False Promise of Marriage – Section 375 IPC – Prolonged Consensual Relationship – FIR Quashed - The appellant contended that the alleged sexual relationship spanned over nine years and was consensual – The Court noted the absence of evidence indicating a false promise of marriage from the outset – Held: A prolonged consensual relationship without clear evidence of intent to deceive does not amount to rape – FIR quashed [Paras 19-27].

Consent Under Misconception of Fact – Section 90 IPC – Absence of Criminal Intent – No Vitiation of Consent - The complainant alleged that the appellant had engaged in sexual relations by falsely promising to marry her – The Court held that the complainant’s prolonged participation without objection, despite knowing the appellant was married, undermined her claims of vitiated consent – Held: No criminal liability for consensual relations under a purported false promise of marriage unless it is shown that the promise was made with mala fide intent from the outset [Paras 28-32].

Abuse of Process of Law – Section 482 CrPC – FIR Quashed - The Court highlighted the increasing misuse of criminal provisions in cases involving consensual relationships that later deteriorate – Continuing such proceedings would be a misuse of judicial resources – Held: FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process [Paras 33-37].

Decision:

The appeal is allowed. The order dated 12/02/2018 by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition (CRWP) No. 5190 of 2017 is set aside. FIR No. 302 of 2017, registered against the appellant with Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, under Sections 376, 420, 504, and 506 IPC, is quashed.

Land Acquisition – Urgency Clause – Invocation under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) – Legal and Justified – The Court upheld the legality of the invocation of the urgency clause for acquiring land for the Yamuna Expressway and associated developments – The acquisition, being part of an integrated development plan for industrial, residential, and commercial purposes, was justified under the urgency provisions. The challenge by the landowners that the invocation was arbitrary and lacked material justification was rejected.

Public Purpose – Integration with Expressway Development – Acquisition Validated – The Court ruled that the land acquisition was for a public purpose, forming part of the larger integrated development of the Yamuna Expressway, linking industrial, residential, and recreational development, which would benefit the public at large. The invocation of the urgency clause was in line with the law and precedents.

Judicial Precedents – Distinction between Public and Private Purposes – The judgment in the case of Radhy Shyam was distinguished, as the present acquisition is part of a larger public infrastructure project, unlike the isolated acquisition in the Radhy Shyam case. The Court clarified that the urgency clause is applicable for such integrated public projects, unlike acquisitions for mere commercial purposes.

Previous Court Decisions – Inconsistent Views – The Court addressed the conflicting views of the Allahabad High Court in Kamal Sharma and Shyoraj Singh, asserting that the latter did not lay down good law, as it ignored precedents like Nand Kishore which validated similar acquisitions under urgency provisions. The appeal in Shyoraj Singh was dismissed.

Compensation – Enhancement and Uniformity – The Court upheld the enhanced compensation granted by the Allahabad High Court (64.7% escalation), ensuring uniform benefits to the landowners as per government orders. The issue of further compensation was not entertained, as the enhancement already covered the legal requirements.

Decision:

The appeals filed by the landowners (Batch No. 1) are dismissed. The appeals filed by YEIDA (Batch No. 2) are allowed. The land acquisition proceedings and the invocation of urgency under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act are upheld. The compensation formula with a 64.7% increase is affirmed.

Amendment to the Constitution – Preamble – Article 368 – The Parliament's power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution extends to the Preamble, provided it does not violate the basic structure – Held: Amendments adding "socialist" and "secular" do not alter the Constitution's basic structure and are valid [Paras 2-5].

Constitutional Interpretation – Living Document – The Constitution as a living document permits progressive amendments in line with evolving societal needs – Arguments about the omission of terms by the Constituent Assembly do not constrain later amendments – Held: Addition of terms in the Preamble in 1976 reflects India's development of secularism and commitment to equality [Paras 6-10].

Secularism and Socialism – Indian Context – Secularism ensures equality of all religions without bias, in line with Articles 14, 15, and 16 – Socialism under the Indian framework represents a welfare state and the goal of economic and social justice, not a specific economic structure – Held: These terms align with the Constitution's fabric and societal values [Paras 11-14].

Delayed Challenge – Laches – Writ petitions filed 44 years post-amendment without plausible justification – Long-standing acceptance of amendments by "We, the people of India" renders the challenge inadmissible – Held: Dismissal of writ petitions appropriate given the delay and lack of legitimate grounds [Paras 15-17].

Emergency Context – Validity of Amendments – Arguments that amendments enacted during the Emergency lack legitimacy due to a lapsed Lok Sabha term were dismissed – Held: Constitutional amendments must be evaluated on substantive grounds, not procedural irregularities [Paras 18-21].

Impact of Terms – Retrospective Operation – Retrospectivity does not invalidate amendments if they do not contravene constitutional mandates – Held: Preamble's amendment was validly enacted under Article 368 and is not retrospective in essence [Paras 22-24].

