Illegal structures, irrespective of their investment or age, cannot be regularized.

Supreme Court issues rules to curb illegal constructions.

Officers who issue wrong completion/occupancy certificates to unauthorised constructions must face departmental action. The Supreme Court observed that illegal structures, irrespective of their investment or age, cannot be regularized.

The bench upheld a demolition order for an illegal structure in Meerut, urging "iron hand" action against violations in a significant judgment.

The Supreme Court has issued nationwide guidelines to tackle the growing menace of unauthorised constructions, mandating stringent compliance with building regulations and directing that possession of buildings be handed over to owners or beneficiaries by a developer only after obtaining a valid completion or occupation certificate.

Mandating greater accountability from builders, authorities and even financial institutions, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on Tuesday directed that service providers, including electricity and water supply boards, must ensure that connections are granted only after verifying valid completion or occupation certificates, adding trade and business licenses should also be denied in unauthorised residential or commercial buildings. The top court further ordered banks and financial institutions to verify completion or occupation certificates before sanctioning loans against buildings.

The bench delivered the significant judgment while upholding a demolition order against an illegal structure in Meerut, as it called for “iron hand” action against violations and warned that leniency in such cases would amount to “misplaced sympathy”.

“Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence, and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against illegal or unauthorized constructions,” stressed the bench.

Highlighting the far-reaching consequences of unauthorised constructions, the court said that they not only endanger the lives of occupants and nearby residents but also disrupt orderly urban development and harm the environment.

“Master plans or zonal development cannot be just individual-centric but must be devised keeping in mind the larger interest of the public and the environment,” noted the judgment, adding that unauthorised constructions strain public resources, including electricity, groundwater and access to roads, which are primarily meant for planned and authorised activities.

The bench expressed disapproval of state governments’ tendencies to regularise illegal constructions, terming such practices short-sighted and detrimental to long-term urban planning.

“The state governments often seek to enrich themselves through the process of regularization by condoning/ratifying the violations and illegalities. The State is unmindful that this gain is insignificant compared to the long-term damage it causes to the orderly urban development and irreversible adverse impact on the environment,” it lamented.

To ensure strict adherence to building laws and prevent future violations, the court laid out a set of directives. It directed that builders must provide an undertaking to ensure possession of buildings is handed over only after obtaining valid completion or occupation certificates. The court also ordered authorities to conduct periodic inspections at construction sites and maintain records to ensure compliance with approved plans. Further, the court directed service providers to supply electricity, water and other utilities only after verifying the validity of completion or occupation certificates.

The judgment emphasised the importance of timely action, stating that completion or occupation certificates should be issued without undue delay once authorities verify compliance. Any deviations must be rectified before such certificates are granted, and legal action should be taken against violators.

The bench also prohibited the issuance of trade or business licenses for unauthorised constructions, whether residential or commercial, and mandated that all development conform to zonal plans and land use regulations. It called for stringent action against officials responsible for wrongful certificate issuance or failure to enforce building laws.

The Supreme Court further instructed that any appeals or applications for regularization or rectification of deviations must be resolved within 90 days to prevent unnecessary delays. It cautioned that non-compliance with its directives would lead to contempt proceedings and possible prosecution.

“Unless the administration is streamlined and the persons entrusted with the act's implementation are held accountable for their failure in performing statutory obligations, violations of this nature would go unchecked and become more rampant. If the officials are left scot-free, they will be emboldened and would continue to turn a Nelson’s eye to all the illegalities resulting in derailment of all planned projects and pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks etc,” it underscored.

The court ordered the judgment to be circulated to all high courts, chief secretaries of state, and local bodies to ensure its wide implementation.

Illegal Constructions Can't Be Regularised Irrespective of Long Occupancy & Investments : Supreme Court

Read Judgment 

The Supreme Court observed that illegal structures, irrespective of their investment or age, cannot be regularized. 

“we are of the opinion that construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy.”, the Court said. 

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision to demolish structures purchased by the appellants. The shops and commercial spaces had been illegally constructed by Respondent No. 5 and 6 on land allotted by Respondent No. 1, the U.P. Housing and Development Board, without obtaining the required approvals. 

