Criminal Law – Recall of Witnesses – Section 311 CrPC- Section 311 CrPC provides the court with wide discretionary power to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the true test is whether the evidence of such person is crucial for resolving the issues in the trial, irrespective of the case's age or duration [Paras 13-15].

Application of Section 311 CrPC – Judicial Discretion- The Supreme Court held that the applications under Section 311 CrPC should be allowed if the evidence sought to be introduced is essential for a just decision. The trial court's and High Court's rejection of the applications for recalling witnesses to mark the Board's approval document was not justified [Paras 14-16].

Decision - Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the recall of PWs 1 and 11 for marking the relevant document. The respondent was given the liberty to cross-examine the recalled witnesses. The trial was ordered to be completed by 31 July 2021 [Paras 16-17].

Matrimonial Law – Dissolution of Marriage – Appellant (Husband) sought dissolution of marriage due to mental cruelty by the wife – Complaints made by wife to Army superiors and other authorities – Court of inquiry against husband and adverse consequences in career – High Court erred in dismissing husband's plea and allowing wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights – Supreme Court restored Family Court’s order of dissolution of marriage, dismissing wife’s application for restitution of conjugal rights [Paras 1-16].

Mental Cruelty – Defamatory Complaints – Wife's multiple complaints led to professional and reputational damage to the husband – Supreme Court held that such conduct amounted to mental cruelty – The explanation that complaints were to protect matrimonial ties found unjustifiable – Court emphasized the burden on the affected spouse to not condone such conduct and to seek separation [Paras 11-15].

Degree of Tolerance – Varying from Couple to Couple – Court must consider background, education level, and status of parties – In this case, the wife’s persistent efforts to undermine husband’s dignity and reputation constituted sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Family Court’s order restored – Marriage dissolved – Wife’s application for restitution of conjugal rights dismissed [Para 15-16].

Foreign Exchange Regulation – Transfer of Property – Appeal addressing the validity of property transfer by a foreign national without prior permission from the RBI – Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, mandates obtaining previous general or special permission of the RBI for such transfers – Transfers without such permission are unenforceable in law [Paras 1-40].

Mandatory Nature of Section 31 – Requirement for Previous Permission – Court held that the stipulation in Section 31 for obtaining prior permission from the RBI is mandatory – Absence of such permission renders the transfer unenforceable – Court distinguished between void and voidable transactions and upheld that transactions in contravention of Section 31 are unenforceable until such permission is granted [Paras 25-38].

Conflicting High Court Decisions – Reversal of High Court Judgments – Various High Court decisions interpreted Section 31 differently – Supreme Court overruled these interpretations, establishing the mandatory nature of Section 31 and the unenforceability of non-compliant transfers – Previous High Court rulings not aligned with this interpretation are declared incorrect, but their effects are not to be disturbed retroactively [Paras 28-39].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Trial Court and High Court judgments set aside – Suit for declaration regarding the invalidity of the gift deed in favor of the respondent upheld – Appellant entitled to possession and mesne profits of the disputed property – Remand to Trial Court for inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of the CPC for determination of mesne profits [Para 40].

Village Panchayats – No-Confidence Motion – Directly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat faced a no-confidence motion – Resolution passed by requisite majority – Collector directed a Special Gram Sabha for ratification – High Court set aside Collector’s order and resolution – Supreme Court reinstated Collector’s order, directing the Special Gram Sabha to convene for ratification [Paras 1-10].

Section 35-1A – Mandatory Ratification Procedure – Court emphasized the statutory requirement of ratification of no-confidence motion by a Special Gram Sabha conducted with secret ballot and under an appointed officer – Absence of provision for lapsing of resolution if not placed within specified time – Administrative instructions cannot override statutory requirements [Paras 8-9].

Procedural Compliance – Ratification of Resolution – Special Gram Sabha to be convened expeditiously – Until ratification, post of Sarpanch to be held by Upasarpanch or as directed by the Collector [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Reinstated Collector’s order – Special Gram Sabha to ratify no-confidence motion as per statutory scheme – Interim arrangement for post of Sarpanch specified [Para 12-13].

Murder – Conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC – Appeal against conviction – Incident involved fatal assault on Ganeshram by Devilal, Gokul, and Amrat Ram – Eyewitness accounts and recoveries of weapons (lathi, sword, axe) corroborated prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-24].

Juvenility – Determination – Appellant Amrat Ram claimed juvenility – Inquiry confirmed age as 16 years 11 months at the time of the incident – Under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, matter remanded to Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate order regarding fine [Paras 12-24].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Quality over Quantity – Testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 consistent and reliable – Testimony of PW1 regarding tutoring not sufficient to disregard evidence – FIR treated as dying declaration [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence of Devilal and Gokul affirmed – Appeal of Amrat Ram allowed to the extent of remanding matter to Juvenile Justice Board for determining fine – Devilal and Gokul directed to surrender [Para 25-26].

