Constitutional Challenge Against Borrowing Restrictions – Kerala challenges Amendment Act No. 13 of 2018 amending Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003, and subsequent Union's letters imposing borrowing ceilings - Asserts Union exceeded powers under Article 293 - Seeks interim injunction to borrow INR 26,226 crores [Paras 1-3, 5]

Challenging Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act Amendments and Borrowing Ceilings – State of Kerala v. Union of India – Constitutional Law – Article 131 – Plaintiff, State of Kerala, institutes suit against Union of India under Article 131 of the Constitution, challenging the amendments to the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003 and the imposition of a borrowing ceiling on states. Raises substantial questions on interpretation of Constitution, particularly regarding state’s rights under Article 293 and the Union government’s powers. Court refers matter to larger bench for authoritative interpretation. [Paras 1-10]

Interim Relief for State Borrowing Request Denied – Analysis of Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Injury – The Plaintiff seeks interim injunction for restoring previous borrowing position and to borrow INR 26,226 crores immediately. Supreme Court, applying the Triple-Test, finds that the State fails to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury. Observes that granting interim relief may adversely affect national fiscal health, hence interim relief denied. [Paras 11-37]

Referral to Larger Bench – Key Constitutional Questions Identified – Court identifies pivotal questions regarding the interpretation of Article 293 and its impact on fiscal federalism and the Union government’s regulation of state borrowings. Matter referred to a five-judge bench for comprehensive examination. [Paras 8, 10]

Decision – Interim Application Dismissed, Main Case Referred to Larger Bench – The Court holds that the State of Kerala is not entitled to the interim injunction it sought and refers the main case to a larger bench for decision on constitutional questions. Clarifies that observations made are for limited purpose of deciding interim application and do not affect final outcome. [Paras 38-40]

LCD panels - Classification - Interpretation of General Rules of Interpretation of Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - LCD panels classifiable under Chapter Heading 9013.8010 - Specific description prevails over general description - Goods falling under Chapter 90 excluded from Chapter 85 - General Note 3(a) and Note 1(m) of Chapter 85 clarified - Customs Tariff Act, 1975, General Rules of Interpretation, Section Notes 1(m) and 2(b) to Chapter 85, Chapter 90, and case law discussed and applied - Para [22]-[26].

Application sought directions - High Courts to fill vacancies from service judges or the bench up to 50% of their total strength of judges if a vacancy from the Bar Quota has been lying vacant for more than 6 months, appropriate directions to fill vacancies from the Judicial Service Quota as expeditiously as possible, and clarification to ensure that the ratio of quota of judges from the Service Judges/Bench remain the same in any given High Court at least to 1/3rd of the total vacancies in that High Court, irrespective of transfer to or from such a High Court.

Held - Refused to issue directions to fill up 50% of the seats in the High Court from the service quota - open for the applicants to pursue remedies before such forum as permissible in law.

Fill vacancies from the Judicial Service Quota as expeditiously as possible and to ensure the ratio of quota of judges from the Service Judges/Bench remain the same in any given High Court at least to 1/3rd of the total vacancies in that High Court to be reasonable - High Courts to strictly maintain that ratio - all the High Courts to take immediate steps in recommending the names for elevation from the service cadre prior to the occurrence of such vacancies, so that there is no delay in elevation of the Judges from the service cadre. The application was disposed of with these observations and directions.

Criminal Procedure Code – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – The Supreme Court evaluated the High Court's exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement agreement. The case involved the quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings in a case of serious offences including abduction and assault. [Para 1-8, 12]

Involvement of Original Complainant in Settlement – Noted –  Court observed that the original complainant, who was also an injured victim, was neither a party to the settlement agreement nor consented to it. The importance of the complainant's consent in quashing proceedings involving non-compoundable offences was emphasized. [Para 7, 11-12]

Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Limitation –  Court reiterated the principles governing the exercise of High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, particularly in cases where the offences are of a serious nature and have a societal impact. The Court clarified that such powers should be exercised judiciously, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of the legal process. [Para 11-12]

Restoration of Criminal Proceedings – Directed –  Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the FIR and proceedings, restoring the original criminal case to the trial court. The Court instructed the trial court to expedite the trial, considering the long duration since the filing of the FIR. [Para 13]

Decision – Supreme Court, in reversing the High Court's decision, upheld the importance of considering the original complainant's stance in cases involving serious crimes, where settlement agreements do not necessarily lead to quashing of proceedings. [Para 9, 12-14]

Arbitration Law – Limitation Period – Applicability to Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The Supreme Court examined the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to applications for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court clarified the distinction between the limitation for filing a Section 11(6) application and for raising substantive claims in arbitration. It held that the limitation for a Section 11(6) application begins only after a valid notice invoking arbitration is issued and the other party fails to comply with the appointment procedure agreed upon. [Paras 43-54]

Arbitration Proceedings – Commencement and Limitation – Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a franchise agreement – Analysis of when the right to apply for arbitration accrues and the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings – The present petition not barred by limitation as it was filed within three years from the date of respondent's failure to comply with the notice of invocation of arbitration [Paras 90-91, 94-95].

