Facts:

The case arose from a dispute over land and a missing dog between two families.

During a gathering to settle the dispute, a scuffle ensued, resulting in injuries to both parties.

The appellants, Satnam Singh and Gurwinder Singh, were accused of attacking the deceased Harbhajan Singh with an axe, causing fatal injuries.

Both parties sustained injuries during the altercation.

The prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution adequately explained the injuries sustained by the accused.

Whether the act falls under Section 302 IPC or warrants a lesser charge under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

Held:

The court observed that the prosecution did not adequately explain the injuries sustained by the accused, which assumes significance as both parties were injured in the altercation.

It was noted that there was no clear evidence as to who initiated the attack, and both parties were unarmed.

The court found that the incident occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

Gurwinder Singh, having served over ten years of imprisonment, was ordered to be released, while Satnam Singh was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

Facts:

The dispute involved possession of agricultural land in a village. Plaintiffs claimed a share of the land, contested by the defendants who argued that the widow of a previous owner had acquired absolute ownership rights under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, specifically determining whether the widow's rights constituted pre-existing rights or were conferred by a compromise decree.

Held:

The Supreme Court analyzed the compromise decree and concluded that the widow's rights were indeed limited as stated in the decree. It emphasized that these rights did not stem from any pre-existing right but were conferred by the compromise decree.

The Court clarified that Section 14(1) of the Act does not recognize pre-existing rights of a Hindu male, and the property did not become the self-acquired property of the widow. It reiterated principles from the V. Tulasamma case regarding the right to maintenance, emphasizing that maintenance is a pre-existing right, but in this case, there was no indication that the property was acquired in lieu of maintenance.

The Court concluded that the widow's right was not a result of maintenance or any pre-existing right but arose from the compromise decree, thus falling under Section 14(2) of the Act, which deals with properties acquired by a widow for the first time.

Facts:

Dr. B.C. Singh and Dr. Stella Lillian Singh jointly purchased a property. Upon Dr. S.L. Singh's demise, Dr. B.C. Singh initiated legal action against J.M. Utarid and his children, asserting their status as licensees of the property and seeking eviction. The defendants claimed a share in the property as kindred of Dr. S.L. Singh, raising issues of succession.

Issues:

• Whether J.M. Utarid and his children were co-owners or mere licensees of the property.

• Determining the entitlement to the share of the property left by Dr. S.L. Singh.

• Interpretation of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 concerning the succession rights of Indian Christians and the applicability of the Act to foreign nationals.

Held:

The Court interpreted Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, establishing the distinction between lineal and collateral consanguinity. It further analyzed Sections 32, 33, 35, 47, and 48 to determine the devolution of property in cases of intestacy. The Court found that Dr. B.C. Singh, as the surviving spouse, was entitled to half of Dr. S.L. Singh's share in the property.

Regarding the remaining share, the Court ruled that when an intestate leaves no lineal descendants, parents, brothers, or sisters, the property shall be divided among the nearest kindred. In this case, Ida Utarid, the sister of Dr. S.L. Singh, was identified as the preferential heir, excluding more distant kindred such as J.M. Utarid.

Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court. No costs were awarded.

Facts:

The appellants, who were Direct Entry Artificers of the Navy, claimed entitlement to pension benefits. They asserted that after serving an initial engagement period of 10 years as Artificers, they were placed in Fleet Reserve for a further 10 years. They argued that, according to regulations, 50% of the period in Fleet Reserve (5 years) should be counted for pension purposes, thereby totaling 15 years of service. However, the respondents contested this claim, stating that the appellants were not placed in Fleet Reserve for the alleged period of 10 years.

Issues:

Whether the appellants were entitled to count their time in Fleet Reserve towards their pension benefits. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Principle of Promissory Estoppel applied in this case, considering the absence of any explicit promise or assurance regarding enrollment in Fleet Reserve.

Held:

The court held that enrollment in Fleet Reserve is contingent upon a positive act of enrollment, and completion of 10 years' service as an Artificer does not automatically imply enrollment into Fleet Reserve. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to count their time in Fleet Reserve towards pension benefits.

