The Supreme Court fortnightly: 15 important judgments - April 1 to 15, 2022

In this series, Bar & Bench will bring you 15 top judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India every two weeks.Below are our picks for the first two weeks of April 2022..1. Challenge to Sabarmati ashram redevelopment: Supreme Court remits matter back to Gujarat High Court for fresh hearingCase Title: Tushar Arun Gandhi v. State of Gujarat [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 2181 of 2022]In an appeal filed by Mahatma Gandhi's great grandson Tushar Gandhi, a division bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant set aside a Gujarat High Court order which had refused to interfere with the proposed redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram by the State of Gujarat. The top court remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision to be taken after a detailed hearing.In his petition, Mr. Gandhi had claimed that the Gujarat High Court had dismissed the plea and refused to quash the Government Resolution on a “limited misleading statement made by the Advocate General without taking into account the grievances raised by the petitioner”.Before the High Court, the Advocate General had informed that the Sabarmati Ashram covers an area of 1 acre which would remain untouched, and the idea was to develop 55 acres of land surrounding the Ashram.In relation to this, the petition stated that the significance of the land was not limited to the one-acre Ashram itself but covered the entire property on the banks of the Sabarmati which was more than 100 acres.“The land serves as a source of inspiration and stands as a monument to Gandhiji’s life mission," the plea before the Supreme Court had said..2. Extra-judicial confession weak evidence; conviction without corroboration not justifiedCase Title: Union of India v. Major R. Metri No. 08585N [Criminal Appeal 2196 of 2017]A division bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that conviction solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession without corroboration by other evidence is not justified. The Court was of the view that that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and such evidence is admissible only if it is voluntary, trustworthy and reliable."Whether a person was compelled to make an extra-judicial statement or not, is a question of fact in each case which shall be determined by the Court on weighing the facts and circumstances disclosed in the evidence before it," the Bench observed while acquitting an Army Major of charges under Prevention of Corruption Act and Army Act.The Court was hearing two cross-appeals challenging the judgments passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional bench, Kochi (AFT) which had set aside the order of conviction passed by the General Court Martial (GCM) under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) read with Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 and the sentence of cashiering from service and suffering of rigorous imprisonment for one year..3. Receiving foreign donation cannot be an absolute right: Supreme Court upholds constitutional validity of FCRA Amendment Act, 2020Case Title: Noel Harper v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) 566 of 2021]A three-Judge Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar upheld that upheld the Constitutional validity of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 (FCRA Amendment Act), which imposed restrictions on the way foreign contributions are handled by organizations based in India.Pertinently, the Court said that citizens do not have any right to receive foreign contribution and permitting the same is a matter of State policy."It is open to the State to have a regime which may completely prohibit receipt of foreign donation, as no right inheres in the citizen to receive foreign contribution (donation)," the Court held.The Court held that foreign donations can influence policies of the country and lead to imposition of political ideology and hence they should be reduced."Foreign aid can create presence of a foreign contributor and influence the policies of the country. It may tend to influence or impose political ideology. Such being the expanse of the effect of foreign contribution coupled with the tenet of constitutional morality of the nation, the presence/inflow of foreign contribution in the country ought to be at 107 the minimum level, if not completely eschewed," the Bench had stated.Moreover, permitting inflow of foreign contribution, which is a donation, is a matter of policy of the State backed by law, the Court underscored..4. Ad-hoc payments pursuant to interim order of court not 'wages' under Payment of Gratuity ActCase Title: Chairman-cum-Managing Director Fertilizer Corporation of India and Another v. Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava and Others [Civil Appeal 2260 of 2022]A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubaramanian held that it is the fundamental principle of law that the benefits of an interim order are lost when final orders go against the party. It observed that monthly ad-hoc payments made pursuant to interim orders cannot be considered "wages" under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.The Court then examined the definition of 'wages' under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and held that wages as per the definition, is what is earned by the employee “in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment"."Irrespective of whether what was earned has been paid or remained payable, the same is included in the definition, provided it is in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment," the Court stated..5. 