Medical Negligence – Compensation – National Commission awarded compensation for medical negligence leading to death of Anuradha Saha – Appeals filed challenging the quantum and apportionment of liability – Supreme Court emphasized "just compensation" principle, balancing interests of claimant and respondents – Detailed analysis of income, prospective loss, and living standards in USA [Paras 1-4, 53-60].

Just Compensation – Prospective Loss – Consideration of future potential and standard of living in determining compensation – National Commission's calculation based on limited evidence, leading to reduced compensation – Supreme Court highlighted need for comprehensive evaluation including scientific assessments from expert testimonies [Paras 5-12, 57-60].

Apportionment of Liability – Cumulative Effect – Liability of doctors and hospital assessed cumulatively – Supreme Court reiterated findings from Malay Kumar Ganguly's case, stressing cumulative negligence led to death – Individual responsibilities evaluated but considered collectively for compensation [Paras 35-44].

Multiplier Method – Consistency in Awards – Supreme Court endorsed multiplier method for calculating compensation to ensure uniformity and avoid arbitrariness – Reference to prior judgments including Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, and Patricia Mahajan [Paras 20-26].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Compensation enhanced considering prospective loss, status, and standards – Apportionment of liability adjusted – Directions issued for detailed reassessment of compensation with emphasis on comprehensive evaluation of evidence and expert testimonies [Paras 50-52, 60].

Service Law – Adverse Remarks in ACRs – Expungement of adverse remarks recorded in ACRs by successor DGP without jurisdiction and contrary to prescribed procedures – Successor DGP reviewed and restored adverse remarks based on government instructions limiting representations against adverse remarks – Supreme Court upheld the restoration of adverse remarks due to improper and belated expungement by the predecessor DGP – Expungement allowed only within six months and based on new facts or evidence, not mere improvement in subsequent performance [Paras 1-17].

Review and Revision Powers – Exercise of Administrative Discretion – Successor DGP’s power to review orders of predecessor when earlier order found to be without jurisdiction, ultra vires, or manifestly unjust – Courts to ensure fairness and reasonableness in administrative actions – Review permissible if initial expungement was based on favoritism or lack of jurisdiction [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Orders of High Court upholding the restoration of adverse remarks affirmed – Mercy petitions and subsequent representations beyond prescribed time and without new evidence deemed impermissible – Adverse remarks reinstated – Guidelines for fair and reasonable exercise of administrative powers emphasized [Paras 20-65].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – High Court reversed acquittal of Joginder Singh by the trial court and convicted him under Section 302 IPC – Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly assessed evidence and justified overturning acquittal – Noted that discrepancies and ballistic evidence did not conclusively prove the accused fired the fatal shots – Appellant’s defense of self-defense and inconsistent prosecution evidence raised reasonable doubt [Paras 1-17, 20-27].

Evidence – Credibility and Contradictions – Trial court doubted credibility of prosecution witnesses due to inconsistencies and absence of key witnesses – Ballistic report did not link bullets to appellant’s firearm – High Court’s rejection of trial court’s findings lacked detailed reassessment – Supreme Court stressed importance of thorough and reasoned evaluation of evidence in appeals against acquittal [Paras 17-19].

Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Adverse Inference – Prosecution’s failure to examine key eyewitnesses like the deceased’s husband and injured witnesses weakened its case – Supreme Court emphasized that non-examination of available and material witnesses can lead to adverse inference against prosecution’s version [Paras 22-25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's conviction set aside – Trial court’s acquittal restored – Appellant to be released unless required in another case – Emphasis on need for detailed and reasoned judgment in criminal cases, especially in overturning acquittals [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Chief Judicial Magistrate issued summons for trial under Sections 323, 354, 389, 452, 458, 500, 506 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC – Respondent (accused) filed an application to recall the summoning order, which was dismissed – Additional Sessions Judge set aside the summoning order due to lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC – High Court upheld the Additional Sessions Judge’s order – Supreme Court examined the validity of the recall application and the necessity of sanction under Section 197 CrPC [Paras 1-6].

Sanction for Prosecution – Official Duty – Alleged actions of Respondent (SDM) were not part of official duty – Actions included entering the appellant's house at night, humiliating her and a visitor, and forcing medical examinations – Supreme Court held these actions were not connected to official duty, and thus no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required [Paras 25-40].

Jurisdiction and Review Powers – Revisional Jurisdiction – Supreme Court clarified that orders issuing summons are intermediate orders and can be challenged under revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 CrPC – Power to review or recall such orders is not inherent in Magistrates and must be exercised within legal frameworks, primarily through Section 482 CrPC [Paras 13-20, 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of High Court and Additional Sessions Judge set aside – Summons issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate restored – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously on day-to-day basis – Supreme Court highlighted the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases involving abuse of power by public servants [Paras 41-42].

Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Dismissal from Service – Appellant challenged her dismissal on grounds of procedural impropriety in the departmental enquiry and disproportionate punishment – High Court upheld the dismissal – Supreme Court found the enquiry flawed due to non-supply of documents and non-examination of witnesses – Punishment disproportionate to the charges proved – Remanded to State Government for reconsideration of punishment based on review committee’s findings [Paras 1-9, 16-19].

Procedural Fairness – Non-supply of Documents and Witness Examination – Enquiry flawed as essential documents were not supplied to the appellant and no witnesses were examined – Burden of proof improperly shifted to appellant – Department required to prove charges adequately [Paras 6-8, 15].

