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 March 2022..1. [Section 173 CrPC] Both Chargesheet and Supplementary Chargesheet should be considered to decide if accused committed crime: Supreme CourtCase Title: Luckose Zachariah v. Joseph Joseph [Criminal Appeal 256 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant held that reports under Sections 173(3) and 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 have to be read conjointly by analyzing their cumulative effect and the annexed documents, to decide whether an accused committed the offence.Relying majorly on its decision in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2012) and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019), the top Court observed that while deciding whether or not an accused has committed an offence, it is necessary for the Magistrate to consider the chargesheet submitted under Section 173(2) of CrPC as well as the supplementary chargesheet which is submitted after further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of CrPC."Both the reports have to be read conjointly by analyzing the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto, if any, while determining whether there existed grounds to presume that the appellants have committed the offence," the Court stated..2. State has no power to levy Excise Duty on wastage of liquor after distillation: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries [Civil Appeal 5666-5668 of 2022]A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled that the State is empowered to levy excise duty on alcoholic liquor that is only for human consumption and has no power to levy excise duty on wastage of alcohol after distillation.The top Court relied upon its seven-judge Constitution Bench judgment in Synthetics and Chemicals Limited and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1989) and three-judge Bench decision in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Modi Distillery and others (1995) to hold that the State legislature has no authority to levy duty or tax on alcohol, which is not for human consumption as that could be levied only by the Central government.“It has been held that the alcoholic liquors, which are for human consumption, are put in Entry 51 List II authorizing the State Legislature to levy tax on them, whereas alcoholic liquors other than for human consumption have been left to the Central Legislature under Entry 84 for levy of duty of excise. It has been held that what has been excluded in Entry 84 has specifically been put within the authority of the State for purposes of taxation," the judgment said..3. Once dispute regarding title is settled, permanent injunction cannot be granted against true owner: Supreme CourtCase Title: Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) vs Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) [Civil Appeal 1382 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, in that case, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner."Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to dispossess him, except in due process of law," the Court held..4. [2G license] Party cannot claim restitution if responsible for contract illegalities: Supreme Court rejects refund plea by Loop TelecomCase Title: Loop Telecom and Trading Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal 1447-1467 of 2016]A three-Judge Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath held that if a party to a contract was equally or more responsible for any illegality in relation to the defendant, restitution claims will fail.In such cases, claims for restitution under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 will fail, even though the illegality has to be determined on case-to-case basis.Therefore, the Court held that unless the party claiming restitution was party to the illegal act involuntarily, they would be held in pari delicto or in equal fault.“In determining a claim of restitution, the claiming party’s legal footing in relation to the illegal act (and in comparison to the defendant) must be understood. Unless the party claiming restitution participated in the illegal act involuntarily or the rule of law offers them protection against the defendant, they would be held to be in pari delicto and therefore, their claim for restitution will fail," the top court stated..5. ‘Lohar’ caste of Bihar not Scheduled Tribe: Supreme Court quashes Bihar govt notificationCase Title: Sunil Kumar Rai and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) 1052 of 2021]A Division Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy held that Lohar caste is not a Scheduled Tribe (ST) under the Central government's list of STs and consequently, a notification by the Bihar government to issue Scheduled Tribe certificates to the Lohar community is liable to be quashed.In the year 1950 the Central government's list of communities eligible for reservation did not include ‘Lohar’ under Scheduled Tribes. The list at serial number 20 included the tribe “Lohara” as a Scheduled Tribe for the State of Bihar.In 1976, the the parliament brought the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, in the English version of which there was status quo with respect to Lohars, but in the Hindi version, the words “Lohara” and “Lohra” were translated to “Lohar” and “Lohra”.After this Amendment Act, the members of the Lohar community started claiming to be a Scheduled Tribe. In 2006, the parliament through an amendment act substituted the Hindi translation from ‘Lohar, Lohra’ to ‘Lohara, Lohra’. In 2016, parliament passed a connected repealing act and status quo was restored.The Court relied on its decision in Nityanand Sharma and anr v. State of Bihar (1996) wherein it had answered the question whether Lohars could be considered by the Court as synonymous to Loharas or Lohras and had answered in the negative.