Civil Procedure – Ex-Parte Decree Against Minor – Appointment of Guardian – Supreme Court held that an ex-parte decree against a minor without the minor being represented by a guardian duly appointed under Order 32 Rule 3 of the CPC is a nullity – The High Court, exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, correctly set aside the ex-parte decree, recognizing the procedural irregularity and the prejudice caused to the minor – The decision of the High Court to set aside the ex-parte decree on the grounds of lack of proper representation and to allow the defendants an opportunity to defend was upheld [Paras 1-33].

Limitation and Delay – Condonation – The trial court’s refusal to condone the delay of 862 days in seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree was overruled by the High Court, which found procedural lapses in appointing a guardian for the minor defendant – The Supreme Court affirmed this, highlighting that the court cannot afford to be negligent in protecting the interests of minors, even if the parties themselves are negligent [Paras 3-12].

Judicial Superintendence – Article 227 Powers – The High Court’s broader powers under Article 227 to ensure the proper administration of justice were affirmed – The High Court’s action to set aside the ex-parte decree under its supervisory jurisdiction was deemed appropriate given the procedural irregularity [Paras 13-22].

Equity and Fairness – The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's decision to conditionally set aside the decree, requiring the defendants to compensate the plaintiffs for costs incurred, balanced equity and justice – This approach ensured that the decree holders were not disadvantaged while correcting procedural flaws [Paras 23-31].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court’s order setting aside the ex-parte decree upheld – The trial court directed to proceed with the suit after proper representation for the minor defendant [Paras 32-33].

Administrative Law – Study Leave – Policy Decision – Appellant, a medical officer, denied study leave to pursue a postgraduate medical course due to a policy decision in response to the COVID-19 pandemic – Appellant argued that refusal was arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14 – Supreme Court held the policy decision was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory but emphasized the need to reconsider the application for study leave in light of improved COVID-19 situation – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-45].

COVID-19 – Emergency Measures – Temporary Policy – Policy decision not to grant study leave to doctors due to COVID-19 justified by necessity to ensure availability of medical staff – Policy noted as temporary and subject to review with changing circumstances [Paras 19-24].

Judicial Review – Scope – Court emphasized limitations of judicial review in questioning policy decisions made during emergencies like a pandemic – Prudence and justification of such policy decisions are generally outside judicial scrutiny unless blatantly arbitrary or discriminatory [Paras 20-21].

Equitable Relief – Legitimate Expectation – Appellant's expectation for study leave recognized – Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 to grant relief by directing re-allotment of the vacant seat for the appellant in the next academic session and reconsideration of study leave application in light of current circumstances [Paras 42-44].

Decision- Appeal Allowed – Impugned judgments of the Division Bench and Single Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside – Respondent No. 3 (PGI Chandigarh) directed to admit appellant to the postgraduate course scheduled to commence in July 2021 – Respondent No. 1 (Government of NCT of Delhi) directed to reconsider appellant’s application for study leave in light of current COVID-19 situation – Directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 43-45].

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Enhancement of Age – Appellants challenged the decision of the High Court directing retrospective application of the Government Order enhancing the age of superannuation from fifty-eight to sixty years – High Court held that the enhancement should be retrospective from 29 June 2002 – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, holding that policy decisions regarding superannuation age rest with the executive – Enhancement to be applied prospectively as per the Government Order dated 30 September 2012 [Paras 1-27].

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Not Applicable – The representation by NOIDA to enhance the age of superannuation was subject to State Government approval – Mere recommendation does not create a binding promise – The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply in this context [Paras 24].

Legitimate Expectation – Not Applicable – Employees cannot claim a legitimate expectation of retrospective application of superannuation age enhancement based on a proposal requiring State Government approval – The decision to enhance the superannuation age and its effective date is a policy matter [Paras 23-24].

Decision-Appeals Allowed – High Court's decision set aside – Government Order dated 30 September 2012 upheld, applying the enhancement of the age of superannuation prospectively – No costs [Paras 27-28].

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations 1996 – Mutual Fund Winding Up – Trustee’s Authority – Trustees must obtain consent of the majority of unitholders before winding up a scheme under Regulation 18(15)(c) – Regulation 39(2)(a) does not exempt trustees from seeking such consent – Consent should be post-publication of notice under Regulation 39(3) [Paras 1-45].

Interpretation of Regulations – Harmonious Construction – Regulation 18(15)(c) and Regulations 39 to 42 must be read together – Regulation 18(15)(c) requires unitholder consent when trustees decide to wind up a scheme – Publication of notice under Regulation 39(3) activates Regulation 40's cease-and-freeze effect – Trustees must call for unitholder meeting to authorize winding up steps as per Regulation 41 [Paras 30-45].

Judicial Review – Regulatory Compliance – Trustees' decision to wind up without unitholder consent found non-compliant – Requirement for transparent communication and informed unitholder decision upheld – Ensures protection of unitholder interests and adherence to statutory obligations [Paras 20-21].

Constitutional Validity – Due Process and Excessive Delegation – Regulation 39(2)(a)'s term 'happening of any event' upheld as not suffering from excessive delegation – Power vested in trustees to decide winding up based on specific criteria and regulatory oversight – Unitholder rights safeguarded through mandated consent process [Paras 49-50].

Decision -Appeals Partially Allowed – Trustees' decision to wind up the six schemes without unitholder consent set aside – Directions issued for obtaining unitholder consent post-publication of notices – Regulatory compliance mandated for winding up process to proceed [Paras 1-50].

