FACTS:

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India. The petitioner raised concerns related to the RTI Act, non-consideration of materials, torture, mental illness, and illegal solitary confinement.

ISSUES:

The extent of judicial review permissible under Article 32 for orders passed under Article 72.

Whether relevant materials were considered by the authorities in the decision-making process.

The validity of allegations of torture, mental illness, and illegal solitary confinement.

HELD:

The Court held that the scope of judicial review under Article 32 for orders passed under Article 72 is limited. The Court's role is to examine cases where the order was passed without the application of mind, on extraneous or irrelevant considerations, or with arbitrariness. In this case:

The Court observed that relevant materials, including case records, judgments, medical reports, and more, were forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Recommendations by the Lieutenant Governor and Home Minister were made after perusing the file, discrediting claims of non-application of mind.

The Court noted that the alleged suffering of the petitioner in prison cannot be a basis for judicial review of the executive order under Article 72.

The Court highlighted that the petitioner was kept in protective custody for security and his well-being, not in illegal solitary confinement.

The Court affirmed that all relevant materials, including the petitioner's medical report and Social Investigation Report, were considered by the President. The Court found no grounds for exercising judicial review over the order rejecting the mercy petition.

REFERRED CASES:

Bikas Chatterjee vs. Union of India and Others (2004) 7 SCC 634

Devender Pal Singh Bhullar vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 6 SCC 195

Epuru Sudhakar and Another vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 161

Maru Ram v. Union of India and Others, (1981) 1 SCC 107

Mukesh and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2017) 6 SCC 1

Narayan Dutt and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (2011) 4 SCC 353

Satpal vs. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 170

Shatrughan Chauhan and Another vs. Union of India and Others (2014) 3 SCC 1

Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration and Others (1978) 4 SCC 494

Facts:

The appellant was initially appointed as a part-time Gallery Attendant in 1995, and later in 2002, as a full-time Gallery Attendant. However, his services were terminated in 2004 due to a government policy. The appellant challenged this termination through legal proceedings, including writ petitions and appeals, invoking relevant sections, acts, rules, and constitutional provisions. The proceedings also considered the appellant's qualifications, his interim reinstatement, and representations to the authorities.

Issues:

The validity of the termination of the appellant's services based on government policies.

Interpretation of rules and resolutions regarding the eligibility, recruitment, and regularization of employees, specifically in the context of the appellant's appointment.

The appellant's entitlement to continuity of service and related benefits.

Held:

After a thorough examination of the facts, legal provisions, and precedents, the Supreme Court held that the appellant's reinstatement was warranted with continuity of service. The Court ruled that the Division Bench's judgment, which allowed the appellant's reinstatement but without back wages for a specific period, was appropriate. The Court reasoned that the appellant's initial appointment and subsequent service could not be invalidated retroactively based on later rules and resolutions. The Court emphasized the significance of the Division Bench's earlier order, which directed the appellant's reinstatement.

The judgment referred to the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 to discuss the implications of government resolutions and rules in the context of employee regularization.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Facts:

The case concerns a contempt petition highlighting the increasing presence of politicians with pending criminal cases and the failure to comply with the directions given by the Constitution Bench in the case of Public Interest Foundation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr., (2019) 3 SCC 224. The Court notes the alarming rise in criminal cases involving politicians across the last four general elections, with 43% of MPs having criminal cases in 2019.

Issues:

The escalating criminalization of politics, lack of transparency regarding candidates' criminal records, and non-compliance with prior court directions.

Held:

The Court invokes its constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142. It observes the absence of explanations from political parties for choosing candidates with criminal cases. The Court then issues directions:

Political parties must upload detailed information about candidates with criminal cases on their websites, along with reasons for selection and why non-criminal candidates weren't chosen.

Candidates should be chosen based on merit, not just electability.

Information must be published in local/national newspapers and party social media within 48 hours of selection or two weeks before nominations.

Political parties must submit compliance reports to the Election Commission within 72 hours.

Non-compliance will be treated as contempt.

Referred Case:

Public Interest Foundation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr., (2019) 3 SCC 224

Facts:The case pertains to the interpretation and application of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, and the subsequent amendment introduced by Act 45 of 2009. The amendment sought to remove the deeming provision that had previously capped monthly wages at Rs. 4,000 for compensation purposes. The question before the court was whether the benefits of the 2009 amendment should apply to accidents occurring prior to its enactment on January 18, 2010.

Issues:

Whether the benefits of Act 45 of 2009, removing the deeming cap on monthly wages for compensation, apply to accidents that occurred prior to its enactment.

Whether the objective of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, and its subsequent amendment, Act 45 of 2009, support the extension of the amendment's benefits to pre-amendment accidents.

Held:

Issue 1: The court observed that the objective of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, was to provide relief to economically disadvantaged employees facing work-related risks. The amendment introduced by Act 45 of 2009 aimed to eliminate the deeming cap on monthly wages for compensation, ensuring that employees receive compensation based on their actual wages. However, the court held that there was no indication in Act 45 of 2009, either express or implied, that the legislature intended to apply its benefits retroactively to accidents occurring before its enactment. Therefore, the court concluded that the benefits of Act 45 of 2009 do not extend to accidents that occurred prior to its coming into force. (Para 25, 26)

Issue 2: The court emphasized that while amendments enhancing compensation benefit employees, they correspondingly impose a burden on employers to pay higher compensation rates. The court reiterated that the relevant date for determining compensation remains the date of the accident. In the present case, where the accident occurred on January 31, 2008, the court held that the High Court's extension of Act 45 of 2009's benefits was incorrect. (Para 28, 32, 33)

The court upheld the award of compensation ordered by the High Court since the employer had provided evidence of the deceased employee's monthly wage, and no appeal had been filed by the respondents against the High Court's compensation enhancement. The court emphasized that this decision was made under its inherent jurisdiction in accordance with Article 142 of the Constitution. (Para 34)

Facts:

Between 1999 and 2001, ONGC appointed about 800 persons on a term basis for four years. The appointments were made after interviews, but without public advertisement. The appellant-Employees Union demanded regular appointments for 577 term-based employees appointed by ONGC between 1991 and 2001. An industrial dispute arose, and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.