“Lohars are an other backward class. They are not Scheduled Tribes and the cannot give any declaration that Lohars are equivalent to Loharas or Lohras or that they are entitled to the same status. Any contrary view taken by any bench/benches of Bihar High Court, is erroneous,” the top court had held in that judgment..6. Promotion is governed by rules; no vested right to promotion: Supreme CourtCase Title: Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam [Civil Appeal 517-518 of 2017]A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh held that no officer has a fundamental right to promotion and therefore, a mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favor of an employee for retrospective promotion."It is trite law that once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a “golden handshake” between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules. This would include the enhanced pay scale. The Respondent in Civil Appeal No.517 of 2017 was rightly not considered in the DPC in 2012 since he was no longer in service at the relevant point of time," the Court was of the view.The top Court noted that a mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate clearance through a selection process."A right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules," the judgment said. .7. Employee has no fundamental right to posting or transfer but State should consider 'family life' while crafting policy: Supreme CourtCase Title: SK Nausad Rahaman and Others v. Union of India and Others [Civil Appeal 1243 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Vikram Nath ruled that while crafting policy, the State cannot be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1950.However, the Court emphasised that an employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of his or her choice. It took note of the fact that executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings did not confer an indefeasible right on an individual to claim the same.However, it again made it clear that a policy governing the same has to give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy.“How a particular policy should be modulated to take into account the necessities of maintaining family life may be left at the threshold to be determined by the State. In crafting its policy however the State cannot be heard to say that it will be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is an incident of Article 21,” the top Court stated..8. De-reservation/inter-changeabilty of posts reserved for SC/STs to OBCs cannot be done by appointing authority: Supreme CourtCase Title: Mandeep Kumar and Others v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others [Civil Appeal 1908 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari held that changing vacant posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) category to Other Backward Classes category cannot be done by appointing authority.The Bench was of the view that such inter-changeability can be done only by the Department of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes.“The interchangeability of the vacant unfilled posts of SC category may be possible due to not having eligible candidates by the department concerned but not by appointing authority," the top court said in its judgment..9. [Section 319 CrPC] Power of trial court to proceed against non-accused should be used sparingly: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [Criminal Appeal 397 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka held that the power of trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to proceed against persons who have not been chargesheeted as accused, is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case warrant.Relying on its decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014), the top Court considered scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Code:"The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction," the Court stated..10. [Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2022] Candidates who qualified in 2020 and 2021 under 32 years may apply: Supreme CourtCase Title: High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma [Civil Appeal 2016 of 2022]A three- Judge Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Hima Kohli and AS Bopanna in a significant development allowed candidates who qualified for the Delhi Judicial Service Examinations that were to be held in 2020 and 2021, to appear for this year's edition of the exam, provided they have not crossed the maximum age limit of 32 years."We will allow candidates qualified in 2020 and 2021 when they did not cross the age of 32 to appear in exams this year. We will extend the same benefit for the ones who were not 45 years in 2020 and 2021 for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services exam this year. We are upholding the 35 years age (minimum age criteria for DHJS exam)," the Court ordered in its judgment.The Court also ordered that a similar benefit can be availed by candidates of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service exam."The Constitution does not bar someone to become a judge at 33, 34. You are appointing a member in the higher judicial services; you require candidates with sufficient degree of maturity...Fixation of upper age limit of 32 or 45 is typically a subject matter of judgments of our court and we have upheld such cut off age limits," the Court observed..11. [Order VII Rule 11 CPC] Courts must read entire pleadings before rejecting a plaint: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sri Biswanth Banik and Another v. Smt. Sulanga Bose and Others [Civil Appeal 1848 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908, the Court has to go through the entire plaint or pleadings and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts."While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint," the judgment said.The Court relied on its decision in Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Others (2007), to hold that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint is impermissible..12. High Court should not initiate disciplinary proceedings against judicial officer merely because he passed a wrong order: Supreme CourtCase Title: Abhay Jain v. The