Right to Renewal – District Government Counsel – The respondent’s renewal of term was refused without considering recommendations from the District Judge and District Magistrate – Supreme Court emphasized that government actions must not be arbitrary and must adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in the Legal Remembrancer's Manual – The rule allowing termination “without assigning any cause” cannot be interpreted to exclude the existence of a cause – The government must provide a reasoned decision to comply with principles of natural justice and Article 14 [Paras 8-15].

Application of Mind and Reasoned Decision – Non-speaking Orders – The impugned orders were set aside due to lack of reasoning and non-application of mind – The State must demonstrate that it acted in accordance with the prescribed procedure – Decisions without clear reasoning are arbitrary and violate the rule of law [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Held – The government must reconsider the cases for renewal of the respondents in accordance with the procedures and criteria laid down in Paras 7.06 to 7.08 of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual – The reconsideration must be completed within three months [Paras 18-19].

Medical Facilities – Retired High Court Judges – Appeals against the High Court's direction to frame rules providing medical facilities for retired judges similar to those available to sitting judges – Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to direct the state to frame specific rules – The power to grant medical facilities to retired judges is vested in the state government under Section 23D(2) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Highlighted the need for uniform medical facilities across states for retired judges to ensure independence and impartiality of the judiciary [Paras 5-7, 26-30].

Independence of Judiciary – Constitutional Mandate – Discussed the constitutional provisions ensuring the independence of the judiciary – Emphasized the need for fair and reasonable service conditions for judges, free from executive influence – Highlighted the importance of providing adequate medical facilities to retired judges to uphold judicial independence [Paras 19-36].

Uniformity in Medical Benefits – Recommended that the central and state governments ensure uniform medical facilities for retired judges across the country – Suggested amendments to existing rules to place retired judges at par with sitting judges concerning medical benefits – Directed that medical bills of retired judges be processed by the Registrar General of the respective High Courts [Paras 37-41].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Held – Impugned orders of the High Court set aside – State governments recommended to consider extending uniform medical facilities to retired judges – Central and state governments directed to amend rules to provide equal medical benefits to retired and sitting judges [Paras 41-42].

Right to Information Act, 2005 – Disclosure of Interviewers’ Details – Respondent sought details including names and addresses of interviewers – BPSC refused citing Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) exemptions – Supreme Court held that disclosure could endanger the lives and physical safety of the interviewers – Emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality to protect examiners from potential harm and to ensure the effective discharge of their duties [Paras 9-30].

Exemption Clauses – Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) – Court discussed the scope of these exemptions, highlighting that information should not be disclosed if it endangers life, physical safety, or causes unwarranted invasion of privacy – The term ‘life’ includes broader aspects such as reputation and dignity, beyond mere physical safety [Paras 22-29].

Fiduciary Relationship – Examination Bodies – Court held that the BPSC does not hold a fiduciary relationship with the interviewers or candidates – Thus, exemption under Section 8(1)(e) was not applicable – Public authorities must balance the right to information with the need to protect individuals’ safety and privacy [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – BPSC is not required to disclose the names and addresses of the interviewers – High Court’s judgment set aside – Court stressed the necessity of safeguarding interviewers from potential risks associated with disclosure [Paras 30-31].

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Wilful Disobedience – Contempt proceedings initiated due to non-compliance with court orders regarding the admission process to medical colleges – Supreme Court emphasized that contempt proceedings ensure compliance with court orders and adherence to the rule of law – Directions issued by the court are binding and must be obeyed strictly by all concerned parties [Paras 4-5, 23].

Apology and Wilful Disobedience – Contempt and Apology – The court discussed the nature and scope of an apology in contempt proceedings – An apology must be bona fide and tendered at an appropriate stage – The court highlighted that wilful disobedience and manipulation of the admission process cannot be mitigated merely by an apology, especially when it causes prejudice to others and undermines the authority of the court [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Contempt Proceedings – Held – Contemnors (Dr. S.L. Adile and members of the Selection Committee) were found guilty of manipulating the admission process and wilfully disobeying court orders – Punished with a fine of Rs. 2000 each, with an alternative of civil imprisonment for two weeks in case of default – Notice of contempt discharged for certain respondents with a warning to ensure future compliance with court directions [Paras 33].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149 – Common Object and Murder – The appellant was convicted for murder under Sections 302/149 IPC for his role in a dacoity leading to the death of Barindra Nath Mukherjee – The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle of constructive liability under Section 149 IPC is applicable and upheld the conviction based on the identification by eyewitnesses, including injured witnesses, despite discrepancies in the prosecution's case and the acquittal of other co-accused [Paras 10-15, 20-21, 24-25].

Hostile Witnesses – Admissibility of Evidence – The Court discussed the admissibility and value of the statements of hostile witnesses – It held that statements of witnesses who turn hostile are not inadmissible and can be relied upon to the extent they support the prosecution's case – The examination-in-chief of such witnesses can be used to corroborate other reliable evidence [Paras 14-16].

