The powers of arrest under the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Customs Act.

The Supreme Court on Thursday(February 27) delivered a significant ruling on the powers of arrest under the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Customs Act.

The Court held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) on the rights of accused persons are equally applicable to the arrests made both under the Customs Act and the GST Act.

The dictum in the Arvind Kejriwal case that the arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act must be made only if there are "reasons to believe" has been applied in the context of GST and Customs arrests as well. Section 19(1) of the PMLA and Section 104 of the Customs Act are virtually the same, the Court noted. Both provisions deal with the power of arrest. The Court held the same for the arrest provision under the GST Act as well.

The Court also held that the circulars issued by the GST department regarding arrest must be strictly adhered to. The Court also rejected the argument that customs officers are police officers.

Anticipatory bail applicable to GST and Customs Acts.

The Court further held that the provisions relating to anticipatory bail are applicable to the GST Act and the Customs Act, and the parties can approach the Court for relief if there is an apprehension of arrest, without the FIR being registered.

The Court also observed that there was some merit in the allegations of coercion and harassment by the tax officials.

"We have commented on the basis of data with regard to allegations that there was force and coercion in the payment of taxes. We have some said that there may be some merit in it. Wherever a person is disposed to pay, he can go to the writ court and get an order. And the officers will have to be dealt with departmentally also. We have said that this cannot be permitted. This is contrary to the law. We have referred to Nandini Satpathy case in that regard," Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna stated while pronouncing the verdict.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna andJustices MM Sundresh, Bela M Trivedi made the observation while delivering verdict in a batch of 279 petitions challenging the penal provisions in the Customs Act, CGST/SGST Act, etc. as non-compatible with the CrPC and the Constitution. The orders in the case were reserved on May 16, 2024.

There are two judgments- one by CJI Khanna and a concnurring judgment by Justice Trivedi. Justice Trivedi's judgment deals with the powers of judicial review.

Notably, while the matter was being heard, the bench orally made the following key observations: (i) there can be no private complaint under the GST Act (ii) arrest should not be made on mere suspicion, (iii) GST/Customs Officer must have certifiable materialprior to arresting, which can be verified by a Magistrate, (iii) by recent amendments, Parliament whittled down the ratio of Om Prakash v. Union of India(2011), but did not completely do away with it, and (iv) citizens should not be harassed merely because there is ambiguity in arrest provisions.

It also expressed concerns about the ambiguity in Section 69 of the GST Act (dealing with power with arrest) and conveyed that it would interpret the law to "strengthen" liberty, if need be, but not allow citizens to be harassed.

During one hearing, CJI Khanna also observed that the legislation(s) in question conferred restricted powers of arrest: "sometimes we tend to believe that investigation cannot be completed until arrest. That is not the object of the legislation. It restricts the power of arrest". It was further highlighted that an officer's "power to arrest" is different from "necessity of arrest"

Wife Watching Porn Privately Not Cruelty By Itself, Right To Spousal Privacy Includes Various Aspects Of Woman's Sexual Autonomy: Madras HC

READ JUDGMENT

Wife Watching Porn, Engaging In Self Pleasure Not By Itself Cruelty On Husband, Woman Retains Her Individuality Even After Marriage

The Madras High Court has observed that a wife watching pornography or engaging in self pleasure by itself was not cruelty upon the husband unless it was proved that the same affected the matrimonial relationship.

“Thus, the act of the respondent [wife] in merely watching porn privately by itself may not constitute cruelty to the petitioner. It may affect the psychological health of the viewing spouse. That by itself will not amount to treating the other spouse cruelly. Something more is required. If a porn watcher compels the other spouse to join him or her, that would certainly constitute cruelty. If it is shown that on account of this addiction, there is an adverse impact on the discharge of one's conjugal obligations, then it could furnish an actionable ground,” the court noted.

Money Laundering Serious Offence, Courts Can't Grant Bail Casually Without Considering S.45 PMLA Conditions : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court February 13 set aside the bail granted to the individual accused of committing money laundering after noting that the High Court failed to satisfy the twin conditions stipulated under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).

The Court reiterated that the conditions enumerated in Section 45 will have to be complied with even in respect of application for bail made under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Also, Section 24 provides that in case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under Section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. Therefore, the burden to proof that proceeds of crime are not involved in money laundering would lie on the person charged with the offence.

Section 45 PMLA mandatory

Read Judgment

The Court reiterated that the twin conditions under Section 45 are "mandatory in nature." Referring to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and other precedents such as Tarun Kumar v Asst Director ED, the Court observed that "there remains no shadow of doubt that the consideration of the two conditions mentioned in Section 45 is mandatory, and that while considering the bail application, the said rigours of Section 45 have to be reckoned by the court to uphold the objectives of the PMLA."

Allowing the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) appeal against a judgment of the Patna High Court, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale rejected the respondent/accused argument that the Appellant/ED had relied upon the statements of the respondent/accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA upon being summoned rendering them inadmissible in evidence.

