Service Law – Promotion – Ph.D. Qualification – Rule 6A of Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004 – Appellants earlier granted relief by Supreme Court holding their appointments/promotions not contrary to AICTE Regulations – Promotions granted retrospectively pursuant to Supreme Court order and contempt proceedings disposed of recording compliance – High Court in subsequent proceedings issued directions affecting service positions post 05-03-2010 – Appellants not parties before High Court – Held: High Court could not revisit or disturb finality attached to Supreme Court’s earlier order qua appellants – Nothing in impugned High Court judgment shall affect appellants’ career prospects in view of special facts – Appeal allowed to that limited extent [Paras 13-15].

Finality of Supreme Court Orders – Binding Effect – Once relief granted by Supreme Court and complied with by State, High Court cannot in collateral proceedings unsettle benefits conferred – Principle of judicial discipline and finality reiterated [Paras 14-15].

Non-Parties Affected by Judgment – Remedy – Persons aggrieved by judgment/order in proceedings to which they were not parties are not remediless – Such judgments in service matters may operate in rem – Aggrieved persons may seek review on limited grounds or approach appropriate forum/Tribunal under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act for ventilating grievance – Review not equivalent to appeal – Public policy demands finality of litigation [Paras 16-18].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope – Right of review available only on limited grounds akin to Order XLVII CPC – Cannot reopen entire case – Review must be filed within limitation – Otherwise there would be no certainty of finality [Para 17].

Service Matters – Locus Standi of Non-Parties – Even if not impleaded in earlier proceedings, affected persons may approach Tribunal afresh to seek reconsideration where earlier decision prejudicially affects their service rights – Recognised in K. Ajit Babu and Rama Rao – Liberty granted to pursue appropriate remedy in accordance with law [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8737 of 2021 allowed – Impugned High Court judgment dated 03.12.2020 shall not affect appellants’ career prospects – Connected SLP (C) No. 18961 of 2022 and intervention applications disposed of with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law [Paras 15, 20].

Civil Procedure – Injunction Suit – Advocate Commissioner – Objections to Commissioner’s Report – Trial Court dismissed objections relying upon purported Supreme Court decisions later alleged to be non-existent – High Court recorded caution that citations were AI-generated/fake but still decided revision on merits and affirmed Trial Court – Supreme Court issues notice and stays Trial Court from proceeding on basis of Advocate Commissioner’s report pending SLP [Paras 2–6].

Administration of Justice – Integrity of Adjudicatory Process – AI-Generated Fake Judgments – Supreme Court takes cognizance of Trial Court deploying AI-generated non-existing/fake/synthetic alleged judgments – Held: Decision based on such non-existent and fake judgments is not mere “error” in decision-making but constitutes “misconduct” and legal consequences shall follow – Court to examine consequences and accountability [Para 7].

Institutional Accountability – Notice to Attorney General, Solicitor General and Bar Council of India – Court issues notice to AG, SG and BCI to assist in examining ramifications of AI-generated fake citations in judicial orders and to evolve safeguards/accountability framework [Para 8].

Amicus Curiae – Appointment – Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate appointed to assist Court – Liberty to nominate an Advocate-on-Record for assistance [Para 9].

Interim Directions: Notice issued returnable 10/03/2026 – Trial Court directed not to proceed on basis of Advocate Commissioner’s report pending disposal of SLP [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Notice issued – Interim restraint imposed – Wider institutional issue flagged – Amicus appointed.

Contract of Guarantee – Discharge of Surety – Variance in Terms of Contract – Section 133, Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Principal borrower sanctioned cash-credit facility of Rs.4,00,000/- – Sureties guaranteed liability to said extent – Bank permitted borrower to overdraw amounts far exceeding sanctioned limit without consent of sureties – Held: Such overdrawal constitutes variance in terms of contract – Sureties discharged only in respect of transactions subsequent to variance – Liability continues to the extent of original sanctioned amount with applicable interest – High Court erred in holding that sureties must be liable either for entire amount or not at all – Statutory bifurcation under Section 133 mandated [Paras 7-7.4].

Surety’s Liability – Co-extensive Liability – Sections 126 and 128 – Liability of surety co-extensive with that of principal debtor unless contract provides otherwise – Creditor not bound to first exhaust remedies against principal debtor before proceeding against surety – Surety can be proceeded against directly – However, liability confined to terms of guarantee and cannot extend beyond contractual undertaking [Paras 4.1, 5.2, 5.3].

