Supreme Court weekly round up - Judgments [April 4-9, 2022]

[Armed Forces Tribunal] Referring to Section 15 subsection (4) of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Act, the Top Court has held that as per its clause (a), the AFT would be justified in interfering with the finding of the court-martial where its finding is legally not sustainable due to any reason whatsoever. Court added that under clause (b) of the said provision, it would be permissible for the AFT to interfere with such a finding when it involves a wrong decision on a question of law and under clause (c), the AFT would be justified in allowing an appeal against conviction by a courtmartial when there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Bench: Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vs. MAJOR R. METRI NO. 08585N_0
Click here to read more
[Judges pension] The Supreme Court has directed all state governments to comply with its order passed in October 2012, directing that the existing pension of all the retired judges should be revised. An application moved by All India Retired Judges Association had sought that the existing pensions of all past pensioners who retired after 1st January 1996 and the pensioners whose pensions were consolidated as per the Karnataka model shall be raised by 3.07 times on par with the other pensioners subject to minimum of 50% of the revised pay scale of pay of their respective post.
Bench: Justices L Nageshwar Rao, BR Gavai and Aniruddha Bose
Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Click here to read more
[Preventive Detention] Holding that the personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding, the Supreme Court has remarked,
"The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and even draconian." Tracing the origin of preventive detention to the colonial era, a division bench held that these powers have been continued with strict constitutional safeguards against abuse.
Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant
Case Title: Mallada K Sri Ram vs The State of Telangana & Ors
Click here to read more
[Wages] The Supreme Court has held that ad hoc payment made to the workers pursuant to the interim orders passed by it in a previous round of litigation could not form part of "wages" within the meaning of the expression under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for the purpose of calculating gratuity. Referring to Section 2(s) which defines wages, the Court held that such definition was in three parts.
"...the first part indicating the meaning of the expression, the second part indicating what is included therein and the third part indicating what is not included therein. In the first part of the definition, the emphasis is on what is earned by the employee in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment", noted the bench.
Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam.
Case Title:
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR. vs. RAJESH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS.
Click here to read more
[Relief to home buyers] The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the view taken by majority of the members of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, disapproving discrimination in pricing amongst the allottee belonging to the same category and class in a Housing Scheme of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
"The present case is of an entirely different scenario and of different issues, pertaining to discrimination amongst the similarly placed persons, who had applied contemporaneously in the same category and in the same Housing Scheme", said the top court while holding that the view of the majority members of the National Commission was a reasonably possible view of the matter; and it saw no reason to consider interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Bench: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose
Case Title: D.D.A. vs. RAJINDER PRASAD & ORS.
Click here to read more
[Eviction order] The Supreme Court has confirmed the order of eviction of unauthorized occupants from the public premises at the Dhanbad Coal mines area under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. In light of Section 3(1) of the Nationalisation Act, which declared that on the appointed day, which was May 1, 1973, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the Schedule shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances, Court said,
"What was transferred to and vested in the Central Government, were not corporate houses or business entities owning coal mines. What was transferred to and vested in the Central Government were the coal mines... Therefore, the ownership of the land was immaterial. If the land fell within the definition of the 6 expressions "mine" under the Nationalisation Act, the same stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1)."

Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam
Case Title: M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. vs. MAHENDRA PAL BHATIA AND ORS
Click here to read more
[Land Acquisition] Setting aside the interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court directing the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs.10,000 per month to the land losers over and above the amount of compensation awarded to them for the acquired lands, the Top Court held that the same could not have been passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226. The bench stressed that the same was not even the relief claimed by the original landowners.
Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
Case Title: State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Hetram & Ors.
Click here to read more
[Death Penalty] The Supreme Court remarked that it would like to discuss the possibility of giving the defense party facility of interviewing the accused who is facing death penalty, right at the beginning of the trial, and submit a comprehensive analysis at a stage when the matter is considered from the standpoint whether death sentence be imposed or not. However, before laying down any norms or guidelines, Court deemed it appropriate to issue notice to the Attorney General for India seeking his input. Court, thereafter, also issued notice to Member Secretary, National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to present the view on behalf of NALSA as well.
Bench: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narsimha
Case Title: Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click here to read more
[Disclosure of criminal antecedents] The Top Court last week upheld the order of removal of a trained graduate teacher who lied on an attestation form given for verification of antecedents on two accounts.
"The respondent is responsible for shaping career of young students. What kind of message he will be giving to the students by his conduct based on untruthfulness?", remarked the bench. Court was further of the view that an employee desirous of holding a civil post has to act with utmost good faith and truthfulness. Truthfulness cannot be made causality by an aspirant much more for a candidate aspiring to be a teacher, the bench said.
Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam.
Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Bheem Singh Meena
Click here to read more
[Consumer Protection Act & RERA] The Supreme Court has reiterated that Consumer Protection Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other. In fact, they are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy, added the top Court.
"When Statutes provisioning judicial remedies fall for construction, the choice of the interpretative outcomes should also depend on the constitutional duty to create effective judicial remedies in furtherance of access to justice. A meaningful interpretation that effectuates access to justice is a constitutional imperative and it is this duty that must inform the interpretative criterion.", observed the Top Court.
Case Title: EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. vs. SUSHMA ASHOK SHIROOR
Click here to read more.

Supreme Court weekly round up - Judgments [April 4-9, 2022]

Articles