The Supreme Court fortnightly: 15 important judgments - February 15 to 28

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 February 2022..1. Prosecution cannot shift burden of proof to accused by resorting to Section 106 Indian Evidence Act: Supreme CourtCase Title: Satye Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand [Criminal Appeal 2374 of 2014]A Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi held that that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused.The Court relied on its judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, and opined that “it is a settled position of law that circumstances how so ever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.”It was further observed by the Court that if the prosecution has failed to prove the basic facts alleged against the accused, the burden of proof cannot then be shifted to the accused by resorting to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act..The Supreme Court fortnightly: 15 important judgments - February 1 to 14.2. [SEBI Regulations] Noticee has right to disclosure of material relevant to proceedings against him: Supreme CourtCase Title: T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India [Civil Appeal 487-488 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna ruled that under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations (PFUTP Regulations), a noticee has the right to disclosure of material that was relevant to the proceedings against him.“If the investigating authority attempts to circumvent its duty by revealing minimal information, to the prejudice of the appellant, it will be in violation of the principles of natural justice,” the Court stated.It was further held that right of the noticee is not absolute, and if the SEBI is able to show that the disclosure would have an adverse effect, the burden of proving necessity would move to the noticee..3. [Orchestra Bars license] State has duty to create conducive work atmosphere for women: Supreme Court strikes down gender capCase Title: Hotel Priya, A Proprietorship v State of Maharashtra [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 13764 of 2012]A Division Bench of Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat held that in cases where women’s safety at workplace is a concern, the State is duty-bound to create an atmosphere conducive to their employment, rather than thwart and stifle their choice.The Court, therefore, struck down a license condition that had imposed a gender cap on the number of people who can be on stage in orchestra bars."It is hereby declared that the condition imposing a gender cap as to the number of women or men, who can perform in orchestras and bands, in bars licensed under the Rules, 1960 and other allied provisions, is void. While the overall limit of performers in any given performance cannot exceed eight, the composition (i.e., all female, majority female or male, or vice versa) can be of any combination," the Court held in its order..4. High Court's power of judicial review in disciplinary matters not akin to adjudication on merits as appellate authority: Supreme CourtCase Title: General Manager (Operation-1) Appellate Authority, UCO Bank and Others v. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 13615/2021]A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka held that power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution is not analogous to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority."So far as the scope of judicial review in matters of disciplinary inquiry is concerned, it has been settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their power of judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not assume the role of appellate authority where jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice," the Court stated..5. Pharmaceutical companies gifting freebies to doctors “prohibited by law”; cannot claim tax deduction: Supreme CourtCase Title: Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 23207 of 2019]A Division Bench of Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat ruled that pharmaceutical companies gifting freebies to doctors is clearly prohibited by law and it cannot, therefore, be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act."It is a matter of great public importance and concern, when it is demonstrated that a doctor’s prescription can be manipulated, and driven by the motive to avail the freebies offered to them by pharmaceutical companies, ranging from gifts such as gold coins, fridges and LCD TVs to funding international trips for vacations or to attend medical conferences," the Court observed..6. "Love affair” has no bearing on grant of bail in POCSO case: Supreme Court sets aside Jharkhand High Court orderCase Title: X (Minor) v. State of Jharkhand [Criminal Appeal 263 of 2022]In a significant ruling, a Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant held that a “love affair” between the accused and the prosecutrix is not valid ground for bail under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012.The top Court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court which had granted bail on the above premise.“...both the grounds, namely that “there was a love affair” between the appellant and the second respondent as well as the alleged refusal to marry, are circumstances which will have no bearing on the grant of bail,” the Court recorded..7. Application to correct trial court decree confirmed by High Court should be filed before High Court: Supreme CourtCase Title: B Boriah through Legal Representatives v. MG Thirthaprasad and Others [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 31174 of 2016]A Division Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar held that once a decree passed by the trial court has merged with the judgment and decree passed by the High Court, any application for correction of decree can then be maintained only before the concerned High Court.However, the Court clarified that any application for correction before the trial court can be maintained only if the appeal was to be decided by the High Court under Rule 11 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908..8. Employer defaulting in paying EPF contribution must pay damages; mens rea/ actus reus not relevant: Supreme CourtCase Title: Horticulture Experiment station Gonikoppal, Coorg v. The Regional Provident Fund Organization [Civil Appeal 2136 of 2012]A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka reaffirmed that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil obligations/liabilities.It was further observed by the Court that any default or delay in the payment of Employees Provident Fund contribution by the employer is the only sine qua non (essential requirement) for imposition of damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952.The top court relied on its three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors and others in which it was held that as far as the penalty inflicted under the provisions is a civil liability is concerned, mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing civil penalties..9. Consumer Protection Act for business-to-consumer disputes and not for business-to-business disputes: Supreme CourtCase Title: Shrikant G Mantri v Punjab National Bank [Civil Appeal 11397 of 2016]A Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled that if business-to-business disputes were construed as consumer disputes, it would defeat the very purpose of providing speedy and simple redressal as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act.The Court further found that a person availing services for commercial purposes, to come within the definition of a consumer under the Act, would have to establish that the services were availed only for the purpose of earning a livelihood by means of self-employment.