Compassionate Appointment To Be Granted Only In “Hand-to-Mouth” Cases, Not Due To Mere Fall In Life Standard : Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Supreme Court, while determining a case related to compassionate appointment, observed that such appointment should be granted only in “hand-to-mouth” cases, provided that all the other conditions are fulfilled. Explaining, the Court said that such situations would include a family 'below the poverty line' and struggling to pay basic expenses.

“It is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand-to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is 'below poverty line' and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.”

The Court also said that the underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in case of an employee's death is that he/ she was the sole earner for the family. The Court said that there is no straitjacket formula to be applied uniformly in cases of employee dying in harness. Each case has its own peculiar features and the financial condition must be assessed.

Notably, it has been more than two decades since the claim for compassionate appointment was made. 2001. The respondent's father was working for the appellant bank and passed away in the year 2001, before his retirement. Accordingly, the respondent sought an appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1993 scheme. The Appellant's Deputy General Manager rejected the same on the grounds that the respondent's mother was already getting a family pension and that the respondent was overaged for the applied post.

“If, indeed, the respondent's father would have received a pension amount of Rs. 6398/- and burdened to feed himself as well as his two dependants, viz. his spouse and son, the amount of family pension initially sanctioned, i.e., Rs. 4637.92 could not have, by any stretch of imagination, be seen as insufficient or inadequate for feeding two mouths. It is also not in dispute that the net terminal benefits in a sum of Rs. 3.09 lakh paid to the respondent/his mother would have been the same amount which the deceased would have received as terminal benefits after superannuation, had he been alive.,” the Court added.

Building on this, the Court concluded that the present case is not the one where the respondent's father's death caused such severe hardship that could only have been remedied through the compassionate appointment. Placing its reliance on Union of India v. B. Kishore, the Court observed:

“As pertinently held in B. Kishore (supra), indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground and that if such indigence is not proved, grant of relief in furtherance of protective discrimination would result in a sort of reservation for the dependents of the employee dying-in-harness, thereby directly conflicting with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”

However, at the same time, the Court, after invoking its inherent power, directed the appellant to make a lump sum payment of Rs.2.5 lakh to the respondent within two months. The same was directed in view of a previous order by a coordinate bench, observing that it would consider directing a lumpsum amount payment to the respondent as a final settlement.

“Though no agreement was reached and whether the respondent is covered under the scheme of 2005 for lumpsum ex-gratia payment has not been examined by us as well as by the High Court, but bearing in mind the approach of the coordinate bench coupled with the circumstance of hope being generated in the mind of the respondent for appointment based on his success before the High Court, we are satisfied that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the appellant is directed to make a lumpsum payment of Rs.2.5 lakh to the respondent within a period of 2 (two) months from date and the proceedings be closed.,”

In view of this, the Court set aside the impugned orders and dismissed the appeal.

Banks Giving Loans Without Proper Title Search Reports : Supreme Court Flags Issue To RBI; Says Officials Who Approved Loan Be Made Liable

Read order

The Supreme Court recently underscored the significance of comprehensive title search reports in preventing legal disputes and ensuring smooth property transactions.

The Court emphasized the need for the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other stakeholders to develop a standardized and practical framework for preparing title search reports before loan sanctioning by banks. The Court said that the framework should also include the determination of liability of the erring bank official who sanctioned the loan based on a faulty title search report.

“we deem it necessary to observe that Banks should remain very careful with inadequate title clearance reports, more particularly, when such reports are obtained cheaply and at times for external reasons. This concerns the protection of public money and is in the larger public interest. Therefore, it is essential for the Reserve Bank of India and other stakeholders to collaborate in developing a standardized and practical approach for preparing title search report before sanctioning loans and also for the purpose of determining liability (including potential criminal action) of the Officer who approves loan. Additionally, there should be standard guidelines for fees and costs associated with title search reports so as to ensure that they maintain high quality.”, the Court said.

Until now, there's no standard mechanism developed by the RBI that regulated the title search report before loan sanctioning by banks. The banks rely on the title search report prepared by the empaneled lawyers, and there's no standardization of title search report preparation.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan highlighted the need to develop such a standard framework in the wake of an instance where the bank-sanctioned loan based on the disputed mortgaged property, later discovered to have title disputes. 

Former Gujarat IAS Officer Gets 5 Years In Jail In 2004 Corruption Case

The court of principal district and sessions judge KM Sojitra convicted him in a case registered by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) pertaining to the allotment of a piece of land to Welspun Group at a price that allegedly caused a loss of Rs 1.2 crore to the government exchequer.

A sessions court on Monday sentenced former IAS officer Pradeep Sharma to five years in jail and fined him Rs 75,000 in a corruption case dating back to 2004 when he was the collector of Kutch district in Gujarat.

The court of principal district and sessions judge KM Sojitra convicted him in a case registered by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) pertaining to the allotment of a piece of land to Welspun Group at a price that allegedly caused a loss of Rs 1.2 crore to the government exchequer.

