Facts:

The case revolves around the constitutional validity and interpretation of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017.

Issues:

Whether the Compensation to States Act, 2017 is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament?

Whether Compensation to States Act, 2017 violates Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 and is against the objective of Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 and Whether the Compensation to States Act, 2017 is a colourable legislation?

Whether levy of Compensation to States Cess and GST on the same taxing event is permissible in law?

Whether on the basis of Clean Energy Cess paid by the petitioner till 30.06.2017, the petitioner is entitled for set off in payment of Compensation to States Cess?

Held:

The Compensation to States Act, 2017 is not beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. The Act falls within the powers granted to Parliament under Article 246A and Article 270.

The Compensation to States Act, 2017 does not violate the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, and is not a colorable legislation. It aligns with the objectives of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016.

The levy of Compensation to States Cess alongside GST on the same taxable event is permissible in law. They are considered separate imposts.

The petitioner is not entitled to set off Clean Energy Cess against Compensation to States Cess. The two serve different purposes, and the legislative scheme does not provide for such set off.

Decision: The appeals are allowed, and the transferred cases are dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant, Dr. S.K. Jhunjhunwala, performed a surgery on the respondent's Gall Bladder on 08.08.1996.

Following the surgery, the respondent alleged negligence on the part of the appellant and filed a complaint seeking compensation.

The respondent claimed that the surgery resulted in various ailments and complications, including dysentery, loss of appetite, weight reduction, and jaundice.

Issues:

Whether the appellant obtained proper consent for the surgery.

Whether the appellant's actions during the surgery amounted to medical negligence.

Whether the respondent provided sufficient evidence to prove negligence on the part of the appellant.

Held:

The appellant obtained proper consent for the surgery, including the possibility of additional procedures if necessary, as stated in the consent form. The decision to switch to conventional surgery after encountering complications during laparoscopy was reasonable, especially since fresh consent was obtained from the respondent's husband (para 30-36).

The respondent failed to provide specific medical evidence to prove negligence on the part of the appellant. Mere allegations of suffering after the surgery were insufficient to establish negligence without expert medical testimony linking the ailments directly to the surgery (para 43-44).

The National Commission erred in finding the appellant negligent and awarding compensation to the respondent. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the State Commission, which dismissed the complaint, was restored (para 50).

Facts:

The case involved allegations of anti-competitive practices, including cartelization, bid-rigging, and collusive bidding, in a tender floated by IOCL for the supply of LPG Gas Cylinders.

Issues:

Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the existence of an agreement between the appellants for bid rigging.

Held:

The court emphasized the duty of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to curb anti-competitive practices and promote competition, consumer interest, and free trade as mandated by the Competition Act, 2002.

The Act presumes that certain types of agreements have an appreciable adverse effect on competition, shifting the burden of proof onto the parties to rebut this presumption. The evidence must be examined against the factors mentioned in Section 19 of the Act.

Bid rigging involves agreements between parties engaged in similar trades to eliminate or reduce competition in the bidding process. Collusive bidding overlaps with bid rigging and refers to cooperation between bidders to manipulate bidding processes.

While direct evidence of cartelization may be lacking, the standard of proof required is one of probability. Even in the absence of formal agreements, practical cooperation between parties can amount to anti-competitive practices.

The court considered various factors such as the nature of the market, behavior of the parties, and the influence of buyers in determining whether anti-competitive practices existed.

Parallel behavior among suppliers doesn't necessarily indicate collusion, especially in oligopolistic markets where few buyers dominate. Suppliers may adjust prices competitively to secure orders.

The appellants were able to provide explanations and evidence rebutting the presumption of collusion. The court found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to establish collusion among the appellants.

The court criticized the CCI for failing to conduct a comprehensive inquiry, including summoning IOCL to clarify aspects of the tendering process.

Since there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion and no penalty was payable, the appeals of the manufacturers were allowed, and the appeals of the CCI were dismissed as infructuous.

Facts:

The case revolves around the eruption of mob violence, protests, and demonstrations across India, particularly in response to cultural programs and establishments. The petition was triggered by incidents related to the release of the film "Padmaavat.

Issues:

The Court was the rise in intolerance towards differing viewpoints, leading to attempts to suppress artistic freedom and freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Court also examined the adequacy of measures to prevent mob violence and hold perpetrators accountable.

Held:

The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and preventing mob violence, which runs against established legal principles. It stressed that nobody has the right to administer their interpretation of the law forcibly, especially through violent means. The State has a duty to protect its citizens against illegal acts of violence by groups.

The Court acknowledged the comprehensive recommendations made in previous cases regarding the destruction of public and private properties during protests. It urged the central and state governments to implement these recommendations, including legislative changes if necessary.

The Court highlighted the need for a comprehensive structure in each state to address accountability and efficiency in handling incidents of peaceful protests turning into mob violence. It referenced previous cases and emphasized the importance of following the directions given therein.

The Court provided additional recommendations and directions under various heads, including structural and preventive measures, remedies to minimize mob violence, liability of those causing violence, responsibilities of police officials, and compensation for victims. It emphasized the applicability of these measures to peaceful protests turning into mob violence.

The Court directed the central and state governments to implement the recommendations expeditiously.

Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the need for immediate action to prevent mob violence and ensure accountability for perpetrators. It provided comprehensive guidelines for structural, preventive, and remedial measures to address the issue effectively.

Facts:

The writ petition was filed by five individuals acting as next friends of five activists-accused arrested in connection with FIR No.4/18, which was registered in Pune concerning communal violence in Bhima Koregaon.

The petitioners contended that the accused were not present at the event in question and that the FIR was fabricated by the Pune Police following FIR No.2/18 filed against some Hindutva right-wing leaders.

