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]

Civil Appeal – Workmen Compensation Act – Appeal against High Court’s decision to set aside the Commissioner’s award of compensation to the legal representatives of a deceased employee – Appellants are the mother and wife of the deceased. [Para 1-2]

Employment Status – Deceased was allegedly an employee of Kutch Carrier, drawing a salary of ₹4000 per month – Employment denied by insurer due to lack of documentation. [Para 3-4]

Commissioner’s Order – Eight issues framed, including the employment status, liability for compensation, and penalty – Commissioner awarded ₹3,94,120 as compensation, 9% interest, and a 50% penalty amounting to ₹1,97,060 against the employer. [Para 6-7]

First Appeal – High Court set aside Commissioner’s order, concluding that the deceased was not an employee at the time of the accident. [Para 10-11]

Jurisdiction and Law – Discussion on Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, which allows appeals only on substantial questions of law – High Court failed to frame any such question. [Para 14-19]

Perversity in Findings – High Court did not indicate that the Commissioner’s findings were perverse – Difference between the two judgments was on the point of establishing the employer-employee relationship. [Para 21-22]

Merits of the Case – Supreme Court finds that the Commissioner’s conclusions were “a possible view,” thereby negating any perversity – Act being a social welfare legislation should be given a beneficial construction. [Para 25-30]

Decision – High Court’s judgment set aside – Commissioner’s order restored – Appeal allowed. [Para 32-33]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Accused convicted by Judicial Magistrate for cheque dishonour – Sentenced to pay cheque amount with interest – Appeals filed against conviction. [Para 3]

Appeals – Suspension of Sentence – Sessions Court grants relief subject to 20% deposit of compensation amount under Section 148 of N.I. Act and Section 389 of Cr.P.C. – High Court confirms Sessions Court's order. [Para 3-4]

Interpretation of Law – High Court relies on Surinder Singh Deswal case to interpret word "may" in Section 148 of N.I. Act as "shall" – Obligation to deposit a minimum of 20% of compensation amount deemed mandatory. [Para 4-5]

Judicial Discretion – Supreme Court notes that appellate courts have discretion to waive 20% deposit requirement in exceptional cases – Reasons for such exception must be recorded. [Para 6-7]

Failure to Plead Exception – Appellants did not plead for an exception to the 20% deposit requirement – Supreme Court disagrees with contention that courts had no reason to consider plea. [Para 8-9]

Erroneous Presumption – Both lower courts assumed 20% deposit was an absolute rule with no room for exceptions. [Para 10]

Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court sets aside High Court orders – Restores revision petitions for reconsideration – Directs High Court to re-examine in light of this judgment. [Para 12-13]

Criminal Appeal – Rape and Murder – Allegations of rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl – Appellant lured the victim to his house to watch TV – Victim went missing, and her dead body was later found in the appellant's room – Co-accused also involved – High Court convicted the appellant  – Appeal against the judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence – Submission that the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence – Failure to conduct a medical examination of the accused under Section 53A of CrPC – Alleged confession of a co-accused made in the presence of police officers – Inadequate 313 examination of the accused – Flaws in the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court – Mitigating circumstances – Court's analysis of the submissions and arguments. [Para 13-17]

Investigation Lapses – Serious lapses in the investigation – Failure to obtain a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report – Failure to conduct a medical examination of the accused – Lapses in the examination of physical evidence – Examination of accused by a registered medical practitioner under Section 53 of the CrPC – Failure to obtain DNA profiling evidence – Adverse inference – Importance of DNA evidence in cases of rape.

High Court's Approach – High Court proceeded on the assumption that the appellant alone committed the crime – Neglected the presence of a co-accused – Lack of consideration for the entire evidentiary landscape.

High Court's failure to consider the presence of a co-accused and the lapses in the investigation cast doubt on the conviction – Serious flaws in the investigation and failure to procure crucial evidence require reconsideration of the appellant's guilt – Appeal allowed, and the matter remitted for a fresh trial. [Para 18-29]

Criminal Procedure - statement under Section 313 CrPC recorded - Appellant's response to incriminating circumstances - Additional circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court - Appellant not confronted with these circumstances during examination - Investigation records reveal important contradictions - Failure of defense counsel, public prosecutor, and presiding officer to address these contradictions - Interpretation of Section 162 of the CrPC and Section 145 of the Evidence Act regarding the use of police statements for contradiction - Duty of the Court to ensure proper examination of witnesses regarding contradictory statements - Importance of reviewing police papers to verify witness consistency - Necessity for a fair and just procedure in criminal trials. [Para 30-48]

Criminal Procedure – Role of the High Court in confirmation cases involving the death penalty – Duty to examine the reference comprehensively – Obligation to consider various aspects including the nature of the crime, the convict's intent, the impact on the victim and society, the conduct of the convict, and past history – Importance of ensuring that the decision instills confidence and serves as a deterrent – High Court's responsibility under Sections 366, 367, 368, 370, and 392 of the CrPC – Need for an independent examination and not relying solely on concessions made by counsel – Duty to act in a manner that upholds the principles of justice and fairness. [Para 57-63]

