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 last two weeks of March 2022..1. No Constitutional infirmity in 'One Rank One Pension' policy introduced by Central Govt: Supreme CourtCase Title: Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (An All India Federation of Military Veterans Organization Represented v. Union of India Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Ministry of Defense Secretary [Writ Petition (Civil) 419/2016]A three-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath upheld the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme introduced by the Central government via notification of November 7, 2015, and further noted that there is no legal mandate that everyone who held the same rank must have the same pension.The top court said that the OROP scheme was a policy decision taken by the Central government and the government was empowered to do so and there exists no constitutional infirmity in the same."All pensioners who hold the same rank may not for all purposes form a homogenous class. For example, amongst Sepoys differences do exist in view of the MACP and ACP schemes. Certain Sepoys receive the pay of the higher ranked personnel; ...It is not a legal mandate that pensioners who held the same rank must be given the same amount of pension. The varying benefits that may be applicable to certain personnel which would also impact the pension payable need not be equalized with the rest of the personnel," the top Court observed in its judgment.However, the Court directed that a refixation exercise must be conducted by the government for a period of 5 years with regard to pension payable to Army personnel as stated in the OROP policy in accordance with the November 7, 2015 notification..2. Daughter not entitled to money from father if she does not want to maintain any ties with him: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ajay Kumar Rathee v. Seema Rathee [Civil Appeal 5141 of 2011]A division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh held that a daughter is not entitled to any amount from her father for her education or marriage if she does not want to maintain any relationship with him."In so far as the daughter’s expenses for education and marriage are concerned, it appears from her approach that she does not want to maintain any relationship with the appellant and is about 20 years of age. She is entitled to choose her own path but then cannot demand from the appellant the amount towards the education. We, thus, hold that the daughter is not entitled to any amount," the Court said in its order.The Court also stated that in the instant case, the daughter is 20 years old and is free to choose her path but since she does not want to maintain any relationship with the father, she cannot demand any money from him for education..3. [POCSO] Can police probe offence of revealing victim's identity sans magistrate's permission? Supreme Court Bench dividedCase Title: Gangadhar Narayan Nayak v. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal 451 of 2022]A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari delivered a split verdict on the question of whether permission from a magistrate is needed by the police to probe the offence of revealing a victim's identity under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.While Justice Banerjee answered the questions in the negative, Justice Maheshwari took a different stance.Justice Banerjee noted that had the legislature intended for the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of POCSO, it would specifically have provided so."Every child has the inalienable human right to live with dignity, grow up and develop in an atmosphere conducive to mental and physical health, be treated with equality and not be discriminated against. The inalienable rights of a child include the right to protection of privacy. The Constitution of India guarantees the aforesaid inalienable and basic rights to all, including children," Justice Banerjee observed.On the other hand, Justice Maheshwari noted that when a cognizable offence is committed, the officer in-charge of a police station is competent to make an arrest without a magistrate's order. However, in non-cognizable offences, the police has no authority to arrest without a warrant obtained by an order of the court.The offence under Section 23 is non-cognizable and Section 19 or other provisions of POCSO Act do not confer power for investigation except to specify the manner of reporting the offence. However, as concluded as per sub-section 2 of Section 4 and applying Section 5 savings clause of CrPC, in absence of having any provision in special enactment, the CrPC would apply," Justice Maheshwari noted in his order..4. Lottery is species of gambling; States competent to tax lotteries under Entry 62 List II: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Karnataka and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others [Civil Appeal 10466-10476 of 2021]A division bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that lottery is a form of gambling and State legislatures are entitled to enact laws to levy tax under Entry 62 of List II of the Constitution (State List) on lotteries organised by Government of India or State governments."Since there is no dispute that lotteries, irrespective of whether it is conducted or it is organised by the Government of India or the Government of State or is authorized by the State or is conducted by an agency or instrumentality of State Government or a Central Government or any private player is 'betting or gambling' the State Legislatures have the power to tax lotteries under Entry 62 of List II," the Court ruled.The top court also stated that lotteries is a species of gambling activity and hence lotteries are within the ambit of 'betting and gambling' as appearing in Entry 34 List II. Hence, the fact that lotteries are placed in Entry 40 of List I (Union List) of the Constitution will not disentitle States from taxing the same as per Entry 62 of List II.The legislative power to levy a tax on ‘betting and gambling’ cannot be split between the parliament and the State