Civil Procedure – Suit for possession on the basis of title – Defendants denied the title of Managing Officer and the plaintiff – Defendants' plea of continuous possession without hostile intent – Evidence showed continuous possession since 1963 but not adverse – High Court’s finding of adverse possession legally unsustainable – Judgment and decree of High Court set aside – Suit decreed in favor of plaintiff [Paras 1-16].

Adverse Possession – Requirements – Possession must be hostile, open, and continuous – Denial of true owner’s title necessary – Defendants failed to admit hostile possession or acknowledge true ownership – Long possession alone insufficient to claim adverse possession [Paras 9-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment and decree set aside – Suit for possession decreed in favor of the plaintiff.

Constitutional Law – Reservation in Promotion – Persons with Disabilities – Supreme Court held that persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotions under Section 33 of the 1995 Act – Distinction between reservations under Article 16(4) and horizontal reservations under Article 16(1) emphasized – Prior Supreme Court judgments in Indra Sawhney and others clarified – Reservation in promotions for disabled persons upheld despite office memorandum limiting such reservations – Appeals allowed and prior judgments set aside [Paras 1-26].

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Interpretation – Sections 32 and 33 – Identification of posts and reservation in employment for persons with disabilities – Supreme Court emphasized the requirement to provide reservation in promotion once posts are identified for disabled persons – Government directed to comply with statutory provisions and Supreme Court judgments ensuring reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities [Paras 1-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Supreme Court judgments in National Federation of the Blind and Rajeev Kumar Gupta reiterated – Office memorandum inconsistent with these judgments struck down – Union and State Governments directed to follow the law as declared by the Supreme Court – Contempt petitions to be listed for hearing [Paras 10-26].

Criminal Law – Forgery – Appeal against High Court decision affirming conviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC – Appellant, a postman, accused of forging the signature of PW-2 on a delivery slip for a registered envelope containing Indira Vikas Patras – Prosecution evidence included testimony from complainant, denial of signature by PW-2, and reports from handwriting experts – Supreme Court reduces sentence to period already undergone due to long passage of time since the incident (1992) [Paras 1-21].

Evidence Law – Handwriting Expert – Reliability – Conviction based on corroborative evidence including expert opinion – Court emphasizes caution in relying solely on handwriting experts – In this case, expert opinions corroborated by other evidence, including PW-2’s denial of the signature, supporting conviction [Paras 13-18].

Judicial Review – Sentencing – Reduction of Sentence – Considering the occurrence in 1992 and appellant's custody for more than 18 months, Supreme Court reduces imprisonment to period already undergone – Conviction upheld but sentence modified [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC confirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant to be released unless required in any other case [Para 21].

Service Law – Promotion and Medical Fitness – Appeal against High Court decision denying promotion to IG – Appellant reverted to DIG based on medical board categorization – Multiple medical examinations with conflicting categorizations – Reversion without notice or hearing – Supreme Court grants relief under Article 142 for retiral dues computation based on IG rank – No further consideration for promotion to Additional DGP [Paras 1-10].

Natural Justice – Right to be Heard – Reversion from IG to DIG without show-cause notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice – Interim orders maintained appellant in IG rank until retirement – Supreme Court recognizes service in IG rank for nearly four years [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Review – Exercise of Article 142 – Supreme Court exercises Article 142 to direct computation of retiral dues as IG despite conflicting medical board reports – Appellant not entitled to further consideration for promotion to Additional DGP [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Retiral dues to be computed based on appellant’s IG rank at retirement – Sealed cover regarding promotion to Additional DGP to be returned – No further claim for Additional DGP promotion – No order as to costs [Para 10].

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].

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].

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].