Murder – Conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC – Appeal against conviction – Postmortem report indicating injuries from both blunt and sharp objects – Appellant armed with lathi, co-accused with axe – Injuries consistent with weapons used – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-24].

Juvenility – Determination – Appellant claimed to be juvenile at the time of the incident – High Court ordered medical examination – Medical Board determined age as between 40-55 years – Appellant's own application for arms license stated age as 21 years at the time of the incident – Claim of juvenility rejected [Paras 2-16].

Examination of Witnesses – Quality vs. Quantity – Not necessary for prosecution to examine all potential witnesses – Quality of evidence prioritized – Testimony of some witnesses can be accepted even if disbelieved for others – Non-examination of witness not critical to the outcome [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – No merit found in the arguments of the appellant regarding both juvenility and the sufficiency of evidence [Paras 24].

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Limited Scope – Held, policy decisions are open for judicial review by the Court for a very limited purpose – Court can interfere if the policy is absolutely capricious, totally arbitrary, or not informed by reasons – Petitioners sought mandamus to direct respondents to provide an additional attempt for CSE 2020, which was denied [Paras 43-45].

Civil Services Examination – Additional Attempt – Policy Decision – Petitioners contended that COVID-19 pandemic impeded their preparation, seeking an extra attempt as a matter of right – Supreme Court held that such claims do not merit judicial intervention as policy decisions rest with the executive – Previous relaxations granted in different circumstances do not establish a precedent for the current situation [Paras 13-18, 41-45].

Discretion of Executive – Relaxation Not Permissible – Court acknowledged the unprecedented impact of the pandemic but reiterated that relaxation in attempts or age limits not provided under the scheme of rules is beyond judicial intervention – Executive discretion in policy matters must be exercised based on prevailing circumstances [Paras 32-37, 48].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to additional attempt for CSE 2020 – Court refrained from exercising plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief not permissible under the scheme of rules [Paras 46-50].

Medical Education – Establishment of Medical College – Essentiality Certificate (EC) – State Government’s power to withdraw EC – Held, the State Government can withdraw the EC if obtained by fraud or if the foundational circumstances for its grant vanish or for similar reasons – Appellant failed to remove deficiencies since 2004 despite multiple opportunities – EC withdrawal justified [Paras 20-24].

Grant of Essentiality Certificate – Not a Ministerial Act – Issuance of EC involves assessment of feasibility and infrastructure by the State Government – Court held grant of EC and CoA is not merely a ministerial function but involves substantial scrutiny to ensure compliance with Medical Council of India norms – Appellant’s contention that EC grant is ministerial rejected [Paras 19-21].

Inspection and Deficiencies – Persistent Lack of Facilities – Multiple inspections revealed severe deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty, and clinical material – Findings of the inspection teams indicated the appellant’s hospital lacked the necessary facilities to run a medical college – Appellant’s compliance reports were insufficient to address the noted deficiencies [Paras 26-28].

Adherence to Time Schedule – Importance of Compliance – Court emphasized strict adherence to the time schedule prescribed for establishing new medical colleges – Appellant’s applications for the academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 were time-barred – No relief could be granted for the lapsed academic sessions [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Directions issued to the appellant to apply afresh for subsequent academic years after rectifying deficiencies – Authorities directed to consider fresh applications as per the prescribed procedures [Paras 33-34].

Municipal Law – Multi-Member Wards – Constitutionality – Challenge to provisions allowing multiple members to be elected from a single ward in Gujarat – Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution do not limit to one member per ward – Provisions of Sections 5(3)(iii)(a), 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Rules 4 and 5 of 1994 Rules, and Rule 2(b) of 2007 Rules not ultra vires Articles 243R and 243S – Multi-member wards found to enhance representation and empowerment of women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes [Paras 22-70].

Representation – Empowerment of Weaker Sections – Multi-member wards ensure fair representation and empowerment of weaker sections – Reservation of seats for women, SC, ST in multi-member wards increases their participation and voice in municipal governance [Paras 65-70].

Administrative Procedure – Validity of Notification – Issuance of notification amending ward rules before the expiry of the objection period – Notification dated 04.12.2014 issued without waiting for 30 days from draft notification dated 27.11.2014 – Court held the issuance of notification within the stipulated period without considering objections as illegal [Paras 71-74].

Decision – Appeals and writ petition disposed of – Provisions for multi-member wards upheld as constitutional – Directions issued for proper procedure to be followed in issuing notifications for ward delimitation and reserved seat allocation [Para 74].