Facts:

The land acquisition was initiated for the construction of a New Broad Gauge Railway Line between Rampur and Haldwani in the District of Rampur, Uttar Pradesh.

Possession of the land was taken on 19th September 1986, and the award was made on 22nd September 1986.

The appellants filed a reference under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation, which was decided by the District Judge, Rampur.

The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed by the High Court on grounds of delay and laches.

The appellants filed subsequent legal proceedings, including Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27109 of 2014, which was also dismissed.

Issues:

Whether the challenge against the acquisition proceedings is barred by laches.

Whether the appellants have valid grounds to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

Held:

The held that The grievance of the appellants against acquisition proceedings on the ground that the award was not a valid award was rejected and SLP was dismissed by this Court but permitting a fresh challenge.

The fact remains that the challenge of the appellants is barred by laches and the said finding does not suffer from any infirmity. Even if the appellants were permitted to lay a fresh challenge, they are required to overcome this legal bar which in our view the appellants have not been able to overcome.

We, thus, do not find any error in the view taken by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed.

Facts:

The Suraz India Trust filed a total of 64 petitions before the Supreme Court. None of these petitions were successful.

Contempt petitions were filed by the trust against the Chief Justice of India and the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, among others, which were deemed groundless.

The petitioner expressed grievances to executive functionaries and judges, even agitating their claims at private residences.

Issues:

Whether the actions of the petitioner constituted an abuse of the judicial process.

Whether exemplary costs should be imposed to deter similar misuse of the judicial process.

Held:

The actions of the petitioner, Suraz India Trust, in repeatedly invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court were clearly uncalled for. None of the 64 petitions filed by the trust were successful, and contempt petitions filed were deemed groundless. The petitioner expressed grievances even to executive functionaries and judges, demonstrating a pattern of abuse of the judicial process.

The waste of judicial time by the petitioner is a matter of serious concern. Despite purportedly bona fide intentions, the petitioner's actions were not in consonance with the law. Filing contempt petitions on baseless issues highlighted the petitioner's misadventures.

The petitioner's actions, including expressing anger towards judges and filing contempt petitions, were wholly unjustified. The petitioner did not make any effort to justify their actions or demonstrate their veracity.

The misuse of judicial time by individuals who are not competent to assist the court is a serious issue. Such misadventures must be dealt with sternly to prevent further abuse of judicial time.

Suraz India Trust and Mr. Rajiv Daiya, its representative, are directed to refrain absolutely from filing any cause in public interest before any court in the country. In pending matters initiated by them, the judgment/order must be placed on record.

Exemplary costs of Rs. 25 lakhs are imposed on Suraz India Trust to discourage similar indiscretions and abuse of the judicial process in the future.

Decision: The court finds the actions of the petitioner to be a serious abuse of the judicial process and imposes exemplary costs and restrictions as a deterrent. The instant writ petition is disposed of.

Facts:

The appellants were candidates who appeared in the examination conducted by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Revenue Talati but were not appointed.

Allegations of malpractices surfaced during the examination process, including candidates being advised to mark their OMR sheets in a specific manner.

Complaints were received regarding irregularities in the examination process, leading to an investigation by the recruitment committee.

Various irregularities were discovered, such as candidates with identical residential addresses and candidates belonging to the same family.

The recruitment committee decided to cancel the entire examination process.

Issues:

Whether the cancellation of the examination process was illegal and arbitrary.

Whether the cancellation was disproportionate to the alleged malpractices.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the cancellation of the examination process was justified due to the allegations of large-scale malpractices. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the purity of the examination process and stated that the state was entitled to take appropriate remedial action. Identifying all candidates guilty of malpractice would be time-consuming and impractical. Therefore, the cancellation allowed all candidates, including innocent ones, to participate in a fresh examination process.

The court dismissed the appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the judgment.

Facts:

The appellant, Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital, along with others, challenged the validity of sections 3(6), 3(6a), and 3(6b) of the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions Act, 2006, as amended.

They contended that the requirement for private medical institutions to obtain affiliation from Himachal Pradesh University infringed upon the autonomy of Maharishi Markandeshwar University, established under a separate legislation.

Issues:

Whether the amendment requiring private medical institutions to seek affiliation from Himachal Pradesh University is valid.

Whether such a requirement infringes upon the autonomy of Maharishi Markandeshwar University.

Held:

The Court ruled that since Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital is a constituent of Maharishi Markandeshwar University, it cannot be compelled to seek affiliation from another university, namely Himachal Pradesh University.

Section 3(6a) of the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions Act, 2006, was struck down as irrational, unreasonable, ultra vires, and unconstitutional.

The autonomy of Maharishi Markandeshwar University, established under the Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010, should be respected. The university has the authority to grant affiliation to its constituent colleges.

The 2006 Act primarily deals with admissions and fees in private medical colleges and does not extend to matters of establishing a university or starting new courses. Therefore, the requirement of affiliation from Himachal Pradesh University for Maharishi Markandeshwar University's constituent college was deemed outside the scope of the Act.

Provisions of the 2010 Act establish Maharishi Markandeshwar University as an independent and autonomous university, and any attempt to compel it to seek affiliation elsewhere would impinge upon its autonomy and conflict with the special state legislation under which it was established.

The court rejected the argument that the university's grant of an essentiality certificate was conditional upon compliance with the 2006 Act, stating that such conditions cannot impose unconstitutional obligations on the university.

Facts:

Pawan Kumar was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetting the suicide of a young girl. The girl had committed suicide by setting herself ablaze after facing constant harassment and threats from Pawan Kumar, who had previously been acquitted in another criminal case.

