RTI Act – Exemption for Personal Information – Appellant sought information on follow-up action related to the ACR of a CESTAT Member – Request denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure if it causes unwarranted invasion of privacy – Supreme Court upheld denial, citing lack of larger public interest justifying the disclosure [Paras 2-17].

Third-Party Information – Disclosure Procedure – Court emphasized mandatory procedure under Section 11(1) RTI Act for third-party information – Decision requires notice to the third party and consideration of their privacy defense against public interest in disclosure – Procedure ensures balanced evaluation of competing interests [Paras 13-15].

Public Interest and Privacy – Supreme Court reaffirmed that public interest must outweigh privacy concerns for disclosure of personal information – Mere public duty of an officer does not negate privacy rights – Relevant precedents, including Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Cen. Information Commr., discussed to underscore importance of balancing transparency and privacy [Paras 9-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court found no merit in appellant's claim for disclosure, affirming High Court's judgment – RTI requests for personal information must demonstrate larger public interest to override privacy defenses [Para 17].

Entertainment Tax – DTH Services – Appellants challenged the imposition of entertainment tax by the Madhya Pradesh Government on DTH services under the 1936 Act – Supreme Court held that the provisions of the 1936 Act are applicable only to place-related entertainment, not to DTH services – DTH operations, being non-place related, are beyond the charge created by the taxing statute – Notification dated May 5, 2008, prescribing a 20% entertainment duty does not extend the scope of the 1936 Act to cover DTH operations [Paras 1-41].

Collection Mechanism – Applicability – Court emphasized that the collection machinery under the 1936 Act (requiring stamped tickets) cannot be applied to DTH services – Established principle that if collection machinery is inapplicable, the event is beyond the charge of the tax [Paras 35-39].

Legislative Competence – Not Addressed – As the 1936 Act does not cover DTH operations, the Court did not address arguments regarding the legislative competence of the State to impose such tax, given that DTH is a service chargeable to service tax under the Finance Act 1994 [Para 43].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment upholding the State's demand for entertainment tax on DTH services – No costs awarded [Paras 42, 44].

Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Appellant sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13 on grounds of cruelty and desertion by the respondent – Family Court and High Court found that the appellant was cruel and responsible for the situation leading to the respondent's departure from the matrimonial home – Both courts dismissed the divorce petition, holding that the appellant was trying to take advantage of his own wrong [Paras 2-6].

Prior Marriage Concealment – Appellant failed to disclose his previous marriage and a son from that marriage to the respondent – High Court noted the similarity in the appellant's allegations in divorce petitions against both the first and second wives, indicating a pattern of deceit – Appellant's attempt to remarry during the pendency of the appeal further demonstrated his disregard for legal and ethical obligations [Paras 8-12].

Section 23(1)(a) – Court's Examination – Under Section 23(1)(a), court must ensure the petitioner is not taking advantage of his or her own wrong – Both courts found the appellant guilty of cruelty and creating circumstances forcing the respondent to leave – Consequently, relief was denied as the appellant sought to benefit from his own wrongdoing [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Family Court and High Court, finding no illegality or perversity in their judgments – Appellant's appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 14-15].

Wildlife Conservation – Second Home for Asiatic Lion – Supreme Court directed the creation of a second home for the endangered Asiatic Lion in Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary – Emphasized the necessity of reintroducing the lion to prevent extinction due to epidemics, natural calamities, or other threats – Kuno identified as the most suitable habitat after extensive research and surveys [Paras 1-16].

Legal Framework – Articles 48A and 51A of the Constitution – Wild Life (Protection) Act and Forest (Conservation) Act – Court underscored the duty of the state and citizens to protect wildlife and conserve biodiversity – Highlighted the necessity of implementing national wildlife action plans and centrally sponsored schemes for endangered species [Paras 26-37].

Eco-Centric Approach – Reintroduction Project – Supreme Court advocated for an eco-centric approach rather than an anthropocentric one – Decisions should prioritize the species' best interests – Criticized Gujarat’s refusal to translocate lions based on cultural and regional pride [Paras 38-41, 48-50].

Implementation and Monitoring – Committee Formation – Directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to constitute an expert committee for the reintroduction project – Committee to include senior officials, technical experts, and wildlife biologists – MoEF to ensure the translocation process follows IUCN guidelines and addresses prey base and habitat management [Paras 61-62].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court ordered urgent steps for the reintroduction of Asiatic lions to Kuno within six months – Quashed MoEF's decision to introduce African cheetahs in Kuno, citing lack of scientific study and statutory approval – Directed the Government of India and MoEF to identify and protect all endangered species, conduct periodic reviews, and implement recovery programs [Paras 60-63].

Kerosene Dealer License – Jurisdiction – Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal, lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the District Magistrate's order under Paragraph 11 of the Control Order – State’s inherent power to alter or set aside District Magistrate's order must follow procedure prescribed by law – Impugned order by Principal Secretary passed in his capacity and not on behalf of the State [Paras 1-21].