Issues:

The determination of the date from which the concerned workmen should be treated as regularized employees.

Held:

The Supreme Court noted that the employees' union sought full regularization from the date of initial appointment, while the High Court had granted regularization from a later date. The Court distinguished relevant judgments. It held that the concerned workmen, including those who were already regularized, should be treated as regular employees from the date on which the industrial dispute was referred (21.12.2004). The Court ordered all actual benefits to be granted from that date until 01.04.2013. The other directions given by the Single Judge were upheld. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Facts:

Padma Mishra filed a writ petition to quash an FIR accusing them of gang-related activities under the Gangsters Act. The FIR alleged violent actions, threats, and coercion to disrupt public order and intimidate witnesses.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition that sought to quash the FIR based on the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

Held:

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Indira Banerjee and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., considered the appellant's appeal against the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition. The Court analyzed the definitions of "gang" and "gangster" as provided in Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Gangsters Act. It noted that a "gangster" includes a member, leader, or organizer of a gang involved in anti-social activities that disturb public order or seek undue advantage.

The Court emphasized that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court's role is not to determine the accuracy of allegations in an FIR but to intervene only in exceptional cases where the allegations do not disclose any offense. The Court referred to the FIR's allegations of violent and coercive activities, which included threats and physical violence to silence witnesses. These activities were categorized as falling under the definition of "gangster" as per the Gangsters Act.

The Court clarified that the High Court had correctly refused to quash the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution and had rightly dismissed the writ petition. It held that since the allegations in the FIR ex facie disclosed acts warranting penalization under the Gangsters Act, the appeal was dismissed.

Final Result : Dismissed

Facts:

The respondent-complainant, a Collateral Management Company, stored commodities pledged by various entities in its warehouses. In the case of any loss, it was liable to compensate the lending banks. The company had a Fidelity Guarantee Insurance Policy with the appellant-opposite party. Alleging unauthorized removal and substitution of pledged commodities, the respondent lodged a claim under the policy.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's employees were involved in the unauthorized activities.

Whether the delay in lodging the claim violated the insurance policy's terms.

Held:

The Court examined the evidence and found indications of employee involvement in unauthorized activities. The survey report pointed to the employees' complicity in removing and substituting commodities. This fulfilled the conditions of the Fidelity Guarantee Insurance Policy, which covered losses arising from breaches of honesty, integrity, or fidelity of employees. (Paragraphs 9-11)

The Court considered the timeline and circumstances. Since the respondent discovered the unauthorized activities only after the completion of 100% sampling and laboratory reports, the delay in lodging the claim was not unreasonable. Thus, there was no breach of condition no. 1 of the policy regarding claim submission. (Paragraphs 12-13)

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the Court upheld the National Commission's decision to direct the insurance company to pay the claimed amount.

Facts:

Usha Ananthasubramanian, the former MD & CEO of Punjab National Bank, appealed against an order issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The issue pertained to the freezing of her assets based on allegations of misconduct and fraudulent conduct in connection with her role in the bank.

Issues:

The scope of the powers granted under Sections 241, 241(2), 337, and 339 of the Companies Act, 2013. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether these powers could be extended to freeze assets and take actions against an individual in relation to their association with another organization.

Held:

In a judgment authored by Justice R.F. Nariman, the Supreme Court examined the relevant sections of the Companies Act, 2013. The court pointed out that Section 241(2) allows the Central Government to apply to the Tribunal for orders when the affairs of a company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest. The court noted that Sections 337 and 339 provide penalties and liabilities for fraudulent conduct within the company being mismanaged, and these sections cannot be applied to individuals associated with other entities.

The court emphasized that the powers under Sections 337 and 339 are limited to the business of the specific company that is being mismanaged and cannot be used to target individuals associated with other organizations. As such, the freezing of assets and actions taken against the appellant, Usha Ananthasubramanian, under Section 241 were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the orders issued by both the NCLAT and NCLT. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.

Facts:

Balwant Singh and Dungar Singh, real brothers, had disputes over the partition of family properties after their father's death. They opted for arbitration, appointing close relatives as arbitrators. The arbitrators passed an award on 23-11-1981, which the District Judge initially dismissed due to concerns about the arbitration process. The High Court later declared the award valid and enforceable.

Issues:

Was the arbitration award valid and enforceable despite objections raised?

Did the subsequent settlement modify the terms of the original award?

Held:

The arbitration award, though passed on the same day, was valid since it was unanimous and based on mutual consent. The arbitrators' close relationship with the parties did not invalidate the award, and no misconduct was established.

The High Court's decision to uphold the arbitration award was justifiable, given that no misconduct was proven, and the arbitrators' decision was based on the parties' claims and due deliberation.

The subsequent settlement, reached with the consent of both parties, modified the terms of the original award. The modified settlement included the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to one party in lieu of jewelry and the continuation of litigation over specific land.

Decision: Based on the parties' consent and the modified settlement, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal. A decree reflecting the modified settlement's terms was ordered.