Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Appellants, members of a political party, sought quashing of FIR registered under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – FIR dated 30th April, 2023, based on a prior incident dated 10th October, 2022, wherein appellants were already booked under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 307, 323, 504, 506 and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act – High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing – Supreme Court held that invocation of UP Gangsters Act was unwarranted in absence of any subsequent criminal activity between the first FIR dated 11th October, 2022, and the gang chart prepared on 29th April, 2023 – No evidence of organized crime, habitual behavior, or intent to gain undue advantage [Paras 3, 4, 5, 9, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 29, 30].

Gangsters Act – Applicability – Definition of ‘Gang’ under Section 2(b) requires a group engaged in anti-social activities with objective of disturbing public order or gaining undue pecuniary, temporal or material advantage – FIR merely refers to a single protest incident triggered by an inflammatory post on religion – No evidence of hierarchical structure, systematic planning or continuity of criminal acts – Held, appellants' participation in spontaneous protest does not constitute membership of a gang under the Act – Invocation of the Gangsters Act was colorable exercise of power [Paras 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25].

Mala Fide Intention – Political Vendetta – Registration of FIR under the Gangsters Act occurred just days after appellant’s family member filed nomination for Nagar Panchayat elections – Appellants had filed a prior representation anticipating false implication – Supreme Court observed that FIR appeared politically motivated and a misuse of statutory powers [Paras 5.4, 21, 24].

Constitutional Safeguards – Personal Liberty – Court reiterated that extraordinary statutes abridging procedural safeguards must be invoked with strong evidentiary foundation – Absence of fresh criminal conduct or continuing threat rendered invocation of Gangsters Act arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution – Procedural fairness underlined as essential [Paras 23, 24, 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – FIR dated 30th April, 2023, and all consequential proceedings quashed – Pending proceedings in earlier FIRs CC No. 294 of 2022 and CC No. 296 of 2022 to continue unaffected – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 29, 30, 31, 32].

Criminal Law  – Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal -  Identification in Court – Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Appeal Allowed - The Supreme Court held that failure by eyewitnesses to identify accused in court as perpetrators of the crime was fatal to the prosecution's case – Mere naming of individuals in deposition without proper court identification insufficient to sustain conviction – Resultant acquittal of all appellants due to lack of conclusive proof [Paras 21–23, 25].

Eyewitness Testimony – Material Omissions – Contradictions Under Section 162 CrPC – Appeal Allowed - The Court found significant and unexplained omissions in police statements versus court depositions by prosecution witnesses – These discrepancies amounted to contradictions and weakened the prosecution’s case – Cross-examination further established inconsistency in testimonies and non-corroboration by independent witnesses [Paras 9–10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 23].

Counter Case – Separate Trial – No Prejudice Established – Appeal Allowed - Though appellants raised grievance of prejudice due to separate trial of the counter-case arising from the same incident, the Court found no conclusive prejudice – Nonetheless, acquittal was ordered on merits due to evidentiary failure [Paras 4, 7].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – All Appellants Acquitted - The impugned judgment dated 10.09.2010 of the Chhattisgarh High Court and convictions under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC were set aside – All appellants acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled as appellants were already on bail for twelve years [Paras 25–26].

Contract Law – Clause Requiring Minimum Service Period – Not Restraint of Trade – Appeal Allowed - The Supreme Court held that Clause 11(k) of the appointment letter, requiring an employee to serve a minimum of three years or pay ₹2 lakh as liquidated damages, was not violative of Section 27 of the Contract Act – Such negative covenants during the subsistence of an employment contract are not considered restraint of trade – Held: Clause valid and enforceable [Paras 13–16, 35].

Public Policy – Standard Form Employment Contract – No Inequality of Bargaining – Appeal Allowed - The Court rejected the argument that the clause was imposed through unequal bargaining power – Held: The clause was part of a legitimate strategy to curb attrition in a competitive environment and was not unconscionable or unfair – Not opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act [Paras 18–21, 27].

Liquidated Damages – ₹2 Lakhs Not Disproportionate – Appeal Allowed - The clause requiring ₹2 lakh payment for premature resignation was held reasonable and not causing unjust enrichment – Recruitment process costs, administrative disruptions, and public sector constraints justified the amount – Respondent paid under protest but failed to establish excessive hardship [Paras 28–31].

Decision – High Court Order Set Aside – Restrictive Covenant Upheld - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the enforceability of Clause 11(k) – High Court’s reliance on prior decision in BEML held inapplicable due to different factual context – Civil Appeal No. 11499 of 2016 dismissed following same reasoning [Paras 32–37].

