In January 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered several significant judgments that have far-reaching implications. From matters related to judicial pay commissions to the admissibility of evidence, the Court has addressed a wide range of legal issues. This article provides a comprehensive overview of 15 important judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court during the first two weeks of January 2024.

Table of Contents

1. Supreme Court directs High Courts to form committees to implement Second National Judicial Pay Commission recommendations
2. Bilkis Bano gangrape: Supreme Court quashes Gujarat government's decision to allow premature release of convicts
3. Facts sourced from accused who is not in "formal" police custody admissible as evidence: Supreme Court
4. Supreme Court lays down rules for summoning government officials; asks courts not to humiliate them
5. No regulatory failure by SEBI in Adani-Hindenburg row, reliance on unverified press reports cannot stand: Supreme Court
6. Supreme Court imposes ₹25 lakh costs on litigant for initiating criminal proceedings in civil dispute
7. NGT not required to apply strict yardsticks of Code of Civil Procedure: Supreme Court
8. Supreme Court slams NGT for stalling Shimla Development Plan 2041
9. "Right to clean air not for people of Delhi alone": Supreme Court on NGT's suggestion to divert trucks entering NCR
10. Supreme Court objects to Rajasthan High Court directing State DISCOM to buy power at rates harmful to consumers
11. Suit cannot be decreed merely on defendant's failure to file written statement if plaintiff's case not proved: Supreme Court
12. Buyer not complying with timeline for payment cannot seek specific performance of agreement to sell: Supreme Court

Let's delve into the details of each judgment.

1. Supreme Court directs High Courts to form committees to implement Second National Judicial Pay Commission recommendations

In a case titled "All India Judges Association v. Union of India," the Supreme Court directed all High Courts in the country to establish committees responsible for implementing the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring financial dignity for judges to maintain judicial independence. It highlighted the inappropriate comparison between judicial service and other state officers' services. Consequently, the Court mandated the formation of a committee called the "Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary" by every High Court in the country.

2. Bilkis Bano gangrape: Supreme Court quashes Gujarat government's decision to allow premature release of convicts

In the case of "Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and Others," a division bench of the Supreme Court comprised of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Gujarat government's decision to prematurely release eleven men convicted in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case. The Court held that the convicts must report back to the jail authorities within two weeks. It emphasized that the Gujarat government did not have the authority to pass the remission order since the appropriate government entitled to do so was Maharashtra, where the trial had taken place. The Court also condemned one of the convicts for obtaining a favorable order by suppressing material facts, which led to the release of all eleven convicts.

3. Facts sourced from accused who is not in "formal" police custody admissible as evidence: Supreme Court

In the case of "Perumal Raja v. State Rep by Inspector of Police," a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti ruled that facts sourced from a statement made by an accused are admissible as evidence during trial, even if the accused is not in "formal" police custody. The Court emphasized the pragmatic interpretation of the pre-requisite of police custody under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, diverging from a previous three-judge bench decision. The Court reasoned that "formal" police custody is not necessary based on a Constitution Bench decision in "State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya" from 1961.

4. Supreme Court lays down rules for summoning government officials; asks courts not to humiliate them

In the case titled "State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired judges," a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for courts to follow while summoning government officials. The Court cautioned against humiliating officials or making unnecessary comments on their attire. The SOP must be followed by all High Courts, and courts should refrain from arbitrarily summoning officials. The Court further clarified that an official's personal appearance may not be required if issues can be resolved through affidavits, and officials cannot be summoned solely based on a difference in opinion with the court.

5. No regulatory failure by SEBI in Adani-Hindenburg row, reliance on unverified press reports cannot stand: Supreme Court

In a case titled "Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Others," the Supreme Court refused to issue any directions or interfere with the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in response to a batch of petitions seeking an alternative agency probe into allegations of fraud against Adani Group of companies. The Court stated that the Supreme Court's power to enter the regulatory domain of SEBI is limited, and the scope of judicial review is only to determine whether any fundamental rights have been violated. The Court held that SEBI did not experience any regulatory failure and cannot solely rely on unverified press reports, although such reports can serve as inputs for SEBI's functions.