The court clarified that for the purpose of calculating pension and gratuity, entire service from the date of enrollment or advancement to the rank of ordinary seaman till the date of discharge must be counted. However, Fleet Reserve service can only be counted if a Sailor is drafted into it.

The court outlined the regulations pertaining to drafting into Fleet Reserve, emphasizing that it is not a right but contingent upon fulfillment of certain criteria and specific recommendations by the Commanding Officer.

Liability to serve in Fleet Reserve arises only upon positive enrollment, and automatic enrollment cannot be presumed. The appellants were not enrolled in Fleet Reserve, and therefore, cannot count the period towards pension benefits.

The court rejected the invocation of Promissory Estoppel, stating that there was no promise or assurance made at the time of initial recruitment regarding enrollment into Fleet Reserve. The decision to enroll individuals into Fleet Reserve rested with the authorities and was not guaranteed.

Absence of assurance regarding enrollment into Fleet Reserve at the time of recruitment precludes the application of Promissory Estoppel. Mere recruitment for active and reserve service does not imply enrollment into Fleet Reserve.

The court concluded that the appellants were not entitled to count Fleet Reserve for pension purposes. However, their cases would be considered for grant of special pension.

The court addressed the argument regarding treating all Artificers alike for pension purposes. It clarified that while all Artificers should be treated equally, the training period of Apprentice Entry Artificers is considered towards pension eligibility, unlike Direct Entry Artificers.

The court rejected the challenge to the precedent set by Anuj Kumar Dey v. Union of India regarding the inclusion of training period for pension calculation. It upheld the precedent and concluded that Apprentice Entry Artificers are eligible for pension after completing their training period.

Facts:The case pertains to Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013 concerning the deplorable conditions prevailing in 1382 prisons across India. Various issues such as overcrowding, vacancies in prison staff, concerns regarding women prisoners and their children, the need for training manuals, and the establishment of open prisons were brought before the court.

Issues:

The establishment of an Under Trial Review Committee.

Addressing the issue of overcrowding in prisons.

Filling vacancies in prison staff.

Concerns regarding women prisoners and their children.

Preparation and dissemination of training manuals.

Encouragement of open prisons.

Held:

Under Trial Review Committee: The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Under Trial Review Committee is ready, with finalization slated for June 30, 2018. The Court commends the efforts and instructs its circulation to relevant authorities for implementation.

Overcrowding in Prisons: Each High Court is directed to address the issue of overcrowding independently, with the assistance of State Legal Services Authority/High Court Legal Services Committee. The Chief Justice of every High Court is requested to take it up as a suo moto writ petition.

Vacancies in the Prison Staff: Each High Court is urged to address the matter of vacancies in prison staff as a suo moto writ petition.

Women Prisoners and Their Children: The Ministry of Women and Child Development is conducting a study on this issue, expected to be completed by June 30, 2018. The matter is listed for further consideration on August 2, 2018.

Training Manuals: National and State Police Academies are directed to utilize training manuals prepared by the Bureau of Police Research and Development. The Bureau may prepare additional manuals as necessary.

Open Prisons: Model Uniform Rules for open prisons have been finalized, and State Governments are urged to notify and implement these rules. Existing open prisons should be utilized fully, with capacity possibly increased. The matter is listed for further discussion on August 2, 2018.

The case involves the interpretation and application of Sections 11(1) and 17A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), concerning the reservation of mining areas and preference for the grant of prospecting licences. The Court examined the relationship between these provisions, the authority of the State and Central Governments, and the relevant factors to be considered in such matters.

Facts:

The appellants, two private companies, were granted Reconnaissance Permits (RP) and conducted reconnaissance in the areas specified. Subsequently, they applied for Prospecting Licences (PL) under Section 11(1) of the MMDR Act. The respondent, a government company, sought reservation of certain areas under Section 17A(2) of the Act, which required approval from the Central Government.

The State Government recommended reservation, but the Central Government rejected the proposal, directing the State to consider the PL applications of the appellants. The respondent challenged this decision through a writ petition.

Issues:

Whether Sections 11(1) and 17A(2) of the MMDR Act operate independently and have no connection with each other?

What factors are relevant for the Central Government to consider while deciding on a reservation request under Section 17A(2)?

Does the grant of RP to the appellants entitle them to preference for the grant of PL under Section 11(1)?