The appellant challenged the demolition order on grounds of long-standing occupancy and alleged lapses by the authorities in not sending prior notices to the appellant. 

Respondent No.1 argued that the construction was in blatant violation of residential zoning and lacked statutory approvals. It informed that several notices were issued to the original allottee (Respondent No.5 and 6) and the Appellant, but no corrective action was taken. According to them, delay and inaction do not validate illegal constructions. 

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan emphasized that illegal constructions cannot be permitted to thrive in blatant violation of mandatory legal provisions. The Court further noted that prolonged occupancy, financial investment, and authority's inaction do not legitimize unauthorized structures. 

“In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that illegally of unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated. If the construction is made in contravention of the Acts / Rules, it would be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily demolished. It cannot be legitimized or protected solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial money has been spent on the said construction.”, the Court said. 

“Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions.”, the court added. 

Officers Cannot Be Let Scot-Free, Actions To Be Taken Against Erring Officials Providing Building Permissions In Violation Of Law 

Although, the court noted that inaction on the part of the officials would not let the unauthorized construction become lawful but gave a warning to the officials responsible for the issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate who shall be proceeded with departmental proceedings forthwith.

“Unless the administration is streamlined and the persons entrusted with the implementation of the act are held accountable for their failure in performing statutory obligations, violations of this nature would go unchecked and become more rampant. If the officials are let scot-free, they will be emboldened and would continue to turn a nelson's eye to all the illegalities resulting in derailment of all planned projects and pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks, etc.”, the Court said. 

“Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith.”, the court added. 

Motor Accident Compensation - Supreme Court Awards Rs 15 Lakhs As Compensation For 'Pain & Suffering' To Claimant With 100% Disability

Read Judgment 

The Supreme Court recently analyzed the jurisprudence on "pain and suffering" (one of the heads under which compensation is awarded to motor accident victims) and enhanced the amount of compensation awarded - beyond what was prayed for.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, allowing the appeal of the injured-appellant, awarded a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs under the head "pain and suffering" even though the appellant had prayed for Rs.10 lakhs.

"Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the 'pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs.15,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant–appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."

Going through a plethora of judicial precedents and other scholarly material across various disciplines (bioethics, medical ethics, psycho-oncology, anesthesiology, philosophy, sociology), the Court found a commonality emerging that a person's understanding of oneself is "shaken or compromised" at its very root at the hands of consistent suffering.

"In the present facts, it is unquestionable that the sense of something being irreparably wrong in life, as spoken by Frank (supra); vulnerability and futility, as spoken by Edgar, is present and such a feeling will be present for the remainder of his natural life", it said.

To briefly state facts of the case, the appellant was travelling in his company vehicle when it collided with a container lorry being driven negligently. He suffered 90% permanent disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal took the appellant's functional disability as 100% and held the insurance company liable to pay Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest per annum (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-).

Aggrieved by the MACT order, both the appellant and the insurance company appealed to the Karnataka High Court. The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.58,09,930/- to Rs.78,16,390/-. Challenging the High Court order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court and sought enhancement of compensation awarded under the heads future medical expenses, future prospects, and pain and suffering.

The Supreme Court modified the award of compensation on two counts - future prospects and 'pain and suffering'. The total amount liable to be paid to the appellant was held to be Rs.1,02,29,241/-.

In enhancing the compensation under the head 'pain and suffering', the Court noted that there was no dispute as to the injuries sustained by the appellant being serious, and their effects on his life being long-lasting.

It took into consideration a doctor's testimony, which recorded that the appellant was wheelchair bound, could not do any work, would need help for all his day-to-day activities and that the impairment was likely permanent.

The Court further referred to the decisions in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance (2022) 7 SCC 738, and Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 9 SCC 805, where compensations under the head 'pain and suffering' were enhanced and awarded between the range of Rs.3-15 lakhs.

The following extract from Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (2003) 7 SCC 197 was also extracted in the judgement:

“18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident through out his life and a feeling is developed that his no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities, features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be reckoned.”

