Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR)

The Supreme Court recognised the right to mental health as an integral component of the right to life under Article 21. It laid down binding guidelines for educational institutions and coaching centres across India.

A 17-year-old student was undergoing coaching for the National Eligibility-cum Entrance Test (NEET) examination. She died under suspicious circumstances while residing in a hostel. Dissatisfied with the conduct of the police and the forensic classification of the death as suicide, the parent moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court through multiple writ petitions, seeking transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The High Court rejected these petitions.

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court after identifying lapses in the investigation. It allowed the transfer to CBI. Exercising its powers under Article 32, the Supreme Court laid down mental health guidelines for all educational institutions, coaching centres and student-centric environments. It also directed states and Union Territories to notify the rules within two months and also form district-level monitoring committees.

The Supreme Court held that a second quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is generally not maintainable if it relies on grounds already available at the time of the first petition.

The case arose out of a loan dispute between the complainant, MC Ravikumar and the accused-respondent, D.S. Velmurugan. Ravikumar alleged that Velmurugan failed to return the original property documents after he had repaid the loan. When one of the accused, P. Jothikumar, later produced these documents in a civil suit, Ravikumar filed a criminal complaint. The first quashing petition filed by the accused was dismissed by the High Court. A second petition was later allowed.

The Supreme Court held that the second petition raised no new or unavailable grounds and amounted to a disguised review of the earlier order by a co-ordinate bench. It rejected the respondent’s arguments of a change in circumstances resulting from the quashing of a similar complaint. It noted that this event took place before the filing of the first quashing petition and the ground had been available for the respondent to take at the time.

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of merger—which states that a lower court’s judgement is subsumed by the higher court’s verdict—will not apply where the order obtained in the lower court was a result of fraud and suppression of material facts.

The dispute arose over compensation for land acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. The respondent, being one among three owners, asserted sole ownership and obtained a substantial compensation award from the Allahabad High Court. He failed to disclose prior proceedings that acknowledged joint ownership. The appellant approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 to challenge the order. Earlier, in related proceedings, the Supreme Court had partly allowed a civil appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the deduction of development charges ordered by the High Court.

The Supreme Court found that the respondent’s failure to disclose material facts and the trajectory of inconsistent claims amounted to fraud, rendering the impugned order a nullity. It rejected the challenge to maintainability on the ground of intra-court appeal, holding that fraud is an exception to the doctrine of merger and procedural limitations.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a Will, if registered, carries a presumption of genuineness. The burden to prove otherwise lies on the party challenging the Will, who must demonstrate that it was not executed properly or that suspicious circumstances cast doubt on its validity

Metpalli Ramanna died intestate prior to 1949 and his legal heir, Metpalli Rajanna, passed in 1983. After Rajanna’s death, a dispute arose between Lasum Bai, his second wife, and Metapalli Muthaih, his son from his first marriage. Lasum Bai claimed ownership of land based on a registered Will and an oral family arrangement made by Rajanna, while Muthaih contended the land was ancestral property and that Rajanna had died intestate. The Trial Court upheld the Will and Lasum Bai’s claim, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court partly reversed this, granting Muthaiah a 3/4th share and Lasum Bai only 1/4th.

The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s ruling, observing that Muthaiah had admitted his father’s signature on the Will and acknowledged Lasum Bai’s possession of the land. The Court further reaffirmed the persuasive nature of oral family settlements when supported by consistent evidence and the fact of possession.

The Supreme Court held that while bail granted may not be cancelled ordinarily, courts are not powerless to cancel bail where the facts shock the conscience and where cancellation is needed to ensure a fair trial.

A woman superintendent in a protection home was accused of administering intoxicating medicines and injections to women inmates to expose them to influential men for sexual favours. The High Court granted her bail after she challenged a Trial Court order denying it.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overlooked Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which mandates a hearing of the victim before granting bail. The Court agreed with the contention that the accused was in a position to influence witnesses. Calling it an exceptional case, the Court found that the High Court’s order was cryptic and unreasoned. It exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 to direct the cancellation of bail.

The Supreme Court held that the usage of the phrase “may be sought through Arbitration” in an agreement does not mandate arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution.

BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) invoked arbitration proceedings under Clause 13 of its General Terms and Conditions (GTC) after a dispute with Eastern Coalfields Ltd. The Clause stated that disputes “may be sought” through the Arbitration Act, 1996. The Calcutta High Court held that the word “may” indicated no clear intention to arbitrate.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, noting that Clause 13 of the GTC did not amount to an arbitration agreement between the parties. It was merely a provision that left the option open.

The Supreme Court held that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against judicial officers in their judgements while deciding matters.

The Rajasthan High Court had found a bail order by a District Judge-cadre officer to be “grossly inappropriate and cavalier” and accused him of negligence and disobedience. The bail order did not include the criminal antecedents of the accused persons.

The Supreme Court expunged the remarks against the officer. It held that the remarks were uncalled for and were made without providing the officer an opportunity to explain.

The Supreme Court held that a tribal woman is entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property. The Court held that the withholding of inheritance rights violated the principle of equality under Article 14.

The appellants sought the partition of their maternal grandfather’s property, claiming their mother had an equal share in it. The Trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed this application stating that the applicants had failed to establish their right over the property.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgement. It held that the defendants had provided no proof of a custom which prohibited female succession. There was no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property.

The Supreme Court held that a mitigation report prepared to determine the facts and circumstances of the crime warranting the death penalty should be considered in its entirety before confirming the sentence.

A Trial Court had imposed the death penalty on the appellant for the murder of his wife, sister-in-law and his three children. The punishment and the conviction were confirmed by the Karnataka High Court, which found that the crime had been pre-planned and executed.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but set aside the death penalty. It relied on the mitigation report, which found the appellant to have a “good moral character” and showed “good conduct” with co-prisoners and prison officials. The Court also factored in that the convict was mildly depressed and that he had lacked proper parental care due to the death of his parents. He had also attempted suicide on two occasions. The Court reasoned that the “sum-total of circumstances” that drove him to commit the “reprehensible crime” did not warrant the death penalty and commuted the sentence to life imprisonment without the scope of remission.

The Supreme Court held that a secretly recorded phone conversation between spouses is admissible as evidence and does not violate their right to privacy.

A Family Court in Bathinda had allowed an application by the husband seeking permission to submit memory cards of phones and transcripts of recorded conversations as evidence. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the Bathinda Court Order stating that the conversations were recorded without the wife’s knowledge, which invaded her right to privacy.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision. It stated that the recording cannot be considered inadmissible merely because it was “illegally obtained”. The Court clarified that privacy of communication between husband and wife granted under Section 122 of the Evidence Act did not extend to cases of dispute between them.