Facts:

The state of Kerala aimed to achieve a liquor-free environment through various measures, including control over manufacture, wholesale and retail supply, and consumption. The policy included restrictions on public consumption of alcohol.

Issues:

Whether the exclusion of five-star hotels from the ban on serving alcohol in their bars is constitutionally valid under Article 14 and Article 47.

Held

The state's policy consists of three elements: control over manufacture, wholesale and retail supply, and consumption of alcohol. The policy is aimed at curbing alcohol consumption, which is disproportionately high in Kerala compared to other states.

Article 14 allows for reasonable classifications, and Article 47 imposes a responsibility on state governments to contain or curtail alcohol consumption. The policy to ban public consumption of alcohol except in five-star hotels is encouraged by the court.

The court found the classification of hotels based on star ratings reasonable and not arbitrary. The exemption for five-star hotels from the ban on public consumption of alcohol is justified, particularly considering tourism considerations.

Judicial review of state policy should only occur if it is arbitrary, unfair, or violates fundamental rights. Courts should give reasonable time for state policies to be effective.

The state should review its policy if there is an increase in alcohol consumption or laxity in enforcement. The court also noted the socio-economic impact of the policy, including job losses in the bar industry.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, upholding the state's policy on alcohol consumption, including the exemption for five-star hotels.

Facts:

The case pertains to the issuance of Government Order (G.O.) No. 118 dated May 23, 2006, by the Tamil Nadu government, which stated that any Hindu possessing the required qualifications and training could be appointed as an Archaka in Hindu temples.

Issues:

The primary issue before the court was the validity of G.O. No. 118 dated May 23, 2006, and whether appointments of Archakas should be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to conformity with constitutional mandates and principles.

Held:

The court held that appointments of Archakas should be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to their due identification and conformity with constitutional mandates and principles.

The rights guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution are circumscribed and to be enjoyed within constitutionally permissible parameters. The court clarified that it is within its duty as the Constitutional arbiter to determine whether a belief or practice claimed is a fundamental part of religious practice.

The validity of the G.O. depends on whether the prescriptions under a particular Agama or Agamas are contrary to any constitutional mandate. The court highlighted that the blanket fiat of the G.O. allowing any Hindu possessing the requisite qualification to be appointed as an Archaka may potentially violate constitutional principles.

The court rejected the argument that the writ petitions were not maintainable, stating that the institution of a writ proceeding does not need to await actual prejudice. The issue raised concerns religious faith and practice, which is of public interest.

Facts:

The informant alleged that her father-in-law and husband were murdered at their house by several assailants.

Charges were filed against multiple accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act.

The Trial Court convicted the accused, while the High Court acquitted one and upheld the conviction of the others.

Appeals were filed challenging the High Court's judgment.

Issues:

Whether the convictions and sentences imposed by the Trial Court were justified.

Whether the acquittal of one accused and the convictions of the others by the High Court were proper.

Whether there were procedural irregularities in the filing of the FIR and inquest report.

Held:

The Court, after thorough examination, upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeals. It found that while there were discrepancies in the initial statements regarding one of the accused, the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the others.

The Court also addressed arguments for enhancement of sentences but declined to intervene, considering the principles of criminal jurisprudence and the circumstances of the case.

Facts:

The appellant and his wife went on a honeymoon trip after four months of marriage and spent several days together.

Upon their return journey, the wife disappeared from the train.

A few days later, a dead body of a woman was found near the railway track, but it was unrecognizable.

Despite initial suspicions, further investigation revealed discrepancies, including differences in clothing and doubts from family members about the identity of the body.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution could establish beyond reasonable doubt that the dead body was that of the appellant's wife and that her death was unnatural.

Whether the prosecution could prove charges related to dowry demand and harassment under various sections of the Penal Code.

Held:

The testimony of witnesses established that the wife was seen alive with the appellant in the train till a station far away from where the dead body was found, making it unlikely that the body was hers.

The post-mortem report and other evidence cast doubt on the identity of the dead body as that of the appellant's wife.

The prosecution failed to provide evidence on how and when poison was administered to the deceased, despite finding poisonous substances in the body.

The DNA test conducted at a private laboratory lacked credibility due to procedural deficiencies.

The prosecution's case lacked direct evidence and relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, which did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The investigation process was criticized for various shortcomings, including the failure to produce crucial evidence and conduct proper tests.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be set at liberty as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts:

The case pertains to a dispute regarding the Reserve Bank of India's obligation to disclose information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), particularly concerning its relationship with other banks and the extent of fiduciary duty involved.

Issues:

Whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is obligated to disclose certain information under the RTI Act, and if so, to what extent.

Additionally, the court addresses the concept of fiduciary relationships in the context of RBI's interactions with other banks.

Held:

The Court affirms the importance of the right to information as a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and the enactment of the RTI Act to facilitate access to information on matters of public concern.

While acknowledging that the right to information is not absolute, the Court emphasizes the necessity of transparency and accountability in governance.

Regarding fiduciary relationships, the Court clarifies that the RBI's duty primarily lies in upholding the interest of the public at large, rather than fostering a fiduciary relationship with other banks.