Cause of Action and Limitation – Determination of the accrual of cause of action on 28.03.2018, when the respondent showed unwillingness to continue discussions on payments related to the ICCR project – The claims not ex-facie dead or time-barred on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, considering the extension of limitation due to the Covid-19 pandemic [Paras 75-81, 83-88].

Appointment of Arbitrator – Shri Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties [Para 92].

Decision – The petition under Section 11(6) was allowed, and the appointment of an arbitrator was made. The claims sought to be arbitrated were not found to be ex-facie time-barred on the date of commencement of the arbitration proceedings. [Paras 90-94]

Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Appeal Against Conviction  – Appellants convicted by trial court under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession and transportation of 80 kg ganja – Conviction affirmed by High Court – Appeals filed by appellants [Paras 1-2, 11-12].

Procedural Irregularities in Seizure and Sampling – Discrepancies in seizure of ganja and non-compliance with NDPS Act provisions – Three bundles of ganja allegedly recovered, but only two samples reached FSL – Lack of independent panch witness testimony and proper documentation of sample handling and storage – FSL report deemed inadmissible due to procedural flaws [Paras 13-21, 22].

Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act – Absence – Held – The prosecution failed to comply with Section 52A of the NDPS Act regarding the preparation of inventory and obtaining samples in the presence of a jurisdictional Magistrate, rendering the FSL report ineffectual. [Para 21-22]

Flaws in Prosecution's Case – Absence of concrete evidence against accused A-3 and A-4 – Reliance on inadmissible confession to police – Inconsistencies in police witness testimony – Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 23-24].

Confession to Police – Inadmissibility – Observed – Confessions made to police officers are inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, impacting the prosecution’s case against accused A-3 and A-4, who were implicated based on interrogation notes of co-accused. [Para 23]

Decision – Acquittal of Accused – The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses and evidentiary inconsistencies. The judgment and conviction by the lower courts were set aside. [Para 24-26]

Judicial Services - High Court – Administrative Powers – Article 235 – Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 – Acting Chief Justice constituting Two-Judge Committee to evolve criteria for grant of selection scale – Committee’s recommendations later approved by Full Court – Held: Constitution of Committee valid; once Full Court approved, decision became decision of Court – Rule 15 does not require prior consultation of all Judges before initiation; quorum under Rule 29 sufficient – High Court erred in declaring exercise illegal [Paras 14–20, 23–30, 37].

Delegation of Powers – Control over Subordinate Judiciary – Article 235 – High Court may authorise Chief Justice/Committee of Judges to act on its behalf in administrative matters – Not “delegation” but valid authorization to effectuate control – Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi principle applied [Paras 17, 34].

Merit Criteria – Evolution and Modification – Full Court earlier fixed “three good ACRs out of five” as criteria – Committee recommended “five good ACRs out of seven” – Held: Committee’s report only recommendatory; final decision rested with Full Court – Once approved, criteria validly modified [Paras 6–8, 25, 33].

Consultation – Meaning – Rule 15 Rajasthan HC Rules – Consultation with “all Judges” means opportunity for deliberation; not invalid merely because some Judges absent – Quorum requirement governs validity – Full Court’s approval satisfies consultation requirement [Paras 27–29, 36].

Ratification – Even if initial constitution irregular, subsequent approval by competent Full Court cures defect – Ratification relates back – Decision valid [Paras 37, 41–42].

Judicial Review – Scope – Courts cannot sit in appeal over assessment of judicial officers’ merit; right of officers is only to fair consideration, not to promotion – Orissa Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Narasingha Charan Mohanty applied [Paras 43–44].

Decision – Impugned judgment of Rajasthan High Court dated 23.11.2000 set aside – Appeals allowed – No order as to costs [Paras 45–46].

Constitutional Law & Consumer Protection – Challenge to vires of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Parliament’s competence – Articles 246, List III Entry 11A, Articles 323A/323B – WPs/Appeals disposed – Full Bench upholds constitutionality of the Act; C.A. Nos. 4613–4614/1999 and W.P.(C) Nos. 417/1996 & 12/2000 dismissed; State’s appeal (C.A. No. 9927/1996) allowed to correct interpretation of Section 25 – Held: Parliament competent to enact the Act under Article 246 read with Entry 11A List III (moved from List II by the 42nd Amendment); the Act supplements and does not supplant civil court jurisdiction (Section 3); Articles 323A/323B are enabling and do not curtail general legislative power; power of judicial review under Articles 226/227/32 remains intact [Paras 1–15, 34–49, 52].

