Facts:

The application filed on behalf of Shri R.R. Nair sought the recall of an order dated October 21, 2016, citing incomplete hearing and the filing of another writ petition challenging the same sections of the Advocates Act in the High Court of Delhi.

Issues:

The adequacy of hearing, the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, and the related writ petition filed in the High Court of Delhi.

Held:

The Court recalls the earlier order and decides to set down the matter for fuller arguments afresh, along with the transferred Writ Petition (C) No. 6331 of 2016. This decision is based on the need for a comprehensive hearing, considering the dissatisfaction among certain sections of the bar and the challenges to the designation process of lawyers as senior advocates.

Facts:

The case, Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 1994, concerned the re-promulgation of an ordinance by the State of Bihar.

Issues:

Whether re-promulgation of an ordinance violates constitutional principles.

Whether the satisfaction of the President under Article 123 and of the Governor under Article 213 is immune from judicial review.

The standard of review applicable to the satisfaction of the President and Governor in issuing ordinances.

Held:

The Court held that re-promulgation of an ordinance is impermissible as it violates constitutional principles, particularly because it cannot create an enduring or irreversible right in a citizen.

The Court reiterated that the failure to comply with the requirement of laying an ordinance before the legislature constitutes a serious constitutional infraction and an abuse of the constitutional process.

It emphasized that the satisfaction of the President under Article 123 and of the Governor under Article 213 is not immune from judicial review, especially after the amendment brought about by the forty-fourth amendment to the Constitution.

The Court outlined the test for judicial review of such satisfaction, stating that it would examine whether the satisfaction is based on relevant material and whether it constitutes a fraud on power or is actuated by an oblique motive.

Decision: The Court declared that the re-promulgation of the ordinance in question was unconstitutional and violative of the principles laid down under Articles 123 and 213.

Facts:

The case involved the murder of a mother and her unmarried daughter.

The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of Guddi (PW-9), who was a close relative and neighbor of the deceased. Guddi provided a detailed account of the incident, including threats made by the accused prior to the murder and the events leading up to the crime.

Issues:

The reliability of Guddi's testimony, the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, and the validity of the recovery of articles based on the accused's disclosure statements.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on the following reasons:

Guddi's testimony was considered credible, natural, and consistent, corroborated by other witnesses .

The recovery of articles, including bones and ashes, from the canal based on the accused's disclosure statements was deemed sufficient evidence.

The absence of independent witnesses from the village was not deemed significant, considering the circumstances of the incident.

Minor discrepancies in the evidence were considered inconsequential, as long as there was sufficient independent evidence to sustain the conviction.

The appeals were found to be devoid of merit and were accordingly dismissed. Any appellants on bail were directed to be taken into custody to serve their remaining sentences.

Facts:The case involved a dispute between the State of Uttar Pradesh and Jai Bir Singh regarding the interpretation of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issues:

The correct interpretation of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Held:The decision to refer the matter to a larger bench was made after careful consideration of the arguments presented and the implications of the issue.

The bench recognized the serious doubts raised about the correctness of a previous case and deemed it necessary for a larger bench to address the matter. As a result, the appeals were ordered to be placed before a Bench comprising Nine-Judges, to be constituted by the Chief Justice.

Facts:

The appellants, associated with the Mid Day newspaper, published articles alleging impropriety by Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and his family members.

The High Court of Delhi initiated contempt proceedings suo motu based on these articles, alleging that they lowered the image of the judiciary.

Issues:

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings for alleged contempt of the Supreme Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings for contempt of the Supreme Court. Article 129 of the Constitution explicitly grants the Supreme Court the power to punish for its own contempt. This power, coupled with the principle that a court of record possesses inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt, reinforces the exclusive authority of the Supreme Court in matters of its own contempt.

Therefore, the order passed by the High Court was deemed to be without jurisdiction and was set aside.

Facts:

The petitioners, twenty-nine men, worked as porters for the Indian Army in border areas under challenging conditions.

Despite long years of service, they were not treated as regular employees and were denied minimum pay-scales.

Previous legal proceedings had not resulted in a clear resolution regarding their regularization.

Issues:

Whether the porters were entitled to regularization and fair treatment.

What steps could be taken to improve the working conditions and welfare of the porters.

