Judicial Appointments – Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) – Procedural Validity: The removal of Shri G. Bhavani Singh as SPP without proper consultation with the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court and without valid reasons was deemed procedurally improper. The appointment and subsequent removal were affected by political motivations following a change in government, undermining the fairness of the trial​​.

Fair Trial – Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution: Emphasizing the right to a speedy trial, the Court noted that the abrupt removal of the SPP at a critical juncture of the trial, where significant progress had been made, jeopardized the fair trial process. The voluminous evidence and the nearing retirement of the trial judge further compounded the urgency and complexity​​.

Malice in Law – Political Interference – Section 21 of General Clauses Act: The Court found that the exercise of power to remove the SPP was vitiated by malice in law, indicating bad faith and political interference. The decision lacked a legally sustainable reason, reflecting an abrupt and unwarranted change in stance following a political transition​​.

Powers under Article 142 – Judicial Extension – Statutory Limits: The Supreme Court deliberated on its powers under Article 142 to extend the tenure of the Special Judge overseeing the trial but refrained from issuing such a directive, acknowledging statutory limitations and the appropriate jurisdiction of the state government to address the matter in consultation with the High Court​​.

Decision: Writ petitions allowed. The Court quashed the notification removing Shri G. Bhavani Singh as SPP and directed that the matter be reconsidered by the State Government and the High Court to ensure a fair and expeditious trial. The case was remanded for further proceedings in line with the principles of natural justice and statutory mandates​​.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Evidence Evaluation: The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of three individuals, including a pregnant woman and a child. The prosecution's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence. The defense of private defense was rejected by the trial court, a decision upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. The courts found the prosecution's witnesses credible and consistent, and the appellant's defense implausible [Paras 1-25]​​.

Sentencing – Death Penalty – "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine: The appellant was sentenced to death, with the trial court noting the brutality and premeditation involved in the crime. The High Court confirmed this sentence, emphasizing the gruesome nature of the murders. The Supreme Court, however, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, considering mitigating factors such as the appellant's age and lack of criminal history. The Court reiterated that the death penalty should be reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases, and found that while the crime was heinous, it did not meet this threshold [Paras 26-36]​​.

Decision: Appeals partly allowed. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in sentencing that considers both the severity of the crime and the potential for the appellant's reform [Paras 36-37]​​.

Criminal Law – Death Sentence – Commutation: The appellant State challenged the High Court's decision to commute the death sentence of Jamil Khan to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a minor girl. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity to balance aggravating and mitigating factors while considering the rarest of rare doctrine. The Court upheld the life sentence, stressing that the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous crimes​​.

Constitutional Law – Articles 72 and 161 – Scope of Remission and Commutation: The Court examined the scope of remission and commutation powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution and Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC. It reiterated that these powers should be exercised with caution, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. The Court clarified that minimum sentences prescribed by law cannot be reduced through remission or commutation​​.

Confirmation of Death Sentence – Procedural Requirements under CrPC: The Supreme Court highlighted the procedural requirements for confirming a death sentence under Chapter XXVIII of the CrPC. It noted the High Court’s responsibility to examine the special reasons provided by the trial court and ensure that the death sentence is warranted only in the rarest of rare cases​​.

Decision: Appeal disposed of. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, with the stipulation that the sentences under Sections 302, 376, and 201 IPC shall run consecutively. The Court directed that any remission or commutation of the life sentence under Section 302 IPC should follow the mandatory 14-year imprisonment, followed by sentences for Sections 376 and 201 IPC​​.

Service Law – Recruitment and Promotion – Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers Association contested the recruitment rules and seniority list – Appellants, initially appointed as Overseers, absorbed in Rural Development Department (RDD) – Claimed promotion to Assistant Engineer (AE) without five years service as Overseer – High Court upheld Government's decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court emphasized need for practical experience and upheld the requirement of five years service for promotion [Paras 1-32].

Seniority and Absorption – Appellants’ claim for past service in Highways Department to be considered for seniority in RDD rejected – Court held absorption as Overseer valid based on voluntary option given by appellants – Previous service not to be counted for promotion in RDD [Paras 25-28].

Quota System – Ratio for promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) contested – Appellants sought 1:1 ratio – Supreme Court upheld existing ratio of 6:2:1 (AE: Junior Engineer: Senior Draughting Officer) – Court found no violation of Articles 14 and 16 – Fixation of quota within prerogative of the executive [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Appellants to follow prescribed service rules for promotion [Para 32].

Election Law – Secrecy of Voting – Petitioners challenged Rules 41(2), 41(3), and 49-O for violating the secrecy of voting – Court emphasized the importance of secrecy to ensure free and fair elections – Held, these rules violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution – Directions issued to the Election Commission to provide a 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to maintain secrecy and ensure free expression [Paras 1-62].

Right to Vote – Fundamental Rights and Statutory Rights – Court held that while the right to vote is a statutory right, the freedom to vote or not vote is a facet of the fundamental right of expression under Article 19(1)(a) – Reiterated that secrecy in voting is integral to the electoral process [Paras 19-21, 26-28, 32-35].

