Constitutional Law – Promotion and Service Regularization – Respondent, initially appointed on ad-hoc basis as Engineering Assistant (Mechanical) and subsequently promoted to Inspector of Works and then Junior Engineer, contended for regularization of his ad-hoc service for promotion purposes – Supreme Court emphasized that 8 years of regular service as Assistant Engineer is mandatory for promotion to Executive Engineer as per Recruitment Rules – Ad-hoc service not to be counted towards this requirement – High Court's sympathetic direction to appoint respondent despite non-fulfillment of statutory requirements deemed unsustainable [Paras 1-9].

Ad-hoc Appointments – Legal Implications – Clarified that continuous ad-hoc service, even if necessitated by administrative exigencies, does not equate to regular service under Article 309 – Court stressed adherence to recruitment rules and statutory provisions for public service promotions [Paras 2-5].

Judicial Review – Limitations – High Court's order based on judicial sympathy, directing respondent’s promotion as a special case without setting a precedent – Supreme Court highlighted the need for strict compliance with statutory requirements, setting aside High Court's decision for contravening established recruitment rules [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Tribunal's decision dismissing the respondent's claim upheld – Emphasized that judicial sympathy cannot override statutory provisions for public service promotions [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Appellant State challenged alteration of conviction from Section 302/34 to Section 304 Part II IPC – Convicts accused of killing deceased during a molestation attempt – High Court reduced conviction considering the act was in heat of passion without premeditation – Supreme Court disagreed, emphasized evidence showed planned act, sufficient time to cool off before fatal assault – Held convicts acted with common intention, shared responsibility under Section 34 IPC [Paras 1-14].

Exception to Murder – Applicability – Examined Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Not applicable as act lacked sudden fight or provocation elements – Convicts had sufficient time after initial provocation before assault, negating heat of passion defense – Reinforced requirement for all Exception 4 ingredients to be met simultaneously for culpable homicide classification [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Review – High Court's Error – Highlighted High Court's error in applying judicial sympathy over statutory requirements – Stressed strict adherence to IPC provisions for maintaining rule of law – Emphasized need for consistent application of legal principles in criminal justice system [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s alteration of conviction set aside – Original conviction under Section 302/34 IPC restored – Convicts to serve remainder of sentence as per trial court's judgment [Para 14].

Service Law – Promotion – Seniority – Respondents appointed in Group III posts of Subordinate Agricultural Services claimed promotion with effect from the date junior was promoted ad-hoc – Tribunal and High Court directed promotions with retrospective effect and notional benefits – Supreme Court held claims hit by delay and laches, as respondents challenged promotion after two decades – Emphasized that stale claims without satisfactory explanation for delay cannot be entertained [Paras 1-23].

Doctrine of Delay and Laches – Representations – Not a Fresh Cause of Action – Court clarified that mere representations or tribunal’s direction to consider representations do not extend limitation period or revive stale claims – Reiterated settled principle that promotion disputes must be addressed promptly – Judicial directions for considering representations cannot furnish new cause of action for delayed claims [Paras 10-15].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Error – Highlighted High Court's error in ignoring significant delay – Stressed on the principle of timely assertion of rights in service matters to prevent unsettlement of settled positions – Emphasized maintaining judicial discipline and avoiding sympathetic but legally untenable orders [Paras 16-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and tribunal orders set aside – Tribunal’s direction for retrospective promotion and benefits declared unsustainable – Directed no costs [Para 23].

Constitutional Law – Juvenile Justice – The appellants sought a reinterpretation of Sections 2(l) and 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice Act to exclude juveniles committing heinous crimes from the Act’s protective purview – Petitioners argued for trying such juveniles in regular courts – Supreme Court maintained that established legal principles do not permit third-party intervention in criminal prosecutions, which are primarily state functions – Upheld state responsibility in criminal justice administration [Paras 1-13].

Juvenile Justice Act – Interpretation – Petitioners requested categorization of crimes under Section 2(p) of the JJ Act and trial of juveniles for severe offences in ordinary criminal courts – Court emphasized that juveniles’ culpability should not be determined solely on crime severity – Emphasized the Act’s rehabilitative aim and need for age-appropriate justice – Dismissed plea for alternative punishment under Section 28 for serious crimes [Paras 3-7].

Maintainability – Third-Party Intervention – Addressed whether petitioners have locus standi to challenge statutory provisions affecting juveniles – Reiterated that public interest litigants cannot partake in criminal trials – Court declined to entertain PIL for statutory reinterpretation, directing focus on maintaining established jurisprudence without legislative encroachment [Paras 5-11].

Decision – SLP dismissed – Held – Juvenile Justice Board to proceed with existing statutory framework – Supreme Court underscored necessity for legislative reforms through proper channels rather than judicial overreach – Court declined to reinterpret JJ Act provisions, affirming juvenile protective measures [Para 14].