“There cannot be any straitjacket formula and such a question will have to be decided in the facts of each case, depending upon the evidence placed on record,” the Bench stated..10. Compassionate appointment can be granted to children from second wife: Supreme CourtCase Title: Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 18571 of 2018]A three-Judge Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha struck down a condition imposed by a Railway Board circular which had mandated that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee.The Court said that the same was discriminatory and violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution that among other things, prohibits discrimination in State employment based on descent."While compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee under Article 16, a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16... In this regard, ‘descent’ must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant’s legitimacy as their child," the Bench observed..11. Statements of protected witness after redaction of identity can be provided to UAPA accused: Supreme CourtCase Title: Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of J&K [Criminal Appeal 237 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh held that an accused is entitled to obtain copies of statements of those who are declared 'protected witnesses' under Section 173(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) read with Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 after redaction of identities of such witnesses.The Court under Section 207 of CrPC, an accused can be given a copy of protected witness's statement with identity redacted."The objective of Section 44, UAPA, Section 17, NIA Act, and Section 173(6) is to safeguard witnesses. They are in the nature of a statutory witness protection. On the court being satisfied that the disclosure of the address and name of the witness could endanger the family and the witness, such an order can be passed. They are also in the context of special provisions made for offences under special statutes," the Court stated..12. Can CMM/DM appoint advocate to take possession of secured assets under SARFAESI Act? Supreme Court answersCase Title: NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd v. Subir Chakravarty and Others [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 30240 of 2019]A Division Bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar held that an advocate is an officer of the court and is subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) or District Magistrate (DM) for the purposes of Section 14(1A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act)Thus, the Court held that the CMM/DM can avail the services of an advocate to take possession of secured assets and related documents, and that the insertion of sub-section (1A) does not come in the way of the same."...no such rule has been framed by the Central Government in reference to sub-Section (1A) of Section 14 of the 2002 Act much less to expressly or by necessary implication prohibiting the CMM/DM to engage an Advocate Commissioner for taking possession of the secured assets. In absence thereof, exclusion of engagement of an advocate as commissioner cannot be countenanced," the Court stated in its order..13. [Service Tax case] Exemption provisions in tax statutes should be interpreted strictly: Supreme CourtCase Title: Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, New Mandi Yard, Alwar v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Alwar [Civil Appeal 1482 of 2018]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna ruled that in a tax-related statute, statutory provisions providing for exemption have to be interpreted strictly and in light of words employed in them and there cannot be any addition or subtraction from such provisions."The exemption notification should be strictly construed and given a meaning according to legislative intendment. The statutory provisions providing for exemption have to be interpreted in light of the words employed in them and there cannot be any addition or subtraction from the statutory provisions," the Court said.The Court was of the view that for a party to take benefit of the exemption, they should fulfill all the relevant conditions laid down in the statute and the exemptions provided.It stated that an exception and/or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the relevant policy and the exemption notifications issued in that regard..14. [Motor Accident Claims] Position of claimant after accident essential factor to determine compensation: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sri Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another [Civil Appeal 1540 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that in a claim for motor accident, the amount of compensation to be awarded under the heads of pain, suffering, loss of amenities and happiness cannot be calculated based on a straitjacket formula."The pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the claimant cannot be compensated in terms of money... the amount of compensation to be awarded under the heads, pain and suffering and loss of amenities and happiness, there cannot be a straight jacket formula," the Court observed.The Court opined that loss of amenities and happiness suffered by the claimant and his family members also depend upon various factors, including the position of the claimant post-accident and whether, he is in a position to enjoy life and/or happiness which he was enjoying prior to the accident..15. Examine locus standi to weed out frivolous PILs: Supreme CourtCase Title: Esteem Properties Private Limited v. Chetan Kamble [Civil Appeal 10245 of 2010]A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli held that one of the measures to be adopted by Constitutional courts in order to weed out frivolous public interest litigation (PIL) petitions, is to be cautious when examining locus standi of the petitioner."One of the measures this Court can adopt to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi.....If the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claims on merits," the CJI-led Bench observed.The top court was of the view that PIL is not a new concept and although the jurisprudence in this regard has matured, many claims filed in the courts are sometimes immature..Read Supreme Court fortnightly from February 1-14 here.