Facts:

The case concerned a writ petition challenging the court's authority to issue a mandamus to Parliament to enact legislation to prevent individuals facing serious criminal charges from contesting elections. Additionally, it questioned whether the court could direct the Election Commission to control party discipline by disallowing candidates with criminal antecedents from contesting with party symbols.

Issues:

Whether the court had the jurisdiction to mandate Parliament to enact laws preventing individuals facing serious criminal charges from contesting elections.

Whether the court could direct the Election Commission to control party discipline by disallowing candidates with criminal antecedents from contesting with party symbols.

Held:

The court affirmed that criminalization in politics was a well-known phenomenon in India, with significant implications for democracy.

It was recognized that the Election Commission had been aware of the issue of criminalization in politics since 1998, and various recommendations had been made, although no legislative action had been taken.

The court emphasized that Parliament had the exclusive power to lay down disqualification criteria for membership, as specified in the Constitution and relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The court clarified that the judiciary could not legislate or add new grounds for disqualification beyond what was specified by the legislature.

While the Election Commission had powers to supervise elections, it must operate within the framework of laws enacted by Parliament.

Directing the Election Commission to disallow candidates with criminal charges from contesting with party symbols would exceed its constitutional mandate.

The court stressed the importance of voters having access to information about candidates' criminal backgrounds and directed candidates and political parties to disclose such information publicly.

The court recommended that Parliament enact legislation to prevent individuals facing serious criminal charges from entering politics, acknowledging the possibility of false cases but suggesting that Parliament address this through appropriate legislation.

Facts:

The appellant and the respondent got married in 2002, but their relationship deteriorated soon after.

The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent and her in-laws.

She also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance.

The Family Court initially granted maintenance, but the High Court later modified the amount.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the quantum of maintenance determined by the High Court.

Issues:

The determination of the quantum of monthly maintenance payable by the respondent to the appellant.

The appellant contested the amount determined by the High Court, arguing that certain factors were overlooked.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of both the Family Court and the High Court regarding the respondent's obligation to maintain the appellant.

However, the Court disagreed with the method used by the High Court to determine the quantum of maintenance.

Instead of basing the maintenance amount on the minimum wage in Delhi, the Court considered factors such as the living standard of the respondent and his family, his past conduct in prolonging the legal proceedings, and his previous income.

Taking into account these factors and the increased cost of living, the Court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance from January 2010, and Rs. 25,000/- per month from June 1, 2018, until further orders.

Facts:

The case pertains to the procedure followed for constituting the Standing Committee and electing its Chairman under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The process was disrupted due to the imposition of a 'code of conduct', delaying the necessary steps outlined in the Act.

Issues:

Whether the actions taken for constituting the Standing Committee and electing its Chairman adhered to the mandatory provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, considering the disruption caused by the 'code of conduct'.

Held:

The High Court ruled that the Standing Committee as in existence before May 2, 2018, should have taken all necessary steps and decisions. However, there was a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and non-adherence to prescribed timelines.

The failure to comply with the steps required before the imposition of the 'code of conduct' led to deviations from the prescribed timeline. However, the actions taken, though irregular, were a result of the urgent situation and followed the mandate of the Act.

Despite the irregularity, the actions did not result in the deprivation of any rights under the statute. Even if the same actions were to be undertaken after court intervention, the outcome would not substantially differ.

Facts:

The appeal was filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in M.F.A. No.297 of 2001.

The High Court had allowed the MFA filed by the respondents (landowners) and set aside the order of the Forest Tribunal.

Issues:

The interpretation of relevant provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.

Examination of issues concerning the respondents' land, including the timing and manner of acquisition, and whether it was used for personal cultivation by the respondents.

Held:

The interpretation of relevant provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 had already been addressed in detail in the order passed in Civil Appeal No.9912/2010, which was applicable to this case as well.

The High Court had examined issues concerning the respondents' land, including the timing and manner of acquisition, and whether it was used for personal cultivation by the respondents. The High Court's findings favored the respondents, based on the commissioner's report and on-the-spot inspection of the land.

These findings were considered to be based on proper evidence appreciation and in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Joseph & Anr. vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2007) 10 SCC 414. As a result, the respondents were entitled to claim exemption of their land from being vested in the State under the Act.

Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly.

Facts:

The dispute concerned 14 acres of land in Thenkara Village of Mannarghat Taluk in Kerala.

The respondents claimed ownership of the land, which was part of a larger parcel purchased jointly by their family members.

The State contended that the land should vest in the government under the Kerala Private Forests Act, 1971.

The respondents sought exemption from the Act's provisions, citing their intention to cultivate the land for personal use.

Issues:

Whether the respondents are entitled to exemption under Section 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forests Act, 1971.

Interpretation of the expression "intended for cultivation by him" as mentioned in Section 3(3) of the Act.

Held:

The Tribunal's decision to grant exemption to the respondents was based on factual evidence and proper interpretation of the law.

The intention to cultivate the land by the owners, as required by Section 3(3) of the Act, should be inferred from their conduct, including pre- and post-vesting activities.