'Mines' under Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act vest in Central Government; ownership immaterialCase Title: M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia and Others [Civil Appeal 5377 of 2015]A division bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that any land falling within the definition of expression 'mine' under Section 2(h) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act of 1973 shall vest absolutely in the Central government irrespective of the ownership of the land.The Court further said that under Section 2(h) of the Act, 'mine' shall also include the lands and buildings used solely for the location of management sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff.In its objection, the respondent argued that the property in question was a private property, and did not form part of a 'mine' under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973.Rejecting the objections raised by the respondents, the Court noted that Section 3(1) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 declared that on the appointed day, i.e. May 1, 1973 (date of enactment), 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.The top court also clarified that by virtue of the said provision, all coal-mines are transferred to and vested in the Central government, with the ownership of the land being immaterial..6. Telangana exercising preventive detention callouslyCase Title: Mallada K Sri Ram v. State of Telangana and Others [Criminal Appeal 561 of 2022]The Court held that government cannot exercise preventive detention powers merely because the concerned person has been implicated in a criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court recently observed while setting aside a preventive detention order.A division bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant also took a stern view of what it termed "callous exercise" of preventive detention powers by the State of Telangana, noting that in the last five years, the apex court had quashed over five such detention orders by Telangana.It also noted that at least ten detention orders by Telangana government were set aside by the High Court of Telangana in the last one year itself."These numbers evince a callous exercise of the exceptional power of preventive detention by the detaining authorities and the respondent-state. We direct the respondents to take stock of challenges to detention orders pending before the Advisory Board, High Court and Supreme Court and evaluate the fairness of the detention order against lawful standards," the Court directed..7. Medical colleges cannot start new course without permission from Central governmentCase Title: Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College [Civil Appeal 2892 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, no medical college can START a new course or training without the prior approval of the Central government.The Court was of the view that before the permission of the Central government is sought by the medical college, the procedure under Section 13A of the Act regarding the permission for establishment of new college, new course of study, has to be complied with."The statutory scheme is thus clear that no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course, except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Prior to such a permission being granted, the procedure as prescribed under Section 13A has to be followed," the Court held in its decision.The Supreme Court also took exception to the High Court not applying the apex court's decision in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal & Another v. Union Of India, which was delivered regarding the similar point of law."We are at pains to say that though the judgment in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) was specifically relied on by the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka have chosen to rely on the earlier judgments of the Division Bench of the same High Court rather than a judgment of this Court", the Court stated in its decision..8. [2006 Meerut Fire Tragedy] Organisers, State liable to pay compensation to injured/ families of deceasedCase Title: Sanjay Gupta and Others v. Secretary of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) 338 of 2006]The Court held that the State government and the organizers of the consumer exhibition during which the tragedy unfolded, are liable to pay compensation which has to be computed in accordance with the principles of just compensation similar to payment of compensation to accident victims under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.A division bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian also ruled that the State will be liable to pay 40 percent compensation while the organizers will have to pay 60 percent."The list of deceased and injured persons has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The amount of compensation payable to each of the victim including the families of the deceased have not been computed and such amount is required to be computed in accordance with the principles of just compensation as in the case of accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal," the Court held.The Bench further directed the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to entrust the work of determination of compensation to a Judicial Officer in the rank of District Judge/Additional District Judge at Meerut within two weeks. Further, the top court directed that the amount which has been already paid by the State and which is deposited by the organizers shall be disbursed to the victims..9. Application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act need not be filed within 1 year of alleged act of domestic violenceCase Title: Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan [Criminal Appeal 627 of 2022]A Division bench of Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha held that an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 (Act) need not be filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence.The Court noted that the scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the statute so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued.In this case, the wife had moved an application under Section 12 of the DV Act in 2018, eleven years after she was married. The application sought appropriate action against husband and her in-laws under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act. The husband and in-laws, thereafter, moved the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the complaints, which had allowed the plea, quashed the charges and dismissed the wife's application holding that application ought to have been filed within one year of the incident.In appeal, the top court placed reliance on its 2014 Constitution Bench judgment in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases etc. in which it was held that though Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that ‘cognizance’ ought to be taken within the specified period from the commission of offence, by invoking the principles of purposive construction, "a complainant should not be put to prejudice, if for reasons beyond the control of the prosecuting agency or the complainant, the cognizance was taken after the period of limitation.".10. Hawkers do not have right to keep their goods and wares at hawking place overnightCase Title: Madan Lal v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Another [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 