Co-operative Societies - Membership Disputes - Right to Housing Facilities – Appeal involving complex disputes among members of a cooperative housing society – High Court orders reviewed – Dispute over the inclusion of 37 new members in the society and their right to share in the land purchased by the society – Orders issued by various authorities and High Court challenged by society and individual members – Supreme Court examines the validity of memberships and allocation of land rights. [Paras 1-40]

Co-operative Societies - Validity of Membership - Expulsion and Disqualification – Analysis of Bye-laws – Held – The admission of 37 members in 1996 ratified and not subsequently legally rescinded – Valid membership cannot be expunged without following due process as per Bye-laws. [Paras 24-30]

Land Allocation - Distribution in Co-operative Societies – Rights of Original and New Members – Held – Land purchased by society belongs to the society as a whole – Distribution to be based on seniority and in compliance with Bye-laws – Individual investments by members towards land purchase do not confer exclusive rights. [Paras 31-36]

Decision – Directions Issued for Settlement – Supreme Court issues comprehensive directions for conducting fresh elections, validating memberships, and proper distribution of land – Orders of High Court set aside – Appeals allowed with specified directions for resolving disputes in accordance with cooperative principles. [Paras 39-40]

Referred Cases: Not specifically listed in the judgment provided.

Land Acquisition - Quashing of Acquisition Proceedings – Civil Appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi quashing land acquisition proceedings for non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Notification under Section 4 issued for planned development of Delhi – Objections under Section 5A filed but not considered in strict compliance with natural justice – High Court held the proceedings vitiated due to report submission by a successor officer – Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming High Court's decision – Observed non-compliance with Section 5A violated principles of natural justice – Held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if physical possession not taken or compensation not paid within five years. [Paras 1-25]

Role of Natural Justice in Land Acquisition – Analysis – Held – Natural justice principles must be strictly followed in acquisition proceedings – Objections under Section 5A entail a substantive right for the landowner – Successor officer submitting a report without a fresh hearing vitiates the process – Emphasized mandatory hearing and report submission by the same officer who heard objections – Reiterated the significance of procedural compliance for lawful land acquisition. [Para 8-15]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, concurring with the High Court that land acquisition proceedings were invalid due to procedural lapses and violation of natural justice principles – Clarified lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Directed fresh acquisition proceedings if necessary under the 2013 Act. [Para 20-30]

Referred Cases:

Ezra v. The Secretary of State and Others Women Education Trust and Another v. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2013 SC 2488

Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. The Designated Authority and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 258

Abhey Ram (dead) by LRs. and others v. Union of India and others, (1997) 5 SCC 421

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 627

Munshi Singh and Others v. Union of India (UOI), (1973) 2 SCC 337

Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 1959 SC 308

Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 586

Nandeshwar Prasad and Another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1217

Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 183

Om Parkash v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 17

Rasid Javed and Others v. State of U.P. and Another etc. etc., (2010) 7 SCC 781

Dev Sharan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 769

Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 296

Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 210

Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 11 SCC 242

Ivo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes and Others v. Government of Goa and Another, (2011) 11 SCC 506

Union of India (UOI) and Others v. Mukesh Hans etc., (2004) 8 SCC 14

Prem Nath Kapur and Another v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. and Others, (1996) 2 SCC 71

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and Others, (2012) 1 SCC 792

Smt. Chatro Devi and Others v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2007) 137 DLT 14

B.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Others, (1989) 16 DRJ 225 Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 117 DLT 753

Criminal Law - Recall of Order - Jurisdiction of High Court - Section 362 CrPC – High Court recalled an order dictated in open court acquitting the appellants, citing the need for further examination of the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. Supreme Court held that until a judgment is signed and sealed, it is not final and can be recalled or altered. Thus, the High Court had the jurisdiction to recall its dictated order. [Paras 4-11]

Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 197 CrPC – The necessity of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting police officers was questioned. Supreme Court held that the issue of sanction must be thoroughly examined to determine if the actions of the accused were committed in the discharge of their official duties. [Para 2(D)]