The High Court's dismissal of the State's appeal was justified as the Tribunal's findings were supported by documentary evidence and were not deemed perverse or illegal.

The appeal filed by the State was dismissed, affirming the exemption granted to the respondents from the vesting of their land in the government under the Kerala Private Forests Act, 1971.

Facts:

The arbitrator conducted meetings in Kuala Lumpur and issued an arbitral award in favor of the respondents. The appellant challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issues:

Whether the seat or venue of arbitration was specified in the arbitration agreement.

The jurisdiction of Indian courts to entertain the application challenging the arbitral award.

Held:

The arbitration clause must be construed holistically to determine the jurisdiction of the court.

If the agreement mentions a venue along with other conditions, it may imply exclusion of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

In this case, the place of arbitration was not agreed upon by the parties. The Arbitral Tribunal was required to determine the place if there was a failure of agreement.

The determination of the place must be clearly stated in the arbitral award.

The term "determination" signifies an expressive opinion, which was lacking in this case.

A "place" can become a "seat" if certain conditions precedent are satisfied. In this case, as the conditions were not satisfied, Kuala Lumpur was not the seat or place of arbitration.

Courts in India have jurisdiction as the determination of the place was not done, and thus, the order of the Delhi High Court was set aside.

Decision: The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between "seat" and "venue" in arbitration agreements and held that Indian courts have jurisdiction in this case since no determination of the place of arbitration was made.

Facts:

Vilasini was convicted under Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Kerala Abkari (Amended) Act, 1997, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.

She appealed to the High Court of Kerala, which upheld her conviction but reduced the sentence to three months of simple imprisonment and modified the default sentence to two weeks in case of failure to pay the fine.

Vilasini appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the quantum of the sentence and fine imposed by the lower courts.

Issues:

Whether the sentence imposed by the lower courts should be modified considering the circumstances of the appellant.

Held:

The Supreme Court modified the sentence based on various factors including the appellant's age, financial status, lack of prior criminal record, the small quantity of contraband involved, and the time already served.

The Court reduced the remaining sentence for Vilasini to the time already served and reduced the default sentence for non-payment of the fine from two weeks to one week.

Vilasini was given one month to pay the fine of Rs. 1 lakh, failure to pay within this period would result in one week of imprisonment.

Facts:

FIR No. 16 of 2018 was registered on March 24, 2018, for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code against 18 persons, including the appellants.

The appellants were arrested on April 8, 2018, and subsequently remanded to police/magisterial custody.

A petition was filed by the complainant seeking a fair and impartial investigation. The High Court, in response, ordered that the investigation be conducted by a Gazetted Police Officer, and the report of the investigation along with the opinion of the Investigating Officer be submitted within two months.

The investigation report was filed on July 5, 2018, but it was returned by the Magistrate due to non-compliance with the High Court's order.

The appellants filed an application for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) immediately after the expiry of 90 days from their custody.

Issues:

Whether the investigation was complete within the prescribed period under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

Whether the High Court's order could be construed as an extension of the investigation period.

Held:

The Court referred to previous judgments and principles laid down in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, highlighting that an accused has an indefeasible right to be released on bail if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated period.

The Court emphasized that the investigation must ideally be completed within the first 24 hours of arrest, and if not, within the prescribed period under Section 167 of the CrPC. In this case, since there were no papers or charge-sheet before the Magistrate at the end of the 90-day period, the accused were denied their right to bail. The Court rejected the argument that the High Court's order extended the investigation period, stating that there is no provision in the CrPC for such extension.

The Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellants be admitted to bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, with conditions to be determined by the trial court. The Court clarified that the appellants could be arrested or re-arrested on cogent grounds, and in such cases, they would be entitled to petition for regular bail, to be considered on its own merit.

Facts:

Seven petitioners enrolled in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through Open Distance Learning by Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, a Deemed to be University, in 2004 and 2005.

They filed a Writ Petition seeking clarification on the validity of their degrees, mandamus to prevent declaration of their degrees as null, and other reliefs.

Issues:

Whether Deemed to be Universities could offer courses in technical education through Open Distance Learning without AICTE approval.

Whether the degrees obtained through distance education mode are valid for all purposes.

Held:

The Court, referring to its decision in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Shankar Patro and Ors., held that Deemed to be Universities were not justified in introducing new courses in technical education without AICTE approval.

The Court directed the suspension of degrees awarded by Deemed to be Universities concerned to candidates enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005, and recall and cancellation of degrees awarded through distance education mode to students admitted after 2005.

It ordered AICTE to conduct appropriate tests for affected students, with an option to clear the tests within stipulated timeframes, failing which their degrees would stand cancelled.

The Court also directed refunds of tuition fees and other charges to affected students who chose not to exercise the test option.

Deemed to be Universities were instructed to refund tuition fees to affected students and cease offering courses in distance education mode without specific permissions.

UGC was directed to take steps to restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word "university" and to consider withdrawal of deemed status for certain institutions.

A three-member Committee was to be constituted to suggest oversight mechanisms for regulating deemed to be universities within six months.

The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, being completely covered by the Court's previous decision in Orissa Lift Irrigation case.