Criminal Procedure – Passport Impounding – Jurisdiction of Police and Passport Authority – The power to impound a passport lies with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and not with the police. Even if the police seize a passport under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., they cannot withhold it and must forward it to the Passport Authority for their decision on impounding. (Para 8-9)

Passport Retention – Unlawful Retention – If a passport was neither impounded nor seized lawfully, retaining it by a third party, such as the Passport Office, is unauthorized. (Para 10)

Conditions on Passport Release – Illegality of Imposed Conditions – The High Court cannot impose conditions on the release of a passport when no impounding or seizure of the passport has occurred. (Para 10)

Wife’s Passport – Reissue Procedure – In case of a lost passport, the wife can apply for reissuance without additional proof of loss beyond filing a report to the police. The husband is obliged to cooperate in providing necessary documents as per Passport Rules, 1980. (Para 11)

Direction to Return Passports – Spouse’s Passport – Court’s Inherent Power – The Court cannot direct the return of the spouse’s passport as a condition for the release of the appellant’s passport when there is no legal basis for the retention of the appellant’s passport. (Para 11)

Compliance with Deposit Condition – No Challenge – The appellant does not challenge the condition of depositing ₹10 lakhs; thus, it stands confirmed. (Para 11)

Insurance Law – Motor Insurance – Third-Party Coverage – Reimbursement of Medical Expenses – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) disallowed indemnification of medical expenses incurred by the insured-appellant towards the treatment of an injured third-party in an accident – Supreme Court found exhibits (medical bills) on record supporting the medical expenses – Held, insurance company’s incorrect submissions led to denial of reimbursement – Appeal allowed, medical expenses to be reimbursed with interest. (Para 11, 12, 15, 16)

Consumer Protection – Insurance Claim – Medical Expenses – Insured incurred medical expenses for the treatment of an injured third-party involved in an accident covered under third-party insurance – Insurance company refused reimbursement – District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC ruled in favor of the appellant for other claims – NCDRC disallowed medical expense reimbursement, citing lack of evidence – Supreme Court found evidence on record supporting the medical expenses – Held, appellant entitled to reimbursement with interest. (Para 11, 12, 15, 16)

Evidence – Medical Bills – Claim for Medical Expenses – Appellant submitted medical bills as evidence for the medical expenses incurred in treating an injured third-party involved in an accident – Insurance company denied reimbursement, stating “no evidence on record” – Supreme Court examined the exhibits and found them to be valid supporting evidence – Held, exhibits establish the claim for medical expenses. (Para 13)

Fairness and Justice – Conduct of Insurance Company – Insurance company made incorrect submissions leading to denial of medical expense reimbursement – Appellant had to approach the Supreme Court for relief – Supreme Court criticized insurer’s conduct as unfair and unjust – Held, insurance company directed to pay medical expenses with interest and a nominal cost to the appellant. (Para 16)

Election Petition - Non-disclosure of Criminal Cases - The appellant, a candidate in an election, faces allegations of not disclosing pending criminal cases against him [Para 16] - Contention that disclosure was not required under Section 33A of the relevant Act [Para 16] - Appellant argues that the non-disclosed cases do not fall within specified categories - Election petitioner alleges non-disclosure of past convictions under the Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Wages Act [Para 17].

Examination of Pending Criminal Case - Court examines the records of a pending criminal case related to offenses under the Indian Forest Act [Para 18] - Finds that the appellant was not charged for the alleged offenses, contrary to the petitioner's assertions [Para 18].

Punishment for Offenses - Court considers the punishment for violating provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Wages Act [Para 20] - Assesses the relevance of past convictions to the non-disclosure allegations [Para 19].

Scope of Rejection - Court discusses the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order XII Rule 6 CPC [Para 21] - Emphasizes that partial rejection of the petition based on certain admissions is not permissible [Para 24].

Need for Full Trial - Court asserts that the allegations of non-disclosure and their legal effect require a full trial [Para 28] - Summary proceedings insufficient for examining non-compliance with statutory regulations [Para 28].

Significance of Right to Vote - Court underscores the importance of the right to vote and the voter's right to know a candidate's full background [Para 27].

Dismissal of Appeal - Court concludes that the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal is valid and without fault [Para 29].

Writ of Mandamus - Jurisdiction - Appellants challenged the High Court's order and judgment - Contentions based on a previous order in Praveen Kumar v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors. - Court found the contentions baseless as the said order did not confer any indefeasible right on the appellant and did not pertain to the pending Civil Suit - Issue Deletion - Trial Court deleted certain issues in Civil Suit No.759 of 2018, which were upheld by the High Court - Deletion of issues justified as the appellant had accepted jurisdiction and no notice or order was issued by the Cantonment Board against the first respondent - Writ Petition - Prayer for de-sealing property denied as it was contingent on the approval of the building plan, which was not sanctioned - De-sealing issue intertwined with the pending Civil Suit - Appellant had no legal right to seek a writ of mandamus at this stage - Result - Civil Appeals and Writ Petition dismissed. (Paragraphs 1-16)

Criminal Law - Bail - Grant of Bail - Factors to be considered - Seriousness of the offense - Likelihood of accused fleeing from justice - Impact on prosecution witnesses - Possibility of tampering with evidence - Criminal antecedents of the accused - Prima facie satisfaction of the court on the charges - Need for recording reasons while granting bail.