The Court rejects the RBI's argument that disclosing certain information would harm the economic interest of the nation, stating that transparency serves the public interest and prevents the concealment of irregularities.

It is affirmed that the RBI, as a public authority, is bound by the provisions of the RTI Act, and withholding information on grounds such as economic interest or fiduciary relationship is not justified in this case.

Facts:

Hari Shankar Vidyarthi married Savitri Vidyarthi and later married Rama Vidyarthi. Rama Vidyarthi purchased a property, which was claimed to be joint family property.

Various suits were filed regarding the property, with disputes arising over its ownership and division among family members.

The appellant, Shreya Vidyarthi, contested the claims made by Ashok Vidyarthi, the respondent, regarding the property.

Issues:

Whether the property was purchased using joint family funds or Rama Vidyarthi's personal funds.

Whether a Hindu widow can act as the manager of an HUF and look after the affairs of a minor coparcener.

The legality of the High Court's decision regarding the partition of the property and the apportionment of shares.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the property was purchased using joint family funds, including insurance money received by Rama Vidyarthi. Thus, it was considered joint family property.

The court clarified that while Hindu widows cannot act as Karta (head) of the HUF, they can act as managers in their capacity as legal guardians of minor coparceners. This distinction was crucial, and Rama Vidyarthi's management role was deemed legitimate.

The court found no error in the High Court's decision regarding the apportionment of shares in the property among the parties involved.

The previous litigation history did not affect the maintainability of the current suit.

The appeals were dismissed, and each party was left to bear its own costs.

Facts:

The Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee filed a claim for recording the lands in favor of the Temple, which were previously vested in the State Government under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951.

The Math challenged this claim, asserting that the lands were accorded the status of 'amrutamanohi' and recorded as Trust Estate under Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act. The dispute arose due to conflicting provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, and the OEA Act, 1951.

Issues:

Whether the lands belonging to the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri were vested in the Temple Management Committee under the Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955?

Whether the provisions of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, could divest the Temple Committee of its vested lands?

What was the effect of the conflicting provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, and the OEA Act, 1951, on the status of the Temple lands?

Held:

The Court struck down the first part of the proviso of Section 2(oo) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, which pertained to the properties of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri.

It quashed the notification issued by the State Government under Section 3A of the OEA Act, 1951, to the extent it applied to the lands and estate of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri.

The Court clarified that the decision in the previous case of Lord Jagannath did not bar the instant case by res judicata.

The Court also deemed the previous judgment to be per incuriam, as it was passed without considering the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955.

The Court emphasized the primacy of the Temple Act, 1955, over any other legislation concerning the Jagannath Temple lands, stating that the Temple lands were already vested in the Temple Management Committee under this Act.

The Court held that the conflicting provisions of the OEA Act, 1951, and the Temple Act, 1955, could not coexist, and struck down the first part of the proviso to maintain the effectiveness of both acts.

Additionally, the Court ruled that the lands of the Jagannath Temple at Puri were already vested in the Temple Committee under the Temple Act, 1955, and could not be divested by applying the provisions of the OEA Act, 1951.

The Court concluded that since the provisions of the OEA Act, 1951, had no application to the lands of the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri, there was no need to pass an order in favor of the Temple under the OEA Act, 1951.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal against the acquittal of two accused persons, the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, by the High Court of Bombay.

The deceased, Asha Hemant Chauriwal, suffered burn injuries and subsequently died due to septicemia.

The prosecution's case relied on a dying declaration made by the deceased and alleged letters written by her to her father, indicating cruelty by her in-laws.

Issues:

The Trial Court convicted the accused based on these evidences, but the High Court acquitted them, citing lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by both sides.

It observed several discrepancies and lapses in the investigation and handling of evidence by the prosecution.

Held:

The Court upheld the High Court's judgment of acquittal, finding no compelling reasons to interfere.

The dying declaration lacked proper corroboration, and the circumstances surrounding its recording raised doubts about its reliability.

The alleged letters were not adequately proven to be written by the deceased, and contradictions in witness testimonies further weakened the prosecution's case.

The Investigating Officer failed to conduct a thorough investigation, which could have clarified important aspects of the case.

Therefore, the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra were dismissed.

Facts:

The incident occurred on 9th October 2002, involving the accused persons allegedly assaulting and causing the death of Ashok Kumar.

Eyewitnesses provided testimony, and circumstantial evidence was presented by the prosecution.

The Trial Court convicted the accused, but the High Court later acquitted them due to gaps and discrepancies in the evidence.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the High Court's decision to acquit the accused was justified based on the evidence presented.

Held:

The Supreme Court examined the testimonies and evidence presented before it and found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key eyewitnesses, including the complainant and another witness, turned hostile during the trial, casting doubt on the reliability of their testimonies.

The Court noted inconsistencies in witness statements and highlighted deficiencies in the medical evidence provided by the prosecution. While a motive was established through witness testimony, it was not substantive evidence and could not alone support a conviction.

Based on the above analysis, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit the accused persons. It found no grounds to interfere with the judgment and dismissed the appeals.