Legislative Competence – Creation of tribunals/fora – Not “parallel civil courts” – Entry 11A List III & allied entries – The consumer fora (District Forum, State Commission, National Commission) are quasi-judicial bodies with judicially qualified Presidents and expert members; they provide inexpensive, summary remedies without ousting civil courts – Parliament’s plenary power to constitute such fora affirmed; reliance on In re Special Courts Bill to argue “parallel courts” rejected; Section 3 clarifies additional nature of remedy [Paras 12–19, 24–29, 34–39, 41–47].

Articles 323A & 323B – Scope – Enabling provisions – Do not preclude Parliament from establishing tribunals/fora outside their subject-matter, provided legislative competence exists under the Seventh Schedule – L. Chandra Kumar and Delhi High Court Bar Association applied; judicial review is part of basic structure and is preserved [Paras 35, 48, 40, 52].

Section 25, Consumer Protection Act – Execution of orders – Legal fiction equating orders to civil court decrees for execution – Consumer fora can execute their own orders; reference to civil court is only “in the event of its inability to execute” – High Court’s view that every order must be sent to civil court is incorrect – Section 25 to be read with Section 27; fora possess necessary ancillary/incidental powers to effectuate orders [Paras 55–63].

Section 27, Consumer Protection Act – Penal consequence for non-compliance – Additional mode of enforcement akin to CPC Order 39 Rule 2-A / Contempt / CPC Section 51 & Order 21 Rule 37 – Parliamentary statute may confer penal enforcement to secure compliance, in addition to execution as decree [Paras 57–59].

Procedural Safeguards & Workability – Absence of express power of transfer or injunction not fatal to constitutional validity – Parties retain appellate remedies (Sections 15, 19, 23) and constitutional remedies (Articles 226/227/32); complex disputes can go to civil court; fora must give reasons; composition ensures judicial input; object is consumer welfare and speedy, inexpensive redress [Paras 38–41, 45–47, 50–52].

Decision – W.P.(C) No. 417 of 1996, W.P.(C) No. 12 of 2000, C.A. Nos. 4613–4614 of 1999 dismissed – C.A. No. 9927 of 1996 allowed – Constitutionality of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 upheld – High Court’s interpretation of Section 25 set aside – No order as to costs [Para 64].

Civil Law - Consolidation Proceedings – Claim by Alleged Encumbrancer – Sections 19 and 20 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 – Appeals Dismissed – The appellant claimed entitlement to 5 biswas (250 sq. yards) of land in Village Sanoth on the basis that his predecessor had trespassed on a portion of the respondents’ land and was therefore an encumbrancer entitled to allotment under the consolidation scheme – The application for possession was filed in 1993, nearly 11 years after the scheme had been finalized in 1982 – The Consolidation Officer and Financial Commissioner rejected the claim for want of legal entitlement and delay – High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine – Supreme Court upheld all lower authority decisions, holding that a trespasser cannot be treated as a legal encumbrancer and the delay was fatal – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1–7].

Encumbrancer – Unauthorized Occupant Cannot Claim Legal Encumbrance – Section 19 – Rejection Justified – The appellant’s claim was based solely on his predecessor’s alleged illegal possession – Held: The term "encumbrancer" under the Act refers to a person with a legal right, such as a lessee or mortgagee – A mere trespasser cannot be elevated to that status – Claim rightly rejected by authorities [Paras 1-2].

Delay and Laches – 11-Year Delay in Seeking Relief – Section 20 – Application Barred – The appellant approached authorities in 1993 relying on a 1982 list after finalisation of consolidation proceedings – Held: The long, unexplained delay rendered the application untenable – Reliance on unrelated proceedings was immaterial – Rejection on grounds of delay upheld [Para 3].

Discrimination Argument – No Parity of Facts – Comparison with Other Case Unfounded – The appellant alleged discrimination by citing another case where possession was granted – Held: That case involved allotment during consolidation – Appellant had no such allotment – No merit in plea of unequal treatment [Para 4].

Cultivation Claim – Size of Land Indicates Falsehood – Claim Not Credible – Appellant claimed cultivation over 5 biswas of land – Held: Such a small area is not typically used for agriculture – Claim appeared false and unsupported by record – No merit found in appellant’s version [Para 5].

Final Decision – Appeals Without Merit – Dismissed – Both appeals were held to be devoid of legal merit and substance – Orders passed by Consolidation Officer, Financial Commissioner, and Delhi High Court affirmed [Paras 6-7].