Service Law – Absorption of Employees – Right to Pension – Functional Integration – Absorbed Employees Entitled to Pension – Absorbed employees from dissolved electricity co-operative societies claimed parity in pension benefits with regular MPSEB employees – Supreme Court held that once absorbed, these employees are entitled to pension under MPSEB from date of absorption – Pre-absorption service not countable towards qualifying pensionable service – Functional integration post-merger mandates uniform treatment – Denial of pension to similarly placed employees violates equity and parity principles [Paras 4-6, 18-23].

Pension – Qualifying Service – Interpretation of Rules – Pre-Absorption Service Not Pensionable – Under MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, only service rendered under government-regulated terms qualifies – Thus, pre-absorption service in co-operative societies, which were not under state regulation, cannot be counted – Court applied Rule 3(p), 12(2), and 13(1) to hold that pension is admissible only from date of absorption [Paras 24-25].

Article 142 – Equitable Relief – Uniformity Mandated – Apex Court exercised Article 142 to ensure no discrimination among similarly placed employees – Despite High Court Full Bench judgment denying pension to some absorbed employees, Court granted parity to all absorbed society employees w.e.f. date of absorption – Ensured uniform and equitable resolution of complex and long-pending litigation [Paras 17, 26].

Decision – Appeals Partially Allowed – Appellants entitled to pension from date of absorption into MPSEB, but pre-absorption service not to be counted for qualifying period – Impugned orders modified accordingly – Respondents directed to implement and pay arrears within four months [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act and UAPA – Bail Denied – Appellant accused of coordinating smuggling of Afghan-origin heroin via fictitious firm – Despite absence of contraband recovery from the appellant’s consignment, evidence of meetings, proxy control of firm, and documentary manipulation established prima facie complicity – Court held that the cumulative material justified continued custody under Section 43D(5) of UAPA [Paras 5-16, 26-28].

Liberty – Preventive Detention – Article 21 – No Automatic Bail for Long Incarceration – Though pre-trial detention cannot be punitive, continued custody upheld due to nature of offence, flight risk, and pending examination of key witnesses – Court permitted renewal of bail plea after six months or upon substantial progress in trial [Paras 24, 30, 33].

Witness Protection – Risk of Tampering – Bail Refused – One witness found dead on date of deposition; two untraceable – High risk of witness influence or elimination justified rejection of bail at interim stage – Directions issued for accelerated witness examination [Paras 30-31, 35(ii)-(iii)].

UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie Satisfaction Sufficient – Bail denied under UAPA does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt – Material must demonstrate plausible complicity without being inherently unreliable – Held: Prosecution narrative not improbable at current stage [Paras 23-24, 27].

Terror Financing – Allegation Deferred – No Conclusive Evidence – Though UAPA invoked, Court declined to classify appellant’s actions as terror financing without strong evidentiary foundation – Allegations too premature to attract such a finding [Para 34].

Decision – Bail Rejected – Appellant not entitled to regular bail presently – Liberty granted to reapply after six months or significant trial progress – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings and examine core witnesses without interruption [Paras 33, 35(i)-(iv)].
 

Limitation Law - Delay Condonation – Re-litigation on Identical Grounds – Delay Not Condoned – Respondents' explanation for 1116 days delay in filing appeal under Order XLI CPC was previously adjudicated under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and dismissed by High Court and Supreme Court – Re-urging same grounds held to be impermissible and an abuse of process – Repetition of insufficient cause cannot warrant fresh consideration under a different provision [Paras 27-30].

Applicability of Precedent – Misapplication of N. Mohan Case – Condonation Set Aside – High Court erroneously relied on N. Mohan v. R. Madhu (2020) 20 SCC 302 to condone delay – Distinguished on facts as defendants in present case had appeared, filed written statements, and later defaulted, unlike in N. Mohan where summons were not served – Hence, reliance misplaced [Paras 25-26].

Concurrent Remedies – Section 96(2) Appeal and Order IX Rule 13 Application – Not Mutually Exclusive but No Duplication of Grounds – Though legally maintainable to file appeal under Section 96(2) post Order IX Rule 13 rejection, same explanation for delay cannot be recycled without new material – Filing under another provision does not reset limitation clock without distinct cause [Para 30].

Limitation Law – Strict Interpretation – Generosity Not Permitted – Limitation law requires strict adherence and cannot be relaxed merely for equity – Absence of bona fide explanation bars condonation – Reference made to Popat Bahiru Goverdhane (2013) 10 SCC 765 and Maniben Devraj Shah (2012) 5 SCC 157 – Delay must be justifiable on record and not based on liberal approach [Paras 28-32].

Decision – Delay Not Justified – Appeal Allowed – Impugned High Court order dated 25.04.2023 condoning delay set aside – Civil Appeal allowed and delay condonation rejected – Appeal disposed with no costs [Paras 34-36].