'Bulldozer Reminds Of Lawlessness' : Supreme Court Says Properties Can't Be Demolished Merely Because Of Criminal Accusations/Convictions

Read Judgment

The essential purposes of the rule of law are to prevent the abuse of power, protect the human rights and dignity of all members of society, and ensure that government actions are governed by established legal principles rather than arbitrary discretion. It serves as a safeguard against the arbitrary use of state power and is integral to democracy and good governance. Additionally, it provides a framework for predictability and stability in the legal system.

Summary of Legal Principles and Rights

• The concept of 'rule of law' emphasizes that all individuals, including government officials, must adhere to the law.

• Mechanisms must exist to enforce legal rules and protect human rights.

• Accused individuals retain rights to dignity and humane treatment, as established in legal precedents.

• Demolition of properties must follow due process, ensuring fair notice and opportunity for legal recourse.

• Public accountability and transparency are essential in state actions, preventing abuse of power by officials.

• Sending a strong message against the trend of "bulldozer justice", the Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 13) held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.

  Permitting such action by the executive is contrary to the rule of law and also a violation of the principle of separation of powers, as it is for the judiciary to pronounce on the guilt of a person.

  "The executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/properties of such an accused person without following the due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of rule of law and is not permissible. The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/properties. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits.

  The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where “might was right”. In our constitution, which rests on the foundation of 'the rule of law', such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place. Such excesses at the hands of the executive will have to be dealt with the heavy hand of the law. Our constitutional ethos and values would not permit any such abuse of power and such misadventures cannot be tolerated by the court of law," the Court pronounced.

  The Court emphasised that house demolition cannot be an action against a person convicted of an offence:

  "Such an action also cannot be done in respect of a person who is convicted of an offence. Even in the case of such a person the property/properties cannot be demolished without following the due process as prescribed by law.

  Such an action by the executive would be wholly arbitrary and would amount to an abuse of process of law. The executive in such a case would be guilty of taking the law in his hand and giving a go-bye to the principle of the rule of law."

  Officials taking part in illegal demolition to be held accountable

  The Court also held that the public officials who demolish the properties in such a manner should be held accountable. 

  "Public officials who take law in their hands and act in such a high-handed manner must be fastened with accountability..." the Court observed while highlighting the importance of restitution.

  The Court also observed that such actions amount to imposing "collective punishment" on the family of the accused/convict. Further, when properties are selectively demolished, there is a presumption that it was a malafide action.

  "When a particular structure is chosen for demolition all of a sudden, and the rest of similar properties are not touched, the presumption could be that the real motive was not the illegal structure but the action of penalising without trial," the Court observed.

  A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan pronounced the judgment in a batch of petitions filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and various other petitioners seeking directions to stop the trend of "bulldozer justice".

  Directions laid down by the Court

  The Court issued a set of steps to be followed before demolition.

  Even after the orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before the appropriate forum.

  Even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to be given to vacate.

  "It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the street overnight. Heavens will not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period," the Court observed.

  The Court clarified that that these directions will not be applicable if there is any unauthorised structure in any public place such as a road, street, footpath, abutting railway lines or any river body or water body and also in cases where there is an order passed by a Court of law.

  Prior show-cause notice

  No demolition should be carried out without prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided in the local municipal laws or within 15 days time from the date of service, whichever is later.

  The notice shall be served upon the owner by registered post. It shall also be affixed on the outer portion of the structure. The time of 15 days will start from the receipt of the said notice.

  To prevent any allegations of ante-dating, the Court directed that as soon as notice is duly served, intimation thereof shall be sent to the office of Collector/District Magistrate digitally by email and auto-generated reply acknowledging the receipt of the mail should also be issued by the office of the Collector/DM.

  The DM shall designate a nodal officer and assign an email address and communicate the same to all officials in charge of building regulations within one month from today.

  Notice shall contain the nature of the unauthorized construction, details of specific violations and grounds of demolition. Notice should also specify the date for personal hearing and the designated authority.

