The Supreme Court fortnightly: 15 important judgments - April 16 to 30, 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 last two weeks of April 2022..1. Lakhimpur Kheri: Court cancels bail granted to Ashish Mishra by Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Jagjeet Singh and Others v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Another [Criminal Appeal 632 of 2022]A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli cancelled the bail granted by Allahabad High Court to Union minister Ajay Mishra’s son Ashish Mishra, the main accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence in which 8 people were killed after being allegedly mowed down by Mishra's vehicle.This was in view of the fact that victims of the crime (family members of the deceased) were denied chance of effective hearing before the Allahabad High Court."A ‘victim’ within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/ she has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision," the judgment said.The top Court said that a victim of crime has the right to to be heard at every step right from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision.Moreover, while affirming the right to seek bail of the accused, the top Court noted that no accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty..2. Salary-wages during CIRP are costs for asset distribution under Section 53 IBCCase Title: Sunil Kumar Jain and Others v. Sundaresh Bhatt and Others [Civil Appeal 5910 of 2019]A bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that salary wages of employees during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) are to be treated as costs for asset distribution purposes under the IBC.The Court noted that that under Sections 53 and 5 of the IBC, such pay is to be given precedence over other debts provided the employees have actually worked and the corporate debtor was being run as a going concern by the Resolution Professional.The bench clarified that wages/salaries of only those workmen/employees who actually worked during CIRP when the corporate debtor can be included in the CIRP costs and they shall have the first priority over all other dues as per Section 53(1)(a) of IBC."The wages and salaries of all other workmen/employees of the corporate debtor during the CIRP who actually have not worked and/or performed their duties when the Corporate Debtor was a going concern, shall not be included automatically in the CIRP costs," the Court made it clear.Moreover, the top court also said that Section 20 of the IBC mandates that the interim resolution professional/resolution professional is to manage the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern and in case during the CIRP the corporate debtor was a going concern, the wages/salaries of such workmen/employees who actually worked, shall be included in the CIRP costs..3. TV debates on criminal cases pending in courts amount to interference with administration of justiceCase Title: Venkatesh @ Chandra v State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal 1476-1477 of 2018]A division bench of Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha held that any debate or discussion on a public platform such as a television (TV) channel touching on criminal cases which are in the domain of courts would amount to direct interference in administration of criminal justice."All matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of law and not through a TV channel," the Court observed.All matters relating to a crime and whether a piece of evidence was conclusive need to be dealt with by a Court and not a TV channel, the Court emphasised.“The public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law,” the Bench held in its decision..4. Ancestral property of Hindu Undivided Family can be gifted only for pious purpose and not out of love and affection: Supreme CourtCase Title: KC Laxmana v. KC Chandrappa Gowda [Civial Appeal 2582 of 2010]A bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari held that a Hindu father or any other managing member of a Hindu Undivided Family has the power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a ‘pious purpose’ and what is understood by the term ‘pious purpose’ is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose.The Court emphasised that a deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed ‘out of love and affection’ does not come within the scope of the term ‘pious purpose’."It is irrelevant if such gift or settlement was made by a donor, i.e. the first defendant, in favour of a donee who was raised by the donor without any relationship, i.e. the second defendant," the Court held.The top court noted that Karta/Manager of a joint family property may alienate joint family property only in the three following situations:(i) legal necessity (ii) for the benefit of the estate and (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners of the family.However in this case, the alienation of the joint family property was not with the consent of all the coparceners."It is settled law that where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of the coparceners whose consent has not been obtained," the Court ruled..5. [Dowry Death] 'Soon before Death' under Section 304B IPC means proximate, not immediateCase Title: Devender Singh and Others v. State of Uttarakhand [Criminal Appeal 383 of 2018]A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli held that the phrase 'soon before her death' used in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on dowry death must be interpreted to mean proximately before the death of the wife and not immediately prior to such death.The Court was also of the view that that Section 304B would be attracted in a case where death was caused in suspicious circumstances and it had occurred within 6 months from the date of marriage."As to the phrase ‘soon before her death’, it is well-settled that the same ought to be interpreted to mean proximate and to be linked with but not to be understood to mean immediately prior to the death. While taking note of the evidence and the other aspects of the matter, what is also to be borne in mind in the instant case is that the death which did not take place in normal circumstances, had occurred within just about 6 months from the date of the marriage," the bench observed.The following ingredients have to be established to prove a case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code:"(i) that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry;(ii) the death of the deceased was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal;(iii) such a death has occurred within 7 years from the date of her marriage;(iv) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;(v) such a cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with the demand of dowry; and(vi) it should be established that such cruelty and harassment were made soon before her death.".6. Bail granted by lower court