Criminal Law - Role of Police Escort - Escape of Accused – Appellants, who were police escort personnel, were convicted under various IPC sections for allowing an accused to escape custody after being allegedly poisoned. The Supreme Court reiterated the heavy responsibility on judges to ensure justice, emphasizing that until a judgment is formally signed, it can be reconsidered. [Paras 4-10]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition – The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court’s procedure of recalling the dictated order before it was signed, thereby allowing the case to be reheard on the issue of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. [Paras 11-12]

Referred Cases:

Sangam Lal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Others, AIR 1966 All 221

Surendra Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 194

Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1880

Amodini Dasee v. Darsan Ghose, ILR (Cal) 1911

State of Bombay v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. (No. 2), AIR 1951 Bom 49

Constitutional Law - Appointment of Registrar - Quasi-Judicial Functions - Special Leave Petition challenging the constitutionality of provisions allowing non-legal persons to be appointed as Registrars and other officers in the Co-operative Department - Petitioner argued that such appointments were unconstitutional as these officers perform judicial functions without legal training - Supreme Court held that the Registrar's functions are primarily administrative, with limited quasi-judicial powers subject to appeal before a judicial tribunal - Provisions allowing non-legal appointments upheld. [Paras 1-13]

Administrative Law - Termination of Officers - Power of State Government - Special Leave Petition challenged the State Government's power to terminate the appointment of the Chairman or a member of the Tribunal - Supreme Court held that the power to terminate is vested in the appointing authority and is subject to principles of natural justice and judicial review - Provision upheld as it includes safeguards against arbitrary termination. [Paras 14-15]

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Maintainability - Petitioner challenged on grounds of personal interest - Supreme Court found the Petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands, having multiple pending litigations, questioning the maintainability of the PIL - Despite the Petitioner's standing, the Court addressed the constitutional issues on merit. [Para 2]

Judicial Review - Administrative Appointments - Supreme Court emphasized the need for suitable appointments considering the administrative and quasi-judicial roles of the Registrar and Tribunal members - Directed that appointments be made by the Public Service Commission in consultation with the High Court, adhering to guidelines for selecting experienced and suitable candidates. [Paras 20-21]

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed subject to directions for suitable appointments in the Co-operative Department.

Referred Cases:

State of Gujarat and Another v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association and Another, AIR 2013 SC 107

Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another, AIR 1967 SC 1494

P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India, (2000) 5 SCC 355

Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and Others, AIR 2002 SC 2158

Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, AIR 1995 SC 2272

Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745

Maharashtra Co-operative Courts Bar Association, Bombay and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 3 BomCR 437

Constitutional Law – Amendment Validity – Basic Structure Doctrine – Constitutionality of Articles 15(5) and 21AArticle 15(5), enabling the State to make special provisions for admission in educational institutions, and Article 21A, mandating free and compulsory education, do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Both provisions aim to provide equal educational opportunities without destroying the autonomy of private educational institutions or minority institutions. [Paras 16-29]

Right to Education – Interpretation and Scope – Constitutional ObligationArticle 21A imposes the obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education for children aged 6-14 years. The inclusion of private unaided institutions under the Right to Education Act, 2009 is constitutionally valid, provided the State compensates these institutions adequately. [Paras 40-44]

Minority Institutions – Autonomy and Rights – Impact of Right to Education Act, 2009Minority institutions, whether aided or unaided, enjoy protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Right to Education Act, 2009, cannot force minority institutions to admit students from non-minority communities if such admission affects the minority character of these institutions. [Paras 45-46]

Decision – Validity and Application of Constitutional Amendments and LegislationThe Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 (inserting Article 15(5)) and the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 (inserting Article 21A) are constitutionally valid. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is valid concerning non-minority private unaided institutions but ultra vires when applied to minority institutions under Article 30(1). [Paras 47]

Referred Cases:

Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789

Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3724

Miss. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858

Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 2012 SC 3445

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477

The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389

Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 119

P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 59

Shrimati Vidya Verma v. Dr. Shiv Narain Verma, AIR 1956 SC 108

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490

P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 3226

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355

Dr M. Ismail Frauqui v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 605

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304B IPC - Conviction of Appellant No. 2 (mother-in-law) upheld - Conviction of Appellant No. 1 (husband) overturned due to lack of evidence connecting him directly to dowry demands or cruelty soon before death - Held that immediate cause of suicide was dowry-related quarrel with Appellant No. 2 - Sentence reduced from 10 years to 7 years R.I. for Appellant No. 2 considering mitigating circumstances - [Paras 26-36]