Decision:

The writ petitions were dismissed. The court held that the inclusion of "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble by the Forty-second Amendment is valid under Article 368. The petitions lacked merit and were delayed, and there was no cause for interference.

Public Interest Litigation – Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata in PILs – Limited Application - The court clarified that constructive res judicata applies to PILs only to a limited extent – The principle does not bar challenges to subsequent actions or policies arising from independent causes of action, even if connected to prior litigation – Impugned GoM Nos. 243 and 244 were not part of earlier litigation and thus formed a separate challenge – Held: High Court’s application of res judicata and constructive res judicata was erroneous [Paras 28-35].

Constitutional Validity – State Discretion in Allocating Land – Article 14 - Preferential land allotments at basic rates to privileged groups like MLAs, MPs, AIS officers, Judges, and journalists failed to meet constitutional muster – The policy lacked intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the stated objective of addressing housing needs of deserving sections – Held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 40-48].

State Largesse – Public Land Allocation – Duty as Trustee - Public resources must be allocated with fairness and equity – Arbitrary concessions to affluent individuals at concessional rates violated public trust and undermined constitutional mandates – Held: Such actions breached principles of equality and public interest [Paras 55-60].

Doctrine of Arbitrariness – Application to State Policies - The court expanded the doctrine of arbitrariness – Arbitrary state actions, even when purporting to follow legal classifications, are unsustainable under Article 14 – Preferential treatment to privileged groups at discounted rates deemed irrational [Paras 80-85].

Judiciary, Legislature, and Executive – Conflict of Interest – Public Trust - Inclusion of Judges, MPs, MLAs, and journalists in land allotment policy compromised public trust – Distribution of largesse to these groups weakened democratic checks and balances – Policy deemed unconstitutional for undermining institutional integrity and promoting hierarchy [Paras 85-86].

Restitution – Refund to Cooperative Societies and Members – Cancellation of Lease Deeds - Cooperative societies and members entitled to refunds of deposited amounts, including stamp duty and development costs, with interest – Lease deeds canceled – Held: State directed to revise policies and manage lands in compliance with law and public interest [Paras 94-96].

Decision: The appeals by the State of Telangana and the Cooperative Societies were dismissed – Appeals challenging the High Court judgment allowed – The land allotment policies were declared unconstitutional for violating Article 14 – Directed the State to refund amounts to cooperative societies with interest and revise policies in compliance with constitutional principles.

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Accident – Determination of Just Compensation – Appellant suffered 100% permanent disability due to a road accident caused by a rashly driven lorry – Tribunal awarded Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest, excluding Rs.1,00,000/- for future medical expenses – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.78,16,390/- but retained the interest rate – Claimant challenged the calculation of future prospects and inadequacy of compensation under ‘pain and suffering’ [Paras 2, 5.6, 6.2, 7].

Future Prospects – Calculation of Compensation – High Court applied 40% addition for future prospects instead of 50%, as per Pranay Sethi – Appellant contended that being below 40 years and in permanent employment, 50% addition was warranted – Court recalculated income, determining total compensation under loss of future prospects at Rs.75,24,000/- – Total payable compensation revised to Rs.87,29,241/- [Paras 8(i), 9, 10].

Pain and Suffering – Enhanced Compensation – Appellant sustained grievous injuries, including loss of sensation below the neck, complete loss of urinary and bowel control, and permanent wheelchair dependency – Doctor’s assessment confirmed 85% whole-body impairment – Court observed lifelong pain and suffering warranted enhancement of compensation – Award under this head increased from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- [Paras 8(ii), 11, 12, 15].

Judicial Precedents – Assessment of Pain and Suffering – Court referred to cases such as R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, emphasizing life-altering impacts and the need for reasonable compensation for permanent disabilities – Court underscored the abstract and artificial nature of calculating non-pecuniary damages [Paras 13, 14].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,02,29,241/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the special leave petition – Award modified on the grounds of future prospects and pain and suffering – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16, 17].

Arbitral Mandate – Application Filed Post Expiry – Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appeal Allowed - The appellant filed an application under Section 29A(4) for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal after its expiry. The High Court dismissed the application, citing delay and the absence of a pending extension request before the expiry. Held: Section 29A(4) explicitly permits extension applications both before and after the expiry of the mandate, ensuring party autonomy and arbitration efficiency [Paras 10-12, 21].