Environmental Law – Public Servants – Protection under Section 197 CrPC – Appellant, Chief Officer of Sandur Gram Panchayat, found guilty under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water Act – Lower appellate court's decision quashing prosecution for lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC set aside by High Court – Supreme Court affirmed that protection under Section 197 CrPC not applicable due to deeming fiction in Section 47 of Water Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-15].

Deeming Fiction – Section 47 of Water Act – Appellant deemed guilty as per Section 47 – Public servant's prosecution not requiring prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – High Court's decision remanding matter to lower appellate court upheld – To be considered afresh on merits [Paras 10-14].

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation – V.C. Chinnappa Goudar v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Karnataka State Pollution Control Board v. B. Heera Naik followed – Clarified that deeming fiction in Section 47 excludes the need for sanction under Section 197 CrPC for public servants [Paras 9-11].

Decision- Appeal Dismissed – High Court's remand of the matter to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration on merits upheld – Section 197 CrPC protection not applicable due to deeming fiction under Section 47 of the Water Act [Paras 1-15].

Evacuee Property – Regularization of Possession – Displaced Persons – The appellant, an encroacher on evacuee land, sought regularization under policies dated 20.06.1978 and 08.01.1980 – Supreme Court held that evacuee land must be allotted to displaced persons as per Sections 14 and 20 of the Act – Allotment to encroachers is permissible only if no displaced persons are pending allotment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-15].

Legal Precedents – Evacuee Property – Ramesh Parsram Malani vs. State of Telangana cited to emphasize the priority of displaced persons over encroachers for allotment of evacuee land – Policy for regularization of encroachment beyond the Act's scheme and purpose – Encroachers do not have the right to claim regularization if displaced persons are entitled to allotment [Paras 11-13].

Eviction Orders – Compliance and Notice – Appellant's claim of lack of notice before eviction order found factually incorrect – Eviction notice issued and not challenged substantively in the writ petition – Relief sought limited to challenging eviction order, not for regularization [Paras 4-7].

Decision- Appeal Dismissed – Eviction order upheld – Encroacher appellant's claim for regularization of possession over evacuee land rejected – Allotment to displaced persons given priority as per legislative intent and statutory provisions [Paras 1-15].

Service Law – Higher Pay Scale – Financial Constraints – Appellants contested High Court order granting revised pay scales to employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986 – Supreme Court upheld that financial constraints justified the Federation's decision to grant revised pay scales only from 1.1.1994 – Differentiation between employees of public sector undertakings and Central/State Government employees in terms of pay scale revision due to financial capacity – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-52].

Judicial Review – Administrative Decisions – Scope – Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to examining the legality, procedural impropriety, and irrationality – High Court's interference in the Federation's decision without considering financial constraints held excessive – Decision on pay scale revision upheld based on relevant considerations and rational decision-making process [Paras 43-49].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Non-Applicability – Claim for equal pay by employees based on alleged similarity in work and responsibilities with other posts rejected – Differentiation in educational qualifications and job responsibilities justified different pay scales – Claim for equal pay found without merit [Paras 53-59].

Decision - Appeals Allowed – Orders of the High Court set aside – Revised pay scales granted by the Federation from 1.1.1994 upheld – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 52, 59].

Service Law – Transfer Order – Summoning of Public Officers – Public officers should not be called to court unnecessarily – Courts must avoid exerting undue pressure on administrative officers – Separation of powers between Judiciary and Executive must be respected to maintain constitutional balance – Frequent summoning of officers criticized and condemned [Paras 17-20].

Judicial Review – Administrative Decisions – Courts have the power of pen which is more effective than the presence of an officer in court – Officers' decisions are made as custodians of public funds and in the interest of administration – Unnecessary summoning of officers impacts their other official duties and is against public interest [Paras 18-20].

Service Law – Back Wages – Claim of Medical Officer – Petitioner’s claim for back wages denied due to non-joining at the place of posting – Court found the officer intentionally delayed joining and was gainfully employed during the period in question – Grant of 50% back wages by lower courts deemed unjustified – High Court orders set aside [Paras 10-15].

Decision - Appeal Allowed – High Court orders dated 05.03.2020 and 07.08.2019 set aside – Writ petition dismissed – No costs awarded [Para 21].

Constitutional Law – Privileges and Fundamental Rights – Summoning of Facebook Representatives – Delhi Assembly's Committee on Peace and Harmony summoned representatives of Facebook regarding the 2020 Delhi riots – Petitioners contended that such summons violated their fundamental rights of free speech and privacy – Supreme Court held that representatives appearing before the Committee could refuse to answer certain queries, and such refusal should not be taken amiss with potential privilege proceedings – The Assembly and Committee's right to summon is upheld but with the understanding that respondents can choose not to answer specific questions [Paras 1-25].

Judicial Review – Legislative Competence – Courts can review actions of the Legislature if they violate fundamental rights – Actions by the Assembly that infringe upon the petitioners' rights can be subject to judicial scrutiny – Court emphasized that while the Committee can summon individuals, the exercise of such power must be balanced with respecting the fundamental rights of individuals [Paras 26-33].

Free Speech and Privacy – Balance of Rights – The power to compel attendance by initiating privilege proceedings is an essential power of the Assembly – Members and non-members can be directed to appear and depose on oath – However, representatives of Facebook or any summoned party have the right to refuse to answer queries that they believe infringe upon their rights of free speech and privacy without inviting privilege proceedings [Paras 34-45].

Decision - Writ Petition Partially Allowed – Summons by the Delhi Assembly's Committee on Peace and Harmony upheld, but with the clarification that representatives appearing before the Committee are well within their rights to refuse to answer specific queries – Court recognized the delicate balance between the Committee's investigative powers and the fundamental rights of individuals [Paras 46-50].