Facts:

The judgment pertains to a Writ Petition (C) No. 857 of 2015 filed by Swaraj Abhiyan, addressing the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013, in light of drought-like conditions in various parts of the country.

Issues:

Ensuring food security to persons affected by drought.

Specific suggestions made by the petitioner, including the provision of food grains, dal (lentil), edible oil, and nutritional items for children under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme.

State's response regarding the challenges in implementing certain suggestions due to fiscal constraints and the decentralized nature of the National Food Security Act.

Held:

The court issued several directions, including:

Establishment of an internal grievance mechanism and appointment of District Grievance Redressal Officers.

Constitution of State Food Commissions for monitoring the implementation of the National Food Security Act.

Provision of monthly entitlement of food grains to all households in drought-affected areas, irrespective of their priority category.

Substitution of the requirement for a ration card with an appropriate identification or proof of residence.

States were given the freedom to provide additional food items beyond the statutory entitlement.

States of Bihar, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh were directed to provide eggs or milk for children under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, preferably five days a week.

Extension of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme into the summer vacation period for schools in drought-affected areas.

Facts:

The State acquired land from original owners (farmers) for a public purpose. Subsequently, a private builder entered into agreements with some farmers whose land was under acquisition.

Issues:

The legality of the State's actions in facilitating the transfer of land title to a private builder and the subsequent release of land in favor of the builder.

Held:

The court found that the State's actions constituted a gross abuse of law, creating an unholy nexus between concerned authorities and the builder to facilitate profiteering.[Para 13]

While acquisition for public purposes is permissible, releasing land in favor of a builder after the acquisition notification amounted to acquisition for private purposes, violating constitutional rights.[Para 14]

The court emphasized the need for objectivity and transparency in the exercise of public power. The State's actions enabled the builder to enter the field after the initiation of acquisition, violating the Public Trust Doctrine.[Para 15]

The court rejected reliance on a policy dated March 6, 2000, stating that it is applicable only to release land owned/purchased by developers before the acquisition notification. The builder, in this case, did not own any land before the notification.[Para 17]

While acknowledging that belated petitions may not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court highlighted that quashing illegal actions based on fraud or abuse of law, even belatedly, is within its discretionary power.[Para 18]

The court held that the release of land in favor of the builder was an abuse of power, and the State and the builder's actions resulted in the illegal transfer of land. Undoing such illegal actions is in the interest of justice.[Para 22]

The High Court's observation that the notified public purpose was valid, but subsequent events resulted in illegality, was upheld. The release of land in favor of the builder was deemed inappropriate.[Para 23]

Release orders in favor of the builder were quashed, and the court modified the direction of quashing the entire acquisition, suggesting that the acquisition stands revived if it was mala fide or arbitrary.[Para 25]

The court recognized the scarcity of land as a natural resource and emphasized the owner's guarantee against deprivation, except under a valid law for compelling societal needs.[Para 26]

Notifications and awards were upheld, with the land vesting in HUDA free from encumbrances. All release orders in favor of the builder were quashed, and compensation issues were addressed.[Para 29]

Referred Cases in the Above Judgment:

Decided on : 13-05-2016

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, Section 48, Section 6

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 6 — Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 — Acquisition of land — Public purpose — Transfer of title of land, covered by notification for acquisition in favour of a builder who sought release of land for setting up of a colony, was clearly to defeat law and notified purpose of acquisition — State has enabled builder to enter field after initiation of acquisition to seek colonization on land covered by acquisition — Such fraudulent and clandestine exercise of power by State is not permitted by law — This is in violation of Public Trust Doctrine — There is no legal sanction for such action — However, entirety of acquisition need not be quashed — Operative part of order passed by High Court modified.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 6 and 48 — Acquisition of land — Applicability of Public Trust Doctrine — Policy is applicable only to release of such land from acquisition as is owned/ purchased by developers before issue of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — This condition was required to be strictly complied with and no person other than original owners prior to acquisition could directly or indirectly avail of said policy — Even a bona fide error could not justify a patent illegality.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

