Matrimonial Law - Maintenance Pendente Lite – Section 24 HMA – Independence from Divorce Petition – Appellant argued that withdrawal of the divorce petition rendered Family Court functus officio to decide maintenance – Held: Section 24 proceedings are independent and survive withdrawal of the main case – Statutory provisions aim to ensure financial security of the dependent spouse despite procedural developments – High Court rightly upheld the Family Court’s jurisdiction [Paras 10-11].

Custody and Maintenance of Children – Section 26 HMA – Paramount Interest – High Court held that Section 26 proceedings addressing children's welfare are of paramount importance – These proceedings persist irrespective of withdrawal of the divorce petition, ensuring ongoing support for dependent children – Emphasized protection of children's rights to maintenance and education [Paras 11-12].

Maintenance – Misrepresentation by Spouse – Appellant’s Concealment of Wealth – Evidence revealed the appellant’s deliberate suppression of financial records, including undeclared investments and properties – Appellant failed to discharge moral and legal obligations towards wife and son – Held: Concealment tactics warrant enhanced maintenance to align with respondent’s needs and social status [Paras 13-15].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Article 142 – Decree of Divorce Granted – Marriage subsisted nominally for over two decades with no cohabitation since 2004 – Serious allegations by both parties and failed reconciliation attempts established irretrievable breakdown – Exercising Article 142 powers, the Court dissolved the marriage and awarded a decree of divorce [Paras 27-28].

Permanent Alimony – Fair and Equitable Settlement – Quantum Determination – Considered the appellant’s substantial income (Rs. 10-12 lakhs per month) and assets, including investments exceeding Rs. 5 crores – Granted one-time settlement of Rs. 5 crores to the wife and Rs. 1 crore for the son’s education and financial security – Objective to ensure reasonable standard of living and protection of financial interests of dependent spouse and child [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeals disposed of. Marriage dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution. Appellant directed to pay Rs. 5 crores to the respondent and Rs. 1 crore to the son as a one-time settlement within four months.

Contempt of Court – Alleged Wilful Disobedience of Supreme Court Orders – TDR Compliance - Wilful Disobedience – Orders Passed by Supreme Court – Intentional Delay in Compliance – Allegations of wilful disobedience of Supreme Court orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022, and 19.03.2024 – Petitioners claimed non-compliance by respondents regarding issuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for land acquired for road widening projects – Contemnor authorities delayed implementation under pretext of financial hardships and other excuses – Held: Non-compliance was deliberate and intentional, indicating wilful disobedience [Paras 1.10-1.13, 10, 13].

Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Failure to Issue as Per Rules – Orders mandated issuance of TDR under Karnataka Town and Country Planning Rules, 2016, which require market value determination based on guidance values under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Respondents calculated TDR at significantly lower values, contrary to rules and judicial directions – Notices issued for compliance were found to contain suppressed facts and contradictory positions by the authorities – Held: Issuance of TDR must align with prescribed rules and market value as determined under the Stamp Act [Paras 11-12, 18-22].

Government's Conduct – Deliberate Inaction and Misrepresentation – Respondents failed to implement court orders from 2014 to 2022, delaying with inter-departmental communications and filing modification applications, all dismissed – Subsequent Government Orders calculated TDR on arbitrary values, ignoring binding judicial directions – Held: Respondents' conduct amounted to wilful disregard of court orders [Paras 5.4, 7-9].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Substantial Compliance Required – Execution of court orders must be substantial and reflect bonafide efforts – Theoretical or partial compliance is insufficient – Held: Contempt proceedings maintain the dignity of courts, and respondents' delay tactics were unjustified and contemptuous [Paras 5.3, 18].

Decision: Respondents directed to issue TDR certificates within six weeks based on market value under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Specific guidance values: ₹2,83,500 per sq. meter (Bellary Road) and ₹2,04,000 per sq. meter (Jayamahal Road) – Non-compliance would require personal appearance of relevant authorities before the Court [Paras 20, 25].

Additional conditions imposed by the Supreme Court's 19.03.2024 order were recalled to align with earlier orders [Paras 20].

Costs of ₹1 lakh each imposed on contemnors for delaying proceedings, except in CP No. 578 of 2022 [Para 25].

Contempt Petitions allowed – Respondents to report compliance by 22.01.2025 or face further action.
 

Service Law - Temporary Employment – Principles of Engagement and Termination – Public Employment Rules – Respondent engaged as a Computer Technician for a fixed term of one year or until regular selection – Termination before the term's expiry was non-stigmatic – Held: Temporary engagement cannot confer rights akin to regular employment – In absence of regular recruitment, continuation or reinstatement is unsustainable – Compensation for unfulfilled term deemed sufficient [Paras 2-6, 14, 17].

Parity in Employment Decisions – No Claim to Negative Equality – Respondent relied on Tribunal orders reinstating similarly terminated individuals – Held: Article 14 does not recognize "negative equality" – Erroneous or administrative reinstatements do not establish legal precedent – Employment decisions require examination on individual merits, as laid down in State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati and State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma [Paras 18-20].

