Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 24 – Permanent Alimony – Enhancement of Amount – Civil Appeal against the order of High Court of Madras modifying the Family Court's alimony award – The High Court increased the permanent alimony from Rs. 24 lakhs to Rs. 40 lakhs, considering the cost of living and maintenance needs of the Appellant wife – The Supreme Court further enhanced the alimony by Rs. 15 lakhs to ensure a stable monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 40,000 – Held that fluctuating interest rates on fixed deposits necessitated additional amount to sustain monthly maintenance – Appeal partly allowed.

Family Law – Maintenance – Calculation of Alimony – Analysis – Held – The High Court’s decision to increase the alimony was based on a detailed assessment of the wife’s monthly needs and living expenses – Supreme Court found merit in Appellant's plea for further enhancement due to fluctuating interest rates impacting the returns on fixed deposits – Directed Respondent to pay additional Rs. 15 lakhs within 8 weeks.

Decision – Enhancement of Permanent Alimony – Court directs Respondent to pay an additional Rs. 15 lakhs to Appellant – This ensures the Appellant receives Rs. 40,000 per month as maintenance, accounting for interest rate fluctuations – Appeal disposed of with no order as to costs.

Referred Cases:

None

Employment Law – Termination of Service – Disciplinary Proceedings – Procedural Fairness –Criminal charges and termination of employment without enquiry – Appellant terminated under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution – Labour Court and High Court's affirmation of termination on grounds of public interest – Supreme Court held termination invalid due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice – No proper enquiry conducted – Failure to issue show cause notice – Labour Court's rejection of reference on limitation grounds erroneous – Reference of industrial dispute by State Government not time-barred – Award of reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits [Paras 1-43].

Industrial Dispute – Limitation – Reference to Labour Court –Industrial dispute raised after acquittal in a criminal case – State Government's power to refer dispute at any time under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act – Delay in raising dispute does not extinguish it – Labour Court's duty to adjudicate dispute on merits – Rejection of reference by Labour Court on limitation grounds without adjudication on merits erroneous – Reference made within reasonable time [Para 11-13, 27].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Quantum of Punishment –Disproportionate punishment – Termination for alleged unauthorized absence held disproportionate to misconduct – Doctrine of proportionality applied – Termination order shocks the conscience of the Court – Employment termination affecting fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 – Reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits warranted [Paras 35-39].

Reinstatement and Back Wages – Industrial Jurisprudence –Reinstatement with full back wages from the date of raising the industrial dispute – Labour Court's failure to mould relief appropriately – Court's duty to ensure justice and address employee's hardship due to illegal termination – Relief granted to ensure livelihood and compliance with natural justice [Paras 22-24, 40-43].

Decision – Termination Order Set Aside – Reinstatement with Back Wages –Impugned award of the Labour Court and judgment & order of the High Court set aside – Appellant reinstated with back wages from the date of raising the dispute – Consequential benefits including continuity of service and wage revisions awarded – Direction for compliance within six weeks [Paras 41-43].

Referred Cases:

Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651

The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management, (1973) 1 SCC 813

Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.), (2013) 10 SCC 324

Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2000) 7 SCC 511

Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611

U.P. Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 299

Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, (1980) 3 SCC 459

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641

Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board, (2001) 6 SCC 222

Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, (1979) 1 SCC 1

Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited, (1999) 6 SCC 82

Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727

Calcutta Dock Labour Board v. Jaffar Imam, (1965) 3 SCR 453

Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588

Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1958) 1 LLJ 260

Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation v. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545

B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749

G.B. Mahajan v. The Jalgaon Municipal Council, (1991) 3 SCC 91

S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom, District Manager, Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 27

Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187

Criminal Law - Conviction based on Dying Declaration – Criminal Appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC – Victim sustained 95% burns and provided a dying declaration implicating the appellant – Trial court and High Court upheld conviction based on dying declaration – Supreme Court examined the reliability and voluntariness of the dying declaration – Found no evidence of tutoring or coercion – Held that the dying declaration was reliable, voluntary, and truthful – Conviction under Section 302 IPC confirmed. [Paras 1-20]

Admissibility and Reliability of Dying Declaration – Analysis – Held – The court emphasized that a dying declaration, if found to be true and voluntary, does not require corroboration – Evaluated the state of mind of the victim, confirmed by medical opinion, and the absence of contradictions in the statement – Noted that the victim had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant – Dismissed the defense's argument of the victim committing suicide due to infertility-related depression. [Para 11-19]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the lower courts – Found the defense's alternate hypothesis of suicide to be unconvincing – Appeal dismissed. [Para 20]

Referred Cases:

Muthu Kutty and Another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2005) 1 DMC 53 : (2004) 10 JT 538 : (2004) 9 SCALE 520 : (2005) 9 SCC 113

Rasheed Beg and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 332 : (1974) CriLJ 361 : (1974) 4 SCC 264 : (1974) SCC(Cri) 426 : (1974) 6 UJ 68

Ramawati Devi Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 164 : (1983) CriLJ 221 : (1983) 1 Crimes 637 : (1983) 1 SCALE 1 : (1983) 1 SCC 211

