Facts:

Prison reforms have been a recurring topic in discussions and decisions by this Court spanning the last 35 years. The focus is on the treatment of prisoners with dignity, emphasizing the humane treatment of individuals incarcerated.

Issues:

The issues addressed include the functioning of the Under Trial Review Committee, effective implementation of Section 436 and Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and concerns related to the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

They also delves into legal aid, release of undertrial prisoners in compoundable offenses, and the overall living conditions of prisoners.

Held:

The Under Trial Review Committee in every district should meet quarterly, with the first meeting scheduled on or before March 31, 2016. The committee should address the release of undertrial prisoners and convicts, focusing on those eligible for release due to completed sentences or granted remission.

The committee should specifically address the implementation of Section 436 and Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring the release of undertrial prisoners at the earliest, particularly those unable to furnish bail bonds due to poverty.

The State Legal Services Authority, in coordination with the District Legal Services Committee, should ensure an adequate number of competent lawyers are available to assist undertrial prisoners and convicts, especially the indigent, to avoid poor legal aid.

The committee should look into the release of undertrial prisoners in compoundable offenses, exploring the possibility of compounding offenses instead of mandatory trials.

The Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police in charge of prisons must ensure proper utilization of funds for the prisoners' living conditions, including health, hygiene, food, clothing, and rehabilitation.

The Ministry of Home Affairs should expedite the implementation of the Management Information System in all Central and District Jails, ensuring better and effective management of prisons and prisoners.

An annual review of the Model Prison Manual 2016 should be conducted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, taking into consideration any necessary changes and avoiding the manual becoming obsolete.

The Under Trial Review Committee should address the issues raised in the Model Prison Manual 2016, including regular jail visits as suggested in the manual.

Decision: The Court emphasized the need for comprehensive prison reforms and issued specific directives to address various aspects affecting the treatment and living conditions of prisoners.

Referred Cases:

Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India, (2014) 4 RCR(Criminal) 234

Rama Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 2 SCC 642

Sunil Batra II Vs. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488

T.K. Gopal Vs. State of Karnataka, (2000) 6 SCC 168

Facts:

The case involves an FIR filed by respondent No.2 against the appellants. The investigations resulted in three closure reports submitted by different investigating officers. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed under relevant sections after further investigation by a fourth officer.

Issues:

The consideration of closure reports, the validity of investigations, and the alleged roles of different appellants in the harassment case.

Held:

The Chief Judicial Magistrate had duly considered the second Closure Report dated 10.07.2003 while passing the order for further investigation on 6.9.2006. The investigation leading to the third closure report dated 27.2.2007 was deemed a nullity as it violated an express judicial order. The appellants' plea that the second and third closure reports were not considered during the fourth investigation was rejected. (Para 19 & 22)

Appellant Nos. 4, 5, and 6, being sisters-in-law of respondent No.2, had no direct concern with the relationship between respondent No.2 and appellant Nos. 1 to 3. No clear allegations were leveled against them, and the proceedings initiated against them were deemed unjustified and were therefore quashed. (Para 23)

The trial court was directed to proceed only against appellant Nos. 1 to 3 (parents-in-law and husband of respondent No.2) under Sections 498A and 506 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (Para 24)

Referred Cases:

Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak, (2013) 5 SCC 762

Facts:

The case involves the eviction of employees residing in flats owned by the Central Bank of India under the Public Premises Act, 1971. The employees contested the eviction, claiming a right to retain the premises based on their conditions of service. The dispute arose from the Bank's intention to demolish buildings for redevelopment.

Issues:

Whether the employees had a right to retain the allotted premises based on their conditions of service.

Whether the Bank's redevelopment plans violated the lease agreement with the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA).

The adequacy of efforts made for an amicable settlement through mediation.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the employees had no right to retain the allotted premises as it was not a part of their conditions of service. The Court emphasized that the employees' claims regarding the violation of the lease agreement between MHADA and the Bank were inconsequential to their standing in the matter. The Court granted the employees time until March 31, 2016, to vacate the premises. No costs were imposed on the employees, and the Court refrained from directing them to pay damages to the Bank for the use and occupation of the premises.

