Facts:

The petition was filed by the Disabled Rights Group addressing issues concerning the rights and accessibility of persons with disabilities in educational institutions. The case had been pending for eleven years, during which the court had been calling for status reports from the respondents regarding the implementation of the Disabilities Act in relation to reservation of seats, accessibility, and teaching provisions for disabled persons.

Issues:

Non-implementation of reservation of seats in educational institutions as provided in the Disabilities Act, 1995 and Disabilities Act, 2016.

Lack of proper access for orthopaedic disabled persons in educational institutions.

Insufficient provisions and facilities for teaching disabled persons effectively.

Held:

The court held that reservation of seats for persons with disabilities in educational institutions is mandatory under the Disabilities Act, 1995 and Disabilities Act, 2016.

The court directed that all educational institutions covered by the obligations provided under Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 shall comply with the provisions of Section 32 while making admissions. Institutions were instructed to submit annual reports on the number of disabled persons admitted, and authorities were directed to ensure compliance with these provisions.

Regarding accessibility and facilities, the court emphasized the necessity of providing proper access and facilities for persons with disabilities in educational institutions. It directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to consider the feasibility of implementing guidelines submitted by the petitioner and to form a committee for this purpose. The committee was tasked with studying the feasibility of implementing accessibility and pedagogical suggestions, devising schemes, determining funding mechanisms, and setting timelines for implementation.

The court mandated submission of a report and an action taken report to the court by July 2018, detailing the progress made in implementing the directives and recommendations outlined in the judgment.

Facts:

The appellant, Halappa, an agriculturist, sustained severe injuries during a tractor demonstration event.

The accident resulted in permanent disability, leading to a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Issues:

Whether the insurer is liable for compensation considering the circumstances of the accident and the coverage under the insurance policy.

The validity of the High Court's decision to reverse the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's (MACT) ruling.

Held:

The Supreme Court found the High Court's decision to reverse the MACT's ruling unjustified due to insufficient evidence provided by the insurer. It reinstated the MACT's decision, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence from the insurer to contest Halappa's claims. The Court increased the compensation amount considering the severity of Halappa's disability and future medical expenses. The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The respondents filed a suit for a permanent injunction in 2002 alleging threats to their possession of land.

The suit was dismissed in 2005, citing provisions of Section 185(1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

Subsequently, the respondents filed another suit in 2005 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, alleging forcible possession of the land by the appellant.

The trial court decreed the suit ex-parte in 2009, and execution proceedings were initiated.

The appellant filed objections during the execution process, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to the land being agricultural and covered under the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

Issues:

Whether the land in question had ceased to be agricultural and thus not governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

Whether the objections raised during execution on jurisdictional grounds were valid.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that:

The land had ceased to be agricultural and was not governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

The objections raised during execution were without merit as there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the trial court.

The decree could only be challenged in execution proceedings on grounds of inherent lack of jurisdiction, which was not the case here.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

The respondent was allotted a retail outlet dealership for a petrol pump, which was later challenged through a PIL alleging favoritism. The High Court canceled the allotment on grounds of favoritism and directed the Corporation to auction the right to open a petrol pump in close proximity to the existing location if the respondent was unwilling to sell or part with the land.

The Corporation terminated the dealership agreement with the respondent and issued an advertisement to auction the outlet previously allotted to her. The respondent challenged the advertisement, leading to the High Court staying the auction and directing the Corporation to permit the respondent to continue running the dealership until the auction was finalized.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's direction to award a new dealership to the respondent was justified.

Whether the actions of the Corporation and its officials were in accordance with legal and constitutional norms.

Whether an in-house inquiry was warranted to determine the liability of the Corporation's officials involved in the matter.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that awarding a new dealership to the respondent would perpetuate the undue benefit granted earlier, which was deemed illegal, arbitrary, and against public interest.

Public authorities must act with fairness, objectivity, transparency, and non-discrimination. Any exercise of discretion must be regulated and in line with the public interest.

The cancellation of the respondent's dealership was upheld, and the Corporation was directed to initiate a fresh process for awarding a new dealership, ensuring transparency, fairness, and adherence to the law.

An in-house inquiry was ordered to determine the liability of the Corporation's officials involved in the matter, with appropriate action to be taken against them according to the law.

Decision: The High Court's decision to award a new dealership to the respondent was set aside, and the respondent's dealership from its original location was canceled. The Corporation was instructed to conduct a fresh process for awarding a new dealership in compliance with legal and constitutional norms. Additionally, an inquiry was ordered to hold accountable any errant officials involved in the matter.

Facts:The case concerns the interim relief sought regarding the use and mandatory nature of Aadhaar cards. The petitioners argue that Aadhaar cards should only be used for specific schemes and should remain voluntary until the matter is conclusively decided by the Court.

Issues:

The interpretation of the interim orders issued by the Constitution Bench regarding the use of Aadhaar cards, particularly in light of the enactment of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

Held:

The Court decides to expedite the resolution of the issues and schedules the final hearing for January 17, 2018. Interim arrangements regarding Aadhaar linkage are made, including deadline extensions for various purposes. The Court clarifies the application of Section 139 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and ensures consistency in the application of Aadhaar linkage deadlines to state governments as well. These interim arrangements will continue until the final disposal of the proceedings before the Constitution Bench.