legislature because Entry 62 of the State list expressly makes the State competent to levy taxes of the said subject, the Court said. This power to levy taxes on ‘betting and gambling’ is absent from the Entry 40 of Union list, which makes it clear that only the State, under Entry 62 of State list, has the power to levy such taxes, the apex court ruled..5. AYUSH doctors entitled to equal pay as Allopathy doctors: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Dr Sanjay Singh Chauhan [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 33645 of 2018]A division bench of Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari said that both AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) and allopathy doctors working in government hospitals are entitled to equal pay and discriminating between the two amounts to violation of right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.In a similar case, last year, a Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy had held that ayurvedic doctors covered under AYUSH are entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years), at par with allopathic doctors and that both render service to patients and on this core aspect and there is nothing to distinguish them.The top court had stated then that the difference in the method of treatment employed by the two systems will not be a reasonable ground to classify ayuverdic and allopathic doctors differently for fixing retirement age..6. RSS member can file defamation complaint against articles about organization: Supreme Court upholds Kerala HC decisionCase Title: Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited sm Ors. v P Gopalankutty and Another [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 2368 of 2022]A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose held that held that a complaint made by a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against a news organisation for publishing material that is allegedly defamatory towards the RSS, is maintainable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.The Court affirmed the decision of the Kerala High Court wherein it was held that since the RSS is a definite and identifiable body, its members have the locus standi to maintain a complaint against articles defaming the organisation of RSS."When an article is published in a newspaper containing imputations meant to harm the reputation of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), complaint by individual member of RSS is maintainable under Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC. It is not necessary that the imputations in the article individually affected the reputation of the complainant," the Kerala High Court had held in its decision..7. No basis to treat Vanniyar as a separate group: Supreme Court strikes down 10.5% reservationCase Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A Mayilerumperumal and Others [Civil Appeal 2600 of 2022]A division bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai struck down a law enacted by the Tamil Nadu government providing 10.5 per cent reservation in educational institutions and government jobs to persons from the Vanniyar caste as being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Constitution of India, as there is no substantial basis for differentiating the Vanniyar community from the other MBCs and DNCs.With respect to the issue of caste being the determinant for internal reservation, the Bench was of the view that caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, but the State government has to justify that it was reasonable and show that caste was not the sole basis for classification..8. Article 14 has no application to dispositions under Will: Supreme CourtCase Title: Swarnlatha and Others v. Kalavathy and Others [Civil Appeal 1565 of 2022]A division bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that the principles governing Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not apply to dispositions under a will and the testators are not required to make fair and equitable distribution of their properties to all of their children."In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a will," the Court ruled.The bench was of the view that in cases of execution of a will, there is no place for the Courts to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children..9. Merely being highest bidder in auction will not confer any legal right: Supreme CourtCase Title: Municipal Committee, Barwala, District Hissar, Haryana Through its Secretary/President v. Jai Narayan and Company and Another [Civil Appeal 2222 of 2022]A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that the highest bidder in an auction does not have any legal and equitable right to claim the auctioned property unless the same is approved by the State government or any other authority.Relying on its decisions in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab (1963) and State of Punjab and Others v. Mehar Din (2022), the top court observed that the inter-departmental communication and the notings on the file are not the decisions of the State and the government authority is not bound to accept the highest bid in an auction and the acceptance of highest bid is always subject to conditions of holding public auction..10. Reopening of income tax assessment valid if there is tangible material: Supreme CourtCase Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Cricle v. M/S MR Shah Logistics Private Limited [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 22921 of 2019]A bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ravindra Bhat held that reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act is valid if there is tangible material for the same and the sufficiency of such material cannot be subject to judicial review.The Court said that the basis for a valid re-opening of assessment is availability of tangible material, which can lead the Assessing Officer (AO) to scrutinize the returns for the previous assessment year in question, to determine, whether a notice under Section 147 of Income Tax Act is called for."The information or 'tangible material' which