Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Claim – Involvement of Vehicle Not Proved – Appellants, legal heirs of two deceased victims of a road accident, filed claim petitions which were dismissed by the Tribunal and High Court – Both courts held that the appellants failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle beyond preponderance of probabilities – Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeals [Paras 2, 11, 20].

Evidence – Credibility of Witnesses – Testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 found to be inconsistent and contradictory – P.W.3 and P.W.4’s claim that driver confessed to accident found improbable – No eyewitness account directly proving the identity or involvement of the vehicle – Evidence found to lack credibility – No error in lower courts’ appreciation [Paras 13–15].

Motor Vehicles Act – Chargesheet and MVI Report – Mere filing of chargesheet held insufficient without corroborative evidence – Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report showed no damage to the alleged vehicle despite alleged fatal collision – Court found this inconsistent with the nature of the accident – Doubts raised on reliability of vehicle’s involvement [Paras 9, 18].

Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities – Court reiterated that in accident claims, preponderance of probabilities is sufficient – However, in present case, even that standard not met – FIR lacked registration number – Spot mahazar prepared days later – Multiple evidentiary gaps noted [Paras 16–17].

Sympathy vs Legal Proof – Though the Court acknowledged the tragic loss of life, it reiterated that compensation under MV Act cannot be granted on sympathy alone – Liability must be proved with credible evidence – Appeals dismissed [Para 19].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No costs.

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Not a Matter of Right – Respondents appointed as sweepers on compassionate basis after their fathers' deaths – Later sought appointment as Junior Assistants based on eligibility – Supreme Court held compassionate employment is a concession, not a vested right – Intended solely to mitigate sudden financial distress of the family – No entitlement to specific or higher post [Paras 7–10].

Compassionate Appointment – Once Exercised, Cannot Be Re-exercised – Court held that once appointment on compassionate grounds is accepted and acted upon, the right stands consummated – Subsequent claims for higher post unsustainable – Recognized risk of creating ‘endless compassion’ if such claims allowed [Paras 9–10].

Eligibility vs. Entitlement – Possession of qualifications for a higher post does not grant automatic right to such appointment under compassionate grounds – The objective is survival support, not career advancement – Requests for upgrades contrary to scheme’s purpose [Paras 11–12].

Delay and Laches – Delay of 3 and 9 years respectively in seeking higher post – Held fatal – Court reiterated that compassionate appointments address immediate financial need – Prolonged delay indicates absence of urgency and breaks causal link with intended relief [Paras 13–15].

Negative Discrimination – Claim for parity with others who were allegedly granted similar benefit – Rejected – Court reaffirmed that illegal or mistaken reliefs granted to others cannot form basis for equal treatment – Article 14 does not sanction negative equality [Paras 16–19].

Final Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Writ petitions seeking higher posts dismissed – Compassionate appointment as sweepers held to have fulfilled intended purpose – No further relief warranted.

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court directions granting Junior Assistant posts quashed – Writ petitions dismissed – No costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 436-A CrPC – Applicability to Heinous Offences – High Court granted bail relying on Section 436-A – Held: Section 436-A explicitly excludes offences for which the punishment of death has been specified – The accused are charged under Section 302 IPC and Section 16 UAPA, which carry the death penalty – High Court erred in applying Section 436-A – Paras [7-11].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 vs. National Security – Bail in Terror Cases – Jnaneshwari Express Derailment – Held: While Article 21 guarantees speedy trial, individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to national interest and security – In cases of mass casualties and attacks on sovereignty, the Court must balance rights with societal security – High Court erred in granting bail solely on the ground of delay without adequately weighing the gravity of the offence (148 deaths) – Paras [15-16, 21.1, 22].

Bail – Cancellation/Interference by Supreme Court – Factors – Accused were released on bail in 2022/2023 – Held: Despite the High Court's error, bail is not cancelled at this stage because the accused have been on bail for over 3 years without misusing liberty, and the trial is proceeding at a "glacial pace" (28 witnesses remaining after 15 years) – Sending them back to custody now would not serve a fruitful purpose – Paras [21.2-21.3, 22].

