Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Execution of Decrees – Abuse of Process – The appeals highlighted the constant abuse of procedural provisions by unsuccessful litigants, which obstructs the execution of decrees and justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that execution proceedings must not be allowed to become tools to delay justice. The Court provided detailed guidelines to streamline and expedite the execution process, including directions to ensure timely disposal of execution petitions, prevent frivolous objections, and use of technology. [Paras 2-43].

Execution of Decrees – Guidelines and Directions – The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to all courts dealing with execution proceedings to ensure timely execution and prevent abuse of process. This included mandatory examination of parties under Order X, production of documents under Order XI, appointment of Commissioners under Order XXVI, and specific directions for the disposal of execution proceedings within six months. The High Courts were directed to update their rules to align with these directions and the CPC. [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s order. The Court also emphasized the need for cooperation with the executing court and warned against non-cooperation. [Para 44].

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 224A – Appointment of Ad Hoc Judges – The Supreme Court highlighted the crisis in High Courts due to almost 40% vacancies, with larger High Courts working under 50% of their sanctioned strength. The Court stressed the need for timely recommendations and appointments to address this issue and proposed a timeline for the appointment process, ensuring a collaborative effort between the judiciary and the government. [Paras 1-13].

Timelines for Appointment of High Court Judges – The Court laid down specific timelines for the appointment process, emphasizing prompt action by the Intelligence Bureau, Central Government, and Supreme Court Collegium. The aim is to facilitate timely appointments and enhance the functioning of High Courts. [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Proceedings Closed – The Supreme Court provided detailed guidelines for timely appointments and emphasized the collaborative nature of the process to ensure the effective dispensation of justice. The proceeding was closed with directions to follow the outlined timelines. [Para 13].

Goods and Services Tax – Provisional Attachment – Delegation of Power – The Joint Commissioner, while ordering a provisional attachment under Section 83, acted as a delegate of the Commissioner under Section 5(3) of the HPGST Act. The appeal against the order of provisional attachment was not available under Section 107(1) of the Act. The power to order provisional attachment is draconian and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the statute. The formation of an opinion by the Commissioner must be based on tangible material indicating that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand and that the attachment is necessary to protect the government's revenue. [Paras 1-13, 48-56].

Principles of Natural Justice – Rule 159(5) of the HPGST Rules – The person whose property is attached is entitled to dual procedural safeguards: the right to submit objections and an opportunity of being heard. There was a breach of this mandatory requirement in the present case, and the Commissioner was misconceived in law in concluding that he had discretion on whether or not to grant an opportunity of being heard. [Paras 55-56].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the case for reconsideration. The Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the procedural safeguards under Rule 159(5) and the necessity of a reasoned order by the Commissioner. [Para 56].

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 224A – Appointment of Ad Hoc Judges – The Supreme Court recognized the need to activate the dormant provision of Article 224A for appointing ad hoc judges in High Courts due to the unprecedented backlog of cases and high vacancy rates. The Court issued guidelines for the activation and appointment of ad hoc judges to address these issues. [Paras 1-11, 56-64].

Appointment Process – Guidelines – The Court laid down detailed guidelines for the appointment of ad hoc judges, including the trigger points for activation, methodology of appointment, tenure, and emoluments. These guidelines aim to ensure transparency, efficiency, and consistency in the process. [Paras 53-64].

Decision – Petition Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the petition, setting guidelines for the appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A and directed the implementation of these guidelines to address the backlog and vacancies in High Courts. [Para 65].

Criminal Procedure – Uniform Criminal Practice Rules – The Supreme Court recognized inconsistencies and inadequacies in criminal trials across various High Courts. To address these, the Court proposed Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021 and directed all High Courts to adopt these rules to ensure uniformity and efficiency in criminal trials. [Paras 1-19].

Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021 – Preliminary Case Management Hearing – The Court recommended that trial courts should hold a preliminary case management hearing after summoning the accused and framing charges. This hearing is to classify witnesses, consider admissibility of documents, and schedule the recording of evidence to streamline the trial process. [Paras 17-18].

Separation of Prosecutors and Investigators – The Court emphasized the need for a separate team of lawyers distinct from public prosecutors to advise the police during investigations, thereby ensuring objectivity and preventing conflicts of interest. [Para 18].

Decision – The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to adopt the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021 and ensure that the existing rules, notifications, orders, and practice directions are suitably modified and promulgated within six months. The Court also instructed state governments to amend police manuals and other related instructions accordingly. [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Bail – Grant of bail – High Court granted bail to six accused implicated in five murders arising out of a land dispute without adequate discussion or analysis of the circumstances – Supreme Court criticized the High Court's failure to consider the gravity of the offense, nature of allegations, and involvement of the accused – Orders granting bail set aside [Paras 1-88].