S.L. Aneja, Dr. Kailash Chand, M.L. Sharma, Dinesh Verma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Gaurav Sharma, Rohit Kumar Singh, Ajay Pal, Sanjeev K Bhardwaj, Sunil Roy, D.N. Goburdhan, Advocates, for the Respondent

Cases Referred

Bangalore City Cooperative Vs. The State of Karnataka, (2012) 3 SCC 727

Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, 1986 3 SCC, 156

Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. UOI, (2012) 3 SCC 1

Chairman Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Pure Industrial Coke, (2007) 8 SCC 705

Devinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 1 SCC 728

Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI, (1986) 1 SCC 133

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar, (2011) 12 SCC 375

Gyan Chand Vs. Gopala, (1995) 5 SCC 335

Mahavir Vs. Rural Institute, Amravati, (1996) 3 SCC 124

Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary, (2014) 9 SCC 516

Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, (2014) 15 SCC 394

Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC, 253

NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. Vs. NOIDA, (2011) 6 SCC 508

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 1

Royal Orchid Hotels Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy, (2011) 10 SCC 608

State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Singh, AIR (1952) SC 252

State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 417

State of Punjab Vs. Ramjilal, (1970) 3 SCC 602

The U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Thr. its Chairman Vs. M/s. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow, (2008) 9 SCC 177

Facts:

M/s GTC Industries Ltd. became a sick company in 1997 due to erosion of net worth.

The Board conducted an inquiry to determine its status and appointed the Managing Director, State Bank of India, as the Operating Agency.

A Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) was prepared, proposing various income tax reliefs.

The appellant filed objections against the DRS.

The sanctioned Rehabilitation Scheme (SS-02) was approved by the Board, incorporating certain income tax reliefs.

The Scheme had a cutoff date of 31.12.1998, later changed to 31.03.2003, and a rehabilitation period of eight years.

In 2007, the company claimed its net worth turned positive and sought de-registration from SICA, which was granted.

The Revenue demanded outstanding income tax dues in 2010, leading to legal proceedings.

Issues:

Validity of the income tax reliefs granted under the DRS and SS-02.

Enforcement of the income tax dues by the Revenue post-Scheme expiration.

Company's compliance with the sanctioned Scheme and the alleged violation.

Entitlement to protection under Section 22(1) of SICA after de-registration.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the sanctioned Scheme had expired on 31.03.2011, and the company was no longer entitled to protection under SICA.

The Revenue was entitled to recover its dues, and the Board had no jurisdiction over the lapsed Scheme.

The Company's violation of the sanctioned Scheme, particularly in disposing of assets without prior approval, was noted. The appeal by the Company seeking an extension of the Scheme was dismissed.

The Court directed the Revenue to recover its dues, and the Board was not authorized to entertain any further proceedings related to the lapsed Scheme.

DECISION: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, affirming the Revenue's right to recover income tax dues after the expiration of the sanctioned Rehabilitation Scheme. The Company's violation of the Scheme was noted, and the Board was restrained from entertaining further proceedings related to the lapsed Scheme.

Facts:

Jeeja Ghosh, a person with disabilities, filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging that she was de-boarded from a private airline due to her disability. The petitioner asserted that this action resulted in agony, humiliation, and emotional trauma.

Issues:

The alleged violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21, the obligations of the State and private entities under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the relevant international legal instruments.

Held:

The judgment highlighted the government's obligation under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, to ensure that individuals with disabilities are free from discrimination. It recognized the applicability of international legal instruments, such as the UNCRPD, even to private carriers. The court affirmed that the obligation to fulfill the rights of the disabled extends to both government and private entities.

The court discussed the issuance and revision of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) in 2008 and 2014, indicating the government's recognition of the challenges faced by persons with disabilities during air travel. Certain recommendations for improvement were acknowledged, and the need for further amendments to fine-tune guidelines was suggested.

The judgment underscored that the rights guaranteed to differently-abled persons under the Act are founded on the core value of human dignity. Human dignity, as a constitutional value, is intertwined with the right to life and liberty under Article 21.

