Excise Law – Licensing – IMFL "Off" Shops – Appellants granted licenses for liquor shops within prohibited distances from places of worship, bus stands, and petrol pumps – High Court quashed licenses due to lack of specific relaxation orders and reasons – Supreme Court finds relaxation orders valid and properly reasoned based on note sheets and recommendations [Paras 1-25].Judicial Review – Procedural Compliance – Government Orders – High Court's misinterpretation of procedural compliance – Supreme Court clarifies proper procedure under Rules of Business – Orders communicated by Joint Secretary valid – Relaxation of distance restrictions justified by special circumstances [Paras 18-24].Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Licenses and privileges granted by Government upheld – Clarification on government’s power to relax rules for current and subsequent financial years – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 25].

Criminal Law – Corruption – Sentence – Appellant, a retired Post Office employee, misappropriated funds and failed to make ledger entries – Trial Court convicted and released appellant under Probation of Offenders Act – High Court imposed substantive sentences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, ruling Probation Act not applicable to offenses under Prevention of Corruption Act due to mandatory minimum sentences [Paras 1-9].Legal Interpretation – Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability to Corruption Offenses – Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act prescribe minimum sentences – Probation Act cannot override these mandatory provisions – Supreme Court affirmed settled legal position [Paras 8-9].Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant to surrender and serve remaining sentence – Bail bonds canceled [Paras 9-10].

Service Law – Eligibility for District Judge – Public Prosecutors, District Attorneys, and similar law officers in full-time employment with the government are ineligible for appointment as District Judges under Article 233(2) – High Court quashed their selections – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, affirming they do not qualify as advocates under Article 233(2) [Paras 1-47].Legal Interpretation – Article 233(2) of the Constitution – "The service" in Article 233(2) means the judicial service, not any service under the Union or State – Advocates must have practiced for not less than seven years to be eligible for appointment as District Judges – Full-time salaried law officers cease to be advocates under amended Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules [Paras 42-47].Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Appellants not eligible for appointment as District Judges under Article 233(2) of the Constitution [Paras 47].

Criminal Law – Right of Private Defence – Appellants involved in a fight resulting in deaths – Trial Court convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – High Court upheld conviction for appellants – Supreme Court affirmed that the right of private defence was valid against Rameshwar's death but not against Prabhat's death, as appellants exceeded their right by chasing and inflicting fatal injuries on Prabhat [Paras 1-15].Legal Interpretation – Sections 96 to 105 IPC – Criteria for invoking right of private defence – Supreme Court emphasized that right of private defence is valid until the threat persists – Appellants not justified in exceeding this right after the threat subsided [Paras 13-14].Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for appellants confirmed [Para 15].

International Law – Jurisdiction – Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) – Incident of firing by Italian marines on Indian fishing vessel St. Antony, resulting in death of two Indian fishermen – Occurred 20.5 nautical miles off Kerala coast, within India's EEZ – Kerala police registered FIR, arrested marines – Italy claimed sovereign immunity, exclusive jurisdiction [Paras 1-15].Criminal Law – Applicability of Indian Penal Code – Contiguous Zone – Notification dated 27th August 1981 extended IPC and CrPC to EEZ – Supreme Court affirmed that Indian courts have jurisdiction over offences committed in EEZ – Interpretation of Maritime Zones Act, 1976 in harmony with UNCLOS [Paras 53-58].Sovereign Immunity – Functional Immunity – Claim by Italy that marines acted in official capacity under Italian law and international agreements – Supreme Court held that Indian courts have jurisdiction, and functional immunity not applicable – Sovereign acts must be judged under Indian law in Indian courts [Paras 66-70].Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction of Indian courts to try the marines – Sovereign immunity and exclusive jurisdiction claim by Italy rejected – Directions for trial to proceed in accordance with Indian law [Paras 71-76].

Service Law – Implementation of Agreements – Government of Bihar's repeated assurances to implement agreements with Federation for parity in pay and benefits with government staff – Strike by Federation due to non-implementation – High Court directed Chief Secretary to ensure implementation – Supreme Court upheld High Court's direction, finding Government's commitment binding and necessary to honor in the interest of educational institutions [Paras 1-18].Judicial Review – Government's Executive Decisions – Validity of commitments made by Government representatives in meetings – Supreme Court emphasized that government must honor commitments made by authorized representatives, even if not formally expressed in the name of the Governor under Article 166 – Directives to implement agreements within three months [Paras 7-18].Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's order directing implementation of agreement upheld – Government of Bihar to implement order within three months – No costs [Paras 18].

Service Law – Pension Computation – Inclusion of 'Dearness Allowance' – Appellants contested the State's decision to include 'dearness allowance' as 'dearness pay' only for employees retiring on or after specific dates – Trial courts ruled in favor of including 'dearness allowance' for all retirees – Supreme Court upheld these decisions, emphasizing equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 1-34].Legal Interpretation – Rule 30 Tamil Nadu Pension Rules – 'Dearness pay' definition and inclusion criteria – Judicial precedents on non-discriminatory pension computation – Supreme Court confirmed that excluding certain retirees based on arbitrary dates violated constitutional rights [Paras 14-31].Decision: Appeals allowed – Government orders limiting 'dearness allowance' inclusion based on retirement dates set aside – All retirees to receive pension computed with 'dearness allowance' included as 'dearness pay' – Directions issued for recalculation and payment of arrears [Paras 32-34].

Insurance Law – Compliance with Policy Terms – Appellant (insurer) denied claims by respondent (insured) due to failure to declare overdue payments within stipulated period as required under Clause 8(b) of the insurance policy – NCDRC partially allowed claims – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC's decision for two claims where compliance was met – Remaining claims dismissed for non-compliance [Paras 1-14].Legal Interpretation – Strict Construction of Insurance Contracts – Terms of insurance policies to be strictly construed – Courts cannot add, delete, or substitute words in contract – Strict adherence to policy terms required for claim validity – Supreme Court emphasized that policy terms are binding and must be followed as agreed [Paras 8-11].Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Only two claims (Civil Appeal Nos. 1547 and 1557 of 2004) granted – Remaining claims dismissed due to non-compliance with Clause 8(b) of the policy – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 13-14].

Constitutional Law – Defection – Powers of the Speaker – Respondent, President of State Unit of NCP, filed disqualification petitions against four NCP MLAs who defected to BJD – High Court held petitions maintainable by non-Members – Supreme Court upheld, stating any interested person can bring disqualification facts to Speaker's notice – Rules 6(1) and (2) must be read down to allow such interpretation [Paras 1-20].Judicial Interpretation – Tenth Schedule – Interpretation of rules concerning disqualification – Importance of facilitating the Speaker’s role in determining disqualifications – Rules as subordinate legislation must align with substantive constitutional provisions [Paras 18-19].Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Speaker empowered to decide on disqualification based on information from any interested person, not just Members – No order as to costs [Paras 20-21].