K. Ramachandra Reddy and Another Vs. The Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 1994 : (1976) CriLJ 1548 : (1976) 3 SCC 618 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 473 : (1976) SCR 542 Supp

Gopalsingh and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, AIR 1972 SC 1557 : (1972) CriLJ 1045 : (1972) 3 SCC 268 : (1972) SCC(Cri) 513 : (1972) 4 UJ 784

Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 839 : (1983) 1 Crimes 83 : (1982) 1 SCALE 143 : (1982) 1 SCC 700 : (1982) 3 SCR 277

Khushal Rao Vs. The State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 : (1958) CriLJ 106 : (1958) 1 SCR 552

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Sagar Yadav and Others, AIR 1985 SC 416 : (1986) CriLJ 836 : (1985) 1 Crimes 344 : (1985) 1 SCALE 108 : (1985) 1 SCC 552 : (1985) 2 SCR 621

Harbans Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439 : (1962) 1 SCR 104

Supp State of U.P. Vs. Madan Mohan and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1519 : (1989) CriLJ 1485 : (1989) 2 Crimes 467 : (1989) 2 JT 158 : (1989) 1 SCALE 1087 : (1989) 3 SCC 390

Munnu Raja and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2199 : (1976) CriLJ 1718 : (1976) 3 SCC 104 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 376 : (1976) 2 SCR 764 : (1976) 8 UJ 154

Smt. Paniben Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 1817 : (1992) CriLJ 2919 : (1992) 1 Crimes 1180 : (1992) 4 JT 397 : (1992) 1 SCALE 655 : (1992) 2 SCC 474 : (1992) 2 SCR 197

Ram Manorath and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 1 SCALE 527 : (1981) 2 SCC 654 : (1981) SCC(Cri) 581 : (1981) 3 SCR 195

Constitutional Law – Review of death penalty cases – Criminal Procedure – Petitioners sought oral hearing for review petitions in death penalty cases, challenging Rule 3 of Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which stipulates disposal of review petitions by circulation without oral arguments. Petitioners argued that such a rule violates Article 21 of the Constitution due to the irreversibility of the death penalty and the necessity of a just, fair, and reasonable procedure.

Held – Supreme Court recognized the unique and irreversible nature of the death penalty, emphasizing the necessity of providing a limited oral hearing at the review stage to ensure a fair procedure under Article 21. Consequently, the Court carved out an exception for death penalty cases from the general rule of disposing review petitions by circulation.

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Procedure – The Court reaffirmed the inherent power to review its own judgments under Article 137, subject to rules made under Article 145. The Court noted that procedural fairness, especially in death penalty cases, necessitates an oral hearing even at the review stage.

Decision – The Supreme Court mandated limited oral hearings for review petitions in death penalty cases, ensuring that convicts on death row receive a just, fair, and reasonable procedure. This decision applies to pending review petitions and future filings. The judgment further specified that convicts whose review petitions were dismissed but whose death sentences were not executed could seek reopening of their review petitions within one month of this judgment.

Referred Cases:

Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 3040

Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1980 SC 1789

Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1335

Subbaiah Ambalam v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1977 SC 2046

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others etc., AIR 1980 SC 1579

Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1978 SC 597

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898

Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1963 SC 1295

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845

Shatrughan Chauhan and Another v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2014) AIRSCW 793

Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1970 SC 564

A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27

Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473

V. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1368

Remdeo Chauhan @ Rajnath Chauhan v. Bani Kant Das and Others, AIR 2011 SC 615

Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498

Devender Pal Singh v. State, N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, AIR 2003 SC 886

Aloke Nath Dutta and Others v. State of West Bengal, (2006) 13 SCALE 467

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appeal against life imprisonment for murder – Appellant allegedly killed his wife using a wooden bar – Extra-judicial confession to PW-1 and PW-2, with corroborating medical evidence – Trial court convicted under Section 302 IPC – High Court affirmed the conviction.

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Absence of Explanation – Accused did not offer any explanation during examination under Section 313 – Courts inferred guilt from absence of explanation and corroborative evidence.

Re-evaluation of Evidence – Appeal – Supreme Court re-evaluated the evidence – Weapon used was a wooden stick – No direct evidence of intention to kill – Evidence suggested severe beating, leading to death – Alteration of conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC.

Decision – Partly allowing the appeal – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC – Appellant sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment – Considering time already served, appellant’s bail bonds discharged – Fine and default clause upheld.