Facts:

The case involved interpretation and application of provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the "Code"), specifically Section 9(3)(c), concerning operational debts. It also addressed the issuance of demand notices for unpaid operational debts, including whether such notices could be sent by lawyers on behalf of operational creditors.

Issues:

Whether Section 9(3)(c) of the Code is mandatory or directory in nature.

Whether demand notices for unpaid operational debts can be issued by lawyers acting on behalf of operational creditors.

Held:

The court held that Section 9(3)(c) of the Code, which requires a certificate confirming the absence of payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor, is procedural and directory, not mandatory.

It was determined that demand notices for unpaid operational debts can indeed be issued by lawyers on behalf of operational creditors, as authorized agents, based on the interpretation of Section 8 of the Code and relevant forms provided under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

Decision: The court clarified the procedural requirements under the Code and affirmed the role of lawyers in issuing demand notices on behalf of operational creditors. It emphasized the need for a harmonious interpretation of statutes, ensuring compliance with procedural provisions while recognizing the practical implications involved.

Facts:

The case pertains to the misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes in Delhi, which was in violation of various laws including municipal laws, the master plan, and environmental laws. The Supreme Court had constituted a Monitoring Committee to seal such premises. Despite this, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) modified the master plan and enacted the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006. Subsequently, a notification was issued by the Central Government, providing for the restoration of sealed premises under certain conditions.

Issues:

The court was the constitutional validity of the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006, and the notification issued pursuant to it.

Additionally, the court needed to address the challenge posed by these legislative measures to the Supreme Court's orders and directions regarding the sealing of commercial premises.

Held:

The applicants expressed a clear intention to use the premises for residential purposes. Given this, formal appeals before the Appellate Tribunal would serve little purpose, especially considering the backlog of appeals already pending. Therefore, the court directed the premises to be de-sealed for residential purposes, subject to certain conditions. [Para 34]

The conditions imposed by the court aimed to ensure compliance with residential use and prevent further misuse for commercial purposes. These conditions included filing affidavits, payment of conversion charges, and compliance with directives from the Monitoring Committee. [Para 35]

The Monitoring Committee was entrusted with the responsibility to assess whether the premises should be de-sealed based on satisfaction with the conditions imposed. If unsatisfied, the applicants could approach the Supreme Court for appropriate orders. [Para 36]

The court clarified that its order applied only to premises misused for commercial (non-industrial) purposes and sealed at the instance of the Monitoring Committee. Any challenge to the Monitoring Committee's decision would lie before the Supreme Court. [Para 37]

Writ petitions transferred to the Delhi High Court for expeditious disposal were withdrawn and brought back to the Supreme Court due to significant delays in their resolution. [Para 39]

Decision: The Supreme Court directed the de-sealing of premises for residential purposes, subject to conditions, bypassing the need for formal appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. It clarified the procedure for compliance with the imposed conditions and reiterated the jurisdiction for challenges to the Monitoring Committee's decisions. Furthermore, it expedited the resolution of related writ petitions by withdrawing them from the Delhi High Court and bringing them back to the Supreme Court.

Facts:The petitioner, a visually disabled person, filed a writ petition seeking safe accessibility to roads and transport facilities, highlighting ten action points for providing proper access to public facilities for visually disabled persons. The petitioner's plea was based on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional guarantees. The issue at hand was the enforcement of accessibility measures for visually impaired individuals in public spaces.

Issues:

The ensuring proper access to public facilities for visually disabled persons, as mandated by the Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional provisions.

The court needed to determine the obligations of the State and public authorities in this regard and the deadlines for implementing accessibility measures.

Held:

The rights of visually impaired persons to proper access to public facilities are constitutionally guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) and are reinforced by international covenants and statutory recognition. It is the duty of the State and public authorities to establish norms for accessibility in public spaces, including roads, buildings, and transportation facilities. Failure to provide such accessibility constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights. The Disabilities Act, 1995 and its successor, the Disabilities Act, 2016, outline specific guidelines for creating a barrier-free environment, including provisions for transportation, buildings, and public places. It is the constitutional obligation of the State to safeguard the interests of disabled persons and provide non-discriminatory access by removing physical barriers.

The court issued directions for the effective implementation of accessibility measures, including deadlines for making government buildings, airports, railways, and public transport fully accessible. The central and state governments were directed to comply with these directives within specified time frames.

Decision: The court held that the prayers made by the petitioner were not adversarial but aimed at ensuring the rights of visually impaired persons. The court emphasized the commitment of the Central Government to addressing the needs of disabled persons and directed both central and state governments to take necessary measures for accessibility within prescribed deadlines.

Facts:

The appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession against the respondent concerning a property in New Delhi. The respondent sought an amendment to the plaint, which was allowed. Subsequently, the appellant sought to amend the written statement to introduce additional averments regarding the ancestral nature of the property and the existence of coparcenary rights.

Issues:

Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the amendment to the written statement, and whether the High Court's interference under Article 227 was appropriate.

Held:

The Court held that the proposed amendments in the written statement were merely an elaboration of existing defenses and did not amount to the withdrawal of admissions made earlier. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring that inferior courts operate within their jurisdiction and does not entail a reassessment of evidence. Therefore, the High Court's interference was deemed unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the Trial Court's order permitting the amendment to the written statement was affirmed.