the assessing officer comes by enabling re-opening of an assessment, means that the entire assessment (for the concerned year) is at large; the revenue would then get to examine the returns for the previous year, on a clean slate as it were. Therefore, to hold as the High Court did, in this case, that since the assessee may have a reasonable explanation, is not a ground for quashing a notice under Section 147," the Court added.Moreover, the Bench noted that Section 192 of the Income Tax Act affords immunity to the declarant, not the assessee. Such immunity is only given for the limited purposes..11. Environment Protection Act does not prohibit grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearance: Supreme CourtCase Title: Pahwa Plastics Private Limited and Another v. Dastak NGO and Others [Civil Appeal 4795 of 2021]A division bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari held that the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not prohibit ex post facto grant of Environmental Clearance and the interest of citizens who depend on employment in the industries cannot be ignored."The 1986 Act does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance. Grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifications and/or applicable orders, in appropriate cases, where the projects are in compliance with, or can be made to comply with environment norms, is in our view not impermissible. The Court cannot be oblivious to the economy or the need to protect the livelihood of hundreds of employees and others employed in the project and others dependent on the project, if such projects comply with environmental norms," the Court said in its judgement.The Court, therefore, set aside an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which had directed closure of industries in Haryana for want of prior Environmental Clearance (EC)..12. Principles governing disciplinary enquiry different from criminal trial; proof beyond reasonable doubt not needed: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Karnataka v. Umesh [Civil Appeal 1763-1764 of 2022]A division bench of Justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant held that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in exercise of a disciplinary jurisdiction.“Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities,” the Court held in its order.Rules of evidence that apply towards criminal trials are distinct from those governing a disciplinary enquiry, the Court reaffirmed.The Court, therefore, held that courts in exercise of judicial review powers in disciplinary cases must restrict to determine only the following:“(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed;(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and(vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct..13. Letters Patent Appeal can be filed only against orders having traits of finality: Supreme CourtCase Title: Shyam Sel and Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited [Civil Appeal 1984 of 2022]A division bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that a letters patent appeal (LPA) against an order of single-judge can be filed only if such order has trappings of finality.Otherwise, it will open a floodgate of appeals, the top Court observed."To come within the ambit of ‘judgment’, such an order must affect vital and valuable rights of the parties, which works serious injustice to the party concerned. Each and every order passed by the Court during the course of the trial, though may cause some inconvenience to one of the parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to one of the parties, cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’. If such is permitted, the floodgate of appeals would be open against the order of Single Judge," the top court said in its judgment.Even if the order given by the single-judge might cause some inconvenience but without adjudication of the rights of the parties, the same order cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’ for the purposes of LPA, the apex court made it clear..14. High Courts have duty to pass reasoned order when refusing relief: Supreme CourtCase Title: Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) and Others [Civil Appeal 2200 of 2022]A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that when a number of issues/grounds are raised before the High Court in a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is duty-bound to deal with the same and pass a reasoned order."When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief, it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons," the top Court had said.Relying on its decisions in Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Private Limited (2018) and Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Others (2021), the apex court took the view that in exercise of powers under Article 226, the High Court is required to independently consider the issues involved in a case."The reasons constitute the soul of judicial decision and how judges communicate in their judgment is a defining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice brings legitimacy to the judiciary," the Bench observed in its decision..15. Sanction under Section 188 CrPC necessary only if entire offence is committed outside India: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakha of nd [Criminal Appeal 852 of 2018]A three-judge bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha held that if an offence was not committed in its entirety outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of CrPC and consequently, there would be no necessity of any sanction as mandated by Section 188."In terms of Section 188, even if an offence is committed outside India, (a) by a citizen whether on the high seas or anywhere else or (b) by a non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India, the offence can still be tried in India provided the conditions mentioned in said Section are satisfied. The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India," the Court held in its judgment..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.