Directions – Speedy Trial – UAPA Cases – Directions issued in personam for day-to-day trial of the present case – Directions issued in rem to all High Courts to assess pending UAPA cases, designate special courts, and ensure sufficient staffing to prevent delay in trials involving reverse burden of proof – Paras [24].

Decision: Appeals allowed to the extent of setting aside the reasoning on Section 436-A, but interference with liberty declined due to passage of time – Directions issued for speedy trial – Para [23].

Criminal Law – Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1), 50, 52-A, 57 NDPS Act – Independent Witnesses – Non-examination – Held: Absence of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution if the testimony of official witnesses is consistent and credible – In the present case, official witnesses deposed in unison that no independent persons were available at the time of seizure – No material contradiction found – Paras [20-22].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Section 52-A – Sampling Procedure – Appellant contended that drawing samples at the spot instead of before a Magistrate vitiates trial – Held: Relying on Bharat Aambale, mere non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52-A is not fatal unless it affects the integrity of the seized substance – Here, samples were drawn at the spot, sealed, produced before the Magistrate, and certified – Chain of custody was intact and integrity of samples preserved – Paras [23-27].

Criminal Law – Evidence – Discrepancy in Weight of Sample – Reduction in sample weight from "about 50g" to 40.6g – Held: Minor variation due to loss of moisture over time (40 days) does not undermine the prosecution case – Forensic report confirmed the sample contained dry broken fragments – Paras [29-30].

Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances vs. Statutory Minimum – Appellant pleaded for reduction of sentence citing youth and minor child – Held: Court has no discretion to reduce sentence below the statutory minimum prescribed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act – Humanitarian grounds are relevant for executive remission but cannot override statutory mandates – Para [32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Conviction and sentence of 10 years upheld - Para [34-35].

Rent Control and Eviction Laws – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 vs. State Rent Control Acts – Overriding Effect – Conflict between Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (1990) – Held: Suhas H. Pophale laid down incorrect law by holding that the PP Act 1971 is prospective and does not apply to tenants inducted prior to 16.09.1958 or prior to the premises becoming public premises – The Constitution Bench in Ashoka Marketing conclusively held that the PP Act is a special statute enacted later in time and overrides the Rent Control Acts (also special statutes) based on the purpose and policy of the legislation – Paras [6-9, 12].

Judicial Discipline – Doctrine of Precedent – Stare Decisis – Two-Judge Bench in Suhas H. Pophale failed to follow the binding ratio of the five-Judge Bench in Ashoka Marketing and three-Judge Bench in M/s. Jain Ink – A smaller bench cannot distinguish a larger bench judgment on the ground that a specific argument was not canvassed – Suhas H. Pophale overruled – Paras [9-10, 13(xi)].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospectivity – Public Premises Act, 1971 – The Act applies to all "public premises" as defined in Section 2(e) regardless of when the tenancy was created – The definition of "unauthorised occupation" in Section 2(g) includes continuance in occupation after authority has expired or been determined – Termination of tenancy by notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act renders occupation unauthorised, irrespective of whether tenancy was created before or after the PP Act came into force – Paras [13(vii)-(x)].

Decision: Reference answered – Suhas H. Pophale overruled – PP Act 1971 overrides State Rent Control Acts for all public premises – Matters to be decided accordingly – Para [14].

Insurance Law – Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package (PMGKY) – Meaning of "Requisitioning" of Services – Appellant’s husband was a private doctor who died of COVID-19 – Claim rejected on ground that his services were not specifically requisitioned – High Court upheld rejection stating the municipal notice only directed keeping clinics open and was not a requisition – Held: The notice dated 31.03.2020 issued by NMMC invoking the Epidemic Diseases Act and threatening action under Section 188 IPC for closing clinics constituted a "requisition" of services – The context of the pandemic and the mandatory nature of the order to keep dispensaries open for the public amounts to drafting/requisitioning of services – A narrow view cannot be taken given the compelling circumstances – Paras [21-24, 26, 30].