Appellate Authority – Control Order – Under Paragraph 10, appeals against orders under Paragraphs 8 and 9 can be made to the State Government or Director, not to the Principal Secretary – Order of District Magistrate enhancing quota for respondents and reducing appellant’s quota was not appealable before Principal Secretary [Paras 14-18].

Procedural Compliance – Withdrawal of Writ – Withdrawal of writ petition to move before competent authority does not confer jurisdiction upon an authority not empowered under statute – Courts or individuals cannot confer jurisdiction not provided by law [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld decisions of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court – Principal Secretary's order set aside due to lack of jurisdiction – Appeal dismissed with costs borne by respective parties [Paras 22].

Family Law – Consolidation of Suits – Respondent-wife sought consolidation of two suits filed by appellant-husband, one for divorce and the other for an injunction restraining her from entering matrimonial home – Family Court rejected consolidation – High Court admitted appeal and stayed operation of ex parte injunction and hearing of suits until appeal decided – Supreme Court found High Court erred by granting relief not prayed for by respondent [Paras 1-3].

Consolidation – Judicial Discretion – Supreme Court emphasized proper relief was consolidation and joint trial of suits, not interfering with interim injunction – Relations between parties deteriorated, preventing appellant-husband from spending time with respondent-wife – Court avoided making merits-based observations, directing Family Court to expedite trial [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court order set aside – Suits filed by appellant-husband to be consolidated and tried together – Family Court directed to expedite trial – Appeals disposed of with no order as to costs [Paras 5-6].

Petroleum Law – Termination of Dealership – BPCL terminated the dealership of respondent-firm for non-compliance with quality standards – Samples not tested in government laboratory but in company laboratory – High Court quashed termination due to procedural lapses and directed restoration of dealership – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for fair and transparent sample testing as per Petroleum Act and guidelines [Paras 1-16].

Sample Testing – Procedural Fairness – Samples collected and tested without presence of respondent’s representative – Lack of adherence to guidelines requiring dealer's presence during testing – Supreme Court stressed adherence to principles of natural justice and opportunity for retest upon dealer's request as per Section 20 of the Petroleum Act [Paras 7-13].

Jurisdiction – High Court’s Power – Under Article 136, Supreme Court found no perversity in High Court’s order – Affirmed High Court’s jurisdiction to quash termination and restore dealership due to violation of procedural norms and principles of natural justice [Paras 5-16].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s directive for BPCL to restore respondent's dealership within four weeks – Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 15-16].

Mercy Petition – Constitutional Powers – Supreme Court analyzed the nature of powers vested in the President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161 – Reiterated that these powers must be exercised with aid and advice of the Council of Ministers – Emphasized that delay in disposal of mercy petitions can be a ground for commutation of death sentence, but each case must be examined on its own merits, including the nature of the crime and its impact on society [Paras 18-21].

Delay in Execution – Commutation of Death Sentence – Noted that inordinate delay in execution due to the pendency of mercy petitions causes psychological stress, which can be grounds for commutation – Cited international jurisprudence and emphasized that the delay attributable to state authorities should not result in inhumane treatment [Paras 10-13].

Mental Illness – Human Rights – Highlighted that mental illness developed during incarceration can be a mitigating factor for commutation – Relied on medical reports indicating the appellant's severe mental illness, making the execution incompatible with contemporary standards of human decency [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Clarified the limited scope of judicial review in examining the President's or Governor's decision under Articles 72 and 161 – Stressed that the decision must be based on relevant considerations and free from arbitrariness, and that judicial intervention is warranted if there is evidence of non-application of mind or extraneous considerations [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar to life imprisonment, citing inordinate delay in the disposal of his mercy petitions and his deteriorating mental health – Directed the authorities to provide appropriate medical treatment to the appellant [Paras 22-24].

Civil Procedure – Striking Out Pleadings – Supreme Court held that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be decided based on the face of the plaint or petition to determine if a cause of action is made out – Once a party consents to the court hearing a petition under Order 7 Rule 11, the same party cannot later seek to strike out pleadings under Order 6 Rule 16 for being unnecessary, vexatious, or scandalous – All necessary pleas should be raised at the same time – Court emphasized procedural consistency and not allowing new objections post-consent order [Paras 1-28].

Election Petition – Recrimination Petition – Election of appellant contested by respondent on grounds of improper vote counting – Appellant’s recrimination petition raising issues of criminal cases against respondent and allegations of corrupt practices – High Court’s dismissal of recrimination petition under Order 7 Rule 11 set aside by Supreme Court, allowing recrimination petition to be heard on merits [Paras 2-8].

Verification and Corrupt Practices – Affidavit Requirement – Supreme Court clarified that defects in verification or affidavit in election petitions are curable and not fatal to the maintainability of the petition – Emphasized the need for material facts and specific allegations in the petition – Allowed consideration of corrupt practices alleged by appellant, directing expeditious trial [Paras 21-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order striking off pleadings – Directed the High Court to proceed with the hearing of the recrimination petition – Each party to bear its own costs [Paras 31].