Facts:

Ms. Indira Jaising filed a writ petition challenging the practice of designating Senior Advocates, alleging it to be arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions.

Issues:

Whether the practice of designating Senior Advocates is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Held:

The court held that while the practice of designating Senior Advocates is constitutional, it must be based on reasonable parameters. [Para 23]

The court outlined criteria such as ability, standing at the bar, and special knowledge or experience in law for designation as a Senior Advocate. [Para 23]

More transparency and uniform guidelines in the designation process were deemed necessary. [Para 23]

Norms and guidelines for the designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court and all High Courts were laid down, including the establishment of a Permanent Committee for designation and scrutiny of credentials. [Para 35]

The court emphasized adherence to established norms and cautioned against actions that could bring the designation process into disrepute. [Para 28]

It sought to ensure that the designation of Senior Advocates is based on merit, fairness, and transparency, with periodic review and potential modifications to the guidelines based on experience. [Para 36]

Facts:

The appellant, an employee of the respondent Transport Corporation, was dismissed from service due to his involvement in a murder case.

He was subsequently acquitted by the High Court and sought reinstatement with back wages for the period of his dismissal.

The High Court, both in a single judge's decision and a division bench's decision, declined to award back wages to the appellant.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the denial of back wages.

Issues:

Whether the appellant is entitled to claim back wages for the period of his dismissal from service?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not entitled to claim back wages for the period of his dismissal. The Court emphasized that an employee is not automatically entitled to back wages upon reinstatement unless specifically directed by the order of reinstatement. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate his unemployment during the period of dismissal, and the issue regarding back wages was not raised before an Industrial or Labour Tribunal where evidence could be adduced. Consequently, the Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal and affirming the denial of back wages to the appellant.

Facts:

Employees previously employed under the Coal Mines Welfare Organisation were transferred to Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (ECL).

Dispute arose regarding the fixation of salary upon absorption into ECL.

Terms and conditions of absorption included assurances that total emoluments would not be reduced.

Issues:

Whether the basic salary of the employees could be reduced upon absorption into ECL.

Interpretation of the terms and conditions of absorption and the protection of total emoluments.

Held:

The Division Bench upheld the decision of the Single Bench, setting aside the communication that reduced the basic salary of the employees upon absorption into ECL. The court emphasized that the protection of total emoluments, including basic salary and other allowances, was integral to the terms and conditions of absorption.

The court found that the reduction of basic pay was arbitrary and in violation of previous court orders and terms of absorption.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the benefits were directed to be extended to all affected employees, including retirees and legal representatives of deceased employees, within a specified time frame.

Facts:

The case pertained to the interpretation of Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its implications for the rape of a girl child between 15 and 18 years of age, particularly in the context of marriage. The conflict arose due to the differing provisions of the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

Issues:

Whether sexual intercourse between a man and his wife, where the wife is a girl between 15 and 18 years of age, constitutes rape.

Whether there is any incongruity between Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC and Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act, and which provision overrides the other.

Whether Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC, insofar as it pertains to girls aged 15 to 18 years, is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down.

Held:

The Court held that sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age constitutes rape, regardless of marital status. Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC, which created a distinction based on marital status, was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore required reinterpretation to align with pro-child legislations and constitutional principles.

The Court directed that Exception 2 should be interpreted purposively to state that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, who is not under eighteen years of age, is not rape .

The Court acknowledged the conflict between the IPC and POCSO regarding the rape of a married girl child. It emphasized that pro-child statutes, including POCSO, must prevail in case of any inconsistency.

Thus, Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC was required to be read purposively to harmonize with POCSO and other child protection laws. This was necessitated to ensure the protection of the rights and interests of the girl child .

The Court found Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, insofar as it related to girls aged 15 to 18 years, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

It held that the exception was arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory, violating the rights of the girl child and not being fair, just, or reasonable. The Court directed that the exception be read down to comply with constitutional principles, with prospective effect only .

Facts:

The dispute arose between MIS. DURO FELGUERA, S. A. and MIS. GANGAVARAM PORT LIMITED regarding multiple contracts awarded for different packages of work. The original contract was later split into five separate packages, each with its own arbitration clause. Additionally, a Corporate Guarantee and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) were involved, each containing arbitration provisions. The parties invoked arbitration notices, leading to a dispute over whether there should be a single arbitral tribunal or multiple tribunals for resolving the disputes arising from the various contracts.

Issues:

Whether there should be a single arbitral tribunal for all the contracts or multiple tribunals.

Interpretation of arbitration clauses in the contracts, Corporate Guarantee, and MoU.

Held:

The court emphasized the amended provision of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, which limits the court's role to examining the existence of the arbitration agreement. This provision restricts the court's power to appoint arbitrators and emphasizes the finality of such appointments.