Discharge of Surety – Section 139, Indian Contract Act – Scope and Applicability – Section 139 applies where creditor’s act or omission is inconsistent with rights of surety and impairs surety’s eventual remedy against principal debtor – Mere overdrawal without consent, though affecting surety’s rights, does not impair eventual remedy against principal debtor – In absence of impairment of remedy, Section 139 not attracted – Section 139 is residuary in nature and distinct from Section 133 [Paras 4.8-4.10, 6.1, 7.1].

Material Alteration – Consent of Surety – Any material variance in contract without surety’s consent discharges surety as to subsequent transactions – Surety cannot be bound to obligations beyond terms of engagement – Discharge under Section 133 is not absolute but limited to transactions post-variance – Consent for variation must be proved by party seeking enforcement of guarantee [Paras 4.4-4.7, 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Gujarat High Court dated 25.06.2008 in Special Civil Application No.17125 of 2007 set aside – Sureties held liable to extent of Rs.4,00,000/- with applicable interest – Not liable for excess overdrawn amounts – Parties to bear respective costs [Paras 7.2-7.4].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Resolution Plan – Scope of Appeal under Sections 61 and 62 – Appeal to NCLAT lies only on grounds specified in Section 61(3) – Appeal to Supreme Court lies only on question of law – Where no ground under Section 61(3) made out and no question of law arises, appeal not maintainable – Concurrent findings of NCLT and NCLAT not to be interfered with unless perverse or contrary to statute [Paras 7.1-8.3].

Material Irregularity – Meaning and Scope – Section 61(3)(ii) IBC – Clarifications sought by RP on instructions of CoC from all resolution applicants – RP merely communicated CoC’s queries and placed responses before CoC – Held: When RP acts strictly on instructions of CoC, no “material irregularity” can be attributed – To hold otherwise would indirectly subject commercial decisions of CoC to judicial review contrary to scheme of IBC [Paras 8-8.1].

Resolution Plan – Bank Guarantees – Alleged enhancement from Rs.103.39 crores to Rs.180.05 crores – Clause 6.3.14 of Resolution Plan provided that entire margin money of Rs.180.05 crores would be returned to Corporate Debtor and utilised for payment to secured financial creditors – Fresh infusion of Rs.103.39 crores related only to BGs proposed to be continued (Serial Nos.1-5) – Clarification regarding BGs at Serial Nos.6 and 7 (Rs.76.61 crores) only explained mechanism of release and interim replacement margin – Held: No enhancement of commercial offer – Payment to CoC remained Rs.180.05 crores before and after clarification [Paras 10.4-10.8].

Deferred Payment – Upfront Option – Clause 6.3.2(b) – NCDs of Rs.240 crores with 10% coupon aggregating to Rs.301.64 crores over three years – Option to CoC to take Rs.240 crores upfront as discounted NPV – Clarification that Rs.240 crores was already discounted value and no further discount applicable – Held: No conversion or enhancement of offer – No modification of commercial terms [Paras 11-11.3].

Commercial Wisdom of CoC – Paramountcy – Limited Judicial Review – Courts cannot re-evaluate comparative merits of bids or substitute their assessment for that of CoC – Highest bid need not be accepted – Judicial review confined to compliance under Section 30(2) and grounds under Section 61(3) – Excessive judicial interference defeats time-bound objective of IBC and erodes asset value – Strategic litigation by unsuccessful bidders deprecated [Paras 12-14.7].

Implementation of Resolution Plan – Resolution Plan already approved by NCLT and NCLAT and fully implemented – No scope for interference at belated stage – Finality and predictability essential to insolvency regime [Paras 13.1-15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Impugned judgment of NCLAT dated 01.10.2024 affirmed – No material irregularity established – No modification of Resolution Plan – Commercial wisdom of CoC upheld – No costs imposed.

Criminal Law – Limitation – Sections 468, 469(1)(c) and 473 CrPC – Complaint by Drugs Inspector regarding misbranded vaccine – Identity of accused emerged during investigation – Limitation to commence from date identity of offender became known – Complaint filed within three years from such date – Bar under Section 468 not attracted – High Court erred in computing limitation from earlier date – Held: Cognizance not barred by limitation [Paras 31-36].