can be cancelled by superior court if evidence, gravity of crime or societal impact not consideredCase Title: Imran v. Mohammed Bhava [Criminal Appeal 658 of 2022]A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli held that while significant scrutiny is required at the instance of a superior court to cancel bail already granted by a lower court, the same could be done if relevant material, gravity of the offence or its societal impact were not considered by the lower court.The Court said that it is a well-established principle that once bail was granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. However, the judgment in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab was cited to highlight that bail could be revoked by a superior court when relevant material available on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact were ignored.It was also stated that bail once granted could not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances had rendered it inconducive to allow fair trial..7. Ad-hoc employee can be replaced only by regular employee and not another ad-hoc employeeCase Title: Manish Gupta and Another v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Others [Civil Appeal 3084-3088 of 2022]A division bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that an ad-hoc employee can be replaced by only a regular employee who is appointed following the procedure prescribed and not by another ad-hoc employee."It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed," the Court held.To hold the above, reliance was placed by the Bench on its decisions in Rattan Lal and Others v. State of Haryana (1985) and Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2007), wherein the top Court had came down heavily on the government for following a policy of ’ad-hocism’..8. Anganwadi workers entitled to gratuity under Payment of Gratuity ActCase Title: Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod and Others [Civil Appeal 3153 of 2022]In a judgment of significant import, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ajay Rastogi held that Anganwadi workers and helpers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972. It noted that Anganwadi workers are currently being paid very meagre remuneration and paltry benefits under an insurance scheme of the Central government."Time has come when the Central government/State governments has to collectively consider as to whether looking to the nature of work and exponential increase in the Anganwadi centers and to ensure quality in the delivery of services and community participation and ... find out modalities in providing better service conditions of the voiceless commensurate to the nature of job discharged by them ... It is high time that the Central government and State governments take serious note of the plight of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) who are expected to render such important services to the society," the Court said.Both the judges in their separate but concurring opinions emphasised the important role that Anganwadi workers and helpers play in ensuring the nutrition of young children in rural areas. The Bench observed that they have an 'onerous responsibility' of ensuring the healthy growth of children aged between 6 months and 6 years."Gratuity, as a social welfare legislation, its effective implementation is of paramount importance to fulfil the legitimate 7 expectation of the employees. So far as the unorganized sectors are concerned, these Acts have been pillars in social security and laid the foundation for improvement in standards of living of the employees," the Bench said.The top Court then went on to note the 'pivotal and significant role' during played during the COVID-19 pandemic by frontline women health workers..9. LIC bound by Article 14; cannot substitute open recruitment with absorption of part-time workersCase Title: Ranbir Singh v. SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another [Miscellaneous Civil Application 1150 of 2019]A three-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath held that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) being a statutory body, is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.Therefore, it ruled that recruitment to sanctioned posts, consistent with principles of equal opportunity recruitment, cannot be substituted by absorption of part-time workers."LIC as a statutory corporation is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As a public employer, the recruitment process of the corporation must meet the constitutional standard of a fair and open process. Allowing for back-door entries into service is an anathema to public service," the Court observed.The Court, therefore, declined to direct the LIC to absorb 11,000 part-time workers without an open and competitive process."A public employer such as LIC cannot be directed to carry out a mass absorption of over 11,000 workers on such flawed premises without following a recruitment process which is consistent with the principles of equality of opportunity governed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such an absorption would provide the very back-door entry, which negates the principle of equal opportunity and fairness in public employment."The Court concluded that claims of verified workers who meet the threshold of eligibility should be resolved by full and final settlement of all the demands by an award of monetary compensation, instead of absorption..10. Reserved category candidate who scores more than General category candidate should be appointed to unreserved category: Supreme CourtCase Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) v. Sandeep Choudhary [Civil Appeal 8717 of 2015]A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that a reserved category candidate who scores more than the last ranked person in the general category, should be considered for appointment to general category pool so that the remaining seats in the reserved category can filled by another deserving candidate from such category.Reliance was placed by the top Court on a catena of judgments from Indra Sawhney v. Union of India to Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh to hold that reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in unreserved categories.The top Court noted that in Saurav Yadav's case, it was held that candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in “open or general” category and it was also further observed that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories that they belong..11. Court cannot usurp power of government to grant remission to convictsCase Title: Ram Chander v. State of Chattisgarh and Others [Writ Petition (Criminal) 49 of 2022]A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose held that the Courts cannot usurp the power of the government and grant remission of sentence of convicts, but it can only review the decision taken by the government