Doctrine of Constructive Liability – Applicability under Section 460 IPC – The Court examined the conviction under Section 460 IPC, highlighting the principle of constructive liability which holds every person jointly concerned in committing lurking house-trespass by night punishable where death or grievous hurt is caused – This liability applies irrespective of whether the common object or intention is established [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Held – Conviction of the appellant under Sections 302/149 IPC upheld – The sentence of life imprisonment confirmed – The Court stressed the need for the State and Courts to ensure timely completion of trials, especially in heinous offenses [Paras 30-32].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B and 498A – Dowry Death and Cruelty – The appellants were convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC based on the evidence of harassment and demand for dowry leading to the death of the deceased within seven years of marriage – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act and the evidence of harassment soon before the death [Paras 10-16].

Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act – Dowry Death – The Court discussed the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B, stating that once it is shown that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death, the court shall presume that the accused caused the dowry death – The presumption is rebuttable by the accused [Paras 13-16].

Principles of Law – Sections 304B and 498A IPC – The Court outlined the principles for convicting under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, including the proximity test for "soon before her death" and the need for evidence showing a direct nexus between cruelty for dowry and the death – Emphasized that Section 304B IPC creates a rebuttable presumption against the accused [Paras 9-14, 17-22].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Held – The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 304B and 498A IPC are upheld – The evidence established the necessary ingredients for the offenses, including the cruelty and harassment for dowry and the proximity of such harassment to the death of the deceased – Directions issued for the appellant on bail to surrender and serve the remaining sentence [Paras 23-24].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Conviction for Murder – The appellants, including a foreign national, were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC – The Supreme Court found discrepancies in the prosecution's version and held that the genesis of the incident was not established – Non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused at the time of the occurrence raised doubts about the prosecution's case – Conviction under Section 302/34 modified to Section 324 IPC and sentence reduced to the period already undergone [Paras 20-24, 28-32].

Right of Private Defence – Sections 96-106 IPC – The Court discussed the right of private defense, emphasizing that the burden of proof is on the accused to show preponderance of probabilities in favor of this plea – The prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, thereby supporting the plea of private defense – Each accused was held liable for individual acts rather than collective liability under Section 34 IPC [Paras 18, 26-27, 33-34].

Non-explanation of Injuries – Credibility of Prosecution – The Court reiterated that non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused is a significant factor – It implies suppression of the true genesis of the incident and affects the credibility of the prosecution's version – This principle was applied in modifying the conviction and sentence [Paras 20-21, 35-36].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Held – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC modified to Section 324 IPC – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone – Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Directions issued for return of deposited amount and documents to Dr. Mohammad Khalil Chisti, facilitating his return to his country [Paras 37-41].

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Maintenance – The appellant sought maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, which was initially granted by the trial court but later set aside by the High Court on the grounds that her marriage was void due to a prior marriage – Supreme Court held that the existence of the first marriage needs to be proved in a competent court and that the second marriage cannot be presumed void without a legal declaration – Until such declaration, the appellant is entitled to maintenance [Paras 13-19].

Validity of Marriage – Proof and Declaration – The court emphasized that mere production of a marriage certificate of a prior marriage is not sufficient to declare the second marriage void – The validity of the second marriage must be determined by a competent court with due process – In absence of such determination, the marriage is presumed valid for the purposes of maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act [Paras 19-20].

Right of Private Defence – Sections 96-106 IPC – The Court discussed the right of private defense, emphasizing that the burden of proof is on the accused to show preponderance of probabilities in favor of this plea – The prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, thereby supporting the plea of private defense – Each accused was held liable for individual acts rather than collective liability under Section 34 IPC [Paras 18, 26-27, 33-34].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – Interference by the High Court with the grant of maintenance was unjustified – High Court’s order set aside and maintenance restored – No need to address other issues as the main ground for decision suffices [Paras 20-21].

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Non-compliance with Section 81(3) – Dismissal of Election Petition – The appellant challenged the dismissal of his election petition on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 81(3) – Supreme Court emphasized that non-compliance with mandatory provisions requires dismissal under Section 86 – Held that the election petition must strictly comply with the statutory requirements, and failure to do so results in dismissal [Paras 4-10].

Grounds for Dismissal – Section 81, 82, 117 – The court discussed the grounds for dismissal of an election petition under Section 86 – Highlighted the importance of compliance with Sections 81, 82, and 117 – The petition must be presented within the prescribed period, include all necessary parties, and be accompanied by the required security deposit [Paras 28-30].

Material Facts and Complete Cause of Action – The court noted that an election petition must disclose a complete cause of action with all material facts – Vague and incomplete pleadings are insufficient – The High Court must ensure the petition meets the legal requirements before proceeding [Paras 31-33].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Held – The High Court correctly dismissed the election petition for non-compliance with Section 81(3) – The petition did not meet the mandatory requirements of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Emphasized the necessity for election petitions to adhere strictly to statutory provisions [Paras 34-36].