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 last two weeks of March 2022..1. No Constitutional infirmity in 'One Rank One Pension' policy introduced by Central Govt: Supreme CourtCase Title: Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (An All India Federation of Military Veterans Organization Represented v. Union of India Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Ministry of Defense Secretary [Writ Petition (Civil) 419/2016]A three-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath upheld the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme introduced by the Central government via notification of November 7, 2015, and further noted that there is no legal mandate that everyone who held the same rank must have the same pension.The top court said that the OROP scheme was a policy decision taken by the Central government and the government was empowered to do so and there exists no constitutional infirmity in the same."All pensioners who hold the same rank may not for all purposes form a homogenous class. For example, amongst Sepoys differences do exist in view of the MACP and ACP schemes. Certain Sepoys receive the pay of the higher ranked personnel; ...It is not a legal mandate that pensioners who held the same rank must be given the same amount of pension. The varying benefits that may be applicable to certain personnel which would also impact the pension payable need not be equalized with the rest of the personnel," the top Court observed in its judgment.However, the Court directed that a refixation exercise must be conducted by the government for a period of 5 years with regard to pension payable to Army personnel as stated in the OROP policy in accordance with the November 7, 2015 notification..2. Daughter not entitled to money from father if she does not want to maintain any ties with him: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ajay Kumar Rathee v. Seema Rathee [Civil Appeal 5141 of 2011]A division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh held that a daughter is not entitled to any amount from her father for her education or marriage if she does not want to maintain any relationship with him."In so far as the daughter’s expenses for education and marriage are concerned, it appears from her approach that she does not want to maintain any relationship with the appellant and is about 20 years of age. She is entitled to choose her own path but then cannot demand from the appellant the amount towards the education. We, thus, hold that the daughter is not entitled to any amount," the Court said in its order.The Court also stated that in the instant case, the daughter is 20 years old and is free to choose her path but since she does not want to maintain any relationship with the father, she cannot demand any money from him for education..3. [POCSO] Can police probe offence of revealing victim's identity sans magistrate's permission? Supreme Court Bench dividedCase Title: Gangadhar Narayan Nayak v. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal 451 of 2022]A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari delivered a split verdict on the question of whether permission from a magistrate is needed by the police to probe the offence of revealing a victim's identity under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.While Justice Banerjee answered the questions in the negative, Justice Maheshwari took a different stance.Justice Banerjee noted that had the legislature intended for the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of POCSO, it would specifically have provided so."Every child has the inalienable human right to live with dignity, grow up and develop in an atmosphere conducive to mental and physical health, be treated with equality and not be discriminated against. The inalienable rights of a child include the right to protection of privacy. The Constitution of India guarantees the aforesaid inalienable and basic rights to all, including children," Justice Banerjee observed.On the other hand, Justice Maheshwari noted that when a cognizable offence is committed, the officer in-charge of a police station is competent to make an arrest without a magistrate's order. However, in non-cognizable offences, the police has no authority to arrest without a warrant obtained by an order of the court.The offence under Section 23 is non-cognizable and Section 19 or other provisions of POCSO Act do not confer power for investigation except to specify the manner of reporting the offence. However, as concluded as per sub-section 2 of Section 4 and applying Section 5 savings clause of CrPC, in absence of having any provision in special enactment, the CrPC would apply," Justice Maheshwari noted in his order..4. Lottery is species of gambling; States competent to tax lotteries under Entry 62 List II: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Karnataka and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others [Civil Appeal 10466-10476 of 2021]A division bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that lottery is a form of gambling and State legislatures are entitled to enact laws to levy tax under Entry 62 of List II of the Constitution (State List) on lotteries organised by Government of India or State governments."Since there is no dispute that lotteries, irrespective of whether it is conducted or it is organised by the Government of India or the Government of State or is authorized by the State or is conducted by an agency or instrumentality of State Government or a Central Government or any private player is 'betting or gambling' the State Legislatures have the power to tax lotteries under Entry 62 of List II," the Court ruled.The top court also stated that lotteries is a species of gambling activity and hence lotteries are within the ambit of 'betting and gambling' as appearing in Entry 34 List II. Hence, the fact that lotteries are placed in Entry 40 of List I (Union List) of the Constitution will not disentitle States from taxing the same as per Entry 62 of List II.The legislative power to levy a tax on ‘betting and gambling’ cannot be split between the parliament and the State