  Every municipal authority should assign a designated digital portal within three months from the date of the judgment wherein details regarding service, pasting of notice, reply, show-cause notice, and order passed are available.

  Personal hearing and final order

  The designated authority shall allow a personal hearing to the party. The minutes of such a hearing shall be recorded. The final order of authority shall contain contentions of notice, the authority's findings and reasons, whether the unauthorised construction is compoundable, and whether the whole construction is to be demolished. The order should specify why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available.

  Judicial scrutiny of the final order

  Suppose the statute provides for an appellate authority and time for filing the appeal, even if it does not do so. In that case, the demolition order will not be implemented for 15 days from the receipt thereof. The order shall also be displayed on the digital portal.

  An opportunity should be given to the owner to remove the unauthorised construction. Only after the expiry of 15 days and the owner/occupier has not removed the unauthorised construction or if the order has not been stayed by the appellate authority, the concerned authority shall take steps to demolish the same.

  Demolition steps

  Only that part of unauthorised construction, which is not compoundable, can be demolished.

  Before demolition, a detailed inspection report must be prepared by the authority.

  The proceedings of demolition shall be videographed and preserved. The demolition report, with the list of police and civil personnel who participated in the process, should be forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner and displayed in the digital portal.

  Violating the directions would lead to the initiation of contempt proceedings and prosecution.

  If the demolition is found to violate the court's orders, the officers responsible will be held liable for restitution of the demolished property at their personal cost in addition to payment of damages.

  The copy of the judgment was directed to be circulated to the Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs and Registrar Generals of all High Courts. All State Governments shall issue circulars intimating the authorities about this judgment.

Offence Within Restaurant Not 'House Trespass' As Per Sections 442, 452 IPC : Supreme Court

Observing that a restaurant cannot be said to be either a place used for human dwelling or worship or the custody of the property, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a person accused of the offence of "house trespassing after preparation for hurt" under Section 452 of IPC.

The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the Restaurant does not meet the criteria of a "house" under Section 442 IPC because it is neither a dwelling, a place of worship, nor a place for the custody of property. Thus, the necessary element for an offence under Section 452 was not fulfilled.

Read Judgment

As per Section 442 of IPC, the offence of House Trespass is said to be committed by entering into or remaining in any building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property.

Section 452 of the IPC punishes an act of entering or remaining on a property after preparing to cause harm or commit other criminal acts.

“452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend.”

Canada Overhauls Visa Policy, Ends Ten-Year Tourist Visa Validity

Canada has updated its visa policy, allowing officers to issue single or multiple-entry visas.

The Canadian government has revised its visa policy and will no longer issue tourist visas with a validity of up to ten years, shifting away from the practice of issuing multiple-entry visas.

Under the new guidelines, immigration officers will now have the discretion to decide whether to issue a single-entry or multiple-entry visa and to determine the appropriate validity period. Earlier, the multiple-entry visa allowed the holder to enter Canada from any country as often as necessary during the visa’s validity period. It had a maximum validity of up to 10 years or until the expiry of the travel document or biometrics.

Sexual Assault Under POCSO Can't Be Quashed Based On 'Compromise', Offence Is Heinous & Not Of Private Nature : Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed that matters related to sexual assault cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing. The Court emphasized the societal impact of such crimes and mandated that proceedings continue in the interest of justice.

“Obviously, rubbing the breast of a child would constitute an offence of 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years and may extend to five years and also fine. They would reveal that the commission of such offences against the children should be viewed as heinous and serious. Needless to say, that commission of such offences cannot be taken lightly as offences of private nature and in fact, such offences are bound to be taken as offences against the society.”, the Court observed.

Reference was made to the decision in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 which held that an offence against the society cannot be compromised.

The Court also approved the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Raikwar v. State and Another, which held that a POCSO Act offence cannot be "permitted to be settled."

"Because of the very object and purpose of enacting the POCSO Act, we find no reason to disagree with the conclusions in paragraph 12 (of the Delhi HC judgment) extracted above in the given case," the Supreme Court stated.

