In the legal landscape of September, the Supreme Court of India delivered noteworthy judgments covering a spectrum of issues, from HIV rights and compensation, electoral processes, compensation rights, taxation disputes, and death sentence appeals to property rights for children.
These rulings reflect the judiciary’s commitment to addressing diverse legal challenges and ensuring justice in areas ranging from public health to individual rights and property entitlements.
This comprehensive overview provides insights into the key legal developments that unfolded during the month.
September
HIV Rights and Compensation
1.CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, issued significant directions in a case involving an Indian Air Force radar operative who contracted HIV through a transfusion of virus-infected blood at a Military Hospital. The court mandated the Central and State Governments to formulate guidelines for diagnostic facilities, Antiretroviral therapy, and Opportunistic Infection Management under Section 14(1) of the HIV Act. It directed the Central Government to issue guidelines within three months, disseminating them widely.
Under Sections 15(1) & (2) of the HIV Act, the Central and State Governments were instructed to enhance access to welfare schemes for those affected by HIV/AIDS. Section 16(1) emphasized safeguarding the property rights of children affected by HIV, enabling them to approach the Child Welfare Committee. The court also stressed age-appropriate, gender-sensitive HIV and AIDS education programs.
Further, the judgment outlined provisions under Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the HIV Act, specifying guidelines for care, support, and treatment, occupational exposure precautions, and complaint redressal in establishments.
The case involved a radar operative who, after a blood transfusion at a Military Hospital, tested HIV positive. The court noted lapses in testing and adherence to safety standards, holding the Indian Air Force and Indian Army jointly liable. The appellant was awarded compensation, and the court acknowledged legal contributions, directing costs and honorarium payments.
Importance of Timely Election
2. Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference
The Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court’s decision, which upheld a Single Judge’s interim order related to the denial of the plough symbol to Jammu & Kashmir National Conference for the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil (LAHDC) General Elections. The Jammu and Kashmir National Conference contested the denial of the plough symbol, claiming entitlement as a recognized State Party. The Election Commission of India’s initial stance, stating non-involvement in local body election symbols, added complexity to the matter. The Supreme Court, invoking constitutional principles, emphasized the High Court’s authority under Article 226 and criticized Ladakh authorities for unjustly denying the plough symbol. The Court set aside the entire election process, directing a fresh notification within seven days for the LAHDC elections, while affirming the National Conference’s entitlement to the plough symbol. Additionally, a cost of Rs 1 lakh was imposed on the appellants, underscoring the importance of just and timely electoral processes and discouraging arbitrary executive actions that disrupt a fair political playing field.
Compensation Rights
3. RPSF v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor
The Supreme Court, addressed the maintainability of a compensation claim under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, for the deceased husband of the respondent, an RPF Constable. The deceased died during employment, and the RPF contested the claim, asserting that he was a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, excluding him from the definition of a ‘workman’ under the Act.
The Court examined the workman-employer relationship, personal injury due to an accident during employment, and emphasized that the 1923 Act did not define ‘The Armed Forces of the Union.’ Referring to the Adaptation Order of 1950, it clarified that the mere declaration of RPF as an ‘armed force of the Union’ in the 1957 Act did not negate the applicability of the 1923 Act. The Court concluded that the legislative intent was not to exclude RPF members from compensation benefits.
Addressing the availability of an alternative remedy under the 1989 Act, the Court relied on Section 128, which preserved the right to claim compensation under the 1923 Act. Consequently, it upheld the High Court’s judgment, deeming the compensation claim under the 1923 Act maintainable.
NHPC Ltd. Taxation Dispute Resolved
4. NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, a batch of civil appeals challenged the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision upholding the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (Act, 1955), as amended by the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1997 (Amendment Act, 1997). NHPC Ltd., engaged in electricity generation, offered free transport to employees and their children. The High Court initially held the Act inapplicable to this service but faced controversy with the 1997 Amendment.
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Amendment Act, 1997, effectively addressed the High Court’s concerns. It highlighted the High Court’s findings, emphasizing deficiencies in the original Act. The Amendment Act rectified these by broadening definitions, introducing new terms, and addressing ambiguities. Notably, it amended the charging provision, resolving issues related to non-fare paying passengers and defining key terms like ‘route’ and ‘business.’ The Court concluded that the Amendment Act, 1997, validly rectified the Act’s defects, upholding its constitutionality. Consequently, NHPC Ltd.’s appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court’s decision.
Overturns Death Sentence
5. Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar
The Supreme Court bench comprising BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala*, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., overturned the death sentence imposed by the Patna High Court for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl. The Court directed a reevaluation of the case, citing serious lapses in the investigation.
The Court highlighted the High Court’s oversight in focusing solely on the appellant as the perpetrator, neglecting the presence of a juvenile co-accused. It criticized the failure to obtain a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report and the absence of a medical examination of the appellant. The Court also expressed concern over the Trial Court’s flawed questioning of the accused under Section 313 CrPC and its failure to address contradictions in witness statements.
Emphasizing the importance of a fair trial, the Court invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It underscored the judge’s duty to actively participate, gather relevant information, and ensure fairness. The decision set aside the High Court’s judgment, remanding the case for proper consideration of Section 366 of the CrPC due to the defense’s failure to expose material omissions in prosecution witnesses’ oral evidence.
The Court’s ruling underscores the need for meticulous scrutiny of evidence, adherence to procedural norms, and the imperative of a fair trial in upholding justice.
Property Rights for Children
6. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
The Supreme Court, comprising a 3-judge bench led by Dr. DY Chandrachud, addressed the question of entitlement to ancestral/coparcenary property for a child born from a marriage null and void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The Court clarified that a child falling within the protective ambit of Section 16(1) or (2) of the HMA is entitled to rights only in the absolute property of the parents and not in coparcenary property.
The judgment emphasized that conferring legitimacy on children born from void or voidable marriages, as per Section 16, was enacted to counter the stigma of illegitimacy. However, the Court highlighted the legislative balance, ensuring that legitimacy does not confer rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents.
The decision further elucidated the interplay between Section 16 of the HMA and Section 3(1)(j) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, asserting that a child legitimized under Section 16 falls within the category of ‘related by legitimate kinship.’ The Court underscored changes in Section 6 of the HSA, granting equal rights to daughters in coparcenary property.
In conclusion, the judgment harmonized the provisions of the HMA and HSA, emphasizing that a child legitimized under Section 16 does not become a coparcener by birth, and rights are limited to the property of the parents. The decision has far-reaching implications for the devolution of property in joint Hindu families governed by Mitakshara law.