Dying Declaration - Admissibility - Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act - Dying declaration of the deceased, Sunita, recorded in the presence of a Magistrate and certified by a doctor as being given in a fit state of mind, held credible and trustworthy despite being challenged on grounds of possible tutoring and not being in Q&A format - Declared strong evidence against Appellant No. 2 but not sufficient against Appellant No. 1 who was declared innocent by the deceased in her statement - [Paras 28-30]

Cruelty - Section 498A IPC - Conviction of Appellant No. 2 (mother-in-law) for subjecting deceased to cruelty for dowry demands upheld based on credible evidence including letters and witness testimonies - Conviction of Appellant No. 1 (husband) overturned due to absence of direct evidence linking him to acts of cruelty or harassment for dowry - [Paras 31-33]

Decision - Conviction of Appellant No. 2 under Sections 498A and 304B IPC affirmed with a reduced sentence - Conviction of Appellant No. 1 under Sections 498A and 304B IPC overturned due to insufficient evidence - [Paras 32-36]

Referred Cases: Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457 Muthu Kutty and Another v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 113 Sakatar Singh and Others v. State of Haryana, (2004) 11 SCC 291

Constitutional Law – Medium of Instruction – Fundamental Rights – Government Order issued by Karnataka prescribing mother tongue or Kannada as the medium of instruction in classes I to IV – Order challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 29(1), and 30(1) – Court held that the right to choose a medium of instruction is part of the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry on any occupation – Imposing mother tongue or Kannada as the medium of instruction violates these fundamental rights. [Paras 27-42]

Interpretation of "Mother Tongue" – Constitutional Provision – Mother tongue as used in Article 350A interpreted – Determined to be the language of the linguistic minority as declared by the parent or guardian – State cannot enforce mother tongue as medium of instruction by compulsory measures. [Paras 24-26]

Educational Institutions – Right to Establish and Administer – Rights of Minority Institutions under Article 30(1) – Right to choose the medium of instruction – The imposition of mother tongue as medium violates Article 30(1) – The State's power to regulate does not extend to prescribing the medium of instruction for minority and private unaided schools. [Paras 35-39]

Decision – Karnataka's Government Order dated 29.04.1994 prescribing mother tongue or Kannada as the medium of instruction for classes I to IV in all Government recognized schools struck down – Appeals by the State of Karnataka dismissed – The order violates Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 30(1) – Linguistic minorities cannot be compelled under Article 350A to choose their mother tongue as the medium of instruction. [Paras 43-45]

Referred Cases:

English Medium Students Parents Association Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1994 SC 1702 : (1993) 6 JT 634 : (1993) 4 SCALE 627 : (1994) 1 SCC 550 : (1993) 3 SCR 934 Supp : (1994) 1 UJ 291

Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., AIR 1993 SC 2178 : (1993) 1 JT 474 : (1993) 1 SCALE 290 : (1992) 2 SCALE 703 : (1993) 1 SCC 645 : (1993) 1 SCR 594

Rev. Father W. Proost and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1969 SC 465 : (1969) 2 SCR 73

The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, AIR 1974 SC 1389 : (1974) 1 SCC 717 : (1975) 1 SCR 173

The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad Vs. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Others, AIR 1963 SC 703 : (1963) 1 SCR 112 Supp

In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957. Reference Under Article 143(1) of The Constitution of India, AIR 1958 SC 956 : (1959) 1 SCR 995

The State of Bombay Vs. Bombay Education Society and Others, AIR 1954 SC 561 : (1955) 1 SCR 568

Romesh Thappar Vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 : (1950) CriLJ 1514 : (1950) 1 SCR 594

A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 : (1950) CriLJ 1383 : (1950) 1 SCR 88

Bennett Coleman and Co. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1973 SC 106 : (1972) 2 SCC 788 : (1973) 2 SCR 757

D.A.V. College, Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1971 SC 1737 : (1971) 2 SCC 269 : (1971) SCR 688 Supp

Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union of India (UOI), AIR 1962 SC 305 : (1962) 3 SCR 842

Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others, AIR 1995 SC 1236 : (1995) 2 JT 110 : (1995) 1 SCALE 539 : (1995) 2 SCC 161 : (1995) 1 SCR 1036

Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lokvidayan Sanghatana and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1642 : (1988) 3 JT 66 : (1988) 2 SCALE 34 : (1988) 3 SCC 410 : (1988) 1 SCR 486 Supp : (1988) 2 UJ 325

P.A. Inamdar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3226 : (2005) 4 CTC 81 : (2005) 3 ESC 373 : (2005) 7 JT 313 : (2004) 8 SCC 139 : (2005) 2 SCR 603 Supp : (2005) 2 UJ 1176 : (2005) AIRSCW 3923 : (2005) 5 Supreme 544

Usha Mehta and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2004) 5 SCALE 800 : (2004) 6 SCC 264 : (2004) 3 SCR 226 Supp : (2004) 2 UJ 1399

T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2003 SC 355 : (2002) 9 JT 1 : (2002) 8 SCC 481

Property Law – Ownership and Tenancy Dispute – Civil Appeal challenging High Court order dismissing Revision Application affirming lower court decisions – Property located in Pune Cantonment initially granted under old grant terms – Land resumed by Government under terms of old grant – Government Grants Act, 1895 stipulates Government's right to resume property despite any statutory provisions to the contrary – Held, the land belongs to Union of India, only superstructure owned by respondents – Lower courts erred in determining tenancy relationship – High Court's judgment set aside – Civil Suit dismissed. [Paras 1-56]

Government Grants – Applicability of Government Grants Act, 1895 – Held – Section 2 exempts Government grants from the Transfer of Property Act – Section 3 ensures grants take effect according to their tenor despite conflicting laws – Government retains right to resume property under old grant terms – Appellate courts misinterpreted applicability of tenancy laws over Government grant conditions. [Para 38-43]

Resumption of Property – Right of Union of India – Analysis – Held – Government's notice of resumption of property in Pune Cantonment under Old Grant terms lawful – Possession of property lawfully resumed by Government – Respondents only hold rights over superstructure, not the land – Civil suits and lower court judgments based on misinterpretation of legal status of property and rights of parties. [Para 30-54]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court, Appellate and Trial Court judgments set aside – Civil Suit No. 695/1999 dismissed – Union of India's right to resume property upheld – No order as to costs. [Para 55-56]

Referred Cases:

Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra Kumar Vakil and Others, AIR 1999 SC 2294 : (1999) 2 JT 315 : (1999) 2 SCALE 208 : (1999) 3 SCC 555 : (1999) 2 SCR 118 : (1999) AIRSCW 2360 : (1999) 3 Supreme 369

Azim Ahmad Kazmi and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 6 JT 603 : (2012) 6 SCALE 434 : (2012) 7 SCC 278

Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Kamla Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 511 : (2010) 9 SCR 1157

Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria Vs. H.C. Vashistha and Others, AIR 1980 Bom 9

Final Result : Allowed

Criminal Law – Summoning Of Call Detail Records (CDR) Of Investigating Officers - Electronic Evidence – Fair Trial – Appellant accused of possession of heroin and alprazolam, arrested by NCB officers near Yashica Palace hotel, Indore – Appellant disputed arrest location and sought mobile tower location and call data records of the arresting officers to demonstrate they were elsewhere – Trial Court and High Court rejected plea – Held: Call detail records admissible under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act – Accused has a right to summon relevant electronic records to support defence – Denial amounts to violation of fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 2–6]

Right to Fair Trial vs. Investigative Secrecy – Respondent contended that providing full CDRs could expose confidential investigation details and sources – Court accepted limited concern but held that privacy of officers can be protected by redacting numbers of calls made/received – Only tower location and timing relevant to the accused’s defence needs to be disclosed – Interest of justice best served by balancing both rights [Paras 4, 7]

Judicial Directions – Trial Court directed to summon call detail records from service providers for three mobile numbers (including accused's and officers') for specified time – Service providers to redact incoming and outgoing phone numbers – Appeal allowed – Trial to proceed without prejudice to the prosecution [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Trial Court directed to summon redacted CDRs and tower location records for relevant mobile numbers and timeframe – Only location information to be used, phone numbers to be blacked out to protect privacy and investigative integrity [Para 7]