Maritime Jurisdiction – IPC Sections 302, 307 – Kerala State had no jurisdiction to investigate the incident – Union of India has exclusive jurisdiction – Special Court to be constituted for trial under Maritime Zones Act, IPC, CrPC, and UNCLOS 1982 – Proceedings before Kerala Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred to Special Court [Paras 1-2].

National Investigation Agency – Investigation by NIA challenged – Handing over to NIA does not alter the trial forum or allow invoking Suppression of Unlawful Acts Act 2002 unless included in original charge-sheet – Central Government's decision to involve NIA upheld, further steps left to Central Government [Paras 3-8].

Decision – Steps taken by Central Government pursuant to judgment noted – Central Government to complete investigation and conduct trial expeditiously – Bail conditions from January 18, 2013, order to remain operative [Paras 8-10].

Securities Market – Prohibition and Penalty – SEBI Act Sections 15HA and 15Z – SEBI Regulations 2003, Regulations 3 and 4 – Appellant, a Director of Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limited, held responsible for company’s false financial statements – Director’s duty to ensure true and fair financial disclosures – SEBI's restraint on the appellant and penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-42].

Corporate Governance – Directors’ Duty – Directors must exercise due care, diligence, and ensure accurate financial reporting – Failure to do so results in liability under SEBI Act and Regulations – Responsibility to prevent market manipulation and protect investor interests [Paras 33-34].

Market Integrity – Disclosure and Transparency – Accurate disclosure essential for investor protection and market integrity – Misleading financial statements amount to market abuse – SEBI’s role in safeguarding market integrity emphasized [Paras 23-24, 35-36].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – SEBI's order to restrain the appellant from dealing in securities for two years and imposition of Rs. 50 lakhs penalty affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 42].

Technical Education – Approval by AICTE: The Supreme Court held that affiliated colleges are not required to seek AICTE approval for running MBA and MCA courses, emphasizing the autonomy of universities as envisaged by the AICTE Act. The Court stated that AICTE's role is advisory and not supervisory over universities [Paras 8-10].

Regulation of Technical Education: The Court observed that the AICTE's power is limited to maintaining standards in technical education, and it does not extend to supervising or controlling universities. The regulations amended without placing them before the Parliament as required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act were deemed invalid [Paras 27, 41, 46].

Conflict between State and Central Legislation: The Supreme Court reiterated that in cases of conflict between State legislation and Central legislation on technical education, the Central legislation prevails as per Article 254 of the Constitution. Thus, any State legislation requiring AICTE approval for university courses is void to the extent of repugnancy with the AICTE Act [Paras 3, 41, 72].

Decision: Appeals allowed. The judgment of the High Court mandating AICTE approval for MBA and MCA courses was set aside. The Court granted relief to the petitioners, affirming that no AICTE approval is required for these courses run by affiliated colleges [Para 46].

Reasoned Judgments – Criminal Conviction: The Supreme Court emphasized that judgments in criminal cases must comply with the requirements of Section 354 CrPC, including a clear reference to points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons for the decisions. Judgments must show proper application of the mind and evaluation of all evidence on record [Paras 18, 21].

Judicial Sensitivity – Examination of Evidence: The Court criticized the lower courts for failing to adequately examine and appreciate the evidence on record, particularly in serious cases involving allegations of rape. The mere improbability that a father and son could commit rape together cannot be the sole basis for acquittal without proper examination of evidence [Paras 10, 22].

Perverse Findings – Legal Consequences: The Court highlighted that findings based on irrelevant material or ignoring relevant evidence, or findings that defy logic, are considered perverse and infirm in law. Such judgments need to be set aside for failing to meet the legal standards [Paras 11-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration based on the evidence/material on record, with directions to comply with Section 354 CrPC [Para 23].

Jurisdiction of Security Force Court – Active Duty: The Supreme Court held that the accused BSF personnel were on "active duty" as per the extended definition under Section 2(1)(a) of the BSF Act due to the Central Government's notification. Thus, the bar under Section 47 of the Act for trial by Security Force Court did not apply, and they could be tried by such a court [Paras 5-10].

Discretion under Section 80 of the BSF Act: The Court emphasized that the discretion to choose between a Criminal Court and a Security Force Court must adhere to guidelines under Rule 41 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. The Commanding Officer’s discretion was exercised without adhering to these guidelines, rendering the decision vulnerable [Paras 13-22].

Remand for Fresh Consideration: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and remanded the case for fresh consideration by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Director General of the Force was given liberty to revisit the issue and file an appropriate application for trial by Security Force Court if deemed necessary [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed. The impugned orders were set aside. The Security Force Court was directed to transmit the records to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for proceedings in accordance with law [Para 26].