Maintainability – Article 32 Petition – Court rejected the Union of India's contention that the petition was not maintainable under Article 32 as it did not pertain to a fundamental right – Held, the petition was maintainable as it involved the fundamental right of expression and the statutory right to vote [Paras 16-25].

Implementation – NOTA in EVMs – Court directed the Election Commission to include a NOTA button on EVMs – Emphasized that this would enhance voter participation and ensure that voters can express dissatisfaction with all candidates without violating the secrecy of the ballot [Paras 37-60].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of with directions – Election Commission to implement NOTA option in EVMs and conduct awareness programs to educate voters [Para 62].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Cancellation – High Court canceled bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge – Allegation that trial judge misconstrued High Court's directions while granting bail – Supreme Court held that the trial judge’s order was based on a misinterpretation and lacked consideration of relevant factors under Section 439 CrPC – Order granting bail set aside – Directions issued for the appellant to surrender and apply afresh for bail [Paras 16-20, 25-27].

Judicial Discretion – Anticipatory Bail – High Court's Order – Supreme Court clarified that High Court's direction to surrender and apply for bail should not be misconstrued as a directive to grant bail – Emphasized the need for proper judicial discretion and consideration of relevant factors in bail applications [Paras 15, 21-23, 29].

Cancellation of Bail – Parameters – Supreme Court differentiated between setting aside an illegal bail order and cancellation due to misconduct or supervening circumstances – Highlighted the necessity of maintaining judicial integrity and adherence to statutory provisions [Paras 20, 28].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Supreme Court set aside the order of bail and directed the appellant to surrender – Liberty granted to apply for regular bail, which should be considered on merits without influence from the previous cancellation order [Paras 26-30].

Maintenance – Arrears – Limitation – High Court restricted arrears of maintenance to one year prior to the date of application under Section 125(3) CrPC – Supreme Court held this interpretation incorrect – Clarified that the proviso to Section 125(3) does not limit entitlement but rather restricts the mode of recovery through sentencing – Directed full payment of arrears and current maintenance [Paras 4-8].

Mode of Recovery vs. Mode of Satisfaction – Sentencing under Section 125(3) CrPC – Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing for default is a mode of enforcement, not satisfaction of liability – Liability remains until actual payment is made [Paras 5, 6].

Continuing Liability – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – Recognized the ongoing nature of the liability to pay maintenance – Acknowledged that successive applications can be filed for subsequent defaults [Paras 6, 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Directed the respondent to pay entire arrears from the date of the original maintenance petition and continue monthly payments – Non-compliance to result in issuance of arrest warrant and imprisonment under Section 125(3) CrPC [Para 8].

Sales Tax – Works Contracts – Definition and Taxability – Whether the definition of 'works contract' under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act includes transactions involving the sale of flats by developers to prospective purchasers – Court held that such transactions are works contracts as they involve the transfer of property in goods in the execution of a works contract – Upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions allowing taxation of such transactions [Paras 2-67].

Constitutional Law – Article 366(29A) – Scope and Interpretation – Clarified that Article 366(29A)(b) allows states to bifurcate works contracts into separate contracts for the sale of goods and supply of labour and services, thereby enabling the imposition of sales tax on the value of goods involved in the execution of the works contract – Dominant intention test inapplicable post Forty-sixth Constitutional Amendment [Paras 52-67].

Contracts – Development Agreements – Taxation – Agreement between developers and purchasers for the sale of flats, which includes construction activity, is a composite contract and deemed a works contract – States have the power to levy sales tax on the material component of such contracts – Emphasized that the nature of the agreement and the transfer of goods therein fall under the purview of works contracts [Paras 20-27, 52-67].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Upheld the decisions of the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts – Confirmed the taxability of goods involved in the execution of works contracts under the respective state laws [Para 67].

Criminal Procedure – Transfer of Cases – Jurisdiction – Appellants challenged the transfer of their cases from the Magistrate’s Court to the Special Judge – Contended the transfer was unlawful as it deprived them of the right to trial by the designated Magistrate and potentially reduced their rights to appeal – Court held the transfer was lawful as the High Court has the administrative power under Article 227 of the Constitution to transfer cases for administrative exigency – No prejudice caused to appellants as their right to appeal remains intact [Paras 1-21, 22-53].

Administrative Law – High Court’s Power under Article 227 – Scope and Limits – Upheld the High Court’s administrative power to transfer cases, provided it does not impinge upon or prejudicially affect the rights of parties – Distinguished from judicial power of transfer under Section 407 CrPC, noting the duality of High Court’s powers in administrative and judicial domains [Paras 19, 43-45].

Criminal Law – FERA – Non-Cognizable Offences – Determined that offences under Section 56 of FERA are non-cognizable, and the Special Judge is authorized to try such cases – Emphasized that the administrative transfer did not violate statutory provisions nor the appellants’ constitutional rights [Paras 14, 17, 24-34].

Appeals and Revisions – Right to Appeal – Clarified that transferring a case from the Magistrate to the Special Judge does not eliminate the right to appeal but changes the appellate forum from Sessions Court to High Court – Affirmed no vested right to revision exists, as it is a procedural facility rather than a substantive right [Paras 35-41, 46-51].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Upheld the High Court’s administrative transfer of cases from Magistrate to Special Judge as lawful and consistent with the Constitution and statutory framework [Para 53].