Held:

The Court recognized the valuable support provided by the porters to the Indian Army and acknowledged their challenging working conditions. However, it refrained from issuing a mandamus for regularization but encouraged the government to take proactive measures in consultation with the Armed Forces.

The Court issued directions to enhance the proposed scheme for the porters' welfare, including revisiting minimum wages, providing regular medical facilities, and improving compensation and severance benefits. The government was also directed to consider a proposal for regularization, ensuring security of tenure for a reasonable proportion of porters who complete a stipulated minimum tenure of service.

Facts:

Bhushan Power & Steel Limited applied for a mining lease for iron ore.

State Government disallowed the application, leading to dismissal of a writ petition.

Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed, and the Supreme Court allowed it on March 14, 2012.

Supreme Court directed the State Government to recommend the case to the Central Government for the mining lease.

Contempt petition filed, alleging non-compliance by the State Government.

Subsequent orders emphasized State Government's obligation to comply with the earlier direction.

Issues:

Whether the State Government fulfilled its role in sending recommendations to the Central Government?

Whether the petitioner's application was protected under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957?

Whether the letter issued by the State Government constituted a 'Letter of Intent'?

Held:

The court emphasized the State Government's role was to recommend, and the ultimate authority rested with the Central Government. Since the State Government sent the necessary request to the Central Government, the direction of March 14, 2012, stood complied with. As the Central Government was not a party in the contempt proceeding, no specific direction was given to it.( Para 14 and 15)

Analyzing the Mines and Minerals Acts, the court considered the eligibility of applications under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Act. The Amendment Act, 2015, introduced changes, making all applications received prior to January 12, 2015, ineligible. Exceptions were carved out for specific categories of applications.( Para 15, 16, and 21)

The court scrutinized the nature of the letter sent by the State Government, determining that it was recommendatory and not a 'Letter of Intent.' The court clarified that for the State Government to enter into any lease agreement, previous approval from the Central Government was essential.( Para 23, 24, and 25)

The court closed the contempt petition, stating that the State Government had fulfilled its obligation by sending the necessary letter of request to the Central Government. The Central Government's consideration of recommendations was beyond the scope of the contempt petition.( Para 26)

Facts:

The suit property was acquired by VG as a permanent grant for constructing a house.

Dispute arose between the appellants (owner's brother and others) and the respondents (children and son-in-laws of the owner) regarding ownership and possession of the property.

Issues:

Ownership and possession of the suit property.

Admissibility of the respondents' claim for specific performance and mandatory injunction.

Whether the relief of demolition of the appellants' construction on the suit property should be granted.

Held:

The respondents successfully proved ownership of the suit property inherited from VG through appropriate documents. The claim of co-ownership in the suit property by the defendants was dismissed as the plaintiffs claimed sole ownership (Para 15-17).

The plea regarding the real owner of the property being someone other than VG was rejected due to lack of evidence (Para 18).

Plaintiffs' possession over the suit property was affirmed despite occasional absence (Para 20).

The relief sought by the respondents for demolition of appellants' construction was deemed untenable due to wastage of expenditure. Instead, respondents were allowed to take possession of the house without demolition and compensate appellants for construction costs (Para 22-23).

Decision: Dismissing the appeals, the Court upheld the respondents' ownership and possession of the suit property and allowed them to take possession without demolition while compensating the appellants for construction costs.

Facts:

The case originated from a security breach at Sanganer Airport, Jaipur, where a passenger managed to board a flight with a revolver and live cartridges despite detention by airport security.

The Rajasthan High Court took suo moto cognizance of the incident and issued directions to include Chief Justices and judges of the High Court in the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation security checks at airports.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's interference in security matters was justified.

Whether matters of security should be determined by government authorities or the judiciary.

Whether the inclusion of Chief Justices of High Courts in the list of exempted persons from security checks was appropriate.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's intervention in security matters was unwarranted and encroached upon the domain of the executive. Matters of security should be left to government authorities, as they require expertise and careful consideration of various factors. The Court emphasized that judicial interference in security policies is not justified, as courts lack the necessary expertise to formulate such policies. Furthermore, the inclusion of Chief Justices of High Courts in the list of exempted persons had already been implemented by the time the High Court issued its directions. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment.