Right to Property – Article 300-A – Forcible Dispossession – The right to property is no longer a fundamental right but remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A – Forcible dispossession without following due process of law violates human rights and constitutional rights – The State's actions in dispossessing the appellants without legal authority were held unlawful [Paras 13-25].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – The State cannot evade its legal responsibility based on delay and laches when the dispossession of property is a continuing wrong – The appellants' delay in seeking legal recourse does not bar their right to justice given the State's arbitrary action [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – State directed to treat the subject lands as deemed acquisition and disburse compensation within four months – Appellants entitled to consequential benefits of solatium and interest from the date of notification till the date of judgment – State to pay legal costs of ₹50,000 to the appellants [Paras 26-27].

Academic Policy – Judicial Review – The petition under Article 32 challenges the cut-off date for internship completion for NEET-PG 2022 as set by the National Board of Examination – The Supreme Court held that such matters lie within the policy domain of academic and regulatory authorities and are generally not open to judicial review unless shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory [Paras 9-14].

Internship Completion Date – Extension – Although the deadline was extended from 31 May 2022 to 31 July 2022 due to the hardships caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, further extension would disrupt the educational schedule and disadvantage other students – Requests to consider the period spent on Covid duties towards internship requirements were rejected to avoid micro-managing the curriculum [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Petition dismissed – The Court upheld the decision of the regulatory authorities, emphasizing that judicial intervention in academic matters should be minimal and based on clear evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination [Paras 16-17].

Amalgamation – Validity of Assessment Orders – Assessment order issued against Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (MRPL) post-amalgamation with Mahagun India Private Limited (MIPL) – Revenue's contention that defects are curable under Section 292B – Supreme Court holds that issuance of assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation – High Court's order set aside, matter remitted to ITAT for hearing on merits [Paras 1-43].

Procedural Deficiencies – Section 292B – Revenue argued that mentioning both amalgamating and amalgamated companies in assessment order cures defects – Supreme Court rejects this argument, emphasizing the need for orders to reflect the correct legal entity – Merely mentioning both entities does not cure the substantive defect [Paras 7-13].

Participation in Proceedings – Estoppel against Law – Participation of amalgamated company in assessment proceedings does not validate the assessment order issued in the name of a non-existent company – Consistent representation of amalgamated company does not estop it from challenging the order [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Assessment order quashed – Matter remitted to ITAT for hearing on merits excluding the issue of nullity of the assessment order [Para 43].

Service Law – Suppression of Information – Respondent concealed involvement in a criminal case while filling the verification roll – Supreme Court finds suppression of material information constitutes a serious misconduct justifying removal from service – High Court’s interference with quantum of punishment held unjustified [Paras 1-17].

Article 226 – Judicial Review of Administrative Action – The court emphasized that judicial review does not permit interference with the administrative decision unless it is disproportionate or arbitrary – In cases of suppression of material information, interference with the quantum of punishment should be minimal [Paras 3-4, 12-13].

Employment Law – Non-disclosure of Criminal Case – Respondent's non-disclosure of pending criminal case led to removal from service – Supreme Court held that such non-disclosure undermines the trust and discipline necessary in service, upholding the principle of non-disclosure as ground for termination [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Original punishment of removal from service reinstated [Paras 16-17].

Preventive Detention – Standard for Public Order – Detention order under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 challenged – Supreme Court held that a mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is insufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order" – Detention order based on stale material and lack of application of mind by the detaining authority – Two FIRs registered against the detenu, but no unrest reported post bail – Detention order quashed [Paras 1-19].

Constitutional Safeguards – Article 22 – Emphasis on strict constitutional safeguards to prevent the arbitrary exercise of state authority under preventive detention laws – The personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed merely due to involvement in a criminal proceeding – Case demonstrates non-application of mind by detaining authority and the importance of evaluating the fairness of detention orders against lawful standards [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and the detention order set aside – The ordinary course of criminal law to address the allegations [Para 18].

Housing Law – Transfer of Property – Discrepancies in Name – Appellant's grandfather was allotted a house on a rental basis in 1968 – Following his death, the tenancy was transferred to the appellant's father and subsequently converted to hire purchase – Despite discrepancies in the name and initials of the original allottee, the Supreme Court held that these inconsistencies had coexisted for five decades without dispute – Rejection of transfer request by the Housing Board deemed unfair, and Division Bench's conclusion of fraud by appellant's father was unfounded [Paras 1-8].

Legal Heirship – Lok Adalat Settlement – Following the appellant's father's death and settlement with his sisters, the appellant obtained 'No Objection' for registration of the house in his name – Housing Board's refusal based on name discrepancies overturned by Supreme Court, emphasizing the appellant's long-standing possession and payment completion [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's Division Bench judgment set aside – Learned Single Judge's judgment restored – Housing Board directed to execute the deed of transfer and register the house in appellant's name within two months [Para 8].

Prevention of Corruption – Extrajudicial Confession – Confession obtained from the respondent-officer deemed involuntary – Supreme Court emphasized that extrajudicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration – Conviction based solely on such confessions without corroboration is unjustified – The court held the findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) that the confession was not voluntary were plausible and supported by the circumstances [Paras 30-45].

Reappreciation of Evidence – AFT's Jurisdiction – The court upheld the AFT's jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence to determine if court-martial findings are legally sustainable – The judgment emphasized that the AFT can interfere with court-martial decisions if findings involve wrong decisions on law, material irregularities, or result in miscarriage of justice [Paras 26-29].

Decision – Union of India's appeal dismissed – Respondent-officer's appeals allowed – Conviction under Section 63 of the Army Act set aside – Major R. Metri acquitted of all charges and directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages [Paras 54-55].

Probation – Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empower courts to release offenders on probation of good conduct in specific cases and circumstances. Similarly, Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C. also empower courts to release offenders on probation of good conduct. Considering the sentence imposed by the lower courts on the appellants for the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC and the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to release them on probation of good conduct. The appellants shall be released on probation upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with surety of the like amount and undertaking to keep the peace and good behavior for three years to the satisfaction of the trial court. Failure to comply with these directions or breach of the undertaking will result in serving the sentence imposed by the trial court [Paras 1-7].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence maintained, but appellants to be released on probation of good conduct [Para 7].

Security Cheque – Rejection of Plaint – Plaintiff sought a declaration that the cheque issued was only for security and not for consideration, aiming to prevent proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act – Supreme Court held that such a declaration cannot be granted as it would contravene the provisions of the N.I. Act, particularly Section 118(a), which presumes that every negotiable instrument was made for consideration – The right of the defendant to prosecute the plaintiff for dishonour of cheque cannot be frustrated by seeking such a declaration – High Court's order set aside, and trial court's order rejecting the plaint restored [Paras 1-39].

Order 7 Rule 11 – Principles – The plaint must be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by any law – Supreme Court reiterated that a meaningful reading of the plaint is required to ascertain whether it discloses a cause of action or is barred – Clever drafting cannot create a cause of action where none exists [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Trial court's order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC restored – Plaintiff's suit dismissed [Paras 39-40].