Administrative Law – Executive Orders during Pandemic – Interpretation – Notices issued under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and COVID-19 Regulations must be interpreted in the context of the emergency – A direction to private practitioners to keep clinics open under threat of criminal prosecution is an exercise of power to requisition services for containment measures – The distinction between "directing to keep open" and "requisitioning" is artificial in such circumstances – Paras [23-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed - The finding of the High Court that there was no requisition is set aside - Matter remanded for verification of factual evidence regarding cause of death and eligibility - Paras [30-31].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 9 – Operational Creditor vs Corporate Debtor – Pre-existing Dispute – Moonshine Defence – The NCLAT set aside the NCLT's admission order on the ground of pre-existing disputes regarding short supply and faulty cables raised in 2018-2019 – The Appellant (Operational Creditor) relied on the Corporate Debtor's own email from 2021 confirming the ledger balance and subsequent payments made even after the demand notice – Held: The defence of pre-existing dispute was mere moonshine and had no credible basis – The minor issues raised by the Corporate Debtor did not stop further supplies or payments, as evidenced by the ledger account – The NCLAT failed to attach requisite importance to the Corporate Debtor's admission of liability and the payments made after the alleged dispute – Order of admission restored - [Paras 19-21]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 9 – Adjudicating Authority’s Duty – The Adjudicating Authority must determine if the dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory – Where the Corporate Debtor continued to make payments and confirmed the debt balance in writing after the alleged correspondence regarding faulty goods, the dispute cannot be termed as a genuine pre-existing dispute warranting dismissal of the Section 9 application - [Paras 15, 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment of NCLAT set aside - Order of admission by NCLT restored.

Criminal Law - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Apology – Power to Remit Sentence – Appellant issued a circular criticizing the judiciary ("Dog mafia", "Judges don't want to see") regarding stray dog orders – High Court convicted her for criminal contempt and rejected her unconditional apology as perfunctory – Held: The power to punish carries the concomitant power to forgive – The Appellant tendered an unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity and demonstrated genuine remorse – The High Court erred in rejecting the apology based on distinguishable precedents where apologies were either not offered or withdrawn – Sentence remitted and appeal allowed - [Paras 1, 9.4-9.6, 10]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 Explanation & Proviso – Bona Fide Apology – An apology should not be rejected merely because it is qualified if made bona fide – However, where the apology is unconditional and sincere, the Court must exercise its discretion under the proviso to Section 12 to discharge the contemnor or remit the punishment – The power of contempt is not a sword to silence criticism but requires fortitude to accept contrition - [Paras 8.3-8.4]

Judicial Precedent – Ratio Decidendi – High Court relied on Rajendra Sail and D.C. Saxena to convict – Held: Reliance misplaced as factual matrices were distinct (e.g., allegations of bribery against judges or lack of apology in those cases) – Ratio of a decision must be understood in the context of its specific facts - [Paras 9.1-9.3]

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned judgment set aside to the extent of the sentence - Sentence remitted.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 102 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 18A – Freezing of Bank Accounts – Mutually Exclusive Powers – The High Court held that freezing of accounts for PC Act offences can only be done via the attachment procedure in Section 18A (applying Ordinance of 1944) and not Section 102 CrPC – Held: The powers under Section 102 CrPC (Seizure) and Section 18A PC Act (Attachment) are distinct and not mutually exclusive – Seizure under Section 102 is an investigative power to secure evidence or prevent disposal of suspect property, whereas Attachment under the Ordinance is a judicial process leading to confiscation – Police can exercise power under Section 102 CrPC to freeze accounts during investigation of PC Act offences - [Paras 11, 17]

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature – Ratio Decidendi – High Court relied on Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka to hold PC Act is a complete code excluding CrPC Section 102 – Held: Ratan Babulal Lath does not constitute binding precedent as it did not discuss the facts, the scheme of the Act, or its interaction with procedural laws – A decision is authority only for what it actually decides based on facts – The PC Act is not a self-contained code to the exclusion of Section 102 CrPC regarding seizure - [Paras 12, 15]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 102(3) – Reporting Seizure to Magistrate – The requirement to report seizure "forthwith" to the Magistrate is to ensure judicial oversight – However, delay in reporting does not ipso facto vitiate the seizure if the delay is explained or not wanton – The power of seizure is wide to facilitate investigation - [Paras 28 (citing Shento Varghese), 11]

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside - Respondent directed to re-deposit released amount or furnish security.