Section 469(1)(c) CrPC – Commencement of limitation – Where identity of offender not initially known – Period begins from first day identity becomes known to investigating authority – Investigation to ascertain supply chain justified under Section 32 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Time starts from 18.04.2006 when identities crystallised – Complaint filed on 20.01.2009 within limitation [Paras 33-36].

Section 202 CrPC – Mandatory inquiry where accused resides beyond territorial jurisdiction – Complaint by public servant in discharge of official duty – Harmonious construction with proviso to Section 200 CrPC – Public servant placed on different pedestal – Magistrate not required to examine complainant on oath – Object of Section 202 is to prevent harassment of innocents – Ratio of Cheminova India Ltd. applied – High Court erred in quashing complaint solely for non-compliance of Section 202 – Order taking cognizance restored [Paras 37-40].

Distinction from Private Complaints – Birla Corporation Ltd. distinguished – Where complaint filed by public servant under statutory authority, stricter view under Section 202 not warranted in same manner as private complaint – High Court’s reliance misplaced [Paras 40.2].

Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Misbranding – Discrepancy between outer carton and inner vial label – Allegation that pentavalent vaccine carton contained tetravalent vial – Prima facie offence under Sections 17(b), 17(c) read with Section 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) – Matter to proceed to trial – Observations not on merits [Paras 7-9, 42-44].

Vicarious Liability – Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Directors of Company – Whether “in charge of” and “responsible to” company is question of fact – High Court prematurely quashed proceedings holding bald averment insufficient – Such determination to be made at trial – Complaint not liable to be quashed at threshold [Paras 56-59].

Government Analyst Report – In connected appeal relating to “not of standard quality” syringes – Report declaring product failed sterility test – Prosecution maintainable – Section 202 objection rejected in light of earlier findings – Proceedings restored [Paras 51-58].

Result – Appeal by State allowed – Impugned orders of High Court quashing complaints set aside – Orders taking cognizance and issuing summons restored – Accused Managing Director (since deceased) to be substituted by persons in charge at relevant time – Connected appeal by accused dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 43-44, 48, 59-60].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Simultaneous CIRP – Principal Borrower and Corporate Guarantor – Section 60(2), IBC – Whether creditor can initiate parallel proceedings for same debt – NCLT/NCLAT relied on Vishnu Kumar Agarwal to bar second application once first admitted – Held: Issue squarely covered by BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. – IBC permits separate or simultaneous proceedings against corporate debtor and corporate guarantor – Liability of guarantor co-extensive under Section 128, Contract Act – Section 60(2) and (3) contemplate proceedings before same Adjudicating Authority – Bar on second application not sustainable – Orders rejecting initiation solely on ground of prior admission set aside [Paras 73–79, 105–106].

IBC – Not Pure Recovery Legislation – Admission under Section 7 – Scope of Discretion – Though recovery is incidental, IBC is primarily resolution-centric – Admission under Section 7 depends on existence of debt and default – Motive of creditor irrelevant if statutory conditions satisfied – Discretion under Section 7(5)(a) not arbitrary – Simultaneous proceedings cannot be declined merely on ground that Code is not recovery mechanism [Paras 68–72, 82–86].

Doctrine of Election – Inapplicability – Whether creditor must split claim between debtor and guarantor – Held: No statutory mandate requiring election – Election applies only where remedies are inconsistent – Proceedings against principal debtor and guarantor not inconsistent but co-extensive – Forcing election may extinguish balance claim due to ‘clean slate’ principle post resolution – No judicially imposed restriction permissible in absence of statutory proscription [Paras 87–95].

Clean Slate Principle – Effect on Claims – Once resolution plan approved, undecided or unfiled claims extinguished – Compelling creditor to file partial claim may result in forfeiture of remaining debt – Supports permissibility of full claim in each CIRP subject to adjustment [Paras 91–93].

Double Recovery – Safeguards under Regulations – Apprehension of unjust enrichment – Regulation 12A mandates creditor to update claim upon part/full satisfaction – Regulation 14 obligates Resolution Professional to revise admitted claims upon new information – Same debt cannot be realised twice – Adequate statutory safeguards exist – No blanket prohibition warranted [Paras 97–100].