High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Another [Civil Appeal 2029 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran held that a wrong order or action does not warrant starting disciplinary proceedings by High Court against judicial officers."Merely because a wrong order has been passed by the appellant or the action taken by him could have been different, this does not warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer," the top Court stated..13. State not bound to accept highest bid in auction: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Punjab and Others v. Mehar Din [Civil Appeal 5861 of 2009]A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka ruled that 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.Acceptance of the highest bid is provisional, subject to its confirmation by the competent authority that is the best judge in the matter, the Court underscored."This Court has examined right of the highest bidder at public auctions in umpteen number of cases and it was repeatedly pointed out that the State or authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is not bound to accept the highest tender of bid. The acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held," the judgment said..14. [NDPS Act] Physical nature of contraband not relevant to determine whether it is opium: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal 1004 of 2016]A three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli ruled that physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) for testing opium.Physical nature of the material is not relevant to determine whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, it was held."The physical nature of the material is not relevant for determining whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, and physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for testing the opium," the judgment said..15. [Section 34 IPC] Once common intention to kill established, immaterial that all accused did not cause injury to accused: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramji Lal Sharma and Another [Criminal Appeal 293 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna ruled that in a murder case, once it is established and proved that all the accused gathered at the crime scene with a shared intention to kill, it is immaterial that some of them had not used any weapon to injure the victim.The Court also noted that the eye-witness accounts of the accused in the present case bringing an axe to kill the victim cannot be discounted by the fact that there were no injury marks from the same on the deceased."Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not," the top court stated.Additionally, the Court also ruled that the presence of all the accused at the place of the incident to kill the deceased had been established and they were rightfully convicted by the trial court..Read Supreme Court fortnightly from February 1-14 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from February 15-28 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 first two weeks of March 2022..1. [Section 173 CrPC] Both Chargesheet and Supplementary Chargesheet should be considered to decide if accused committed crime: Supreme CourtCase Title: Luckose Zachariah v. Joseph Joseph [Criminal Appeal 256 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant held that reports under Sections 173(3) and 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 have to be read conjointly by analyzing their cumulative effect and the annexed documents, to decide whether an accused committed the offence.Relying majorly on its decision in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2012) and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019), the top Court observed that while deciding whether or not an accused has committed an offence, it is necessary for the Magistrate to consider the chargesheet submitted under Section 173(2) of CrPC as well as the supplementary chargesheet which is submitted after further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of CrPC."Both the reports have to be read conjointly by analyzing the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto, if any, while determining whether there existed grounds to presume that the appellants have committed the offence," the Court stated..2. State has no power to levy Excise Duty on wastage of liquor after distillation: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries [Civil Appeal 5666-5668 of 2022]A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled that the State is empowered to levy excise duty on alcoholic liquor that is only for human consumption and has no power to levy excise duty on wastage of alcohol after distillation.The top Court relied upon its seven-judge Constitution Bench judgment in Synthetics and Chemicals Limited and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1989) and three-judge Bench decision in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Modi Distillery and others (1995) to hold that the State legislature has no authority to levy duty or tax on alcohol, which is not for human consumption as that could be levied only by the Central government.“It has been held that the alcoholic liquors, which are for human consumption, are put in Entry 51 List II authorizing the State Legislature to levy tax on them, whereas alcoholic liquors other than for human consumption have been left to the Central Legislature under Entry 84 for levy of duty of excise. It has been held that what has been excluded in Entry 84 has specifically been put within the authority of the State for purposes of taxation," the judgment said..3. Once dispute regarding title is settled, permanent injunction cannot be granted against true owner: Supreme CourtCase Title: Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) vs Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) [Civil Appeal 1382 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, in that case, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner."Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to dispossess him, except in due process of law," the Court held..4. [2G license] Party cannot claim restitution if responsible for contract illegalities: Supreme Court rejects refund plea by Loop TelecomCase Title: Loop Telecom and Trading Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal 1447-1467 of 2016]A three-Judge Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath held that if a party to a contract was equally or more responsible for any illegality in relation to the defendant, restitution claims will fail.In such cases, claims for restitution under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 will fail, even though the illegality has to be determined on case-to-case basis.Therefore, the Court held that unless the party claiming restitution was party to the illegal act involuntarily, they would be held in pari delicto or in equal fault.“In determining a claim of restitution, the claiming party’s legal footing in relation to the illegal act (and in comparison to the defendant) must be understood. Unless the party claiming restitution participated in the illegal act involuntarily or the rule of law offers them protection against the defendant, they would be held to be in pari delicto and therefore, their claim for restitution will fail," the top court stated..5. ‘Lohar’ caste of Bihar not Scheduled Tribe: Supreme Court quashes Bihar govt notificationCase Title: Sunil Kumar Rai and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) 1052 of 2021]A Division Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy held that Lohar caste is not a Scheduled Tribe (ST) under the Central government's list of STs and consequently, a notification by the Bihar government to issue Scheduled Tribe certificates to the Lohar community is liable to be quashed.In the year 1950 the Central government's list of communities eligible for reservation did not include ‘Lohar’ under Scheduled Tribes. The list at serial number 20 included the tribe “Lohara” as a Scheduled Tribe for the State of Bihar.In 1976, the the parliament brought the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, in the English version of which there was status quo with respect to Lohars, but in the Hindi version, the words “Lohara” and “Lohra” were translated to “Lohar” and “Lohra”.After this Amendment Act, the members of the Lohar community started claiming to be a Scheduled Tribe. In 2006, the parliament through an amendment act substituted the Hindi translation from ‘Lohar, Lohra’ to ‘Lohara, Lohra’. In 2016, parliament passed a connected repealing act and status quo was restored.The Court relied on its decision in Nityanand Sharma and anr v. State of Bihar (1996) wherein it had answered the question whether Lohars could be considered by the Court as synonymous to Loharas or Lohras and had answered in the negative.“Lohars are an other backward class. They are not Scheduled Tribes and the cannot give any declaration that Lohars are equivalent to Loharas or Lohras or that they are entitled to the same status. Any contrary view taken by any bench/benches of Bihar High Court, is erroneous,” the top court had held in that judgment..6. Promotion is governed by rules; no vested right to promotion: Supreme CourtCase Title: Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam [Civil Appeal 517-518 of 2017]A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh held that no officer has a fundamental right to promotion and therefore, a mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favor of an employee for retrospective promotion."It is trite law that once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a “golden handshake” between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules. This would include the enhanced pay scale. The Respondent in Civil Appeal No.517 of 2017 was rightly not considered in the DPC in 2012 since he was no longer in service at the relevant point of time," the Court was of the view.The top Court noted that a mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate clearance through a selection process."A right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules," the judgment said. .7. Employee has no fundamental right to posting or transfer but State should consider 'family life' while crafting policy: Supreme CourtCase Title: SK Nausad Rahaman and Others v. Union of India and Others [Civil Appeal 1243 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Vikram Nath ruled that while crafting policy, the State cannot be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1950.However, the Court emphasised that an employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of his or her choice. It took note of the fact that executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings did not confer an indefeasible right on an individual to claim the same.However, it again made it clear that a policy governing the same has to give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy.“How a particular policy should be modulated to take into account the necessities of maintaining family life may be left at the threshold to be determined by the State. In crafting its policy however the State cannot be heard to say that it will be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is an incident of Article 21,” the top Court stated..8. De-reservation/inter-changeabilty of posts reserved for SC/STs to OBCs cannot be done by appointing authority: Supreme CourtCase Title: Mandeep Kumar and Others v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others [Civil Appeal 1908 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari held that changing vacant posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) category to Other Backward Classes category cannot be done by appointing authority.The Bench was of the view that such inter-changeability can be done only by the Department of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes.“The interchangeability of the vacant unfilled posts of SC category may be possible due to not having eligible candidates by the department concerned but not by appointing authority," the top court said in its judgment..9. [Section 319 CrPC] Power of trial court to proceed against non-accused should be used sparingly: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [Criminal Appeal 397 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka held that the power of trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to proceed against persons who have not been chargesheeted as accused, is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case warrant.Relying on its decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014), the top Court considered scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Code:"The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction," the Court stated..10. [Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2022] Candidates who qualified in 2020 and 2021 under 32 years may apply: Supreme CourtCase Title: High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma [Civil Appeal 2016 of 2022]A three- Judge Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Hima Kohli and AS Bopanna in a significant development allowed candidates who qualified for the Delhi Judicial Service Examinations that were to be held in 2020 and 2021, to appear for this year's edition of the exam, provided they have not crossed the maximum age limit of 32 years."We will allow candidates qualified in 2020 and 2021 when they did not cross the age of 32 to appear in exams this year. We will extend the same benefit for the ones who were not 45 years in 2020 and 2021 for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services exam this year. We are upholding the 35 years age (minimum age criteria for DHJS exam)," the Court ordered in its judgment.The Court also ordered that a similar benefit can be availed by candidates of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service exam."The Constitution does not bar someone to become a judge at 33, 34. You are appointing a member in the higher judicial services; you require candidates with sufficient degree of maturity...Fixation of upper age limit of 32 or 45 is typically a subject matter of judgments of our court and we have upheld such cut off age limits," the Court observed..11. [Order VII Rule 11 CPC] Courts must read entire pleadings before rejecting a plaint: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sri Biswanth Banik and Another v. Smt. Sulanga Bose and Others [Civil Appeal 1848 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908, the Court has to go through the entire plaint or pleadings and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts."While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint," the judgment said.The Court relied on its decision in Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Others (2007), to hold that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint is impermissible..12. High Court should not initiate disciplinary proceedings against judicial officer merely because he passed a wrong order: Supreme CourtCase Title: Abhay Jain v. The High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Another [Civil Appeal 2029 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran held that a wrong order or action does not warrant starting disciplinary proceedings by High Court against judicial officers."Merely because a wrong order has been passed by the appellant or the action taken by him could have been different, this does not warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer," the top Court stated..13. State not bound to accept highest bid in auction: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Punjab and Others v. Mehar Din [Civil Appeal 5861 of 2009]A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka ruled that 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.Acceptance of the highest bid is provisional, subject to its confirmation by the competent authority that is the best judge in the matter, the Court underscored."This Court has examined right of the highest bidder at public auctions in umpteen number of cases and it was repeatedly pointed out that the State or authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is not bound to accept the highest tender of bid. The acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held," the judgment said..14. [NDPS Act] Physical nature of contraband not relevant to determine whether it is opium: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal 1004 of 2016]A three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli ruled that physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) for testing opium.Physical nature of the material is not relevant to determine whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, it was held."The physical nature of the material is not relevant for determining whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, and physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for testing the opium," the judgment said..15. [Section 34 IPC] Once common intention to kill established, immaterial that all accused did not cause injury to accused: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramji Lal Sharma and Another [Criminal Appeal 293 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna ruled that in a murder case, once it is established and proved that all the accused gathered at the crime scene with a shared intention to kill, it is immaterial that some of them had not used any weapon to injure the victim.The Court also noted that the eye-witness accounts of the accused in the present case bringing an axe to kill the victim cannot be discounted by the fact that there were no injury marks from the same on the deceased."Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not," the top court stated.Additionally, the Court also ruled that the presence of all the accused at the place of the incident to kill the deceased had been established and they were rightfully convicted by the trial court..Read Supreme Court fortnightly from February 1-14 here.Read Supreme Court fortnightly from February 15-28 here.