Referred Cases:

Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1966 AIR 43

Laxman Singh v. Poonam Singh, 1969 AIR 601

Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1956 AIR 460

Constitutional Law – Equal Protection – Civil Appeal against the termination of police constables due to height measurement inaccuracies – Appellants selected based on height exceeding the minimum requirement – Dismissed after four years of service due to discrepancies in recorded height upon re-measurement – Supreme Court examines whether height alone can be a criterion for selection and the harshness of termination after prolonged service – Held that while the manipulation was established, the termination was excessively harsh given the department’s responsibility for accurate recording – Ordered fresh appointment without back wages or continuity of service. [Paras 1-13]

Recruitment Process – Criteria for Selection – Analysis – Supreme Court evaluates the validity of height as the sole criterion for police constable selection – Notes the revised recruitment rules which incorporate a merit list based on written examination and physical tests, reflecting the state's dissatisfaction with height as the exclusive selection criterion. [Paras 5-6]

Decision – Reinstatement of Appellants – Appellants to be given fresh appointments as constables within three months – No back wages or continuity of service due to the established manipulation of height measurements – Emphasizes the department's accountability in accurate recording and the harshness of immediate termination after extended service. [Paras 12-13]

Referred Cases:

State of Bihar and Ors. v. Mal Babu Sharma [Civil Appeal No. 2711 of 2002]

State of Bihar and Ors. v. Mal Babu Sharma [Civil Appeal No. 2711 of 2002 arising out of S.LP. (C) No. 21688 of 2001]

Civil Procedure - Eviction Petition under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - NRI landlord seeking eviction - Appeal against High Court dismissal - Appellant landlord had spent over 30 years in the UK, returned to India, filed eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, claiming need of premises for personal use - High Court and Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant failed to prove ownership for five years - Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' orders, held that respondent-tenant, having admitted tenancy, was estopped from disputing landlord's title. [Paras 1-25]

Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Estoppel - Analysis - Tenant in possession of property estopped from denying landlord's title - Supreme Court reiterated principle that tenant cannot challenge landlord's ownership during tenancy - Appellant's ownership established for over five years as required by Section 13-B - Tenant's admission of tenancy suffices to establish ownership for eviction purposes. [Para 10-17]

Beneficial Legislation - NRI Landlord's Right to Evict - Section 13-B is a beneficial provision aimed at providing speedy remedy to NRIs - Supreme Court emphasized that NRIs should not be in a worse position compared to resident landlords - Doctrine of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act applicable to NRI landlords. [Para 18]

Decision - Eviction Ordered - Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside lower courts' decisions, ordered eviction - Respondent granted time until 31st March 2015 to vacate premises subject to conditions including filing of undertaking, payment of arrears and compensation for use and occupation. [Para 20]

Referred Cases:

Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2335 Re: Stringer's Estate, LR Ch 9 Hari and Anr. v. State of UP 2021 SCC Online SC 1131 Chandran v. State of Kerala (2011) 5 SCC 161

Constitutional Law - Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointments - Civil Appeal against Delhi High Court's Order Affirming Tribunal's Decision - Article 14, 16, 32 - Regularization of General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) Grade-II appointed on ad hoc basis - Appellants appointed between 1986 and 1989 sought regularization from initial appointment dates - High Court upheld Tribunal's decision granting regularization from UPSC recommendation date (24.07.1998) - Supreme Court held that appellants not entitled to regularization from initial appointment dates, citing lack of adherence to recruitment rules and past judgments - Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Equal Treatment of Similarly Situated Employees - Analysis - Held - Both Phase-I (1982-1986) and Phase-II (1986-1989) ad hoc appointments made without UPSC selection - Equal treatment required for regularization purposes - Reference to Anuradha Bodi judgment confirming regularization only from UPSC recommendation dates - Court found no merit in distinguishing between Phase-I and Phase-II GDMOs. [Para 13-14]

Relevant Judgments and Precedents - Analysis - Held - Prior judgments including Direct Recruit Class II, Narender Chadha, and Keshav Chandra Joshi analyzed - Conclusion that long ad hoc service does not merit retroactive regularization unless appointments made per statutory rules - Reaffirmed principle against ad hoc service counting towards seniority in absence of rule-compliant appointments. [Paras 15-19]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals - Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court and Tribunal's decisions - No change to regularization effective from the UPSC recommendation dates - No costs ordered. [Para 19]

Referred Cases:

Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 284

The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607

Dr. Anuradha Bodi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1998 SC 2093

Narender Chadha v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 638

State of W.B. v. Aghore Nath Dey, (1993) 3 SCC 371

Employment Law - Termination for Misrepresentation - Appeal against reinstatement order by High Court – Respondent secured employment as a peon by misrepresenting his educational qualifications, concealing that he was a graduate and pursuing post-graduation – Departmental enquiry found him guilty of misconduct, leading to his removal – High Court ordered reinstatement, deeming the maximum qualification criteria as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and found the penalty discriminatory compared to another similarly situated employee – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. [Paras 1-14]

Regulation and Article Violation – Analysis – Held – Maximum qualification criteria fixed by the appellant (employer) for the post of peon violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as it unfairly excludes overqualified candidates – Supreme Court agreed with High Court's finding that the criteria was unreasonable and discriminatory. [Para 11]

Penalty Discrimination – Examination – Held – Disciplinary action against the respondent was discriminatory in light of a lesser penalty imposed on another employee for similar misconduct – Reinforcement of equal treatment in disciplinary actions by employers. [Para 13]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Life Insurance Corporation of India, thereby affirming the High Court's order of reinstatement and the direction to consider a lesser penalty for the respondent. [Para 14]

Referred Cases:

Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Others v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Others, AIR 2000 SC 919

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav, AIR 2003 SC 1709

Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan and Anr. (2006) 13 SCC 619