limitation period could not have commenced – Therefore, the Appellant was granted additional time to file the written statement, subject to payment of costs [Para 9].

Decision – Allowing Time to File Written Statement – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC order and permitted the Appellant to file the written statement by 14/10/2024, with the Respondents to file their replication and affidavit of evidence thereafter – The Appellant was directed to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs to each of the Respondents as a condition precedent for the acceptance of the written statement [Paras 9-12].

Suo Motu Criminal Revision – High Court Powers Under Section 397 CrPC – The petitioner challenges the Madras High Court’s decision, which invoked its suo motu criminal revision powers under Section 397 of the CrPC, to interfere with a final closure report filed by the DVAC – Held: The High Court overstepped by effectively directing the framing of charges, a power that lies with the Special Judge under Section 227 CrPC – The closure report should be weighed along with earlier investigation reports, and the Special Judge is to decide whether to proceed with the trial or discharge the accused [Paras 2, 7-10].

Assignment of Case – Violation of Madras High Court Rules – The petitioners argued that, as per Rule XIV of the Madras High Court Rules, the suo motu revision should have been assigned to a Division Bench, but it was handled by a Single Judge – Held: This alleged violation must be addressed, as the Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster and assignment to the Division Bench would be necessary for MPs/MLAs cases [Paras 4-5].

Section 227 CrPC – Powers of the Special Judge – The petitioners submitted that the Special Judge is required to consider whether sufficient grounds exist to frame charges based on the materials presented, including the closure and earlier investigation reports – Held: The High Court's direction to the Special Court to frame charges bypassed this procedure, undermining the Special Judge’s role under Section 227 CrPC [Para 6].

Reports Under Section 173(8) CrPC – Reliance on Vinay Tyagi Precedent – The petitioners relied on the Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali decision, which held that all investigation reports, including supplementary reports under Section 173(8), must be considered cumulatively before framing charges – Held: The High Court erred by treating the final closure report as a supplementary report and directing the Special Court to frame charges without proper consideration of the reports [Paras 9-10].

Decision:

Notice issued, returnable in four weeks. Dasti notice to be served on the Standing Counsel for the State. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court is stayed.

Service Law – Termination of Employment – Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements – Termination of respondent's services by Kerala Agricultural University for unauthorized absence after expiry of Leave Without Allowance (LWA) challenged – High Court Division Bench set aside the termination, holding that the university failed to follow the prescribed procedure under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the necessity of recording prima facie satisfaction before initiating a disciplinary inquiry as per Rule 15 – Failure to adhere to statutory procedures deemed fatal to the university’s case [Paras 8-14].

Natural Justice – Mandatory Procedural Compliance – Supreme Court reiterated that statutory procedures must be strictly followed – The principle that if a statute prescribes a particular procedure, it must be followed in that manner and not otherwise – University’s failure to record satisfaction before disciplinary inquiry found to violate principles of natural justice – Respondent's inability to rejoin duties due to illness and COVID-19 travel restrictions considered bona fide [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Dismissal of Special Leave Petition – Held – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's quashing of the termination order – Court found no merit in the university's plea, concluding that the Division Bench's judgment was sound and required no interference – Termination set aside due to procedural lapses by the university [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC upheld – Challenge in Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court's decision maintaining trial court’s conviction of the appellant for murder and rioting – Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness accounts and medical evidence – The prosecution’s case was supported by the testimony of eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence of the deceased’s injuries – The appellant’s involvement in the unlawful assembly with a common object of eliminating the deceased was established, leading to the upholding of the conviction [Paras 1-34].

Unlawful Assembly and Vicarious Liability – Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 149 IPC, each member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts committed in prosecution of the common object, regardless of whether each member physically participated in the crime – Even if the appellant did not directly cause fatal injuries, his participation in the unlawful assembly with the knowledge of the common object was sufficient for conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC [Paras 27-31].

Evidence Evaluation – Supreme Court found that despite certain omissions in the prosecution's case, such as the non-recovery of the weapon and the failure to examine key witnesses, the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and consistent – The Court concluded that these omissions did not undermine the overall prosecution case, which was sufficiently supported by direct and medical evidence [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC is affirmed – The Court held that the appellant’s involvement in the unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder was clearly established, justifying his conviction under the applicable sections of the IPC [Paras 33-34].