Referred Cases:

Salem Advocate Bar Assn. II Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. P Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24

K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226

Facts:

The case involves Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2016 between M/S. V. L. S. Finance Ltd. and S. P. Gupta and another. The appeal was heard by Justices Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana on February 5, 2016.

Issues:

The primary issues revolve around the withdrawal/non-pressing of the application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1993. The accused persons contested the application, leading to considerations regarding the permissibility of such contestation.

Held:

A significant amount of time has passed since the issuance of summons in 2003, despite challenges to the order issuing summons. This delay is noted (Para 27).

The court observes an abuse of the legal process, where litigants challenge orders in superior courts to procrastinate proceedings (Para 31).

The Public Prosecutor, when filing an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., bears the responsibility to be satisfied based on legal parameters. The court highlights the importance of the Public Prosecutor's independent decision (Para 47).

The court clarifies that before the Public Prosecutor moves the application, the court has no role. If the Public Prosecutor intends to withdraw or not press the application, they are entitled to do so. The court cannot compel them otherwise (Para 47).

The accused persons cannot contest the application or file documents. This liberty granted to the accused persons is deemed inconsistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasizes that the victim, not the accused persons, is aggrieved in such a situation. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the cases in accordance with the law (Para 47).

The High Court erred in permitting the accused persons to file an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. in the present case (Para 45).

Decision: The court allows the appeals and directs the Magistrate to proceed with the cases in accordance with the law.

Referred Cases:

Abdul Karim Vs. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710

Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338

Bairam Muralidhar Vs. State of A.P., (2014) 10 SCC 380

Balwant Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (1977) 4 SCC 448

Bansi Lal Vs. Chandan Lal, (1976) 1 SCC 421

Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs. Pradyuman Singh Ji Arjun Singh Ji, AIR 1970 SC 1273

R.R. Verma Vs. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 402

Rahul Agarwal Vs. Rakesh Jain, (2005) 2 SCC 377

Rajender Kumar Jain Vs. State, (1980) 3 SCC 435

Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 194

State of Bihar Vs. Ram Naresh Pandey, AIR 1957 SC 389

State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568

Subhash Chander Vs. State Chandigarh Admn., (1980) 2 SCC 155

Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470

V.S. Achuthanandan Vs. R. Balakrishna Pillai, (1994) 4 SCC 299

Vijaykumar Baldev Mishra alias Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 687

Facts:

The deceased, a truck driver, met with an accident during work and suffered fatal injuries.

Appellants, family members of the deceased, filed a claim for compensation before the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation.

The employer (Respondent No. 2) contested liability, citing the deceased's negligence.

The Commissioner awarded compensation, considering the employment details and circumstances of the accident.

The High Court reduced the compensation without clear reasoning, also waiving the penalty and interest.

Issues:

Whether the deceased's death occurred during the course of employment?

Whether the High Court's reduction of compensation without providing substantial reasons is justified?

Is the waiver of penalty and interest by the High Court appropriate?

Held:

The deceased's death arose out of and during the course of employment, as established by the facts and circumstances.

The High Court erred in reducing the compensation without offering substantial reasons. The proviso to Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act requires a substantial question of law for appeal.

The Appellants are entitled to the originally awarded compensation of Rs. 10,92,850/-, along with funeral expenses and interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident.

The Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount with the Employees Compensation Commissioner within six weeks.

The appeal is allowed.

Referred Cases:

Dover Navigation Company Limited Vs. Isabella Craig, (1940) A.C. 190

Harijan Mangri Siddakka Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 115

Harris Vs. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd., (1939) AC 71

Janaki Ammal Vs. Divisional Engineer, (1956) 2 LLJ 233

Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. P Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mohd. Issak, (1969) 2 SCC 607

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mastan, (2006) 2 SCC 641

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Siby George, (2012) 12 SCC 540

Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289

Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation Vs. Francis De Costa, (1996) 6 SCC 1

T.S. Shylaja Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., (2014) 2 SCC 587

Ved Prakash Vs. Premi Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 1

Facts:

The Respondents sought information under the Right to Information Act, including scan copies of their answer sheets, tabulation sheets containing interview marks, and the names of the examiners who evaluated their answer sheets.

The PSC and other authorities denied the information, citing a fiduciary relationship and other concerns.