Group Insolvency – Judicial Restraint – Though issue of consolidation and group insolvency raised – Insolvency Law Committee Report (February 2020) acknowledged concurrent proceedings and filing of claims in both CIRPs – Held: Laying down additional modalities or guidelines amounts to legislative exercise – Matter left to wisdom of Legislature and IBBI – Court declines to frame guidelines [Paras 101–104].

Decision: Civil Appeal Nos. 6093 of 2019, 6094 of 2019 and 2715 of 2020 allowed – Orders rejecting CIRP set aside – Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 21778 of 2019 and appeal allowed – Civil Appeal Nos. 827–828 of 2021, 4018 of 2023 and 7231 of 2024 dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2020 dismissed with liberty to pursue independent proceedings – All other contentions on merits kept open [Paras 105–110].

Civil Law - Lease vs Licence – Construction of Registered Instrument – Unilateral Cancellation – Lis Pendens Purchasers – High Court reversed concurrent findings holding document to be licence and not lease – Supreme Court restored Trial Court and First Appellate Court decree – Held: Ext.1 created 99-year lease – Unilateral cancellation illegal – Sale by lessor could not defeat subsisting leasehold rights [Paras 14-23].

Lease or Licence – Test of Intention – Literal Rule of Construction – Document must be read as a whole – Substance prevails over form – Where instrument uses expressions “demise”, fixed term of 99 years, yearly rent, right to construction and binding successors clause – It clearly transfers interest in immovable property – Exclusive possession to be assessed qua demised portion – Mere retention of first floor by lessor does not convert lease into licence [Paras 15-21].

Interpretation of Deeds – Literal, Golden and Purposive Construction – Ex-post facto conduct not safest guide – Courts should rely on plain and ordinary meaning when language is clear – Resort to surrounding circumstances only when ambiguity exists – High Court erred in relying on post-execution conduct to infer licence despite clear language of deed [Paras 17-21].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 105 – Lease Defined – Essential ingredients satisfied – Transfer of right to enjoy property for certain term in consideration of rent – Lessee entitled to possession to exclusion of lessor in respect of demised premises – Ext.1 satisfied statutory ingredients – Hence created leasehold interest [Paras 15, 20].

Unilateral Cancellation of Registered Lease – Absence of cancellation clause – No proof of determination under Section 111 TPA – Rights accrued under registered lease cannot be defeated by unilateral deed of cancellation – Such cancellation illegal and non-est – Disturbance of possession without bilateral agreement impermissible [Paras 10.2, 21].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – High Court framed question whether sale could be effected during subsistence of lease – Having wrongly construed document as licence, High Court dismissed suit – Supreme Court held construction contrary to settled principles – Interference warranted [Paras 11, 12, 21].

Rights of Subsequent Purchasers – Sale during pendency of litigation – Purchasers stepped into shoes of lessor – Rights preserved subject to subsisting lease – Sale does not extinguish lessee’s 99-year interest – Vendees entitled only to lessor’s reversionary rights [Paras 10.3, 22].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Judgment and decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court restored – 99-year lease upheld – Unilateral cancellation declared illegal – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 22-23].

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Dignity – Rights of Prisoners – Confinement and Rehabilitation – Held: Prisons are not spaces where constitutional values cease to operate. The guarantee of life and personal dignity under Article 21 extends beyond prison gates, obliging the State to ensure incarceration does not degenerate into inhumanity. Overcrowding strikes at the core of the constitutional promise. Incarceration should be viewed not merely as punitive deprivation of liberty but as an opportunity for reformation and restoration of dignity. [Paras 1, 33-34, 48]

Prison Reforms – Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) – Reformative and Rehabilitative Penology – Overcrowding in Closed Prisons – Held: OCIs constitute one of the most effective, humane, and sustainable responses to congestion in closed prisons. They are vital mechanisms for translating the reformative ideal of punishment into institutional reality. Despite judicial exhortations since 2018, response from several States has been marked by apathy. OCIs must be firmly embedded as integral components of a humane correctional system rather than being treated as peripheral experiments. [Paras 4, 10, 45, 61]

Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 15 – Gender Discrimination – Exclusion of Women Prisoners from OCIs – Held: Empirical data reveals a deeply troubling pattern of excluding women from OCIs across several States. Systemic exclusion of women from beneficial regimes like open prisons is contrary to domestic norms and international standards (Nelson Mandela Rules and Bangkok Rules). Speculative security grounds cannot justify the denial of the right to reformation. Failure to transfer eligible women prisoners to OCIs constitutes blatant gender discrimination violative of Articles 14, 15(1), and 15(3). [Paras 49-54, 74]

Prison Administration – Fiscal Prudence – Cost-Effectiveness of OCIs vs. Closed Prisons – Comparative Study – Held: Data from Rajasthan indicates a massive cost differential; per-prisoner per-day expenditure in closed prisons is approx. Rs. 333.12 compared to approx. Rs. 49.60 in open prisons. OCIs are fiscally rational, requiring lower infrastructure costs and minimal staff (prisoner-staff ratio of 80:1 in open vs. 6:1 in closed). OCIs promote financial independence and reduce fiscal stress on the State. [Paras 4, 66-68, 71-72]

Administrative Law – Lack of Uniformity – Common Minimum Standards (CMS) – Arbitrary Eligibility Criteria – Held: Stark lack of uniformity exists among States regarding eligibility for OCI transfer, with prior incarceration requirements varying from 4 to 21 years. Such divergence results in arbitrariness and unequal access to reformative opportunities. There is a pressing necessity for the formulation of Common Minimum Standards to ensure baseline uniformity in living conditions and rehabilitative programs. [Paras 62-65]

Decision: The Supreme Court issued comprehensive operative directions including:

Constitution of a High-Powered Committee (HPC) for Reform and Governance of OCIs, chaired by Justice (Retd.) S. Ravindra Bhat, to formulate Common Minimum Standards and Standardised Eligibility Assessment Protocols;

Directing States lacking OCIs to undertake feasibility assessments and establish such facilities or open barracks within three months;

Mandating the filling of existing vacancies in OCIs within a time-bound protocol;

Directing all States to eliminate gender-based exclusion from OCIs and evolve gender-sensitive mechanisms;

Exhorting all High Courts to register suo motu writ petitions to monitor the implementation of these directions as a continuing mandamus. [Paras 73-80]

Civil Law - Religious Endowments – Hereditary Pujari Rights – Competing claims between rival families – Plaintiffs sought declaration as ancestral wahiwatdar pujaries with consequential injunction – Trial Court partly decreed – First Appellate Court declared plaintiffs as hereditary pujaries – High Court affirmed on remand – Supreme Court held concurrent findings based on documentary and oral evidence – No perversity warranting interference under Article 136 – Appeals dismissed [Paras 16-25].

Effect of Earlier Decree – Reliance on O.S. No. 287/1901 by defendants – Subsequent conduct of defendants’ predecessor in filing O.S. No. 88/1944 for possession inconsistent with claim of continuous possession – Institution of suit for possession amounts to admission of lack of possession – Withdrawal with liberty but failure to file fresh suit for 36 years undermines claim – Century-old decree cannot override subsequent conduct and factual matrix [Paras 18-20].

Withdrawal of Suit with Liberty – Liberty granted in 1946 to file fresh suit – No fresh suit instituted for decades – Inference drawn that defendants reconciled to factual position on ground – Conduct relevant in assessing subsisting rights [Para 20].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – RTC entries reflecting names of plaintiffs’ ancestors in respect of lands granted for service to temple – No mention of defendants – Revenue records coupled with admissions and witness testimony support plaintiffs’ continuous exercise of pujari rights – Revenue entries not to be lightly brushed aside in long-standing temple service disputes [Paras 21-22].

Admissions in Cross-Examination – Defendant’s witness admitted grant related to suit temple and cultivation by plaintiffs – Such admission strengthens plaintiffs’ case regarding service tenure and performance of puja [Para 22].

Pleadings – Necessity of Specific Pleas in Claim of Hereditary Rights – Defendants failed to plead material particulars regarding possession, commencement of puja, obstruction, and steps taken to assert rights – Oral evidence cannot substitute pleadings – Case not founded in pleadings cannot be built through evidence [Para 23].

Scope under Article 136 – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction sparingly – Unless findings are manifestly perverse or based on no evidence, interference unwarranted – High Court’s appreciation of evidence found sound – No ground to disturb decree [Paras 16-17, 24].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – Impugned judgment of High Court dated 04.10.2012 upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 24-26].