Proportionality of Punishment – Dismissal Disproportionate – Supreme Court held that dismissal was disproportionate to the charges, particularly given the appellant's clean service record – Review committee’s findings did not support severe punishment – Directed State Government to impose appropriate penalty considering entire service record [Paras 10-14, 18-20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's decision set aside – State Government directed to pass fresh penalty order based on review committee's report within two weeks – Appellant to be reinstated immediately as she is nearing superannuation – Penalty to be lesser than dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement [Paras 20-22].

Contract Law – Doctrine of Frustration – Appellant claimed impossibility to execute the contract due to public resistance against running arrack shops – Supreme Court noted that statutory contracts are bound by their specific terms and consequences for non-performance – Doctrine of frustration (Section 56 of Contract Act) inapplicable when statutory contract explicitly provides for forfeiture of security deposit for non-performance [Paras 1-20].

Statutory Contracts – Forfeiture of Security Deposit – Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974, Rule 5(15) provides for forfeiture of security deposit if the auction purchaser fails to execute the agreement – Appellant's failure to execute the agreement and perform obligations under the contract justified forfeiture – Supreme Court upheld the statutory provision, dismissing claims of unreasonableness or unfairness [Paras 12-20].

Judicial Review – Fairness in Administrative Actions – Doctrine of fairness and reasonableness in administrative law cannot amend or vary express terms of statutory contracts – Supreme Court emphasized difference between administrative fairness and statutory contract obligations – Reiterated that licensees under statutory schemes assume calculated risks, and terms must be upheld as per statutory framework [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision allowing forfeiture of security deposit – Emphasized adherence to statutory contract terms and conditions – No merit found in claims of contract frustration or unfairness in statutory provisions [Para 21].

Promotion – Impact of Censure – Respondent denied promotion due to a censure penalty – High Court quashed the penalty and directed promotion with retrospective effect – Supreme Court noted that promotions affecting seniority require impleading affected parties – Censure penalty relevant for promotion consideration even under seniority-cum-merit criteria [Paras 4-10].

Procedural Fairness – Non-impleadment of Necessary Parties – Promotions affecting seniority cannot be ordered without hearing affected juniors – High Court’s order granting promotion to respondent without impleading juniors set aside – Reinforced principle of natural justice requiring hearing of all affected parties in promotion disputes [Paras 11-15].

Applicability of Circular – Prospective Effect – High Court correctly held that the circular issued in 2006 could not be applied retrospectively to a promotion matter of 1996-97 – Supreme Court upheld this aspect of High Court’s judgment [Paras 10, 15].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Directions for promotion of respondent quashed due to non-impleadment of juniors – High Court’s decision on the inapplicability of the circular upheld – Remanded for reconsideration with affected parties properly impleaded [Paras 15-16].

Service Law – Termination of Probationary Officer – Respondent, a probationary Civil Judge, terminated on grounds of unsatisfactory performance – High Court found the termination to be stigmatic and in violation of Article 311(2) as no charges were communicated and no opportunity for defense was provided – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, noting procedural impropriety and prejudiced preliminary inquiry [Paras 1-20].

Procedural Fairness – Stigmatic Termination – Termination of services with implicit allegations of misconduct without proper inquiry constitutes a stigmatic action – Article 311(2) mandates prior notice and opportunity to be heard – Supreme Court emphasized adherence to due process in service termination cases [Paras 16-20].

Judicial Review – Protection of Judicial Officers – Emphasized the responsibility of higher judiciary to protect honest judicial officers from baseless allegations and ensure a fair working environment – Lamented hostile work conditions for female judicial officers and stressed the need for protective oversight by higher judicial authorities [Paras 28-34].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's decision upheld – Respondent reinstated with continuity of service and all consequential benefits – Back wages awarded from the date of the High Court’s decision – Directions issued for prompt reinstatement and payment of back wages within specified timeframes [Paras 35].

Public Health – Regulation of Soft Drinks – Petitioner sought independent evaluation and regulatory measures for soft drinks to ensure safety and transparency of ingredients – Respondents maintained existing regulations under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act) were sufficient – Supreme Court noted enforcement issues rather than gaps in legislation [Paras 1-3].

Regulatory Framework – Enforcement of Food Safety Laws – Supreme Court emphasized need for rigorous enforcement of FSS Act, PFA Act, and corresponding rules/regulations to safeguard public health – Directed Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to enhance inspections and monitoring in major markets – Highlighted importance of transparency in labeling and advertising to protect consumers [Paras 4-15, 23-25].

Scientific Evaluation – Expert Committees – Supreme Court supported existing scientific panels under FSSAI for evaluating grievances – Stressed necessity for independent, transparent, and comprehensive scientific assessments to ensure public safety – Acknowledged FSSAI’s role and responsibility in monitoring food safety and managing risk [Paras 7-9, 17-22].

Constitutional Duty – Right to Health – Reaffirmed State’s duty under Article 21 and Article 47 of the Constitution to ensure public health – Recognized fundamental right to safe food as integral to right to life – Directed authorities to align enforcement with constitutional mandates for health protection [Paras 19-22].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed – Supreme Court directed FSSAI to conduct periodic inspections and ensure compliance with food safety standards – Emphasized effective implementation of existing laws – Highlighted importance of consumer awareness and accurate labeling in preventing health risks [Paras 24-26].