International standards on human rights and the principle of non-discrimination were emphasized. The court highlighted the shift from a patronizing approach to persons with disabilities to recognizing them as equal members of the community with full human rights and freedoms.

The court found that the petitioner was not given appropriate, fair, and caring treatment, leading to a violation of her human dignity. The decision to de-board her lacked sensitivity and proper justification, violating Aircraft Rules, 1937, and CAR, 2008 guidelines.

Due to the callous actions of the private airline, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was awarded as damages to the petitioner for the mental and physical suffering experienced, as well as unreasonable discrimination.

Facts:

The Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) was brought into existence for conducting examinations for admission to medical colleges, engineering and agricultural universities, and polytechnics.

The Board is a non-statutory body, having no separate existence apart from the government.

The appellants appeared for the entrance examination (PMT) conducted by Vyapam and secured admissions into various medical colleges based on the marks obtained.

Issues:

• Whether Vyapam, being a non-statutory body, had the authority to cancel the examination and admissions.

• Whether the examination process was tampered with, justifying the cancellation.

• Whether the appellants, even if involved in tampering, could be subjected to punishment under criminal law.

Held:

Per Chelameswar, J:

The notification constituting Vyapam as a non-statutory body had not been issued, but its existence was upheld by previous judgments.

The executive power of the State extends to protecting public interest, and if unfair means contaminated the entrance examination process, the State had the authority to take appropriate action.

The case falls within exceptions to the rule of audi alteram partem if reliable material establishes tampering with the examination process.

The cancellation of admissions is upheld, but considering the technical training invested in the appellants, they are allowed to complete their medical studies. The appellants must serve the nation for five years without regular salary or benefits.

Per Sapre, J (Partly Dissenting):

The case involves "mass copying," and the procedure adopted by Vyapam is not unfair or arbitrary.

No breach of rules of natural justice is found, and the decision to cancel results was not taken hastily.

The appellants are not entitled to equitable relief solely based on completion of their course during the interim period.

Suggests that the State may consider permitting appellants and other candidates to appear in future competitive examinations.

Decision: Due to a difference of opinion, the matter is referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Facts:

The Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) was brought into existence for conducting examinations for admission to medical colleges, engineering and agricultural universities, and polytechnics.

The Board is a non-statutory body, having no separate existence apart from the government.

The appellants appeared for the entrance examination (PMT) conducted by Vyapam and secured admissions into various medical colleges based on the marks obtained.

Issues:

Whether Vyapam, being a non-statutory body, had the authority to cancel the examination and admissions.

Whether the examination process was tampered with, justifying the cancellation.

Whether the appellants, even if involved in tampering, could be subjected to punishment under criminal law.

Held:

Per Chelameswar, J:

The notification constituting Vyapam as a non-statutory body had not been issued, but its existence was upheld by previous judgments.

The executive power of the State extends to protecting public interest, and if unfair means contaminated the entrance examination process, the State had the authority to take appropriate action.

The case falls within exceptions to the rule of audi alteram partem if reliable material establishes tampering with the examination process.

The cancellation of admissions is upheld, but considering the technical training invested in the appellants, they are allowed to complete their medical studies. The appellants must serve the nation for five years without regular salary or benefits.

Per Sapre, J (Partly Dissenting):

The case involves "mass copying," and the procedure adopted by Vyapam is not unfair or arbitrary.

No breach of rules of natural justice is found, and the decision to cancel results was not taken hastily.

The appellants are not entitled to equitable relief solely based on completion of their course during the interim period.

Suggests that the State may consider permitting appellants and other candidates to appear in future competitive examinations.

Decision: Due to a difference of opinion, the matter is referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Facts:

The case involves a juvenile accused, Parag Bhat, represented by his legal guardian, Smt. Rajni Bhat. The discrepancy in the date of birth is identified in various school certificates, leading to doubts about the accused's claim of juvenility.

Issues:

Determination of the accused's age based on conflicting dates of birth in different certificates.

Validity of the ossification test conducted by the Medical Board.

Applicability of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2007, in cases of doubt regarding the date of birth.