legislature because Entry 62 of the State list expressly makes the State competent to levy taxes of the said subject, the Court said. This power to levy taxes on ‘betting and gambling’ is absent from the Entry 40 of Union list, which makes it clear that only the State, under Entry 62 of State list, has the power to levy such taxes, the apex court ruled..5. AYUSH doctors entitled to equal pay as Allopathy doctors: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Dr Sanjay Singh Chauhan [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 33645 of 2018]A division bench of Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari said that both AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) and allopathy doctors working in government hospitals are entitled to equal pay and discriminating between the two amounts to violation of right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.In a similar case, last year, a Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy had held that ayurvedic doctors covered under AYUSH are entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years), at par with allopathic doctors and that both render service to patients and on this core aspect and there is nothing to distinguish them.The top court had stated then that the difference in the method of treatment employed by the two systems will not be a reasonable ground to classify ayuverdic and allopathic doctors differently for fixing retirement age..6. RSS member can file defamation complaint against articles about organization: Supreme Court upholds Kerala HC decisionCase Title: Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited sm Ors. v P Gopalankutty and Another [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 2368 of 2022]A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose held that held that a complaint made by a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against a news organisation for publishing material that is allegedly defamatory towards the RSS, is maintainable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.The Court affirmed the decision of the Kerala High Court wherein it was held that since the RSS is a definite and identifiable body, its members have the locus standi to maintain a complaint against articles defaming the organisation of RSS."When an article is published in a newspaper containing imputations meant to harm the reputation of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), complaint by individual member of RSS is maintainable under Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC. It is not necessary that the imputations in the article individually affected the reputation of the complainant," the Kerala High Court had held in its decision..7. No basis to treat Vanniyar as a separate group: Supreme Court strikes down 10.5% reservationCase Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A Mayilerumperumal and Others [Civil Appeal 2600 of 2022]A division bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai struck down a law enacted by the Tamil Nadu government providing 10.5 per cent reservation in educational institutions and government jobs to persons from the Vanniyar caste as being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Constitution of India, as there is no substantial basis for differentiating the Vanniyar community from the other MBCs and DNCs.With respect to the issue of caste being the determinant for internal reservation, the Bench was of the view that caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, but the State government has to justify that it was reasonable and show that caste was not the sole basis for classification..8. Article 14 has no application to dispositions under Will: Supreme CourtCase Title: Swarnlatha and Others v. Kalavathy and Others [Civil Appeal 1565 of 2022]A division bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that the principles governing Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not apply to dispositions under a will and the testators are not required to make fair and equitable distribution of their properties to all of their children."In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a will," the Court ruled.The bench was of the view that in cases of execution of a will, there is no place for the Courts to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children..9. Merely being highest bidder in auction will not confer any legal right: Supreme CourtCase Title: Municipal Committee, Barwala, District Hissar, Haryana Through its Secretary/President v. Jai Narayan and Company and Another [Civil Appeal 2222 of 2022]A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that the highest bidder in an auction does not have any legal and equitable right to claim the auctioned property unless the same is approved by the State government or any other authority.Relying on its decisions in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab (1963) and State of Punjab and Others v. Mehar Din (2022), the top court observed that the inter-departmental communication and the notings on the file are not the decisions of the State and the government authority is not bound to accept the highest bid in an auction and the acceptance of highest bid is always subject to conditions of holding public auction..10. Reopening of income tax assessment valid if there is tangible material: Supreme CourtCase Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Cricle v. M/S MR Shah Logistics Private Limited [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 22921 of 2019]A bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ravindra Bhat held that reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act is valid if there is tangible material for the same and the sufficiency of such material cannot be subject to judicial review.The Court said that the basis for a valid re-opening of assessment is availability of tangible material, which can lead the Assessing Officer (AO) to scrutinize the returns for the previous assessment year in question, to determine, whether a notice under Section 147 of Income Tax Act is called for."The information or 'tangible material' which