Pandemic-Related Delay – Exclusion of Period – Application of Supreme Court Orders – Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Time Extended - The pandemic period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded from limitation under the Supreme Court's orders. The appellant's delay was justified, considering the agreement between parties to seek an extension post-hearing completion in 2023. Held: Sufficient cause exists for extension; the mandate extended till 31.12.2024 [Paras 23-28].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise in Extending Time – Sufficient Cause Consideration – Appeal Upheld - Judicial discretion under Section 29A(4) hinges on sufficient cause for extension. The delay due to the pandemic, subsequent procedural delays, and agreement among parties warranted an extension. Held: The statutory aim of arbitration efficiency aligns with granting extensions in suitable circumstances [Paras 26-29].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated 03.11.2023, which dismissed the application for extending the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate. It was directed that the Tribunal’s mandate is extended until 31.12.2024. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellants were convicted for abduction, murder, and destruction of evidence under Sections 364, 302, 201, 212, and 120-B of the IPC – Trial Court sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court upheld their convictions while acquitting co-accused – Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as evidence was inadmissible or unreliable – Appeal allowed, convictions set aside, and appellants acquitted [Paras 1, 17, 18].

Evidence of Eyewitness (PW-26) – Reliability – PW-26 was the sole eyewitness – Material omissions in her testimony, including lack of prior identification of the accused or their specific roles – No test identification parade was conducted – Husband of PW-26, another alleged eyewitness, was not examined – Held: Testimony of PW-26 is unreliable, and an adverse inference is drawn for withholding material evidence [Paras 5-8].

Circumstantial Evidence – CCTV Footage – CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution lacked a valid certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act – Witnesses (PW-1 and PW-24) admitted no verification of the contents, and the footage could have been tampered with – Trial and High Courts relied on inadmissible footage without viewing it – Supreme Court discarded this evidence, holding it inadmissible and insufficient to prove guilt [Paras 9-12].

Recovery of Dead Body and Articles – Insufficient to Prove Guilt – Body parts of the deceased were recovered based on prior information received by the Police, not at the instance of the accused – Recovery of car, weapon, and articles of the deceased based on disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was insufficient to establish guilt – Prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence [Paras 13, 14].

Confessions to Police – Inadmissibility – Statements made by the accused in police custody, including details of alleged conspiracy and roles of co-accused, were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act – Inadmissible confessions were improperly incorporated in the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-27) – Held: Trial Court erred in relying on inadmissible evidence, which violated the statutory bar against using custodial confessions [Paras 15-16].

Gruesome Nature of Offence – Standard of Proof – Supreme Court emphasized that the brutality of the crime cannot substitute for the legal requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Convictions must rest on cogent, admissible, and clear evidence – Mere suspicion or moral conviction is insufficient for upholding a conviction [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of the Trial Court and High Court quashed – Appellants acquitted as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Appellants to be released immediately unless required in any other case [Para 18].

Judicial Remarks – Expungement – Adverse Observations Against a Judicial Officer – Appeal Allowed – The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, sought expungement of remarks in a Delhi High Court order, alleging unnecessary and stigmatizing language used against him. Held: The High Court erred by making personal remarks against the appellant without following natural justice principles and bypassing the administrative side of the judiciary for addressing concerns against subordinate judges. Observations in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order were expunged [Paras 11-14, 21-22].

Principles of Judicial Discipline – Observations Against Subordinate Judges – Superior courts must exercise restraint while critiquing subordinate judicial officers. Criticism should focus on judicial orders and not the officer personally, as adverse remarks in judgments may harm the officer’s career and erode public confidence in the judiciary. Held: Personal criticisms of judicial officers in judgments should be avoided unless absolutely necessary for the resolution of the case [Paras 16, 19].

Rule of Law – Maintenance of Judicial Independence – Expungement Justified – Judges must remain fearless and independent but should exercise sobriety and moderation in their remarks. The appellate court highlighted that errors in judgments can be corrected without stigmatizing judges. Stigmatizing remarks in judgments undermine judicial independence and discourage robust judicial conduct [Paras 17, 18, 20].

Decision:

The appeals were allowed. Adverse remarks made against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the High Court’s first impugned order were expunged. The Court clarified that this decision would not bind the administrative side of the High Court, which could independently address any concerns regarding the appellant's conduct.

Limitation Law - Condonation of Delay – Litigant's Responsibility – Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Condonation Denied - The Court emphasized the litigant’s duty to vigilantly monitor proceedings initiated by them. The excuse of advocate negligence was deemed insufficient to justify a delay of 534 days – Held: The delay cannot be condoned solely on allegations of advocate negligence, as litigants are expected to actively protect their rights [Paras 10-12].

Limitation Principles – Vigilance Required – The Court reiterated the principle of “vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt,” underlining that limitation statutes aim to ensure timely action, prevent stale claims, and preserve the efficacy of evidence – Held: Delay of such magnitude without sufficient justification is untenable [Para 12].

Ex Parte Decree – Misrepresentation and Non-disclosure – The petitioners were found to have suppressed material facts regarding their knowledge of the counterclaim – Held: Courts cannot exercise discretion to condone delay when the litigant approaches without clean hands [Para 9].

Dismissal of Petitions – Absence of Error in High Court’s Decision – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to condone delay, finding no error in law warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution – Held: Special Leave Petitions dismissed [Para 13].