5684 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that hawkers cannot claim right to keep their goods and wares overnight at the place where they are hawking.In an appeal assailing the Delhi High Court's decision, the Bench also noted that a hawker can be permitted to hawk in the market only as per the hawking policy and not outside the scope of the same."Any hawker can be permitted to hawk in the market only as per the hawking policy and not de hors the same. The petitioner, being a hawker, has no right to insist that he may be permitted to keep his goods and wares at the place where he is hawking overnight," the Court said..11. Supreme Court imposes ₹50,000 costs on Himachal Pradesh for violation of rights during land acquisitionCase Title: Sukh Datt Ratra and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 13202 of 2020]A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha held that the State cannot merely on the ground of delay and laches get away from its legal responsibility of compensating individuals from whom private property has been taken away.The Court imposed legal costs and expenses of ₹50,000 on the State of Himachal Pradesh for disregarding the rights of certain persons during land acquisition which forced the affected parties to move court for remedies after decades of dispossession from their lands.The Court held that if the State authorities forcibly dispossess any person without following the due process of law, then it is a violation of their constitutional and human rights under Article 300A."When it comes to the subject of private property, this court has upheld the high threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State," the Court held..12. Right to establish educational institutions not absolute, can be regulated Case Title: Dental Council of India v Biyani Shikshan Samiti and Another [Civil Appeal 2912 of 2022]The Court recently held that the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and prevention of maladministration. A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed thus while upholding a notification by which Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, was amended.The top court opined that the notification is supported by the decision of an eleven-judge Constitution Bench judgment in TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v State of Karnataka & Ors especially since it was issued to maintain proper academic standards and infrastructure."It can thus clearly be seen that the Constitution Bench itself has held that the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated. However, such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration," the apex court noted in its judgement..13. Delay in deciding appeal cannot be ground to grant lesser punishment: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal and Others [Diary No. 21956 of 2020]The Court held that a High Court cannot grant disproportionate and inadequate punishment to accused merely because of the long delay in deciding the appeal [State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal and ors.]A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna further said that delay alone cannot be ground to not consider an appeal on merits."Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate," the Court said.Pertinently, the apex court said that High Courts must not dispose of criminal appeals in a cursory manner by adopting 'truncated methods' and the practice of adopting "shortcut" methods by High Courts to dispose of criminal appeals has to be deprecated..14. Mullaperiyar Dam: Court orders reconstitution of Supervisory CommitteeCase Title: Dr. Joe Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) 880 of 2020]A three-Judge Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S Oka and CT Ravikumar in its interim order, directed the reconstitution and strengthening of the supervisory committee which manages the Mullaperiyar dam in Kerala.The top court ordered that two technical experts who are well-versed with the instrumentation and dam safety shall be appointed as a part of the committee within two weeks. One technical member must be from Tamil Nadu and other must be from Kerala, the Court said.The supervisory committee was constituted as per Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in a dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala concerning the dam's safety. In its 2014 judgment, the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of Tamil Nadu and held that the dam is safe but the water level in the dam should be kept at 142 feet. It had then constituted the supervisory committee to manage the dam..15. FTII Pune must allow colour-blind students to pursue all courses on film-making, editing Case Title: Ashutosh Kumar v. The Film and Television Institute of India and Another [Civil Appeal 7719 of 2021]A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh recently directed the Film & Television Institute of India (FTII) to ensure that its curricula and admissions are open to all including the specially-abled candidates and those who are colour blind.The Court was of the view that in such cases where reasonable accommodation is sought, hearts can rule over the mind.The Supreme Court in its order observed that,"Art is non-conformist and will not fit in any box. It is this thought process which made us pass the order dealing with the aspect of colour blindness."The Bench noted that as per the FTII prospectus, in certain specialised courses visually impaired cannot take admission, though it does not explicitly bar admission of those specially-abled from pursuing courses there.Expressing its agreement with the views and report of a committee set up in this regard as per the top court's earlier orders in the case, the Bench ruled,"It is the view of the committee that individuals with colour blindness should be able to enroll for all courses at FTII. Reasons being film and TV creations are collaborating art forms. Restricting may stifle creative talent, development of art. Any limitation can be overcome by help. It is not for FTII to determine candidates future occupational prospects. Job of an editor is not mechanical, must creatively work with story, dialogue, music and performances and even rewrite the film. It is opined that there is no relevance of colouring course, as an expert can make up for the shortfall.".Read Supreme Court fortnightly from March 16-31 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from March 1-15 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from February 15-28 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from February 1-14 here.