Criminal Law - Cruelty and Dowry Demand – Conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of DP Act – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted based on vague allegations of mental and physical cruelty and dowry demands – The complainant failed to substantiate claims with specific instances or medical evidence – No corroborative or independent testimony beyond statements of complainant and her father – Held: General and omnibus allegations insufficient to sustain conviction under criminal law – Conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act set aside [Paras 3.4, 4, 9-11].

Abuse of Protective Legislation – Caution Against Misuse – Judicial Concern Noted – The Court noted with concern the trend of implicating entire families of husbands without specific allegations – Held: Courts must guard against misuse of Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 of the DP Act – Observed tendency to criminally prosecute distant relatives and aged parents without evidence [Para 13].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Duty to Re-examine Evidence – High Court's Summary Dismissal Criticized – The Supreme Court found that the High Court, while exercising revisional powers, failed to apply judicial mind or consider evidence on record – Held: The High Court should have scrutinized the correctness of lower court judgments more thoroughly [Paras 7, 12].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act – Held: Continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 14-15].
 

Writ - Designation of Senior Advocates – Validity of Indira Jaising Guidelines – Guidelines Partially Overruled – Supreme Court revisits framework laid down in Indira Jaising-1 and Indira Jaising-2 – Held: 100-point assessment and interview system found unworkable and subjective – Paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-1 deleted – New rule-based regime to be framed by all High Courts and Supreme Court [Paras 74-77, 87(i)-(v)].

Interview System – Constitutionality and Practicality – Interview Abolished – Interview/interaction allocating 25 points deemed insufficient to assess personality and dignity of senior advocates – Held: Brief interviews fail to uphold professional dignity and cannot reliably determine integrity or competence [Paras 67-70].

Inclusivity and Trial Court Advocates – Designation Should Not Be Monopolized – Emphasis on Diversity – Court highlights the need to include advocates from Trial and District Courts and specialized tribunals – Held: Standing at Bar not limited to appearances in Constitutional Courts – Full Court must ensure diverse and equitable designations [Paras 55, 78-79].

Role of Bar Members in Assessment – Committee Composition Modified – Participation of Advocates in Decision-Making Removed – Court disapproves inclusion of bar members in Permanent Committee’s scoring – Held: Decision-making must rest solely with the judiciary as per Section 16(2) of Advocates Act [Paras 63-64].

Applications for Designation – Permissible Practice – Consent Sufficient – Court upholds application-based system for practical reasons – Held: Filing application amounts to implied consent; deserving advocates may still be designated suo motu with consent [Para 77].

Secret Ballot – Discretion of Full Court – Use Not Prohibited – Held: Voting by secret ballot is neither mandatory nor barred – Full Court empowered to decide voting method as per facts of each case [Para 81].

Rule-Making Mandate – Uniform Framework Required – High Courts Directed – All High Courts directed to frame rules within four months – Rules must ensure transparency, fairness, periodic review, and bar-wide consultation [Paras 83-84, 87(ii)].

Decision  – Indira Jaising-1 Para 73.7 Deleted – New Rules Required – Existing processes under Indira Jaising regime may continue; no new applications to be processed without rules framed under this judgment – Applications in current matters allowed and disposed [Paras 87-90].

Criminal Law - Forgery of Court Record – Tampering After Conclusion of Proceedings – Section 195 CrPC Not Applicable – Appellant accused of fabricating and replacing court records in a civil suit after it was withdrawn – Documents were altered from the record room post-disposal – Held: Since forgery was committed after withdrawal of suit and documents were not in “custodia legis,” Section 195 CrPC does not apply – FIR and prosecution not barred [Paras 12-17].

Jurisdiction to Prosecute – Court's Power to Take Cognizance – Valid Despite Absence of Presiding Officer's Complaint – Appellant argued that no court complaint was filed under Section 340 CrPC – Supreme Court held that FIR was lodged at behest of High Court following vigilance inquiry and hence satisfies requirement under Section 340(3) – Filing by administrative authority valid in such context [Paras 11, 17].

Separate Offences – Distinction Between Pre- and Post-Proceeding Forgery – Alleged offences bifurcated into two: (1) tampering with suit records post-withdrawal, and (2) using forged decree in execution – Held: Tampering after case closure does not impact justice administration – Use of forged decree in execution also occurred prior to production, thus outside Section 195 bar [Paras 10, 13-14].

Misuse of Civil Process – Execution Petition Based on Fabricated Decree – Fraudulent Intent Evident – Appellant withdrew civil suit unconditionally but later filed execution petition based on falsified decree – Bogus documents inserted into record; cheques dishonoured – Court found clear intent to harass and extort money from defendant by fraudulent legal process [Paras 2-6, 12-15].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Criminal Proceedings Valid – High Court Ruling Affirmed – Supreme Court upheld High Court's refusal to quash FIR and proceedings – Held: Section 195 CrPC not a shield for post-proceeding forgery – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 18-19].