Whether the rejection of the reservation proposal by the Central Government was justified in the present case?

Held:

The Court held that Sections 11(1) and 17A(2) of the MMDR Act operate in distinct fields and do not have a direct connection. The State Government, with approval from the Central Government, has the power to reserve mining areas under Section 17A(2), while Section 11(1) deals with preference for RP holders in the grant of PL.

It was established that the Central Government has discretion in considering factors relevant to reservation requests under Section 17A(2), including those outlined in the National Mineral Policy 2008.

Section 11(1) provides preference to RP holders in the grant of PL, but this does not preclude reservation under Section 17A(2). The Central Government, in evaluating reservation proposals, can consider the RP as one of the factors among others.

The Central Government's decision to reject the reservation proposal was justified as it considered various factors, including the stage of PL applications by the appellants and the absence of security or public interest concerns justifying reservation for the respondent.

In the present case, only the first condition for reservation under Section 17A(2) was fulfilled, and none of the other conditions were met. Therefore, the rejection of the reservation proposal was upheld.

Facts:

The case pertains to the restructuring of the tribunal system in India, with a focus on ensuring speedy and inexpensive justice while upholding the principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary. Various concerns regarding the functioning of tribunals have been highlighted, including the need for personnel with legal expertise and judicial experience, the importance of independence of the judiciary, and the effectiveness of alternative mechanisms for judicial review.

Issues:

The need for restructuring the tribunal system in accordance with the constitutional scheme and previous court decisions.

Ensuring the competence and independence of tribunal members.

Improving the standards of adjudication and access to justice.

Held:

The court broadly approves the concept of having an effective and autonomous oversight body for all tribunals, responsible for recruitments and overseeing the functioning of members.

It suggests the creation of a regular cadre for tribunal members and the setting up of an autonomous oversight body.

The court calls for amending the scheme of direct appeals to the Supreme Court, ensuring that tribunal orders are subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts.

It recommends making tribunal benches accessible at convenient locations and proposes conferring jurisdiction on existing courts as special courts or tribunals.

The court emphasizes the need for urgent action on these issues, suggesting the formation of a committee to interact with stakeholders and propose a mechanism consistent with constitutional principles and expert recommendations.

Facts:The petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the U.P Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997. Subsequently, the 1997 Rules were struck down. The present challenge pertains to the insertion of Section 4(3) by the 2016 Amendment, allowing former Chief Ministers to retain government accommodation for their lifetime.

Issues:

Whether Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, as inserted by the 2016 Amendment, is constitutional.

Held:

The preamble to the Constitution embodies the principles of equality and fraternity. The allocation of government bungalows to former constitutional functionaries is subject to judicial review under Article 14.

Public bungalows are public property, and questions regarding their allocation are matters of public concern. The doctrine of equality requires that former Chief Ministers, once they demit office, should be treated on par with common citizens.

Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act creates a separate class of citizens based on their previous public office, which violates the equality clause. It is considered arbitrary and discriminatory.

Section 4(3) cannot pass the test of Article 14 and is liable to be struck down as it transgresses the equality clause under Article 14.

Decision: The Court held that Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, as inserted by the 2016 Amendment, is ultra vires the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Court struck down Section 4(3) of the Act.

Facts:

Several writ petitions were filed challenging the rejection of applications by Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for registration and allocation of quota for the Hajj pilgrimage in 2016.

The rejection was based on alleged non-compliance with certain clauses of the policy for PTOs as laid down by the Supreme Court.

The petitioners contended that the reasons cited for disqualification contradicted the exemptions granted to them.

Issues:

Whether the rejection of PTOs' applications for Hajj 2016 was arbitrary and illegal.

If so, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the loss incurred due to the illegal rejection of their applications.

Held:

The rejection of the petitioners' applications was found to be arbitrary and illegal, as the reasons provided contradicted the exemptions granted to them.

The court invoked the principles of damages in public law and awarded compensation of Rs. 5 lakh per petitioner for the loss suffered.

The respondents were directed to remit the compensation within two months, failing which interest would accrue at 15% per annum.

The respondents were empowered to recover the damages and costs from the officers responsible for the unsustainable orders.

The writ petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were granted compensation along with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000 per petition.