The Court also rejected the respondent's argument that the third person/appellant had no locus standi to challenge the quashing of FIR as they were not part of the criminal proceedings. The Court said that the offence of sexual assault, being grave and impacting society, cannot be categorized as a private dispute disentitling the appellant's locus to challenge FIR quashing.

“Because of the nature of the offences alleged against the third respondent, one can only say that if they are proven they could be treated only as offences against the society and at any rate, it cannot be said that prosecuting an offender against whom such allegations are made is not in the interest of the society. In fact, it would only be in the interest of the society. In that view of the matter, when by quashing the FIR by invoking the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the accused was relieved of the liability to face the trial coupled with the aforesaid circumstances and the position of law qua locus standi of third party to maintain a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, as revealed from the decisions referred above, we have no hesitation to hold that the challenge based on the appellants' locus standi got no merit at all.”, the court observed.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's order and directing that criminal proceedings against the accused continue. Emphasizing that POCSO Act cases involve serious public interest, the Court held that such matters should not be dismissed solely based on a compromise between parties.

Shouting and threatening someone doesn't amount to committing an offence of assault under Section 351 of the IPC (Section 130 of BNS) SC

A bench comprising Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that Shouting and threatening someone doesn't amount to committing an offence of assault under Section 351 of the IPC (Section 130 of BNS).            

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of K. Dhananjay v. Cabinet Secretary & Ors.  

• The appellant, formerly employed at the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore, challenged his dismissal through a petition filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore Bench. 
• During his case proceedings, he sought access to specific documents, which were granted. 
• While inspecting these documents in the office of Ms A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar at CAT, Bangalore, he allegedly engaged in disruptive behaviour, including shouting and threatening the staff, which led to an FIR being filed against him under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
• The complaint stated that the appellant threatened staff and disrupted office work, yet no actions amounted to physical assault as defined under Section 351 IPC. 
• The High Court dismissed his petition to quash the case, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court stated that the only allegation against the appellant in the said complaint was that he was shouting and threatening the staff. This itself will not amount to any assault. 
• To our mind, the High Court made a mistake by not interfering in this case. This case is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we allow this appeal and quash the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant. 

What are the Provisions concerning Assault? 

• Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):  
  • This section now covered under Section 130 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the offence of assault. It states that whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force on that person, is said to commit an assault. 
  • Explanation. —Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words a person uses may give his gestures or preparations such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault. 
• Essential Elements 
  • The Prosecution must establish the following two ingredients to prosecute a person for assault:  
    • Making any gesture or preparation by a person in the presence of another; and 
    • Intention or Knowledge of the likelihood that such gesture or preparation will cause the person to apprehend that the person making it is about to use criminal force to him. 
• Section 353 of the IPC (Section 132 of the BNS): 
  • It states that whoever assaults or uses criminal force on any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 
• Case Laws 
  • Rupabati v. Shyama (1958):  
    • The Court held that causing of some actual hurt is not necessary for constituting assault, mere threat may constitute assault.  
  • Padarath Tewari vs Dulhin Tapesha Kueri (1932):  
    • The Court held that a medical examination of woman without her consent constitutes the offence of assault. 

Power Of States To Regulate Industrial Alcohol Under Term 'Intoxicating Liquor'-Supreme Court

Read Judgment

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 23), held by 8:1 majority, held that the States have the power to regulate 'denatured spirit or industrial alcohol'.

The majority concluded so by holding that the term "intoxicating liquor" in Entry 8 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution will include industrial alcohol.

The majority held that the term "intoxicating liquor" cannot be interpreted narrowly to include only alcohol which is fit for human consumption. It was held that liquids which contain alcohol which can be used or misused for human consumption can be included within the term "intoxicating liquor".

