Motor Vehicle Act – Compensation for Prosthetic Limb – Continuing Mandamus – The Supreme Court held that compensation for future medical expenses, such as the maintenance and replacement of a prosthetic limb, must be awarded as a lump sum rather than through continuing directions. The Court emphasized that compensation should be determined at one go, taking into account future eventualities [Paras 6-10].

Motor Vehicle Act – Compensation for Attendants – Lump Sum Award – The Court ruled that compensation for the assistance of attendants must also be provided as a lump sum. The Court referred to previous judgments that support awarding a lump sum amount to cover future medical and attendant expenses, using a multiplier method to ensure fair compensation [Paras 17-24].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's directions for a lifetime warranty and continuing maintenance of the prosthetic limb, as well as the provision for attendants. The Court directed that a lump sum amount be determined for these expenses. The case was remitted to the High Court for determination of the lump sum amount based on the principles laid down in the judgment [Paras 25-32].

Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules – Compassionate Appointment – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant the respondent the benefit of compassionate appointment. The Court ruled that the father of the respondent, although termed a Part Time Tubewell Operator, was effectively treated as a regular employee due to continuous service, transfer between departments, and assignment of election duties under Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act 1950, typically reserved for regular government employees [Paras 1-10].

Employment Status – Continuous Service and Regular Vacancy – The Court determined that the deceased father's appointment was against a regular vacancy as evidenced by his continuous service of over 13 years, regular pay-scale, and duties akin to those of a full-time employee. The factual scenario demonstrated that the deceased was essentially a regular employee, qualifying his dependents for benefits under the compassionate appointment rules [Paras 2-10].

Equal Treatment – Comparable Cases – The Court noted that similar compassionate appointments had been granted to other individuals in comparable situations, highlighting potential discrimination against the respondent. The appellant's argument that the father's service did not equate to regular employment was rejected as it was inconsistent with the treatment given to others in analogous circumstances [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order. The respondent was granted the compassionate appointment benefit, and the appellant was directed to issue the necessary orders within one month. Costs were imposed throughout the proceedings [Paras 13-15].

Wakf Act – Sections 6 and 7 – Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – The Supreme Court held that the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine whether a property is a Wakf property when this is disputed in an eviction suit. The Tribunal can adjudicate on such matters, even if the tenant disputes the Wakf nature of the property [Paras 1-24].

Wakf Property – Eviction Suit – The Court ruled that in cases where the tenancy or encroachment is contested on the grounds of the property not being Wakf, the Tribunal must first establish the property's Wakf status before proceeding with eviction orders. This ensures that disputes over property status are resolved under the Wakf Act [Paras 20-23].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court emphasized that issues falling within the provisions of the Wakf Act must be decided by the Wakf Tribunal, thus barring civil court jurisdiction in such matters. The Tribunal's decisions, when based on evidence and following due process, must be respected and upheld [Paras 16-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the Wakf Tribunal’s order, thereby confirming the eviction from the disputed properties. The respondent was granted three months to vacate the premises, provided all arrears and dues are cleared [Paras 25].

Penal Code – Section 193 – False Evidence – The Supreme Court held that prosecution for perjury cannot be ordered merely based on inconsistent statements. There must be a definite finding that the statements are irreconcilable and one is deliberately false. The Court must also consider whether initiating an inquiry is expedient in the interest of justice, taking into account the overall factual matrix and probable consequences of such prosecution [Paras 1-17].

Representation of the People Act – Section 100(1)(c) – Improper Rejection of Nomination Papers – The Court noted that the election of the appellant from the 151 K.R. Pura Legislative Assembly constituency was held void due to improper rejection of nomination papers. However, this became infructuous as the appellant completed the term of the Assembly [Paras 3-6].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 340 – Opportunity to Respond – The Court emphasized that before directing prosecution for perjury, the person accused must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. In this case, no such opportunity was provided, and the appellant was examined as a witness by the election petitioner [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Appeals Disposed Of – Held – Civil Appeal No. 4821 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous. Civil Appeal No. 6171 of 2012 is allowed, setting aside the direction to register a complaint against the appellant for prosecution under Section 193 IPC. The appellant's statements did not constitute deliberate falsehood justifying prosecution. The Registrar General of the High Court is directed not to register a complaint against the appellant [Paras 16-19].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 433-A – Power of Remission – The Supreme Court held that the power of remission is to be exercised by the State Government if the prisoner has undergone 14 years of actual imprisonment in cases falling within the scope of Section 433-A of the CrPC. For imprisonment less than 14 years, the power of premature release can be exercised by the Governor on the aid and advice of the State Government [Paras 1-4].