The petitioners sought the appointment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and court-monitored investigation.

Issues:

Whether the accused have the right to choose the Investigating Agency?

Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the present case?

Whether the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 extends to matters pertaining to criminal investigation?

Whether a Special Investigation Team (SIT) should be appointed in this case?

Whether the conduct of the Pune police, as alleged by the petitioners, necessitates an independent investigation?

Held:

The accused cannot select the Investigating Agency, and the court must exercise power regarding the change of agency with circumspection.

The writ petition, initially filed by next friends of the accused, is assumed to be pursued by the accused themselves. Therefore, the next friends cannot espouse the cause of the accused, and the relief sought in the petition cannot be granted.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 encompasses ensuring fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. While the normal remedies under the criminal law should not be displaced, the present case warrants the Court's intervention.

It is a proper case for the appointment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. The SIT shall submit periodical status reports to the Court, and the interim order for house arrest of the accused shall continue for a specified period.

The conduct of the Pune police, as alleged, raises concerns about fairness in the investigation process. The use of electronic media by the police to influence public opinion undermines the impartiality of the investigation.

Facts:

The prosecutrix, a 9-year-old girl, was sexually assaulted on 20.02.2004.

The appellant challenged his conviction by the High Court, which had sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

The trial court initially acquitted the appellant due to lack of evidence.

The High Court reversed the acquittal based on various pieces of evidence, including medical reports, presence of semen on the prosecutrix's clothes, and identification of the appellant in the Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.).

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the failure to question the appellant about the serological report during trial constitutes a prejudice.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the importance of considering all available evidence, including corroborative evidence like T.I.P. identification. The Court noted that while failure to identify the accused in T.I.P. doesn't necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case, it should be considered alongside other evidence. In this case, the corroborative evidence, including medical reports and semen analysis, supported the prosecutrix's identification of the appellant.

The Court also addressed the issue of prejudice caused by the failure to question the appellant about the serological report during trial, stating that the prosecution cannot be faulted for the trial court's omission. It further declined to prosecute the prosecutrix for false evidence due to her young age at the time of the incident and the significant time elapsed since then.

Facts:

The petitioner, Aseer Jamal, raised concerns regarding the accessibility of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) for illiterate and visually impaired citizens. He argued that certain provisions of the RTI Act, particularly Section 6, were discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issues:

Whether the provisions of the RTI Act adequately cater to the needs of illiterate and visually impaired individuals.

Whether Section 6 of the RTI Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Held:

The Court declined to address the constitutional validity of Section 6 of the RTI Act. Instead, it focused on addressing the practical concerns raised by the petitioner.

The Court observed that Section 6(1) of the RTI Act mandates public authorities to provide reasonable assistance to individuals unable to make a written request, ensuring accessibility for illiterate persons. It also noted the provision in Section 6(3) allowing for the transfer of RTI applications to the appropriate competent public authority.

Regarding visually impaired persons, the Court highlighted measures implemented by several states to provide information in accessible formats such as Braille and audio files. It also noted the existence of hotline numbers and help desks for RTI-related queries.

The Court referred to Rule 5 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012, which exempts persons below the poverty line from paying application fees, provided they submit proof of their status.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority suggesting additional methods for accessing information under the RTI Act. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that differently abled persons, including visually impaired individuals, have functional access to information and encouraged authorities to explore advanced technologies to facilitate this access.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of provisions within the Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970 (the Act of 1970).

A Member of the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), who was also the President of CCIM representing the State of Uttarakhand, had his term expire on 27.8.2016.

An election was held on 14.3.2017 for the post of President, in which Dr. Vanitha R. was elected.

There was a dispute regarding the tenure for which the election was held, with one party arguing for a five-year term and the other contending it was only for the remainder of the term of the previous officeholder.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 7 of the Act of 1970, specifically in relation to the tenure of the President of the CCIM.

The dispute revolved around whether the election held on 14.3.2017 was for a full five-year term or only for the remainder of the term of the previous officeholder.

Held:

The tenure for which the election was held was only for the remainder of the term of the previous officeholder, not a full five-year term.

Section 7(3) of the Act of 1970 deals with casual vacancies in the Central Council, and the term of the person elected to fill such a vacancy is only for the remainder of the term of the outgoing member.

Interpretation of Sections 7(1) and 7(3) must be harmonious, and in this case, the election was held to fill a casual vacancy, thus the term was limited.

The court dismissed arguments related to regulations governing the term of the President, emphasizing that regulations cannot supersede the provisions of the Act.

The court set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and declared the election for the President held on 23rd March 2018 as legal and valid.

The court ordered the declaration of the election results within ten days.

Facts:

A dispute arose between Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no.3 regarding a development agreement for a property. Respondent no.3 sought information about development plans submitted by Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined the information, leading to appeals and ultimately to the Court.

Issues:

Whether the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding development plans submitted by a developer, should be disclosed.

Whether the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, mandate the disclosure of such development plans.

Held:

The Court held that there was no 'personal information' sought for disclosure. The information requested had a clear relation to public activity and interest.

Provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, specifically required developers to make available sanctioned plans and layout plans to the public. This was aimed at enhancing transparency in the real estate sector.

Disclosure of development plans did not infringe copyright laws as per the Copyright Act, 1957. Reproduction of works for certified copies is permitted under the Act.

The Court emphasized the importance of public interest and transparency in matters concerning land development and investments. Full disclosure of information regarding development plans was deemed necessary.

The Court recommended that sanctioned plans and layout plans should be displayed at project sites, in addition to any other specified manner by the Authority's regulations, to ensure transparency and accountability.

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and directed Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. to disclose the information regarding development plans. Costs of Rs.2.50 lakhs were imposed on the appellant.