Communication of ACR Entries – Natural Justice: The Supreme Court emphasized that all entries in the ACR of a public servant, whether they are poor, fair, average, good, or very good, must be communicated to the individual within a reasonable period. This ensures transparency, allows the individual to improve their performance, and provides an opportunity to challenge unjustified entries, thereby aligning with the principles of natural justice [Paras 3-6, 8].

Promotion and Transparency: The Court noted that the communication of ACR entries is particularly crucial for higher posts where a single adverse entry can significantly impact career progression. Ensuring that public servants are aware of and can contest ACR entries helps maintain fairness and morale within the service [Paras 4-5, 8].

Retrospective Promotion: The Court held that if an ACR entry is not communicated, it should not be used to assess promotion eligibility. The Appellant was granted the liberty to seek retrospective promotion based on the Court's ruling that non-communication of ACR entries violates Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Civil Appeal disposed of. The Court approved the view in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725 that every ACR entry must be communicated. Decisions contrary to this view, including those in Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India and Others and K.M. Mishra v. Central Bank of India, were declared not good law [Paras 6, 9].

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – Union of India sought review of the judgment in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. case, citing misquotation of the Expert Committee's Report and interpretation of statutory provisions – Supreme Court partially accepted misquotation error but upheld the judgment on the substantive issues, finding no error apparent on the face of the record – Review petition dismissed with corrections to the misquoted report [Paras 1-30].

Principles of Natural Justice – Opportunity to be Heard – Petitioner argued non-service of SLP copy denied it the opportunity to present its case – Court noted principles of natural justice require all parties be heard, but found delay in review petition filing was sufficiently explained and condoned [Paras 2-6].

Application of Section 11 of MMDR Act – Virgin and Previously Held Areas – Supreme Court reiterated Section 11's application to both virgin and previously held mining areas, supporting its earlier interpretation and rejecting Union of India's differing view as a ground for review [Paras 21-24].

Statutory Interpretation – Misquoted Expert Report – Court acknowledged clerical error in judgment quoting Expert Committee Report – Corrected misquoted lines but maintained judgment’s validity and conclusions based on statutory interpretation and procedural rules [Paras 17-20].

Decision: Review Petition Partially Allowed for Corrections – Substantive Judgment Upheld – Delay in filing condoned, misquoted lines deleted, judgment otherwise affirmed. Union of India granted further four months to comply with directions issued in the original judgment [Paras 29-31].

Criminal Law – Insanity Defense – Appellant convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 449 IPC – Defense claimed appellant was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and sought protection under Section 84 IPC – Supreme Court held that the burden of proving insanity at the time of the incident lies on the accused under Section 105 Evidence Act – Evidence of past treatment for mental illness insufficient to prove unsoundness of mind at the time of the crime – Appellant's coherent behavior during trial and prior threats negate claim of insanity [Paras 9-19].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Accused must prove existence of circumstances bringing case within exceptions – Section 84 IPC requires proof of incapability to understand nature of act due to unsoundness of mind at the time of offense – Testimonies of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and appellant’s conduct considered – Supreme Court found prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 10-13, 18-19].

Mental Health – Schizophrenia – Court referred to medical jurisprudence on paranoid schizophrenia – Symptoms and dangers discussed – Legal insanity distinguished from medical insanity – Court emphasized legal criteria for exemption from criminal liability [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence for murder upheld – Appellant failed to establish defense of insanity under Section 84 IPC [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Common Object – Conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC – Accused formed unlawful assembly with common object to assault the deceased – Evidence established specific overt acts by Chhotelal, Dhaniram, Mohan, Badri, and Govardhan – Others acquitted due to contradictory statements and lack of evidence of overt acts [Paras 11, 19].

Evidence – Credibility – Eyewitnesses PW-5 and PW-12 provided consistent testimonies about the involvement of certain accused – Discrepancies in evidence regarding the presence and actions of other accused led to their acquittal – Supreme Court emphasized need for credible and consistent evidence to establish participation in unlawful assembly [Paras 11, 20].

Procedural Compliance – Section 157 CrPC – Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate – Trial court found no evidence of FIR being antedated or embellished – Supreme Court upheld trial court's finding based on overall credibility of prosecution witnesses and evidence [Para 21].

Judgment Analysis – Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals – Convictions of Dhaniram, Mohan, Badri, and Govardhan affirmed – Other accused acquitted due to lack of evidence of their involvement – Emphasized importance of corroborative evidence in establishing common object and individual participation [Paras 22].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Convictions and sentences of Dhaniram, Mohan, Badri, and Govardhan upheld – Satyanarayan, Ramesh, Kanchedi, and Rattiram acquitted – Bail bonds of acquitted appellants discharged [Para 22].