A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 133 and 114 Illustration (b)—Approver's Testimony—Evidentiary Value and Corroboration—Held: Testimony of an approver is admissible and conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on uncorroborated approver evidence. Corroboration is a rule of prudence and not an inflexible rule of law. Where the approver's testimony is credible, inculpatory, inspires confidence, and stands corroborated by surrounding circumstances in material particulars, it can safely form the basis of conviction. Mere fact that the approver did not inflict the fatal blows does not render his testimony self-exculpatory or unreliable. (Paras 23–39). B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 120A, 120B and 302—Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Murder—Liability of Co-conspirator&...

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 21—Personal Liberty—Illegal Detention after Judicial Order of Release—Compensation—Held: Continued detention of a convict after a competent Court has directed his release on parole, despite compliance with conditions and furnishing of sureties, constitutes illegal detention and violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. The State cannot justify non-release on the ground of internal administrative deliberations regarding filing of an appeal. For unlawful deprivation of liberty for twenty-four days, compensation awarded as a public law remedy. (Paras 7, 9–12). B. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 32 and 226—Writ of Habeas Corpus—Scope and Maintainability—Held: Habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy availab...

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g)—Environmental protection and conservation of forests and wildlife—Agasthyamalai landscape, Tiger Reserves and Wildlife Sanctuaries—Held: Protection of forests, wildlife habitats and ecologically sensitive regions is not merely a statutory obligation but a constitutional imperative flowing from Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g)—Continued encroachments in Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve (SMTR) and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) seriously threaten biodiversity, water security and ecological balance—State authorities directed to undertake time-bound eviction, restoration and conservation measures under continuous monitoring of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). (Paras 46–66) B. Forest (C...

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Civil Contempt—Wilful disobedience of orders of Supreme Court—De-sealing and restoration of possession of property—Held: Persistent failure of public authorities to comply with the Supreme Court’s direction to de-seal the petitioner’s property and restore possession, despite repeated representations and legal notice, constituted a serious matter warranting contempt proceedings—Judicial orders must be complied with promptly and cannot be ignored at the convenience of administrative authorities—However, since compliance was ultimately effected and unconditional apologies were tendered, contempt notice was discharged. (Paras 15–21) B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Public officials—Duty to obey judicial orders—Rule of law—Held: Cont...

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 21—Right to livelihood and dignity—Non-payment of salaries and retiral benefits—Held: Prolonged non-payment of lawful salaries, pensionary benefits, retiral dues and other service entitlements to employees of erstwhile State Corporations following the bifurcation of Bihar and Jharkhand raises a serious constitutional issue affecting the right to livelihood and human dignity under Article 21—States cannot evade responsibility despite administrative or financial difficulties—Humanitarian consequences suffered by employees and their families, including extreme financial distress, require immediate and effective remedial measures. (Paras 3, 7, 36) B. Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000—Apportionment of assets and liabilities—Employees of erstwhile State Corpo...

A. Constitution of India—Article 21—Delayed pronouncement of reserved judgments—Right to speedy justice—Held: Undue delay in pronouncement of reserved judgments adversely affects administration of justice and infringes the fundamental rights of litigants, particularly in matters involving personal liberty—To ensure timely delivery of justice, Supreme Court issued binding directions to High Courts prescribing timelines for pronouncement and uploading of judgments, institutional monitoring mechanisms, transparency measures and remedies for affected litigants. (Paras 2, 9–16, 23) B. Constitution of India—Article 21—Administration of justice—Pronouncement of judgments by High Courts—Guidelines—Held: Judgments reserved by High Courts should ordinarily be pronounced within thr...

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XII Rule 6—Judgment on Admissions—Scope and applicability—Held: For passing a decree on admission, the admission must be clear, categorical, unconditional and unequivocal—A statement in the written statement acknowledging receipt of Rs.3 crores under a family settlement did not constitute an unequivocal admission of liability to refund Rs.45,00,000/- claimed in the suit—Existence of disputed questions of fact required adjudication on evidence—High Court erred in decreeing the suit on admission—Order set aside. (Paras 30–46) B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 115—Revisional jurisdiction—Limits of interference—Held: The revisional court cannot act as an appellate court by reassessing factual findings or substituting its ow...

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420 and 471—Quashing of criminal proceedings—Banking transaction dispute—Compromise settlement—Held: Where the dispute arose out of a commercial banking transaction and the parties entered into a compromise settlement duly approved by the competent authority of the Bank and endorsed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law—The settlement having attained finality and the dispute having been resolved, criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed. (Paras 17–28) B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 482—Exercise of inherent powers—Quashing of criminal proceedings after compromise—Held: Once a banking dispute stands resolved through a compromise settlement...

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 34 and 37—Scope of judicial interference with arbitral awards—Held: Jurisdiction of courts under Section 34 is narrowly confined to the grounds expressly enumerated therein and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or reassessment of factual findings as an appellate forum—Where the interpretation adopted by the Arbitral Tribunal is a plausible view arising from the contract, the award is not liable to be interfered with—Concurrent findings of the Arbitral Tribunal, District Court and High Court upholding the award deserve judicial deference—Award relating to termination payment under the Concession Agreement upheld. (Paras 32–40, 66–73) B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 34(2)(b)(i)—Jurisdictional objectio...

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 6—Compensation—Determination of market value—Belting method—Held: Claim for further enhancement of compensation in respect of acquired land situated in Village Fazalwas, Haryana, was not sustainable—Issue stood concluded by the earlier decision in Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana, wherein enhancement beyond the amount determined by the High Court was declined—High Court rightly applied the belting method for valuation and its determination of compensation was affirmed—Appeals seeking further enhancement dismissed. (Paras 10–12) B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 23, 28 and 34—Statutory benefits—Solatium and interest—Held: Landowners are entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act, including solatium and i...