Child Rights – Jurisdictional Conflict – National and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights – Inquiry into large-scale child trafficking – NCPCR initiated inquiry but WBCPCR claimed prior cognizance – Court emphasizes need for cooperation between Commissions – NCPCR entitled to proceed where State Commission failed to act promptly – Court directs High Court to monitor child protection measures [Paras 1-40].

Functions and Powers – Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 – Both NCPCR and State Commissions empowered to protect child rights – No absolute ouster of jurisdiction – Both Commissions to work in tandem – NCPCR has nationwide jurisdiction; State Commissions have state-specific jurisdiction – NCPCR can inquire into inter-state and international ramifications of child rights violations [Paras 6-13, 36].

Judicial Review – Inquiry and Investigation – Commissions must proactively investigate child rights violations – Mandate to examine, review, and recommend measures for effective implementation of child protection laws – Judicial review to ensure Commissions function effectively and cooperatively [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – NCPCR's inquiry upheld – High Court of Calcutta to monitor child protection issues and implementation of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in West Bengal – Directions issued for cooperation between National and State Commissions – Registry to communicate judgment to High Court of Calcutta for further action [Paras 38-40].

Environmental Pollution – Air Quality in Delhi and NCR – Court addresses severe air pollution in Delhi and NCR due to stubble burning, construction, waste management, and vehicular emissions – Orders passed for immediate steps to control pollution including cessation of construction and demolition activities, waste management, and use of anti-smog guns – Directs Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and UP to enforce ban on stubble burning – Failure to comply will result in accountability of state machinery [Paras 1-27].

Judicial Review – Accountability of State Machinery – Failure to control pollution violating Article 21 – Supreme Court criticizes state machinery for lack of timely and effective action – Holds states accountable for compliance with court orders – Directions issued to ensure no stubble burning and proper waste management to reduce pollution [Paras 3-6, 12-13, 21-23].

Public Health – Right to Clean Air – Reiterates right to life under Article 21 includes right to clean air – Pollution reducing life expectancy and causing diseases – Directs immediate action to curb air pollution – Orders installation of smog towers and anti-smog guns, enforcement of waste management, and vehicular pollution control [Paras 9-15, 24-26].

Decision: Orders passed for enforcement of measures to control pollution – Stubble burning to be halted immediately – Construction and demolition activities banned – Installation of smog towers and anti-smog guns – Accountability fixed on state machinery for non-compliance – Detailed action plans to be submitted by states – Continuous monitoring by Supreme Court [Paras 38-40].

Landlord-Tenant Law – Eviction – Grounds – Eviction sought under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(i), and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Trial court granted eviction for non-payment of rent for all three shops – Appellate authority found bona fide need for one shop, subletting for another, and upheld eviction for these two shops – High Court affirmed subletting for one shop but denied bona fide need for another – Supreme Court examined whether subletting one part necessitates eviction from entire premises [Paras 1-7].

Single Tenancy – Effect of Subletting – Court confirmed subletting any portion of the premises leads to eviction of entire tenancy under Section 11(4)(i) – Established by M. Meeramytheen & Ors. vs. K. Parameswaran Pillai & Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 359 – Legal consequences of subletting part of premises support whole premises eviction [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Review – Pure Questions of Law – Supreme Court addressed legal question raised for first time in appeal – Permissible to consider pure questions of law not previously raised if factual foundation exists – Respondents' failure to contest additional grounds after leave granted noted [Paras 9-12, 15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Decree of eviction granted for entire premises based on subletting part of premises – Six months' time granted to respondents to vacate premises – Costs to be borne by parties [Paras 16-18].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Fatal motor accident – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, major sons of the deceased, entitled to compensation for loss of dependency calculated on gross salary of deceased less tax, considering future prospects and personal expenses deduction of one-third (1/3rd) – Multiplier of '13' applied by Tribunal and High Court upheld – Total compensation recalculated as Rs. 31,96,230/- with additional Rs. 70,000/- for conventional heads – Appeal modifies High Court’s award and reinstates Tribunal's finding on deductions [Paras 1-22].

Legal Representatives – Right to Apply for Compensation – Major married sons who are earning can still claim compensation as legal representatives under Section 166 of the Act – Compensation not limited to conventional heads – Evidence indicated respondents were largely dependent on the deceased’s earnings despite being employed [Paras 14-15].

Financial Assistance Deduction – High Court erred in deducting only 50% of the financial assistance under Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules – Full amount of such financial assistance to be deducted to avoid double payment – Respondents must declare non-receipt of financial assistance to claim full compensation [Paras 16-22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Compensation recalculated at Rs. 31,96,230/- with interest at 9% per annum from claim petition date – Deduction of any financial assistance received under Haryana Rules required – Compensation to be paid subject to affidavit confirming non-receipt of such assistance [Paras 22-23].