Since the dispute arose in 2016, the court applied the amended provision of Section 11(6A). It noted the existence of five separate contracts, each with its own arbitration clause, indicating the intention of the parties to treat them independently.

Therefore, there cannot be a single arbitral tribunal for international commercial arbitration. The Corporate Guarantee provided by the foreign company also contained a separate arbitration clause. Hence, disputes arising from the Corporate Guarantee should be resolved by a separate arbitral tribunal.

Each contract, including the Corporate Guarantee, had separate arbitration clauses, and they did not depend on the terms of the original package or the MoU. Therefore, separate arbitral tribunals were necessary for each contract.

Facts:

The dispute involves a small piece of land in Raisingh Nagar, Rajasthan.

Rameshwar Lal, the respondent, claimed ownership and possession of the land based on a Patta issued to his grandfather by Nagar Palika in 1957.

He filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Nagar Palika to prevent them from dispossessing him from the land.

The trial court initially ruled against Rameshwar Lal, but the first appellate court ruled in his favor, granting the permanent injunction.

This decision was upheld by the High Court, leading Nagar Palika to file a second appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether Rameshwar Lal is entitled to a permanent injunction against Nagar Palika based on possession and the title deed (Patta) issued by Nagar Palika to his grandfather.

Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts are binding on the Supreme Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence and arguments presented, upheld the decision of the lower courts to grant Rameshwar Lal a permanent injunction against Nagar Palika. The Court found that Rameshwar Lal was able to establish a prima facie case, possession of the land, and the likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.

Additionally, the Court emphasized that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts are binding unless they are against pleadings, evidence, or established legal principles. Since Nagar Palika failed to provide evidence to support their claims and Rameshwar Lal was able to meet the requirements for a permanent injunction under the Specific Relief Act, the Court dismissed Nagar Palika's appeal.

Facts:

The appellant, Santosh, was accused of receiving misappropriated food-grains under relevant sections of the IPC and the Essential Commodities Act.

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the lower courts, but interim protection was granted by the Supreme Court, subject to conditions.

The Investigating Officer alleged non-cooperation from the appellant during the investigation, leading to modifications in the interim protection order.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's lack of confession amounts to non-cooperation with the investigation.

Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for completing the investigation.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the right against self-incrimination and clarified that lack of confession does not necessarily equate to non-cooperation with the investigation.

The Court reiterated that custodial interrogation serves multiple purposes beyond obtaining confessions and is a fundamental safeguard against coercion and torture.

It was decided that the decision regarding custodial interrogation should be left to the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which would evaluate the necessity based on the appellant's cooperation and evidence collected during the investigation.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly, allowing the Sessions Court to determine the necessity of custodial interrogation based on the appellant's cooperation and evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer.

Facts:

Arjun Gopal and others filed a writ petition seeking relief against various environmental issues, including the use of fireworks during Diwali, which worsened air quality in Delhi and the NCR.

The petitioners sought interim relief, which led to the suspension of licenses for the sale of fireworks in the NCR.

Subsequent proceedings involved applications for modification of the interim orders from different parties, representing manufacturers, traders, and license holders of fireworks.

Issues:

Whether to maintain the suspension of firecracker licenses or to relax it based on various applications filed seeking modification of the interim orders.

Assessing the impact of the suspension during Diwali on air pollution in Delhi and the NCR.

Held:

The Court dismissed applications seeking further relaxation of the suspension of licenses, prioritizing public health over commercial interests. It opted to assess the effectiveness of this measure by delaying its implementation until after Diwali.

The Court emphasized the consistent problem of air pollution exacerbated by firecrackers during Diwali and decided to make the September 12, 2017 judgment effective only from November 01, 2017, to gauge the impact of the suspension during the festival.

Facts:

The petitioner sought CBI investigation into Indian offshore bank account holders revealed in the "Panama Papers," alleging inaction by authorities, particularly SEBI. The petitioner argued serious financial loss to the public due to manipulation of capital markets and the failure of SEBI to regulate properly. The respondents, including the Ministry of Finance and SEBI, highlighted the existence of the Multi Agency Group (MAG) and the regulatory framework in place to address the concerns raised.

Issues:

Whether the petition warrants a direction for a separate investigation by the CBI regarding individuals holding offshore bank accounts as per the "Panama Papers."

Whether SEBI's regulatory actions are sufficient to address the alleged financial irregularities and market manipulation.

Held:

The Court, after considering submissions from all parties, found that the concerns raised in the petition were adequately addressed through existing mechanisms, particularly the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the Multi Agency Group (MAG). The Court highlighted the terms of reference of the SIT, which included investigating matters related to unaccounted money and offshore bank accounts. Therefore, the Court did not find it necessary to issue any further directions. The petition is accordingly disposed of.