30 January 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Even In Cases of Multiple Murders, Capital Sentence Shall be Avoided if There’s Possibility to Reform

Case- Deen Dayal Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Date of Order- January 16, 2025

Bench- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court of India recently upheld the conviction of a man for the murder of his wife and four minor daughters but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment without remission. This decision was influenced by several key factors:

Case Overview

• Conviction: The appellant was convicted of murdering his family based on circumstantial evidence and initially sentenced to death by a trial court, a verdict later upheld by the High Court.

Reasons for Commutation

• Lack of Criminal Antecedents: The appellant had no prior criminal record, which contributed to the court's decision.
• Potential for Reform: Reports from prison officials indicated that the convict showed signs of reform, suggesting he could be rehabilitated.
• Legal Precedents: The court referenced previous cases where death sentences were commuted due to mitigating factors, even in instances of multiple murders.

Court's Rationale

• The Supreme Court emphasized that capital punishment should be considered an exception rather than the rule. It noted that even in cases of multiple murders, if there is evidence or a reasonable possibility of reform, a lesser sentence should be preferred.
• The court assessed whether the brutal nature of the crime qualified as a "rarest of rare" case warranting the death penalty. It concluded that while the crime was heinous, it did not meet this threshold.

Key Quotes from the Judgment

• "This Court has consistently recognized that the imposition of capital punishment is an exception and not the rule."
• "We must scrutinize not only the nature of the offence but also the totality of the offender's circumstances."

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal by maintaining the conviction but modifying the sentence from death to life imprisonment without remission, reflecting a judicial balance between justice for the victims and consideration for potential rehabilitation of the offender.

2. Article 226 | Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against NBFC, Private Company’s Banking Business Not ‘Public Function’

• Case- S Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd.
• Date of Order- January 24, 2025
• Bench- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan

The Supreme Court of India recently clarified the principles governing writ jurisdiction, particularly regarding entities subject to regulatory guidelines. Here are the key facts from the ruling:

Case Background

Appellant's Argument: The appellant challenged the Karnataka High Court's dismissal of their writ petition against Muthoot Finance Ltd., arguing that the finance company should be considered a statutory authority due to its regulation by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

Key Principles Established

1. Writ Jurisdiction Criteria: Writ jurisdiction applies only if an entity performs a public duty or function. An entity must be an instrumentality or agency of the State or closely associated with governmental functions to be amenable to writ jurisdiction.
2. Entities Subject to Writ Jurisdiction:

• State Government
• Authorities and statutory bodies
• Instrumentalities or agencies of the State
• Companies owned or financed by the State
• Private bodies substantially funded by the State
• Private bodies discharging public duties

3) Regulatory Compliance: While entities like non-banking finance companies must comply with RBI guidelines, this does not imply they perform public functions. Regulatory measures do not equate to public duty.

4) Public Function Requirement: A private company, such as Muthoot Finance, cannot be classified as performing a public function merely because it is regulated. Its duties are primarily towards its account holders, not the general public.

5) Mandamus Issuance: Normally, writs like mandamus are issued to compel public bodies to perform statutory duties. In exceptional cases, they may also apply to private bodies if a public duty is imposed on them by statute.

6) Function Test: The court emphasized that the "function" test is crucial in determining whether an entity is subject to writ jurisdiction. If an entity does not have a duty towards the public, it cannot be considered a public body.

Court's Conclusion

• The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision, stating that Muthoot Finance Ltd. does not qualify as a public body subject to writ jurisdiction because its obligations are limited to its account holders and do not extend to the public at large.
• The appeal was dismissed based on these principles, reinforcing that regulatory compliance does not automatically confer public duty status on private entities.

3. Transferee Pendente Life Not Entitled To Get Impleaded In Suit As A Matter of Right

Case- H. Anjanappa & Ors. vs. A. Prabhakar & Ors.

Date of Order- January 29, 2025

Bench- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan

the Supreme Court of India ruled that a pendente lite transferee—someone who purchases property while litigation regarding that property is ongoing—does not have an automatic right to be impleaded in the suit. The court clarified that such transferees can only seek to appeal against a decree in exceptional cases where their rights are adversely affected. Here are the key facts from the ruling:

Case Overview

• Respondents: Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were purchasers of a property involved in a pending suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

Key Principles Established by the Court

• Impleading Criteria: The court may permit a pendente lite transferee to be impleaded based on the facts and circumstances of each case, following Order I Rule 10 or Order XXII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
• No Automatic Right: A pendente lite transferee does not have an automatic entitlement to be added as a party to the suit.
• Discretionary Nature: The decision to allow a pendente lite transferee to join the suit is not absolute and depends on the nature of the suit and available evidence.
• Consequences of Non-Impleadment: If a pendente lite transferee does not seek to be added, they do so at their own risk, and they will be bound by the judgment even if unrepresented.
• Transfer Validity: Transfers made pendente lite are subject to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, meaning they are valid but subordinate to the outcome of the litigation.
• Leave for Appeal: A pendente lite transferee can seek leave to appeal only if they can demonstrate that their rights or interests are adversely affected.

Case Details

• The trial court dismissed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2's plea for impleadment, which was not appealed, thus attaining finality.
• After the trial court ordered execution of a sale deed in favor of the plaintiff, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appealed to the Karnataka High Court, which granted them leave to appeal despite their non-impleadment.
• The plaintiff contested this decision in the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Findings

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, stating that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not demonstrate that they were adversely affected by the trial court's ruling.
• The court emphasized that no outsider to a suit can file an appeal unless they prove they fall within the category of an aggrieved person.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not claim rights as pendente lite transferees without being impleaded in the suit and directed that if they believed they were cheated, they should pursue appropriate legal remedies separately. The appeal was allowed, reinforcing that pendente lite transfers do not grant automatic rights in ongoing litigation.