The court found Mr Sharma guilty section 13 (2) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) and section 11 (public servants obtaining an undue advantage without consideration) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

He was sentenced to five years in jail and fined Rs 50,000 fine under section 13(2), and given a three year sentence and fine of Rs 25,000 under section 11, public prosecutor Kalpesh Goswami said, adding both the sentences will run concurrently.

'Punjab Officials Stooped So Low' : Supreme Court Finds Disciplinary Punishment Against Doctor Vengeful, Sets Aside Penalty

Read Judgment

The Supreme Court on Monday (January 20) granted relief to a retired Senior Medical Officer who was in service of the Punjab Government, by setting aside the order of penalty imposed on him in a disciplinary proceeding.

The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were nothing but a ruse to wreak vengeance against the appellant for having dragged high officials of the Government of Punjab to the High Court to obtain his legitimate monetary dues.

“This happens to be a case where certain officials of the GoP have stooped too low to punish a senior doctor, on the verge of retirement, for no better reason than that he had dared to take on the mighty executive in a court of law,"observed the Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.

The Bench made these observations while allowing the appeal filed by a Senior Medical Officer, who was relieved of his duty and made to retire eleven days before his retirement.

For background, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for committing misconduct. Among others, the grounds were proceeding on leave without sanction and failing to participate in the pulse polio programme. Consequent to these proceedings, the appellant was made to retire. The Disciplinary Authority ordered a cut of 2% pension with permanent.

Pursuant to this, the Health and Family Welfare Department ordered a pension cut. Subsequently, the Division Bench of the High Court modified this order to a 2% pension cut for a period of five years. Against this background, the matter reached the Apex Court.

At the outset, the Court reiterated that an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not reviewed unless there is a violation of natural justice principles or the impugned order is ex facie arbitrary or capricious.

“After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated.,” the Court said.

Drawing inspiration from landmark cases, including the recent case ofMadhayamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, observed that these principles also include procedural fairness before holding a public servant guilty of misconduct.

“To test whether interference is warranted, this Court has laid down that the scrutiny ought to be confined to finding out whether the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted fairly; if not, an inference can be drawn that this has caused prejudice to the charged employee.”

Building on this, the Court adverted to the facts of this case. While acknowledging that leave is regulated by rules that need to be adhered to by each public servant, the Court found no such circumstance to hold the appellant guilty of serious misconduct. The Court noted the submission of prosecution that the Civil Surgeon had refused to sanction leave. Apart from that, the appellant was also telephonically informed about the same.

However, the Court concluded that there was no record of the Civil Surgeon's refusal to sanction leave. So far as not participating in the pulse polio programme and thus also violating the Election Commission's directions, the Court said:

“It is the clear finding of the Inquiry Officer, based on the evidence on record, that the appellant was not assigned any duty in connection with election duty and pulse polio programme during the period he wished to avail leave to attend court proceedings before the High Court. Insofar as defiance of Election Commission's directions by the appellant are concerned, no such written directions were part of the documentary evidence led before the Inquiry Officer… Rather curiously, the Inquiry Officer resorted to ingenuity to hold the appellant guilty.”

Imperatively, at this stage, the Court pointed out that the appellant had submitted a detailed response to the inquiry report. However, the same was dismissed by a single sentence. Finding the same to be unacceptable, the Court ruled that this was not a fair procedure.

The Court also observed that issuance of limited notice does not fetter the court's powers to enlarge the scope of the petition and grant justice to the parties. Elaborating, the Court said that the observation, while issuing the notice, cannot limit the court's jurisdiction to consider the controversy.

“If the court seized of the petition/appeal considers that the justice of the case before it demands enlargement of the scope, notwithstanding that a limited notice had been issued earlier, the court's powers are not fettered particularly when enforcement of any Fundamental/Constitutional right is urged by the party approaching it.,” 

Moving forward, the Court also highlighted that though the impugned order had clear findings in favour of the appellant, it did not interfere with the charges.

“In our considered opinion, the tenor of the impugned order does suggest that the Division Bench found the appellant to have been wronged and regard being had thereto, the Division Bench ought to have set things right by interfering with the findings and granting full relief that we intend to grant to the appellant.”

Before parting, the Court also brought its attention to an order issued by the Election Commission. It clearly stated that doctors and officers who are due to retire within six months be exempted from election duty. In this regard, the Court observed that disciplinary proceedings should not have been initiated against the appellant.

“The appellant is, therefore, quite right in contending that the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the order of penalty were nothing but a ruse to wreak vengeance for he having dragged high officials of the GoP ((Government of Punjab) to the High Court and in tasting success to obtain his legitimate monetary dues. The Constitutional concept is that not only the country but every State in the country would be a welfare state.”

“This happens to be a case where certain officials of the GoP have stooped too low to punish a senior doctor, on the verge of retirement, for no better reason than that he had dared to take on the mighty executive in a court of law.”

In view of this, the Court directed that the appellant should be compensated with Rs.50,000/. The Government of Punjab was given liberty to recover the cost from the delinquent officers. 

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.