Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Feb 13 – Feb 17, 2023
|1) Parliament can convert existing state into union territories: SC rejects plea against govt’s decision in J&K delimitation case
The Court recently held that a parliament by making a law can convert an existing State into one or more Union Territories while dealing with the Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation Commission case.
The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the action of constituting a Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir under the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002 and the exercise of delimitation undertaken by the Commission.
Cause Title- Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka
2) Areas covered by open space regulation cannot be diverted for any other purpose- SC upholds validity of Rule 19 of Development Control Rules
The Court issued clarifications regarding the Development Control Rules (DCR), and has upheld the validity of Rule 19 and Regulation 29(7) of the DCR. It has also clarified that the areas covered by the Open Space Regulation (OSR) cannot be diverted for any other purpose.
Holding that the impugned Rule and Regulation were not bad in law, the Court observed that the case of a person developing land being subjected to the requirement of leaving 10 percent of the property in a situation where more than nearly 2 and a half acres is being developed in an urban metropolis as space for communal and recreational purposes cannot be said to be a person ‘injuriously affected’ within the meaning of Section 39.
Cause Title- Association of Vasanth Appartments' Owners v. V. Gopinath And Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 13, 2023
Coram- Justice KM Joseph and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
3) Death of victim was not caused in heat of sudden fight- Supreme Court upholds conviction U/S. 302 IPC
The Court held that the appellant-accused had been rightly convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court as the accused had committed the murder in a premeditated manner.
In this case, an appeal was preferred against the order of the Kerala High Court wherein the conviction of the appellant-accused under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was upheld, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
On perusal of the medical evidence by the Court, it was noted that the post mortem report revealed that heavy grinding stone was used for the commission of offence and the pressure was applied while injuries were inflicted over the vital parts of body of the victim.
Cause Title- Suresh v. State of Kerala
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
4) Delay either for ministerial or administrative reasons cannot be attributed to allottees under UP Zamindari Abolition Act
The Court observed that if the authority had failed to exercise its power within the stipulated time of one week and there was a delay either for Ministerial or administrative reasons, then it could not be attributed to allottee applicants.
The Court held that if the authority competent has failed to exercise its power vested under Rule 176(4) within the time prescribed which is not within the ambit and control of the allottee applicants, they cannot be saddled with heavy costs for the inaction of the authorities in exercise of the power vested in it.
Cause Title- Kamal and Ors. v. Gajraj & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
5) It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters- SC upholds murder conviction
The Court observed that the quality of witnesses mattered and not the quantity of witnesses and affirmed the conviction and sentence of four persons for the murder of four persons.
In this case, the appeals were preferred by the accused against the order of the High Court whereby conviction under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed. However, sentence awarding death penalty had been commuted to life sentence for all the accused.
Cause Title- Ajai Alias Ajju Etc. Etc. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgment- February 15, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath
6) Provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of decision rendered
The Court observed that the provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order / record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed.
The issue involved in the case, was related to payment of salary to teachers of the institutions which were covered under the Grant-in-Aid list of the Uttar Pradesh Government.
Cause Title- Pancham Pandey v. Neeraj Kumar Mishra
Date of Judgment- February 15, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubhramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
7) HC was not justified in merely relying on circular fixing floor rates: SC sets aside order reducing market value of acquired land
The Court set aside Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Judgment reducing market value in respect of the lands acquired for the construction of Express Highway.
The Court observed that when the parties were before the Court in the first round of litigation, the Court without relying upon the circular fixing floor rates remanded the matter to the reference Court for fresh consideration. The Court noted despite this, the High Court merely relied on the circular providing for the floor rates despite other evidence being available on record.
Cause Title- Ravinder Kumar Goel v. State of Haryana & Ors
Date of Judgment- February 15, 2023
Coram- Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli
8) MV Act| Award of compensation cannot be based on any mathematical formula, must consider nature of suffering & pain
The Court in an appeal relating to a motor accident claim has held that the award of compensation cannot be based on any mathematical formula, but has to be commensurate to the nature of suffering and pain, its extent, length, and duration.
In this case, the appellants while travelling together in the same vehicle met with an accident resulting in severe injuries to both. The Tribunal awarded compensation but being aggrieved with the amount the appellants moved to the High Court and their appeals were partly allowed. Hence, the appellants approached the Supreme Court being dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision.
Cause Title- Chaus Taushif Alimiya v. Memon Mahmmad Umar Anwarbhai & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 16, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Vikram Nath
9) MCD Mayor Elections: Nominated members do not have right to vote including at election of mayor
The Court recently in an issue relating to the election of the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) held that the nominated members do not have a right to vote, including at the election of the mayor.
The Court further held that the prohibition on nominated members of the corporation exercising the right to vote shall also apply to the first meeting and thereafter, the Deputy Mayor be elected. The Bench noted that the election of the Mayor must be held first and the elected Mayor is then required to preside over the election of the Deputy Mayor as the presiding authority.
Cause Title- Shelly Oberoi & Anr. v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
10) Once prosecution establishes last seen theory accused has to give explanation as to special circumstances
The Court upheld the conviction of an accused in a murder case and explained that once the prosecution had shown that the victim was last seen together along with the accused then it was upon the accused to give explanation as to when and under what circumstances the accused had departed from the company of the deceased.
The petitioner-accused was convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Court, which was upheld by the High Court in an appeal preferred before it. Against the order of High Court Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Apex Court.
Cause Title -Ram Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
11) Would adversely affect power sector: SC allows continuation of coal based power plants in Tamil Nadu
The Court allowed the appeal and permitted the appellant- M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited to continue with the power plants and said that the question of law “whether for the project like this, a cumulative impact assessment study was required or not”, was kept open and would be decided in an appropriate case.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the closing of the thermal power plants would not be in public interest as it supplied power to approximately 40 lakhs households and being situated in a energy deficient State of Tamil Nadu, it would adversely affect the power sector of the State. The Apex Court noted that by and large there was substantial compliance of the conditions imposed and therefore, allowed the appellant/project proponent to continue with the power plants.
Cause Title- M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited v. T. Muruganandam & Others
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
12) Cause does not survive against respondent due to termination of Development Agreement- SC dismisses SLP
The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as the petitioners withdrew it on the ground that the cause did not survive against the respondent as the development agreement in favour of the respondent no. 5 was terminated.
In this case, two Special Leave Petition had been preferred by tenants in occupation of the premises in question. Two IAs had been filed for perjury on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and one IA was filed wherein termination of the development agreement executed in favour of the respondent no. 5 was challenged. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to change in the circumstances, the cause did not survive against the respondent no. 5 and therefore, prayed to permit the petitioners to withdraw Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4428/2016.
Cause Title- S.M. Pasha & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol
13) CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972: SC dismisses HC's order permitting benefits to DRDO employee promoted as scientist ‘G’
The Court while allowing an appeal filed by the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) dismissed the order passed by the Karnataka High Court wherein it granted the consequential benefits to the employee of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) including the benefit of past service that she had rendered for computing her terminal benefits.
The employee was promoted as Scientist ‘G’ and the High Court in this matter entitled her to all such benefits as were permissible to her on the premise that she held the post of Scientist ‘H’ and held that the last drawn pay in that post would be the criteria for settling all her benefits.
Cause Title- National Technical Research Organization & Others v. Dipti Deodhare
Date of Judgment- February 17, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Hima Kohli