Service Law – Unauthorized Absence – Disciplinary proceedings initiated against a police orderly who remained absent without authorization for seven years – Despite direction to report for medical examination by CDMO, respondent failed to comply – Inquiry conducted ex parte found respondent guilty – Tribunal dismissed respondent's challenge, but High Court substituted discharge penalty with compulsory retirement citing mental illness – Supreme Court reinstates discharge penalty, finds absence unjustified and High Court's reliance on medical certificate erroneous [Paras 2-23].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Proceedings – Courts should not interfere with disciplinary proceedings unless there is procedural irregularity or penalty is shockingly disproportionate – High Court's reliance on medical certificate without corroborative treatment records and ignoring respondent's non-compliance with orders for medical examination found unjustified – High Court's decision set aside [Paras 16-21].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Application in Disciplinary Matters – Not applicable where delinquent employee's absence is prolonged and unjustified – Differentiation from cases where misconduct is less severe and duration of absence is short – Judicial intervention limited to ensuring fairness and reasonableness of proceedings and penalty [Paras 12-14, 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order substituting discharge with compulsory retirement set aside – Original penalty of discharge reinstated – No order as to costs [Paras 22-23].

Employment Law – Dismissal and Reinstatement – Appellant, employed in the Assembly department of the respondent, dismissed after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of causing disruption of work – Labour Court found enquiry findings perverse, ordered reinstatement with 25% back wages – High Court affirmed reinstatement but denied back wages, erroneously stated Labour Court denied continuity of service – Supreme Court restored Labour Court's award of 25% back wages and continuity of service [Paras 2-9].

Labour Law – Industrial Disputes – Back Wages and Continuity of Service – Reinstatement naturally includes continuity of service unless explicitly denied – Back wages awarded considering partial gainful employment during dismissal period – High Court erred in setting aside 25% back wages awarded by Labour Court [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Review – Misinterpretation of Lower Court's Order – High Court misinterpreted Labour Court's order as denying continuity of service – Supreme Court corrects error, affirms reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Appellant entitled to continuity of service and 25% back wages – Retiral dues and back wages to be computed and paid within three months [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Conviction under Section 302 IPC challenged on the basis of the incident occurring on the spur of the moment – Conversion to Section 304 IPC sought – Incident involved altercation over excavation, leading to firing by appellant – High Court relied on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence – Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellant sentenced to ten years' imprisonment [Paras 3-7].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of the father of the deceased as an eyewitness accepted – Medical evidence corroborated eyewitness accounts – Presence and role of the appellant established through evidence [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Review – Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part I IPC considering the circumstances and nature of the incident – Sentence of ten years' imprisonment imposed [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellant sentenced to ten years' imprisonment [Paras 7-8].

Environmental Law – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) – Appeal against prohibition on development of resort – CRZ Notifications 1991, 2011, and 2019 apply to backwater islands – High Court's findings upheld – Islands classified under CRZ categories due to ecological sensitivity – No new construction permitted within 20 meters from HTL under CRZ 2019 – Appeals dismissed [Paras 3-40].

Property Rights – Ecological and Environmental Restrictions – Right to develop property regulated by CRZ Notifications – Legitimate expectations and property rights subject to environmental laws – Ecologically sensitive areas given special protection under CRZ Notifications [Paras 13-17].

Judicial Review – Expert Testimony – High Court solicited expert opinion and conducted surveys to ascertain ecological status – Findings based on scientific evidence and field verification upheld – Appellant's objections to expert testimony and procedural aspects dismissed [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's prohibition on resort development upheld – CRZ Notifications 1991, 2011, and 2019 apply to the islands – New construction within 20 meters from HTL not permitted under CRZ 2019 – Environmental and ecological protections prioritized [Paras 39-40].

Armed Forces Tribunal – Jurisdiction and Transfer of Cases – Appeal against a single judge's decision on Armed Forces personnel to be transferred to AFT – AFT's jurisdiction does not extend to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 – Intra-court appeals from single judge decisions are not to be transferred to AFT – High Court retains writ jurisdiction over AFT decisions [Paras 2-17].

Judicial Review – High Court's Jurisdiction – Judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution – High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be ousted – AFT decisions subject to High Court's writ jurisdiction [Paras 10-12].

Constitutional Courts – Independence and Hierarchy – High Courts as constitutional courts cannot be subordinate to AFT – Appeals from High Court single judge to Division Bench cannot be transferred to AFT [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed on merits – Appellant failed to meet criteria for alternative appointment post-discharge – No merit found in the appeal [Paras 18-19].