Facts:

Dhirendra Pal Singh, an Assistant Store Superintendent with the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, retired on 30.06.2009. Upon retirement, certain amounts including GPF, leave encashment, and 70% of gratuity and pension were cleared. However, the remaining 30% of gratuity and the computation of pension were withheld by the state authorities.

Issues:

Whether the withholding of gratuity and pension without a departmental inquiry and proper legal procedure is justifiable.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court to quash the orders withholding the gratuity and pension. However, the interest rate awarded by the High Court was modified. The appellants were directed to pay 6% per annum interest on the unpaid pension amount from the date it was due and 8% per annum interest on the unpaid gratuity from the date of Singh's retirement. The appeal stands disposed of.

Facts:

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking urgent relief concerning the extreme air pollution in the National Capital Region (NCR), particularly attributed to the use of fireworks during festivals and weddings. The severe air pollution had reached alarming levels, posing significant risks to public health and the environment.

Issues:

The Court was to address the harmful effects of fireworks on air quality and public health, especially during festive seasons, and to balance these concerns against commercial interests.

Held:

The Court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, issued interim directions to address the urgent issue of air pollution in the NCR. It directed the suspension of licenses permitting the sale of fireworks in the NCR until further notice, based on the provisions of Rule 118 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. Additionally, the Court instructed the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to conduct a study on the harmful effects of materials used in fireworks manufacturing within three months and submit a report to the Court.

The Court emphasized the paramount importance of prioritizing public health over commercial interests and recognized the duty of both the State and citizens to ensure a healthy environment, as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

The decision aimed to mitigate the adverse effects of air pollution on the well-being of citizens, including children and the elderly, and to uphold constitutional rights to life, health, and a healthy environment.

Facts:

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Appellant) challenged the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi affirming the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) direction to consider the respondent's candidature for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD Schools with age relaxation. The respondent sought relief based on a precedent, Sachin Gupta v. DSSSB & Ors., which allowed age relaxation for candidates facing sudden changes in age limits.

Issues:

Whether the precedent case of Sachin Gupta v. DSSSB & Ors. can be universally applied to the respondent's case.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the precedent and the respondent's situation, concluded that the judgment in Sachin Gupta's case cannot be universally applied to all cases. As the respondent applied for the post in 2009, not being a candidate in the recruitment process of 2008, the Court held that the age relaxation granted in Sachin Gupta's case does not extend to the respondent's situation. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the High Court and CAT.

Facts:

The case involves the challenge to state enactments regarding the imposition of entry tax.

Issues:

Whether state enactments concerning entry tax should be evaluated with reference to both clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304 of the Constitution.

Whether clause (a) of Article 304 is interconnected with or distinct from clause (b) of the same article.

Held:

The Constitution includes provisions such as Article 304(b), which subject state legislation to Presidential sanction. This framework aligns with the Constitutional scheme and does not encroach upon the separation of powers between the Legislature and the judiciary.

Article 304(b) grants state legislatures the authority to enact laws containing restrictions on trade, commerce, and intercourse, provided they comply with the provisions outlined in the proviso to Article 304(b). Judicial review is only relevant when such legislation is challenged, and it does not undermine the separation of powers.

The imposition of non-discriminatory taxes does not contravene Article 301, which guarantees freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse within India. Only taxes displaying discriminatory characteristics are prohibited by Article 304(a) of the Constitution.

Decision: In conclusion, the Supreme Court upholds the validity of state enactments related to entry tax under the Constitution of India, provided they adhere to the provisions outlined in Article 304 and do not discriminate against trade, commerce, or intercourse.

Facts:

The states of Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan entered into an agreement in 1981 regarding the reallocation of Ravi and Beas Waters.

Punjab failed to comply with the terms of this agreement, leading to litigation.

The Supreme Court issued a decree directing Punjab to fulfill its obligations under the 1981 agreement.

Punjab enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, to terminate the 1981 agreement and nullify the Supreme Court decrees against it.

Issues:

Whether Punjab's unilateral termination of the 1981 agreement and nullification of the Supreme Court decrees were legal.

The appropriateness of Punjab's action in using legislative power to nullify the decree instead of approaching the appropriate authority under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.

The constitutionality of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004.

Held:

The Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, cannot be considered legal and valid. Punjab cannot absolve itself from its duties/liabilities arising out of the 1981 Agreement (Para 31).

Punjab's unilateral action to nullify the effect of the decree was deemed illegal. Once a binding decree is passed by a Court of law, a party cannot act unilaterally to nullify its effect (Para 32).