Concept of Fair Trial – deeply rooted in history, enshrined in the Constitution, and embodied in criminal trial statutes - A fair trial is essential for justice to prevail, ensuring that no innocent person is punished and the guilty are held accountable. India follows the accusatorial or adversarial system of common law, where the accused is presumed innocent, and both the prosecution and defense present their cases - Impartiality and fairness of all parties involved, including the judge, defense counsel, and public prosecutor, are fundamental for a fair trial. [Para 64-69]

Role of the Judge – A judge's role in ensuring a fair trial is crucial - must actively participate in proceedings, taking an interest in uncovering the truth and maintaining impartiality - They are not mere spectators or recording machines but play an active role in questioning witnesses, seeking relevant information, and upholding the pursuit of truth and justice - concept of the independence of the judiciary is vital to ensure judges' ability to objectively evaluate and apply the law without external influence. [Para 70-72]

Decision – sets aside the High Court's decision and remits the case for reconsideration - justice is not merely about courtroom proceedings but about the outcome that ensures truth and fairness. It also urges the High Court to expedite the case, considering the appellant's long incarceration, and suggests appointing legal representation for the appellant if necessary. The judgment's essence is captured in the quote, "Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in the courtroom; Justice is what comes out of a courtroom." [Para 73-79]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Appeal arises from the High Court’s judgment confirming the Trial Court’s conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder – Issue limited to the quantum of sentence. [Para 1-3, 10]

Prosecution Case – Attack on Complainant – Appellant, along with other co-accused, allegedly attacked the complainant, causing injuries – FIR registered under Section 307 IPC – Investigation led to chargesheet against the appellant and co-accused. [Para 4-5]

Evidence – Corroboration of Complainant’s Statement – Testimonies of eye-witnesses and medical reports corroborate the complainant’s statement – Trial Court convicted the appellant based on the evidence. [Para 6-9]

Sentencing Principles – Aggravating and Mitigating Factors – Court emphasizes the need to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors while sentencing – References to previous judgments on the philosophy and objectives behind sentencing. [Para 11-17]

Mitigating Circumstances – No Criminal Antecedents and Old Enmity – Appellant had no prior criminal record and the incident occurred due to old enmity related to land – Co-accused acquitted. [Para 21-22]

Decision – Sentence Reduction – Sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment reduced to 3 years, with a fine of Rs. 50,000 to be paid as compensation to the complainant – Appeal partly allowed. [Para 23-24]

Cooperative Societies – U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 – Challenge to the High Court’s order allowing writ petitions against the cancellation of a sale deed – Society’s failure to provide evidence for allegations – Appeals dismissed. [Para 1, 10, 17]

Bye-Laws – Eligibility for Allotment – Clause 5(1) and 3(10) of the society’s bye-laws – Requirement that a member or their family should not own any building or plot in the area of operation – Society failed to prove violation. [Para 12-14]

Arbitration – Award declaring sale deed null and void – Lack of evidence to support society’s allegations – High Court set aside the award and appellate order. [Para 6-9, 15-16]

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Society failed to furnish evidence before the arbitrator to substantiate its allegations – High Court’s finding in favor of the respondents. [Para 14-16]

Ownership – Definition of ‘Family’ under Bye-Laws – Husband, wife, and dependent minor children – No evidence to prove that Krishna Pal Singh or his successors owned any other property in the area of operation. [Para 3, 13, 16]

Decision – Appeals lack merit due to society’s failure to substantiate allegations – High Court’s judgment upheld – Appeals dismissed with no orders as to costs. [Para 17]

Civil Appeal – Recruitment to Ministerial Group “C” Posts – Appellants aggrieved by denial of promotion despite seniority – Case revolves around the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group “C” Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001. [Para 1-3]

Promotion Criteria – Rule 5 of the said Rules – Specifies that 20% of vacancies shall be filled by promotion from Group “D” employees, with 15% from those who have passed High School and 5% from those who have passed Intermediate examinations. [Para 2, 4]

High Court’s Decision – Dismissal of writ petition – High Court held that Rule 5 only prescribes the source of recruitment, and those who obtained higher marks were promoted. [Para 3]

Supreme Court’s Observation – Lack of promotions since 2015 – Despite vacancies, no promotions conducted in line with Rule 5 of the said Rules, affecting appellants and others similarly situated. [Para 6-8]

Article 142 – Special Direction – Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 142 to direct promotion of four candidates immediately below those promoted in 2014, specifying that this shall not be treated as a precedent. [Para 9-11]

Time Frame – State of Uttar Pradesh directed to take necessary action within two months. [Para 10]