Land Acquisition – Delay and Condonation – Appellants’ lands acquired under Section 4(1) notification dated 23.4.1994 – Award u/s 11 made on 23.10.1997 – Appellants sought enhanced compensation u/s 18(1), reference court awarded increased compensation on 28.2.2002 – High Court appeals filed after 5½ years, condonation of delay sought due to one appellant’s illness – High Court dismissed appeals for lack of sufficient cause for delay – Supreme Court emphasized strict application of limitation laws, found no justifiable grounds to condone significant delay [Paras 1-16].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Doctrine of Equality – Appellants argued discriminatory treatment as similar delays had been condoned in other cases – Court clarified Article 14 does not perpetuate illegality or mistake – Highlighted principle that each case must be assessed independently on merit of “sufficient cause” for delay, previous erroneous condonations do not establish a right [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Interpretation – Sufficient Cause – Court reiterated that "sufficient cause" must be adequate, bona fide, and not due to negligence – Emphasized requirement for detailed explanation and active pursuit of legal remedies without undue delay – Cited precedents underscoring that limitation laws aim to ensure legal certainty and diligence in litigation [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s rejection of condonation upheld – Reaffirmed strict adherence to statutory limitation periods unless substantial and adequate reasons justify delay [Para 16].

Land Acquisition – Limitation for Re-determination – Appellants' land acquired under Sections 4 and 6 in 1994-95; award made on 14.12.1995 – Appellants filed applications under Section 28A after the reference court’s award dated 3.4.2006 – Application for re-determination filed on 18.7.2006 rejected for being 4 days late – Supreme Court affirmed strict adherence to statutory limitation periods, rejecting argument for extension based on date of knowledge of award [Paras 1-14].

Statutory Interpretation – Strict Construction – Section 28A requires application within 3 months from the date of the court's award, excluding time for obtaining a copy – Court emphasized literal interpretation of unambiguous statutory language – Rejected arguments for liberal interpretation or extension of limitation based on personal hardship or equitable grounds [Paras 8-13].

Precedent – Consistent Application – Affirmed previous rulings that limitation for filing under Section 28A starts from award date, not from the date of knowledge – Reiterated that law of limitation aims to ensure legal certainty and diligence, and courts have no discretion to extend statutory periods on equitable grounds [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s decision to reject applications for re-determination under Section 28A upheld – Reaffirmed the principle that inconvenience or hardship cannot override clear statutory mandates [Para 14].

Contempt of Court – Misconduct by Advocate-on-Record (AOR) – Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against AOR for failing to appear in court – AOR had filed numerous cases without taking responsibility for their conduct – Supreme Court criticized the AOR’s conduct as 'unbecoming' and highlighted the duties and responsibilities of an AOR under the Supreme Court Rules [Paras 1-24].

Professional Conduct – Duties of Advocates-on-Record – Emphasized the professional obligations of AORs to appear in court and manage cases responsibly – Court underlined the importance of maintaining high standards of professional ethics and responsibility [Paras 9-19].

Misconduct and Discipline – Court’s Power to Revoke AOR Status – Discussed the Supreme Court's authority to revoke or suspend the privilege of practicing as an AOR for misconduct – Reinforced the need for strict adherence to professional conduct and accountability in the legal profession [Paras 6-8, 21].

Decision: The Court censured the conduct of Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, issued a warning, and directed him to improve his conduct over the next year. Failure to do so would result in further proceedings.

Contempt of Court – Misconduct by Advocate-on-Record (AOR) – Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against AOR for failing to appear in court – AOR had filed numerous cases without taking responsibility for their conduct – Supreme Court criticized the AOR’s conduct as 'unbecoming' and highlighted the duties and responsibilities of an AOR under the Supreme Court Rules [Paras 1-24].

Professional Conduct – Duties of Advocates-on-Record – Emphasized the professional obligations of AORs to appear in court and manage cases responsibly – Court underlined the importance of maintaining high standards of professional ethics and responsibility [Paras 9-19].

Misconduct and Discipline – Court’s Power to Revoke AOR Status – Discussed the Supreme Court's authority to revoke or suspend the privilege of practicing as an AOR for misconduct – Reinforced the need for strict adherence to professional conduct and accountability in the legal profession [Paras 6-8, 21].

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the borrower before the High Court.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for the murder of Babu – High Court upheld conviction based on the testimony of eyewitnesses PWs 2 and 3, who were present at the scene – Supreme Court finds no reason to disbelieve the prosecution's evidence and affirms the High Court's decision [Paras 1-14].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – PWs 2 and 3 corroborated the events leading to Babu's death – Minor contradictions in their statements considered negligible – Evidence of eyewitnesses supported by medical records and accident register (Exh. P-18) [Paras 10-12].

Motive – Love Affair and Enmity – Prosecution established motive based on the conflict between Arumugam @ Arupaiyan and Palanichami, which led to the attack on Babu – Evidence showed that A-1 to A-3 had a clear motive for the crime [Paras 4-5, 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed by the Supreme Court.