Held:

Under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, the court is mandated to inquire and take necessary evidence to determine the age of the person claiming juvenility. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2007, guides the Board in obtaining relevant certificates and seeking medical opinion in cases of doubt.

The date of birth discrepancy is highlighted in various school records. The Board concluded that the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate raises doubts, leading to the ossification test. The transfer certificate from Junior High School, found to be forged, further raises questions about the accuracy of the recorded date of birth.

Due to the discrepancies, the Medical Board conducted an examination, assessing the age of the accused to be about 19 years. The Board did not grant the benefit of one year under Rule 12, considering the evidence from the complainant's side.

The appellant's claim of studying in a different school was not raised before the Board, and such new claims cannot be entertained at this stage.

Emphasizes that a casual or cavalier approach is unacceptable when determining juvenility, especially in cases involving grave offenses. The court must protect public confidence in the justice system.

The principle of benevolent legislation applies only when there is at least prima facie evidence regarding the accused's minority, and it cannot be used to shield serious offenses.

If matriculation certificates are available and there is no contradictory evidence, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is conclusive. An inquiry for age determination is permissible when there is doubt.

Conclusion: The court dismisses the appeal, stating that there is no illegality in the orders passed by the Board and the Courts below.

Facts:

Accused No. 2 (Rambraksh @ Jalim) and Accused No. 1 (Bechan Ram) were tried for murder and disappearance of evidence.

The trial court acquitted Accused No. 1 and convicted Accused No. 2 based on circumstantial evidence, especially the last seen theory.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of PW3 Dasmatiya Bai, the wife of the deceased, who claimed that the appellant took her husband to Ambikapur, and later, bones and articles belonging to the deceased were found in a field.

The appellant challenged the conviction, highlighting the time gap between the last seen theory and the discovery of the bones, lack of corroborative evidence, and an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint.

Issues:

Reliability of the last seen theory.

Adequacy of circumstantial evidence.

Validity of the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint.

Held:

Reliability of the Last Seen Theory: The court emphasized that a conviction cannot be based solely on the last seen theory. It noted the significance of completing the chain of circumstances and highlighted that the last seen theory is valid only when the time gap is small enough to exclude the possibility of another perpetrator. Referring to precedent cases, the court asserted that the prosecution failed to establish guilt based on the last seen theory alone.

Adequacy of Circumstantial Evidence: The court noted the absence of corroborative evidence and the failure of the prosecution to establish the death of the deceased conclusively. The medical evidence did not provide sufficient support for the prosecution's case.

Validity of the Inordinate Delay: The court criticized the unexplained delay of 7 days in lodging the complaint and registering the case. It considered the delay as a significant factor impacting the credibility of the prosecution's case.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant was set aside. The court ordered the release of the appellant, Rambraksh @ Jalim, unless required in any other case.

Facts:

The appellant, Sujatha Ravi Kiran @ Sujata Sahu, had filed Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 351 of 2013 seeking the transfer of cases filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. from the High Court of Kerala to the High Court of Delhi. The case arose from allegations of physical and mental cruelty, sexual abuse, and wife-swapping against the appellant's husband and others.

Issues:

The transfer of cases and the petitioner's request for a CBI investigation due to alleged lackadaisical approach by the state police. The petitioner expressed difficulties in traveling to Kerala and raised concerns about threats to her life.

Held:

The Court dismissed the transfer petitions (Criminal) Nos. 351 of 2013 and 384 of 2013. It declined a CBI investigation but directed the State of Kerala to constitute a special team of police officers for further inquiry into the case. The Court emphasized the rarity and caution in exercising the power to direct a CBI investigation and stated that such power must be sparingly used, especially in exceptional situations where credibility and confidence in investigations are at stake.

The Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 164 of 2013 was disposed of with a direction to the Director General of Police, Kerala, to constitute a special investigation team. The team was to be headed by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, with the task of completing the investigation within three months.( Para No. [12])

The Transfer Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 351 of 2013 and 384 of 2013 were dismissed, with the order not preventing the petitioner from seeking a transfer of the divorce petition filed by the husband.( Para No. [13])