6. Supreme Court imposes ₹25 lakh costs on litigant for initiating criminal proceedings in civil dispute

In the case of "Dinesh Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others," a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal imposed costs of ₹25 lakhs on a litigant for initiating criminal proceedings in a civil dispute. The Court emphasized that unscrupulous litigants who burden the justice system should not escape consequences. The Court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a cheating and forgery case related to a share-pledge agreement and loan disbursement. The Court criticized the litigant's choice to file the first information report in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, despite the parties being Delhi-based.

7. NGT not required to apply strict yardsticks of Code of Civil Procedure: Supreme Court

In the case titled "Nabendu Kumar Bandopadhyay v. Additional Chief Secretary and Others," a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed displeasure with the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for summarily dismissing an application without holding any inquiry. The Court highlighted that when a citizen approaches the NGT with a grievance, a different approach is expected, and the NGT is not required to strictly apply the yardsticks provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the case was remitted back to the NGT for a fresh inquiry in accordance with the law.

8. Supreme Court slams NGT for stalling Shimla Development Plan 2041

In the case of "State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendra Mohan Sengupta and Another," a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Aravind Kumar criticized the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for obstructing the implementation of the draft Development Plan 2041 for Shimla by passing stringent directions while the matter was pending before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Court observed that the NGT's actions were not in line with principles of judicial propriety. The Court allowed the Himachal Pradesh government to proceed with the implementation of the development plan as published in June 2023.

9. "Right to clean air not for people of Delhi alone": Supreme Court on NGT's suggestion to divert trucks entering NCR

In the case titled "Container Corporation of India Ltd vs Ajay Khera and Others," a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal berated the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for suggesting the diversion of trucks heading to an Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Delhi's Tughlakabad to other ICDs outside the National Capital Region (NCR). The Court emphasized that the right to clean air is not exclusive to people living in Delhi and that diverting trucks to other ICDs is unjustified and unwarranted. The case revolved around pollution caused by heavy-duty diesel trailer trucks, and the Court raised concerns regarding the proposed diversion plan.

10. Supreme Court objects to Rajasthan High Court directing State DISCOM to buy power at rates harmful to consumers

In the case of "Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others v. MB Power Madhya Pradesh Private Limited and Others," a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra objected to the Rajasthan High Court's direction to a state-run electricity distribution company (DISCOM) to purchase 200MW of power from a private company. The Court emphasized the need to balance the interests of consumers and DISCOMs in such cases. It highlighted that protecting the interests of generators should not be prioritized at the expense of consumers and public interest.

11. Suit cannot be decreed merely on defendant's failure to file a written statement if plaintiff's case not proved: Supreme Court

In the case of "Asma Latif and Another v. Shabbir Ahmed and Others," a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta, and Aravind Kumar held that a court cannot pronounce judgment in a suit purely based on the defendant's failure to file a written statement if the plaintiff fails to prove their case. The Court emphasized that the failure to file a written statement within the permitted time does not automatically lead to a judgment against the defendant. The Court highlighted that the Code of Civil Procedure provides two alternatives for the court, and passing judgment is not always mandatory.

12. Buyer not complying with the timeline for payment cannot seek specific performance of the agreement to sell: Supreme Court

In the case of "Alagammal and Others v. Ganesan and Another," a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that if a contract specifies a specific timeframe for the buyer to make the payment, the buyer must strictly adhere to it. Failure to comply with the payment timeline disqualifies the buyer from seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell. The Court emphasized that the buyers had not even offered to pay the remaining amount before the expiry of six months, indicating non-compliance with their obligations under the agreement. The Court rejected the buyers' contention that the time for completion had been relaxed and noted their lack of willingness to pay or complete the necessary paperwork.

These are just a few of the important judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India during the first two weeks of January 2024. These judgments cover a wide range of legal issues and have significant implications for various stakeholders involved. Stay updated with the latest judgments and legal developments by visiting Legalstix Law School for the most recent updates.