Civil Law – Motor Vehicle Accident – Liability of Dealer and Manufacturer – Supreme Court examined liability in a motor vehicle accident case where the vehicle involved was owned by the manufacturer, but in possession of the dealer – Tribunal held the manufacturer and dealer jointly and severally liable – High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision – Supreme Court reversed the finding regarding the dealer’s liability, holding that the manufacturer, not the dealer, was liable as the vehicle was under the control of the manufacturer’s employees at the time of the accident [Paras 13-24].

Interpretation of 'Owner' under Motor Vehicles Act – The Court examined the definition of 'owner' under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concluding that ownership is not limited to the registered owner but includes the person in control or command of the vehicle – Liability determined based on control and command at the time of the accident [Paras 13, 19].

Contractual Liability – Clauses in Dealership Agreement – Supreme Court considered whether clauses in the dealership agreement between the manufacturer and dealer shifted liability to the dealer – Held that clauses limiting the manufacturer’s liability to defects under the warranty did not transfer tortious liability to the dealer, thus absolving the dealer from compensation liability in this case [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed to the extent that the dealer is not liable for compensation – However, the manufacturer remains liable – If the dealer has paid any part of the compensation, it is entitled to recover the same from the manufacturer with interest [Paras 33-35].

Civil Law – Jurisdiction of Execution Court – Specific Performance – Rescission of Contract – The Supreme Court considered whether the Execution Court had jurisdiction to entertain applications for rescission of a contract and for the extension of time to deposit balance sale consideration under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, when the decree was passed by an appellate court. The Court held that the Execution Court, being the court of first instance, retained jurisdiction to entertain such applications, emphasizing that the decree passed by an appellate court is considered as being passed in the same suit. The Court further clarified that the applications should be treated as interlocutory applications in the original suit rather than in execution proceedings. [Paras 15-19]

Equitable Relief – Extension of Time to Deposit – Substantial Justice – The Supreme Court upheld the Execution Court’s decision to allow the decree-holder to deposit the balance sale consideration despite a delay. The Court noted that the decree-holder had consistently shown an intention to comply with the decree, and the delay was not due to any fault on their part. The decision emphasized the discretionary nature of the relief under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, aimed at ensuring substantial justice rather than penalizing procedural delays. The Court also refused to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution, stating that technicalities should not override the interests of justice. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Execution Court's jurisdiction and its decision to extend the time for deposit, thereby allowing the decree-holder to obtain specific performance of the contract. [Paras 31-32]

Criminal Law – Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) of IPC – Conviction and Sentence – Modified – The appellant was convicted of causing death by rash and negligent driving under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) of the IPC, related to a road accident resulting in the death of a pillion rider – The trial court sentenced him to simple imprisonment and fines for each offence – On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction and imposed additional compensation – The Supreme Court, considering the appellant's age (69 years), health issues, and the fact that he had already been incarcerated for 117 days, modified the sentence to the period already undergone – Compensation reduced from Rs. 2.5 lakhs to Rs. 50,000, to be paid within 60 days [Paras 13-15].

Section 162 of Cr.P.C. – Testimony Contradictions – The appellant contended that the identification of the accused based on PW-6's testimony involved contradictions with the Section 161 statement, as the witness initially described the driver as an elderly person – The Court held that this inconsistency did not amount to a significant contradiction under Section 162(2) Cr.P.C., and the identification remained valid [Paras 8-9].

Sentence Reduction – Long Period of Incarceration and Mitigating Factors – The Court noted that the appellant had already been in custody for 117 days, and the accident occurred in 2007, almost 17 years ago – Citing a previous judgment in Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police, 2021, which substituted a sentence of imprisonment with a fine in a similar case of negligent driving, the Court reduced the appellant's sentence to the time already served [Paras 12-13].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Prolonged Custody – The appellant, Sunil, sought bail on the grounds of parity with ten co-accused who had already been granted bail and the fact that he had been in custody for over a year – Held: The fact that ten other co-accused are already out on bail and that the trial is likely to be long due to the number of accused and witnesses justifies the appellant's request for bail – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 5-6, 15].

Absconding Accused – Delayed Apprehension – The respondent argued against granting bail on the grounds that the appellant had absconded for seven months after the alleged crime – Held: While the appellant’s absconding is a factor to be considered, it is not sufficient by itself to deny bail, especially when the charges have already been framed and several other co-accused have been granted bail [Para 6].

Conditions for Bail – Trial Court Discretion – The Court directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court – The appellant is required to cooperate fully in the trial, and any violation of bail conditions will lead to cancellation [Para 16].

Decision:

Bail granted. The appellant is to be produced before the concerned trial court and released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The appellant must cooperate fully with the trial, and any misuse of liberty will result in cancellation of bail.