The present matter was referred to a nine-judge bench in 2007 and pertains to the interpretation of Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951(IDR Act). Section 18G allows the Central Government to ensure that certain products related to scheduled industries are distributed fairly and are available at reasonable prices. They can do this by issuing an official notification to control the supply, distribution, and trade of these products. However, as per Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the State legislature has the power to regulate trade, production, and distribution of products from industries under Union control and similar imported goods. It was argued that in Synthetics and Chemical Ltd. vs. State of U.P., a seven-judge bench had failed to address Section 18G's interference with the concurrent powers of the State. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held–

"If the decision in the Synthetics and Chemicals case (supra) concerning the interpretation of Section 18-G of the 1951 Act is allowed to stand, it would render the provisions of Entry 33 (a) of List III nugatory or otiose."

The matter was then referred to a nine-judge bench. It may be noted that apart from Entry 33 List III, Entry 8 List II also provides regulation powers to the state with regards to 'Intoxicating Liquor'. As per Entry 8 List II, the state has law-making powers over - “ Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors”

Investigation Transfer To CBI Cannot Be Ordered While Rejecting Bail Application: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellants, overturning the High Court's decision to deny bail and transfer the investigation to the CBI.

Summary of Supreme Court Order

• Case: Abhishek & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

• Appeal: Criminal Appeal No. 4283 of 2024

• Decision: The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellants, overturning the High Court's decision to deny bail and transfer the investigation to the CBI.

• Action: Appellants must be produced before the Trial Court within one week; bail is to be granted on appropriate terms until the trial conclusion.

• Date of Order: October 21, 2024.

The Supreme Court held on October 21 that the Court cannot transfer the investigation to another agency while dealing with a bail application filed under Section 439 of the CrPC.

The Rajasthan High Court's order to transfer the investigation to the CBI was passed in a murder case involving the bajri (sand) mafia. The case involved the killing of a 22-year-old man from a marginalized Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) community, allegedly murdered at the behest of the sand mafia to "set an example" and protect its interests.

Justice Sameer Jain's single-judge bench transferred the case to the CBI after observing multiple discrepancies in the investigation conducted by the state police and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).

The High Court found that the investigation was "unfair, tainted, and incomplete," particularly in the medical reports, which had conflicting findings regarding the cause of death. The postmortem report indicated 14 injuries on the victim's body, including severe injuries to his neck, which were considered the primary cause of death. Despite these findings, the state medical experts attributed the death to intoxication and deemed the injuries "simple," leading the Court to question the investigation's integrity.

Further, the Court noted procedural lapses in the handling of the case under the SC/ST Act. The FIR was delayed by three days, and several key provisions of the Act needed to be followed, which hampered evidence collection. Despite allegations against individuals connected to the sand mafia, no charges were filed against them. The family of the deceased also alleged that they were pressured to enter into a compromise through threats or financial incentives.

In light of these factors, the Rajasthan High Court deemed it necessary to transfer the investigation to the CBI.

Wife calling husband 'Hijda' is cruelty: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that a wife calling her husband Hijda (transgender) amounts to mental cruelty.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was hearing a wife’s appeal against the divorce decree granted in favour of her husband by a family court on July 12.

The husband’s mother had deposed that his wife would call her son a Hijda.  

“If the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, are examined in the light of the … judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it comes out that the acts and conduct of the appellant-wife amounts to cruelty. Firstly, terming the respondent-husband as Hijda (transgender) and calling his mother to have given birth to a transgender, is an act of cruelty,” the Bench said.

The couple had married in December 2017. The husband in the divorce plea had alleged that his wife used to wake up late at night and also ask his ailing mother to send her lunch on the first floor from the ground floor. 

“Considering the overall acts and conduct of the appellant-wife and further considering that the parties had been living separately for the last six years, it was rightly found by the learned family court that the marriage between the parties has ruptured beyond repair and it has become a dead wood,” the Court further said.

It was also alleged that she was addicted to porn and mobile games. In particular, the husband alleged that the wife used to ask him to record the duration of sex and would also state that it “must go on for at least 10-15 minutes at a time and that it must be at least thrice per night”. 

She used to taunt him for not “being physically fit to compete with her” and had disclosed that she wanted to marry someone else, the plea said.

The Court also said the parties have been living separately for the past six years and there is no possibility of reunion.

Accordingly, it upheld the family court's decision to dissolve the marriage and dismissed the wife’s appeal.