Natural Justice – Procedural Fairness in Termination – Limited Applicability – High Court relied on lack of opportunity to be heard prior to disengagement – Held: In cases of temporary employment, procedural fairness requirements are limited when termination is non-stigmatic – No contravention of principles of natural justice established in this case [Paras 8, 15].

Compensation as Equitable Remedy – Rs. 5 Lakhs Awarded – Prolonged litigation and unequal treatment led to respondent's expectation of similar relief – Held: Equitable compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded as full and final settlement – No grounds for reinstatement or continuation due to expiration of term and lack of regular recruitment [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed. High Court's order for reinstatement and reengagement set aside. Respondent awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs as final settlement, payable within three months. Pending applications disposed of.

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Beneficent legislation to aid inarticulate and poor people – Object to remove inequality in compensation payments – Restrictive interpretation rejected – Appeal allowed

Redetermination of Compensation – Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land acquired for Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway by notification dated 17.11.2004 – Compensation initially fixed at ₹12,50,000/- per acre – Appellants did not file reference under Section 18 but sought redetermination under Section 28-A based on a High Court judgment in a related appeal that enhanced compensation to ₹19,91,300/- per acre – LAC allowed the application, but the High Court set aside the order citing a restrictive interpretation of Section 28-A – Held: Section 28-A aims to provide equitable compensation and cannot be restricted to the first award of the Reference Court; application within three months of a subsequent High Court judgment is valid [Paras 3.4, 3.6, 11-14].

Judicial Precedents – Conflict in Interpretations – High Court relied on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018), which limited the applicability of Section 28-A to awards of the Reference Court – Supreme Court clarified that Pradeep Kumari v. Union of India (1995), a prior decision by a co-equal bench, governs the issue – Ramsingbhai deemed per incuriam for not considering Pradeep Kumari – Earlier judgments favoring expansive interpretation to benefit marginalized landowners upheld [Paras 19-24].

Beneficent Legislation – Purpose and Interpretation – Section 28-A is intended to redress inequalities in compensation for inarticulate and poor landowners unable to seek reference under Section 18 – Interpretation should extend, not curtail, the benefits – Applications under Section 28-A must consider the realities of such landowners’ circumstances – Limitation starts from the date of the award on which redetermination is sought, even if it is a High Court judgment enhancing compensation [Paras 10-14, 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 25.11.2021 quashed – Order of LAC dated 15.09.2020 upheld, allowing enhanced compensation to the appellants based on the High Court’s award in a related case – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 25-26].

Service Law – Deputation vs. Direct Recruitment – Promotion – The respondent, originally appointed on deputation as Manager (Technical), was later repatriated to his parent department before rejoining the appellant through direct recruitment – Respondent sought recognition of deputation service for promotion eligibility – Held: Repatriation constituted a clear break in service; respondent’s direct recruitment constituted a fresh entry into the appellant’s service – Deputation service prior to direct recruitment cannot be counted for promotion under the Recruitment Regulations or the appellant’s Circular dated 22.05.2017 – Appeal allowed, CAT and High Court orders set aside [Paras 23–29].

Circular Interpretation – Deputation Service and Absorption – Scope and Limits – The Circular issued as a one-time measure permitted deputation service to be treated as regular service for promotion, provided administrative formalities like technical resignation or retirement were fulfilled – The respondent, having been repatriated without such formalities and subsequently rejoining as a direct recruit, fell outside the Circular’s scope – No continuity of service could be claimed for promotion [Paras 25–28].

Doctrine of Equality – No Parity Between Ineligible and Eligible Candidates – The respondent claimed discrimination against three other officers who benefited from the Circular – Held: Parity could not be claimed as those officers had continuous service without gaps, unlike the respondent – Differentiation upheld as lawful and non-arbitrary [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgments of the High Court and CAT set aside – Original Application filed by the respondent dismissed – Respondent to be considered for future promotions under applicable rules and regulations from his re-entry on 26.08.2015 – No recovery of excess benefits paid to the respondent [Paras 29–30].

Service Law – Permanent Commission – Discrimination – Appellant, a Short Service Commissioned (SSC) officer in the Army Dental Corps, was denied a third chance for permanent commission due to amendments to age relaxation policies introduced in 2013 – Appellant sought parity with other officers granted permanent commission by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 – Tribunal rejected appellant’s claim on grounds that she was not a party to the original case – Supreme Court held appellant was identically situated to officers who benefited from the 2013 judgment and deserved similar treatment to avoid discrimination – Relief granted under Article 142 of the Constitution – Directions issued for granting appellant permanent commission with consequential benefits [Paras 1–24].

Policy Amendments – Age Relaxation – Amendments to AI 37/78 in 2013 capped age relaxation for SSC officers seeking permanent commission at 35 years and applied only to those with postgraduate qualifications – Appellant, eligible under pre-2013 rules, was deprived of her third chance – Supreme Court observed that denying the appellant relief while granting it to identically situated officers was discriminatory and unsupported by valid justification – Held: Amendments did not justify exclusion of appellant from consideration for permanent commission [Paras 3–19].