Issues:

The credibility of the dying declaration recorded by a Head Constable without a certificate of fitness from a doctor.

Interpretation of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC and its application to the facts of the case.

Assessment of evidence regarding harassment and its role in the victim's decision to commit suicide.

Examination of the societal impact of eve-teasing and its violation of women's rights under the Indian Constitution.

Held:

The dying declaration, despite lacking a certificate of fitness from a doctor, was considered credible by the court.

The court emphasized that a certificate of fitness is not a legal requirement and upheld the reliability of the dying declaration.

Abetment under Section 306 of the IPC involves actively suggesting or supporting someone to commit suicide, which can be inferred from the continuous conduct of the accused. The court explained the meaning of abetment and its application to the case.

The court found that the accused's continuous harassment and threats had led the victim to commit suicide. It emphasized that mere allegations of harassment without positive action by the accused are insufficient for a conviction.

Eve-teasing was deprecated by the court, which emphasized the importance of respecting women's rights and dignity under the Indian Constitution. The court highlighted the societal impact of eve-teasing and its violation of women's fundamental rights.

Decision: The court upheld Pawan Kumar's conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, agreeing with the High Court's decision to reverse the acquittal. It underscored the importance of respecting women's rights and condemned any form of harassment or violence against them.

Facts:

A complaint was filed leading to the registration of FIR No. 53 of 2000, alleging offenses under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act.

The appellants, who were not originally accused, were summoned by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, to face trial under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. based on an application filed by the complainant.

The appellants pleaded alibi, claiming they were in Jaipur at the time of the incident, which was supported by documentary evidence collected during the investigation.

Despite the evidence supporting their alibi, the trial court allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and this decision was affirmed by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the trial court and the High Court properly considered the evidence supporting the appellants' alibi before summoning them to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Held:

The Supreme Court examined the principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and emphasized that it should be exercised sparingly and based on strong and cogent evidence. The Court reiterated that the purpose of this provision is to ensure that the real culprits do not escape punishment.

In this case, the Court found that the trial court acted in a casual manner by relying solely on the statements of the complainant and other witnesses during trial, ignoring the documentary evidence collected during the investigation that supported the appellants' alibi. The Court criticized the trial court and the High Court for overlooking this crucial evidence.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

This case underscores the importance of careful consideration of all available evidence before exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused persons to face trial.

Facts:

In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 245 of 2014), an NGO filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, and the Rules were ultra vires.

The petition also sought to restrain the initiation of any process for the selection and appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal under the said Rules.

Issues:

Whether the enforcement of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 should be suspended until the proposed amendments through the Lokpal and Lokayuktas and Other Related Law (Amendment) Bill, 2014, are carried out.

Held:

The court, comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha, held that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, as it stands today, is an eminently workable piece of legislation.

Therefore, there is no justification to keep the enforcement of the Act under suspension until the proposed amendments are implemented. The amendments proposed in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas and Other Related Law (Amendment) Bill, 2014, seek to include the Leader of the largest Opposition Party in the Lok Sabha in the Selection Committee, among other changes.

The court emphasized that the legislative prerogative to seek changes in an existing law through amendments lies within the exclusive domain of the legislature.

It held that interference by the court in such legislative functions should be avoided. The Act should be allowed to be enforced without suspension until the amendments, if any, are made.

The absence of specific provisions for a truncated Selection Committee to constitute a Search Committee does not invalidate the constitution of the Search Committee.

The proposed amendments and the views of the Parliamentary Standing Committee are seen as attempts to streamline the working of the Act and do not hinder its enforcement.

Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and held that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, should be enforced without suspension until the proposed amendments, if any, are made.

Facts:

A suit was filed for specific performance of a contract regarding a piece of land.

The plaintiff appealed to the High Court after the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit.

During the pendency of the second appeal, the plaintiff and two defendants passed away, and their legal representatives were not brought on record.

Despite the deaths of the parties, the High Court allowed the second appeal and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

The legal representatives of the deceased defendants challenged the legality of the High Court's judgment.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's judgment, passed after the death of parties without bringing their legal representatives on record, is legally sustainable?

Whether the failure to substitute the legal representatives within the prescribed time period leads to the automatic abatement of the appeal?

Held:

The court held that the failure to substitute the legal representatives of deceased parties within the prescribed time period results in the automatic abatement of the appeal.

The High Court's judgment passed after the death of parties without bringing their legal representatives on record was considered null and void.

The court emphasized the fundamental principle that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged in any proceeding.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

Facts:

The petitioner sought a declaration that several provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 were ultra vires Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

The primary contention was that the Chief Justice of India or his nominee held a nominal position in the Selection Committee under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act,

lacking primacy in the selection of the Lokpal Chairperson and Members. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the absence of laid-down norms or criteria for appointing an 'eminent jurist' under Section 4(1)(e) rendered the provision legally and constitutionally fragile.

Held:

The Court dismissed the contentions. It ruled that the absence of the expression "in consultation" in the Act did not render Section 4(1)(d) ultra vires the Constitution.

The Court held that according primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice or his nominee was not mandated by the Constitution in all matters concerning appointments, leaving such decisions to legislative discretion. Similarly, the Court found no ex-facie illegality in Section 4(1)(e) regarding the appointment of an eminent jurist, given the involvement of high-powered Constitutional functionaries. Thus, no declaration of infirmity of these provisions could be made based on the grounds urged by the petitioner.