Judgments - Contents of - Requirement of adequate reasoning - Order granting bail without proper reasoning - Vice of non-application of mind - Illegality of such order - Need for considering material aspects of the case.

Bail Application - Merits of the case - Elaborate discussion not required - Consideration of vital facts of the case - Prima facie conclusion supported by reasons - Balancing liberty of an individual with seriousness of allegations against the accused.

High Court's Discretion - Exercise of - Importance of considering material aspects of the case - Failure to do so in passing impugned judgments - Order granting bail in a casual manner - Error of law.

Prima Facie Case - Nature of allegations - Seriousness of charges - Prima facie satisfaction of guilt - Presence of adequate material supporting the charges - Consideration of the accused's role in the alleged crime - Not treating allegations as wholly false, frivolous, or vexatious.

High Court's Orders - Inadequate reasoning - Merely referring to testimony of a hostile witness - Failure to consider material aspects of the case - Grant of bail based on a single factor - Orders deemed erroneous and unjust.

Conclusion - Setting aside impugned judgments - Cancellation of bail bonds - Directed surrender of accused before jail authorities - Appeals allowed.

(Para No. 20, 23 – 27)

Property Dispute - Alleged Sale of Portion of Inherited Property - Appellant and Respondent, brothers, in dispute over land inherited from their father - Allegation that one brother sold a portion of his share to the other - Possession of the sold land forcibly taken by Appellant - Suit for possession filed by Respondent - Lower courts returned findings in favor of Appellant - High Court set aside concurrent findings and ruled in favor of Respondent - Instant appeals against High Court judgment. [Para 1]

Scope of Second Appeal - Applicability of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - Court's jurisdiction to frame substantial questions of law - Held, in appeals arising from Punjab or Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per Section 100 of CPC - Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act applies. [Para 7, 8]

Rights of Co-Share Purchaser - Right to possession - Applicability of precedent - Appellant's contention that purchaser of co-share does not have a right to possession - Reference to judgments in Ramdas v. Sitabai and Gurmej Singh v. Jai Singh - Court finds judgments inapplicable to the present case due to the existence of evidence showing partition by the father of the Appellant - No effort made by Appellant to substitute himself in place of Respondent in the property transaction. [Para 12, 13]

Interference with Findings of Fact in Second Appeal - Conditions for disturbing lower courts' findings - Court may interfere if lower courts ignored material evidence, drew wrong inferences, or wrongly cast the burden of proof - Analysis of witness statements shows lower courts ignored evidence of property partition - Contradictions in Appellant's statements add weight to Respondent's claim - High Court's findings valid. [Para 14, 15]

CIVIL APPEAL - Limitation - Condonation of delay - Justice-oriented approach - Delay of 52 days in filing the appeal - Whether the delay can be condoned - Effect of delay on deciding the matter on merits - Sufficient cause for condoning the delay - Supreme Court sets aside lower Appellate Court and High Court judgments, and condones the delay - Matter restored to the file of the lower Appellate Court for consideration on merits - All contentions left open for consideration - Civil Appeal allowed.(Para No.1-9)

Delimitation Act 2002 – Section 10A and Representation of the People Act 1950 – Section 8A – Constitutionality challenged – Deferral of delimitation exercise in a State due to threats to unity, integrity, peace, and public order – Rescission of deferment order and entrusting delimitation exercise to the Election Commission – Challenge to the political inclusivity of the process – Alleged violation of democratic principles and constitutional norms.

Process of Delimitation – Political Representation – Section 8A of RP Act – Delimitation Act provides for inclusion of political representatives – Election Commission entrusted with delimitation exercise in States specified in Section 8A – Constitutional challenge raised on dilution of political process in delimitation exercise.

Power to Rescind Deferment Order – President’s Authority – Notification rescinding deferment issued by Union Ministry of Law and Justice – Election Commission’s actions contrary to the terms of rescission – Challenge to the validity of the President’s notification and Election Commission’s role in the process.

Constitutional Norms – Article 170(2) and Article 81(2) of the Constitution – Density of Population – Draft proposal by Election Commission based on population density – Alleged breach of constitutional norms regarding the ratio between population and seats in constituencies.

Notice Issued – Counter-Affidavits and Rejoinders – Court reserves the constitutional challenge for further deliberation – Parties directed to file counter-affidavits within three weeks, and rejoinders within two weeks thereafter.

Delimitation Process – Interdiction at this Stage – Process already commenced following the rescission of deferment order – Court refrains from interdicting the ongoing delimitation process.

Next Listing – Petitions to be Listed – Petitions to be listed in the first week of October 2023 for further consideration.

Criminal Law – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 6 – Exercise of Jurisdiction by the NIA – Validity – High Court directed the investigation of several First Information Reports (FIRs) to be transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Explosive Substances Act – Petitioners challenged the High Court’s order – Supreme Court observed that the Central Government had already exercised its powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act and issued a notification for NIA’s investigation – Court held that it was not within its remit to decide the sufficiency or veracity of the allegations at this stage – The Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, holding that the exercise of jurisdiction by the NIA was valid – Special Leave Petitions disposed of accordingly.