the assessing officer comes by enabling re-opening of an assessment, means that the entire assessment (for the concerned year) is at large; the revenue would then get to examine the returns for the previous year, on a clean slate as it were. Therefore, to hold as the High Court did, in this case, that since the assessee may have a reasonable explanation, is not a ground for quashing a notice under Section 147," the Court added.Moreover, the Bench noted that Section 192 of the Income Tax Act affords immunity to the declarant, not the assessee. Such immunity is only given for the limited purposes..11. Environment Protection Act does not prohibit grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearance: Supreme CourtCase Title: Pahwa Plastics Private Limited and Another v. Dastak NGO and Others [Civil Appeal 4795 of 2021]A division bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari held that the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not prohibit ex post facto grant of Environmental Clearance and the interest of citizens who depend on employment in the industries cannot be ignored."The 1986 Act does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance. Grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifications and/or applicable orders, in appropriate cases, where the projects are in compliance with, or can be made to comply with environment norms, is in our view not impermissible. The Court cannot be oblivious to the economy or the need to protect the livelihood of hundreds of employees and others employed in the project and others dependent on the project, if such projects comply with environmental norms," the Court said in its judgement.The Court, therefore, set aside an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which had directed closure of industries in Haryana for want of prior Environmental Clearance (EC)..12. Principles governing disciplinary enquiry different from criminal trial; proof beyond reasonable doubt not needed: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Karnataka v. Umesh [Civil Appeal 1763-1764 of 2022]A division bench of Justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant held that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in exercise of a disciplinary jurisdiction.“Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities,” the Court held in its order.Rules of evidence that apply towards criminal trials are distinct from those governing a disciplinary enquiry, the Court reaffirmed.The Court, therefore, held that courts in exercise of judicial review powers in disciplinary cases must restrict to determine only the following:“(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed;(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and(vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct..13. Letters Patent Appeal can be filed only against orders having traits of finality: Supreme CourtCase Title: Shyam Sel and Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited [Civil Appeal 1984 of 2022]A division bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that a letters patent appeal (LPA) against an order of single-judge can be filed only if such order has trappings of finality.Otherwise, it will open a floodgate of appeals, the top Court observed."To come within the ambit of ‘judgment’, such an order must affect vital and valuable rights of the parties, which works serious injustice to the party concerned. Each and every order passed by the Court during the course of the trial, though may cause some inconvenience to one of the parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to one of the parties, cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’. If such is permitted, the floodgate of appeals would be open against the order of Single Judge," the top court said in its judgment.Even if the order given by the single-judge might cause some inconvenience but without adjudication of the rights of the parties, the same order cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’ for the purposes of LPA, the apex court made it clear..14. High Courts have duty to pass reasoned order when refusing relief: Supreme CourtCase Title: Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) and Others [Civil Appeal 2200 of 2022]A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that when a number of issues/grounds are raised before the High Court in a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is duty-bound to deal with the same and pass a reasoned order."When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief, it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons," the top Court had said.Relying on its decisions in Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Private Limited (2018) and Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Others (2021), the apex court took the view that in exercise of powers under Article 226, the High Court is required to independently consider the issues involved in a case."The reasons constitute the soul of judicial decision and how judges communicate in their judgment is a defining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice brings legitimacy to the judiciary," the Bench observed in its decision..15. Sanction under Section 188 CrPC necessary only if entire offence is committed outside India: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakha of nd [Criminal Appeal 852 of 2018]A three-judge bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha held that if an offence was not committed in its entirety outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of CrPC and consequently, there would be no necessity of any sanction as mandated by Section 188."In terms of Section 188, even if an offence is committed outside India, (a) by a citizen whether on the high seas or anywhere else or (b) by a non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India, the offence can still be tried in India provided the conditions mentioned in said Section are satisfied. The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India," the Court held in its judgment..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.