Principle of Parity – Similarly Situated Officers – Officers in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 who were also SSC officers denied a third chance due to the 2013 amendments were granted age relaxation and permanent commission by AFT Principal Bench – Supreme Court reiterated that similarly situated individuals should not be denied relief solely because they did not approach the court – Appellant, having actively pursued her rights since 2014, deserved identical relief [Paras 14–19].

Exercise of Discretion – Article 142 of the Constitution – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to provide full relief, noting appellant’s distinguished service, lack of fault, and longstanding efforts for redressal – Directed grant of permanent commission with seniority, promotion, and monetary arrears to align with similarly situated officers – Directions to be implemented within four weeks [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – AFT Regional Bench, Lucknow’s order dated 05.01.2022 set aside – Appellant granted permanent commission with effect from the same date as similarly situated officers, along with all consequential benefits [Paras 24–25].

Property Rights – Section 14(1) and 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act – Judicial Divergence – Referred to Larger Bench – Analysis of Precedents Required - Multiple judgments from different Benches, including two-judge and three-judge Bench decisions, present inconsistent interpretations of Section 14 – This has resulted in judicial conflict between principles of absolute ownership under Section 14(1) and restricted estate under Section 14(2) – A larger Bench to reconcile inconsistencies for clarity and certainty in the law governing Hindu females' property rights [Paras 1–5, 24–25].

Restricted Estate – Testamentary Disposition – Section 14(2) – Applicability Debated – The appeal involved a testamentary disposition creating a life estate in favor of a Hindu female, with subsequent alienation leading to legal challenges – High Court followed Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike favoring Section 14(2), while appellants argued that this contradicted Tulasamma – Held: Further adjudication needed by a larger Bench [Paras 6–14, 20–25].

Judicial Need for Uniform Interpretation – Conflict in Precedents – Impact on Hindu Females’ Rights – Observed that Section 14 impacts property rights of Hindu females, with inconsistencies causing lack of clarity across courts – Referral to larger Bench deemed essential to reconcile principles and ensure certainty in law [Paras 3, 24–25].

Decision – Interim Referral – Matter Adjourned – Directed Registry to place the appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for referral to an appropriate larger Bench – No final adjudication by the two-judge Bench – Outcome dependent on larger Bench decision [Para 25].

Criminal Law - Death Penalty – Delay in Execution – Effect on Convicts' Rights – Undue, unexplained delay in the execution of a death sentence violates the rights of convicts under Article 21 of the Constitution – In the present case, the delay spanned nearly four years from filing mercy petitions to issuing execution warrants – Held: The cumulative delays at multiple stages, including inordinate delays by the State Government and the Sessions Court, rendered the execution unconstitutional – Commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment upheld [Paras 29–34, 42(i)].

Mercy Petitions – Prompt Disposal – Executive Responsibility – Delays in forwarding mercy petitions and providing necessary documents to the Governor and President were avoidable and unjustified – Held: The executive must promptly process mercy petitions and avoid administrative laxity – Guidelines issued for establishing dedicated cells and streamlining processes to prevent delays [Paras 30–31, 42(vii)].

Sessions Court – Role in Issuance of Execution Warrants – Compliance with Natural Justice – Sessions Court delayed issuing execution warrants even after receiving communication of mercy petition rejections – Held: Sessions Courts must ensure procedural safeguards, issue notices to convicts, and provide reasonable time for legal remedies before issuing execution warrants – Directions issued to ensure timely and fair proceedings [Paras 32–33, 42(iv)].

Principle of Proportionality – Death Sentence vs. Fixed-Term Imprisonment – Considering delays and the psychological torment caused to convicts, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment for thirty-five years – Held: Such delays dehumanize convicts and violate constitutional protections, warranting commutation [Paras 34–35, 42(i)].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment commuting the death sentence to thirty-five years of imprisonment upheld – Directions issued for prompt and fair processing of mercy petitions and issuance of execution warrants [Para 43].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Implied Right to Possession – Execution Permitted – The petitioners, subsequent purchasers, opposed the High Court's direction for the delivery of possession to the decree-holder in a specific performance case where the original decree did not expressly order possession – Held: The decree-holder has an implied right to possession under Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in cases where exclusive possession is with the contracting party – Dismissal of the Special Leave Petition upheld the High Court’s interpretation [Paras 12-14].

Specific Relief Act – Amendment and Execution – Possession Claim Permissible at Execution Stage – Relying on Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, (1982) 1 SCC 525, the Court reaffirmed that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act allows a decree-holder to claim possession at any stage, including during execution, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Relief granted by the High Court upheld [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Precedents – Settled Position Reiterated – The judgment in Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd., 2024 INSC 920, reiterated the established principle that in cases of exclusive possession with the contracting party, specific performance decrees inherently include possession rights unless expressly excluded [Para 15].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed – The decree-holder entitled to possession as part of the specific performance decree, consistent with the principles laid down in Babu Lal and Rohit Kochhar cases [Para 16].