Judicial Discretion – Duty to Record Reasons – Emphasized that granting bail under Section 439 of the CrPC involves judicial discretion which must be exercised judiciously – The recording of reasons is a significant safeguard to ensure proper judicial exercise – High Court's orders lacking adequate reasoning for bail decisions criticized [Paras 3, 6, 11].

Principle of Parity – Misapplication – High Court misunderstood the principle of parity by focusing on similar weapons rather than the individual role and position of each accused in relation to the incident and victims – Supreme Court highlighted that parity in bail must consider the role and involvement of each accused [Paras 9, 23, 34].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court granting bail set aside – Accused directed to surrender forthwith [Paras 42-43].

Environmental Law – Protection of Endangered Species – Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican facing extinction due to collisions with overhead power lines – Interim directions issued for installation of bird divertors and conversion of overhead cables into underground powerlines where feasible – Emphasis on ecocentric approach and sustainable development – Specific timelines and measures prescribed for implementation [Paras 1-19].

Conservation Measures – Feasibility and Technical Evaluation – Constitution of a committee to assess feasibility of undergrounding high-voltage power lines – Specific directives for priority and potential habitats – Financial provisions under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund and Corporate Social Responsibility highlighted [Paras 6-15].

Legal Obligations – Doctrine of Public Trust – State and Central Government's duty to preserve endangered species and habitats – Obligation to implement conservation measures using available funds and resources – Reference to relevant environmental and corporate governance principles [Paras 5, 12].

Decision: Application allowed – Directions for immediate installation of bird divertors – Conversion of overhead powerlines into underground powerlines within one year where feasible – Committee constituted to evaluate technical feasibility of high-voltage underground power lines – Specific list of powerlines identified for immediate action [Paras 16-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Expeditious Trial – Dishonour of Cheque – Supreme Court issues directions to streamline and expedite the trial process for cases under Section 138 of the Act – Emphasis on the recording of reasons for converting summary trials to summons trials – Guidelines for service of summons and inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC – Recommendations for legislative amendments for consolidation of trials and other procedural changes [Paras 1-24].

Summary Trials – Conversion to Summons Trials – High Courts requested to issue practice directions for Magistrates to record reasons before converting summary trials to summons trials – Objective to prevent mechanical conversions and ensure faster disposal of cases [Paras 8-9].

Service of Summons – Streamlining Process – High Courts to issue directions treating service of summons in one complaint as deemed service for all related complaints in a transaction – Aim to reduce delays in summoning accused in multiple complaints arising from the same transaction [Paras 16-24].

Inquiry under Section 202 of CrPC – Affidavit Evidence – Magistrates to permit evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant to be taken on affidavit – Magistrates may restrict the inquiry to document examination in suitable cases – Objective to expedite the inquiry process [Paras 10-12].

Consolidation of Trials – Legislative Amendment – Recommendation for legislative amendments to allow one trial for multiple offences under Section 138 committed within 12 months, notwithstanding Section 219 of CrPC – Aim to reduce multiplicity of proceedings and ensure comprehensive trials [Paras 13-14].

Inherent Powers of Magistrate – Review of Summons – Supreme Court reiterates that Trial Courts do not have inherent power to review or recall the issue of summons – Judgments in Adalat Prasad and Subramanium Sethuraman upheld – Suggestion for legislative amendment to empower Trial Courts to reconsider/recall summons [Paras 17-21].

Committee Recommendations – Issues not covered by the order to be deliberated by the Committee constituted by the Court – Focus on further procedural improvements and expeditious disposal of Section 138 cases [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Directions issued to High Courts and suggestions for legislative amendments to ensure expeditious trial of Section 138 cases – Matter listed for further hearing after eight weeks [Paras 24-25].

NDPS Act – Section 42 vs Section 43 – Recovery of poppy straw from a private vehicle on a public road – High Court erred in applying Section 43 instead of Section 42 – Vehicle was not a public conveyance – Total non-compliance with Section 42 impermissible – Compliance with Section 42 mandatory for search and seizure [Paras 1-15].

Legal Interpretation – Private Vehicle and Public Place – Explanation to Section 43 of NDPS Act – Private vehicle not considered a public place – Compliance with Section 42 required for private vehicles, even if on a public road [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Precedents – Application of Precedent – Followed Constitution Bench decision in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) – Total non-compliance with Section 42 not acceptable – Previous decisions in Sukhdev Singh and Jagraj Singh alias Hansa reaffirmed [Paras 10-11, 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appellants acquitted – Ordered immediate release of appellants unless required in connection with any other offence [Paras 15].