with regard to whether the remission granted under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was arbitrary."While the court can review the decision of the government to determine whether it was arbitrary, it cannot usurp the power of the government and grant remission itself. Where the exercise of power by the executive is found to be arbitrary, the authorities may be directed to consider the case of the convict afresh," the Bench ruled.Moreover, it was held that in an application for remission under Section 432 CrPC, while the the opinion of the presiding judge of the court by which the person making an application for remission has been convicted, will 'enable' the government to make the 'right decision', it need not be followed mechanically by the concerned government."If the opinion of the presiding judge does not comply with the requirements of Section 432 (2) or if the judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh," the Bench stated in its decision.The government has absolute discretion to decide whether the application for remission should be allowed or not, the Court said. But the top court added that the power cannot be exercised arbitrarily."The prerogative of the executive is subject to the rule of law and fairness in state action embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution," the bench stated..12. [Group of companies doctrine] Non- signatory bound by arbitration agreement if it is alter ego of signatoryCase Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Discovery Enterprises Private Limited and Others [Civil Appeal 2042 of 2022]A three-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath held that a non-signatory to a contract containing an arbitration clause, may be bound by the arbitration agreement, if it is an alter-ego of the party which executed the arbitration agreement.The Court analysed existing literature on the 'group of companies doctrine' and stated that a non signatory may be bound by an arbitration agreement where:1. There exists a group of companies; and2. Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory."A party, which is not a signatory to a contract containing an arbitration clause, may be bound by the agreement to arbitrate if it is an alter ego of a party which executed the agreement," the judgement stated.Moreover, it observed that, in deciding whether a company within a group of companies which is not a signatory to arbitration agreement would nonetheless be bound by it, the law considers the following factors:1. The mutual intent of the parties;2. The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement;3. The commonality of the subject matter;4. The composite nature of the transaction; and5. The performance of the contract."Consent and party autonomy are undergirded in Section 7 of the Act of 1996. However, a non-signatory may be held to be bound on a consensual theory, founded on agency and assignment or on a non-consensual basis such as estoppel or alter ego," the Court said.In holding so, the top Court recalled that in Chloro Controls(I) P. Ltd. v Severn Trent Water Purification, a three-judge Bench had held that though an arbitration normally would take place between parties to the arbitration agreement, it could take place between a signatory to an arbitration agreement and a third party as well..13. Courts should not interfere with well-reasoned order of disciplinary committee on grounds of sympathy: Supreme CourtCase Title: Union of India v. M Duraiswamy [Civil Appeal 2665 of 2022]A division bench of Justices of MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that a High Court cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on grounds of sympathy and sentiments, especially in cases involving misconduct by public servants. It further observed that courts should not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee, if all the procedural requirements have been complied with."Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. What about the loss caused to the department by way of goodwill, name and fame of the department and its reliability amongst the public? By such a misconduct/act on the part of the delinquent officer, the reputation of the department had been tarnished," the top court said in its judgment.The Court was of the opinion that the nature and gravity of the misconduct must be considered before interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded to the delinquent officer..14. Medical professional cannot assure that patient will overcome medical crisis: Supreme CourtCase Title: Dr Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr M A Methusethupathi [Civil Appeal 6507 of 2009]A division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay Oka held that merely because a doctor cannot save a patient, he cannot be held liable for medical negligence. It noted that a doctor will be liable only if he did not possess the requisite skills which he claimed he had or he did not exercise the skill he possessed, with reasonable competence.The Court was of the view that a medical professional cannot assure that a patient will successfully overcome medical crisis and all that doctors are expected to do is to take reasonable care in discharge of their duties."The doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but no professional can assure that the patient will come back home after overcoming the crisis. At the same time, no evidence has come on record at the behest of the appellants which, in any manner, could demonstrate that it was a case of post-operative medical negligence or follow up care on the part of treating doctors. At the same time, the respondents - treating doctors are indeed experts and qualified Nephrologists and this fact has been admitted by the appellant that the patient was under treatment of the best medical professionals and qualifie Nephrologists, but those treating doctors could not save the patient and that in itself could not be considered to be a case of post operative medical negligence," the top Court held..15. Criminal case cannot be quashed merely because complaint was filed by political rival: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 2953 of 2022]A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna held that a criminal case cannot be quashed solely on the ground that the complaint was filed by a political rival."In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings," the Court said.The top Court then cited the observations of former Chief Justice of India PN Bhagwati, who in the judgment rendered in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar had held that a complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta but that in itself cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings."It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant," the top Court held in its decision..Read Supreme Court fortnightly from April 1-15 here.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.