Instead of seeking relief from the appropriate authority under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, Punjab used legislative power to nullify the decree, which was inappropriate (Paras 33, 39).

The unilateral termination of the 1981 agreement by Punjab was against the Constitution and provisions of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (Para 36).

The Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, was deemed contrary to the Constitution of India. Punjab cannot nullify the judgment and decree issued by the Supreme Court or terminate the 1981 Agreement (Para 41).

Decision: The Court held that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, was unconstitutional, and Punjab cannot nullify the judgment and decree issued by the Supreme Court or terminate the 1981 Agreement.

Facts:

The appellant, Manganese Ore India Ltd., contested the definition of "mine" under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949, particularly concerning the inclusion of processing activities within mining.

The appellant also argued against the classification of ferro manganese alloy manufacturing as a mining activity.

Issues:

Whether the term "processing" in the definition of "mine" should include manufacturing activities.

Whether the manufacturing of ferro manganese alloy should be considered a mining activity for the purpose of electricity tariff rates.

Held:

The court interpreted the term "processing" narrowly, restricting it to activities directly connected to mining, such as those aimed at making the mined mineral marketable, saleable, and transportable without substantially changing its identity (Para 20).

Processes resulting in a substantial change in the mined mineral, producing a different commodity, fall outside the scope of "processing" (Para 20).

Manufacturing activities, including those producing a different commodity, should not be considered mining activities for the purpose of electricity tariff rates (Para 20).

The Ferro Manganese Plant, involved in manufacturing ferro manganese alloy, does not qualify as a mining unit as it is not engaged in activities directly linked to mining (Para 24).

The manufacturing of ferro manganese alloy results in a different product from the raw material manganese ore, both physically and chemically (Para 30).

Therefore, the Ferro Manganese Plant should be treated as a manufacturing unit rather than a mining unit for electricity tariff purposes (Para 31).

Appeals are allowed (Para 32).

Facts:

The appellant, Mahavir Singh, was convicted for the offense under Section 302 IPC by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The case stemmed from an incident where Mahavir Singh allegedly shot and killed Jagannath Singh. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence to secure the conviction.

Issues:

The credibility of the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, as well as the adequacy of the investigation conducted by the police.

Held:

The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence presented in the case, highlighting inconsistencies and deficiencies in the prosecution's case.

The Court criticized the Investigating Officer for a lackluster investigation, noting that proper procedures were not followed.

Contradictions between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence raised doubts about the guilt of the appellant.

The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and diligent investigation, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court, and ordered the appellant's release from custody.

Facts:

The case concerned the selection criteria for the appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers and B.T. Assistants in Tamil Nadu. The State Government provided a relaxation of 5% marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for candidates belonging to socially backward classes, as per the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Guidelines.

Issues:

Whether the State Government has the competence to grant relaxation of 5% marks in TET, and if the relaxation provided is legally justified.

Whether the State Government is estopped from granting relaxation.

Whether providing relaxation of 5% marks in TET amounts to changing the criteria of selection after the selection process commenced.

Challenge to Government Orders regarding the introduction of new grading systems and weightage of marks for academic performance.

Held:

The Court held that the State Government's decision to grant relaxation in TET marks was legally justified, citing the enabling provisions in the NCTE Guidelines and the constitutional obligation to uplift socially and economically backward communities (Para 21, 23, 24, 25, 27).

The Court ruled that there can be no question of estoppel against the Government in exercising its powers, and policy decisions taken in public interest to further the advancement of reserved categories cannot be interfered with by courts (Para 28, 29, 30).

The Court determined that the relaxation in TET marks did not change the selection criteria mid-process and was a prerogative of the State Government to address socio-economic conditions prevalent in the State (Para 33, 35, 37).

Regarding the challenge to Government Orders, the Court upheld them, stating that the government had the authority to formulate grading systems and weightage of marks, especially based on expert recommendations (Para 38, 39, 41, 43).

Facts:

The respondent sought eviction of the appellant from the suit premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming bona fide requirement for her son's business of sanitary and hardware products.

Issues:

The bona fide requirement of the respondent and the availability of alternative accommodations for the appellant.

Held:

The concurrent findings of the lower courts, which upheld the eviction petition, were based on evidence and materials on record. The appellant's contention that alternative accommodations were available was dismissed, and the courts held that the respondent had the right to choose a more suitable premises for her son's business. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted time until March 31, 2017, to vacate the premises.