Constitution of India – Article 161 – Exercise of Power – The Court emphasized that the power under Article 161 of the Constitution can be exercised by the State Governments, not by the Governor on his own. The advice of the appropriate Government binds the Head of the State. Policies of the State Government encompass both situations under Article 161 and Sections 432, 433, and 433-A of the CrPC [Paras 11-12].

Remission Policies – Statutory and Constitutional Powers – The Court clarified that policies of remission framed by the State Government are composite policies that apply both under Article 161 of the Constitution and the relevant sections of the CrPC. The power of the Governor to commute sentences under Article 161 is independent of the restrictions under Section 433-A of the CrPC [Paras 5-10].

Decision – Appeals Disposed Of – Held – The Supreme Court set aside the directions issued by the High Court, stating that policies must be read considering the period of imprisonment undergone by a prisoner. The power of remission by the State Government applies if the prisoner has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. For periods less than 14 years, premature release can be considered under Article 161. The State Government is directed to consider the respondent's case for premature release under the applicable policy [Paras 21-24].

Judicial Restraint – Expunction of Remarks – Appeal by a practicing lawyer seeking expunction of adverse remarks made by a High Court Judge – Supreme Court emphasizes judicial restraint and the necessity of comments for adjudication – Offending remarks found to be unnecessary and prejudicial – Remarks ordered to be expunged to prevent future harm to the appellant's professional reputation [Paras 1-18].

Opportunity to Defend – Principles of Natural Justice – Adverse remarks recorded without providing the appellant an opportunity to explain or defend himself – Violation of the principles of audi alteram partem – Remarks deemed inappropriate for not meeting required judicial standards of restraint and sobriety [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Offending remarks expunged – Court underscores the importance of restraint and necessity in judicial commentary to protect professional reputations [Paras 17-18].

Income Tax Act – Section 12AA – Registration of Trust – The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) were correct in canceling the registration of the Trust under Section 12AA on the grounds of receiving bogus donations. The Trust misused the benefits conferred by the registration, warranting cancellation [Paras 1-13].

Bogus Donations – Misuse of Trust Status – The Court found that donations received by the Trust were bogus as they were returned to the donors in cash. Such activities clearly indicated misuse of the status granted under Sections 12AA and 80G of the Act. The Trust was not entitled to retain its registration due to these fraudulent activities [Paras 11-13].

High Court's Error – The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in entertaining the appeal under Section 260A of the Act without adequately addressing the answers provided by the Managing Trustee. The High Court failed to evaluate whether the conclusions drawn by the CIT and the Tribunal were incorrect or invalid [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the order passed by the CIT and the Tribunal. The Trust's registration under Sections 12AA and 80G was rightfully canceled due to the misuse of its status and involvement in bogus donations. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs [Paras 13].

Judicial Service – Disciplinary Proceedings – Petition challenging the compulsory retirement of Additional District and Sessions Judge due to heavy unexplained bank transactions – Full Court's recommendation and Governor's order of compulsory retirement upheld – Supreme Court finds Full Court's view justified given the substantial transactions and lack of documentary evidence for land purchases – Petition rejected [Paras 1-15].

Disciplinary Committee – Role and Authority – Argument that findings of the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee should bind the Full Court dismissed – Supreme Court clarifies that in absence of specific rules, Full Court has jurisdiction to take a different view from the Committee – Reference to Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi case to support the principle [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Petition rejected – Compulsory retirement order upheld – Supreme Court emphasizes the gravity of the misconduct and the standard of ethics required of judicial officers [Paras 13-15].

Service Law – Enhancement of Age of Superannuation – The Supreme Court ruled that Ayurvedic doctors covered under AYUSH are entitled to the same benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years as allopathic doctors. The distinction between AYUSH doctors and allopathic doctors, with the former using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda and the latter using allopathy, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia. Therefore, such classification and discrimination are inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 1-24].

Retrospective Application – The Court held that the order from the AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017, which extended the retirement age to 65 years, should be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016, aligning with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's notification. This ensures no disparity in service conditions between the two categories of doctors [Paras 22-23].

Equitable Relief – No Work No Pay Doctrine – The principle of 'No Work No Pay' cannot be applied to the respondent doctors who have continuously served patients. Denying salary for their service under the interim orders would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. The respondents must be paid their lawful remuneration, including arrears [Paras 15-20].

Financial Implications – The Court rejected the appellants' argument that paying arrears would impose a substantial financial burden on the State. The State's financial considerations cannot justify denying salary to doctors who have legally served their patients [Paras 20].

Decision – Appeals Disposed Of – Held – The Supreme Court directed the appellants to disburse full salary arrears to the respondent doctors within eight weeks. Any delayed payment beyond the stipulated period will attract interest at the rate of 6% from the date of this order until the date of payment. The appeals are disposed of with no order on costs [Paras 24].