Issues:

Whether the Respondents are entitled to information regarding the names of examiners who evaluated their answer sheets.

Held:

The Court agrees with the High Court's decision to allow the disclosure of scan copies of answer sheets, tabulation sheets, and other relevant information related to the examination process. This is not considered a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court rejects the Kerala High Court's decision to disclose the names of examiners, emphasizing the fiduciary relationship between the PSC and the examiners.

The decision is modified to deny the disclosure of examiners' names, affirming the fiduciary relationship between the PSC and the examiners.

Information regarding the answer sheets and interview marks is to be provided to the information seekers as it ensures transparency and fairness in the competitive examination process.

FACTS:

Selection made by the State of Bihar for various common posts in the Gazetted Cadre through the 36th Combined Competitive Examination.

Advertisement issued on 9th January 1989.

Resolution dated 10th November 1978 covered the reservation policy at the time of the advertisement.

Another Resolution on reservation policy issued on 30th October 1990.

Order dated 7th January 1991 declared that the policy resolution of 30th October 1990 would apply to examinations already held.

Selection proceeded with, and candidates from the general merit category challenged the results.

ISSUES:

Challenge to the selection process based on reservation policy changes.

Dispute over the applicability of the policy resolution dated 30th October 1990 to the selection made in the 36th Combined Examination.

Contempt proceedings initiated against the State for non-compliance with the Division Bench's order dated 22nd February 2000.

HELD:

The court allows the appellants and petitioners to continue holding their respective posts until reaching the age of superannuation. The State Governments are instructed not to interfere with the initial posting and subsequent benefits accrued to them. The appeal and the transferred cases Stand disposed of. ( Paragraph 20)

The benefit granted under this order extends to applicants in IA Nos. 16, 17, and 20, restoring their status quo ante. This order is not to be quoted as a precedent in any other case. ( Paragraph 21)

Facts:

Respondents applied for a BTC training course under the physically handicapped category, claiming completion of training and job offers.

Complaint filed by Bhartiya Viklang Sangh alleged illegal usurpation of handicapped quota based on fraudulently procured certificates.

State Government ordered verification of disability certificates, revealing 21% were fraudulently obtained.

Issues:

Whether the State Government had the right to verify disability certificates issued by the Medical Board.

Whether the High Court's interference was justified when a substantial number of candidates were found to have fraudulently obtained certificates.

Held:

The Court emphasized the seriousness of the complaint and the substantial fraud committed by candidates. Fraud was deemed to vitiate the entire process, especially when a large number of candidates had unlawfully taken reserved seats for disabled persons. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissing the writ petition, and directed a show cause notice to individuals with fraudulent certificates. The decision-making process was to comply with the law within four months. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Referred Cases:

Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 7 SCC 605

Chittaranjan Das Vs. Durgapore Project Ltd., (1995) 99 CWN 897

Express Newspapers P Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 133

General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland Vs. Overtoun, (1904) AC 515

Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341

Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319

S. Partap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72

Short Vs. Poole Corpn., (1926) Ch 66

Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Bros., (1992) 1 SCC 534

State of A.P. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149

Facts:

The case involves the assessment of property tax under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994, with specific reference to Section 63. The appellant, State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., contested the assessment, and the High Court's decision was based on bye-law 12 of the New Delhi Municipal Committee Byelaws.

Issues:

Validity of the assessment of property tax under the NDMC Act.

Applicability and validity of bye-law 12 in property tax assessment.

Determination of rateable value for self-occupied and sub-let premises.

Held:

The court sets aside the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the assessment must be based on the provisions of the NDMC Act. For self-occupied buildings, the annual rent is to be fixed according to what the landlord might reasonably expect to receive. In the case of sub-let premises, the 25% payment to the Government of India by the lessee is considered inflated, and the rateable value is to be fixed at 75% of the amount received from the sub-lessee. The assessing officer is directed to complete the assessment for the disputed period within three months. The appeals are allowed as above with no order as to costs.

Referred Cases:

Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1980) 1 SCC 685

India Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, (2002) 3 SCC 388

Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran HUF Vs. Union of India, (2002) 95 Delhi Law Times 508 2002DB