Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Article 226: Supreme Court dismisses petition for quashing FIR due to non-compliance with procedural requirements – FIR not placed on record – Necessary parties not impleaded – Protection sought for non-party (husband) – Petition fundamentally defective [Paras 3-7].

Constitutional Law – Right to Choose Partner – Article 21: Petitioner claimed she was a major (born on 2.9.1993) and married of her free will – Asserting right to choose a partner under Article 21 – Court observed procedural lapses in the petition, including failure to attempt obtaining FIR copy or to lodge complaint against alleged harassers [Paras 2-6].

Judicial Conduct – Professional Responsibility: Court criticizes casual approach in legal practice – Incomplete and inaccurate pleadings, non-payment of court fees, failure to serve parties – Emphasizes seriousness of professional conduct and its impact on judicial efficiency – Cites In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others regarding professional responsibility [Para 7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Petitioner advised to approach High Court with appropriate petition for relief – Emphasizes need for compliance with procedural requirements in filing petitions [Paras 8].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Misconduct – Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC; Sections 13(1), 13(2), 5(3) PC Act: Allegations of criminal conspiracy against the then Finance Minister in the 2G spectrum allocation case – Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment rejecting the claims of conspiracy and misconduct – No evidence found to support the involvement of the Finance Minister in the alleged criminal activities alongside A. Raja – Official discussions and decisions, even if flawed, do not constitute criminal conspiracy [Paras 4-5, 18, 19, 52, 53].

Telecom Regulation – Spectrum Pricing and Allocation – TRAI Act: Decisions related to spectrum pricing and allocation were taken by the Department of Telecom (DoT) and approved by the Telecom Commission without the involvement of the Finance Ministry – Allegations that the Finance Minister conspired to fix spectrum prices at 2001 levels dismissed due to lack of evidence – Process followed by TRAI and DoT upheld as per statutory provisions [Paras 20-23, 27].

Judicial Review – Evidence and Proof of Conspiracy: Court emphasizes the necessity of concrete evidence to establish criminal conspiracy – Mere suspicion or poor management not sufficient to prove conspiracy – Rigorous standards of proof applied to allegations of high-level corruption and conspiracy [Paras 39, 52, 53].

Decision: SLP dismissed – Impugned judgment upheld – Allegations against the Finance Minister found baseless – No further investigation warranted [Para 54].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Order – Order 9 Rule 7 CPC: Appellant Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) challenged the ex parte order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) and subsequent dismissal of its appeal by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) on grounds of non-service of notice – Supreme Court set aside National Commission’s order – Matter remitted for consideration of whether notice was properly served [Paras 1, 15, 21].

Consumer Law – Service of Notice – Sections 2, 12 Consumer Protection Act: State Commission’s order was ex parte due to non-appearance of KDA – National Commission held that notice was served based on postal records – Supreme Court found no conclusive proof of service as per required procedure – Directed National Commission to reassess service of notice and decide appeal on merits [Paras 13-14, 19-21].

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness: Emphasized importance of ensuring procedural fairness and right to be heard – Reaffirmed necessity of proper service of notice in judicial proceedings – Orders based on inadequate service liable to be set aside [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – National Commission’s order set aside – Matter remitted to National Commission to decide on proper service of notice and to adjudicate appeal on merits [Paras 21].

Representing Advocates:

Abhishek Chaudhary for the Appellant;

K.P. Sunder Rao, Wajeeh Shafiq, and Chandan Kumar Rai for the Respondent

Motor Vehicles Act – Just Compensation – Sections 166, 168, 173: High Court reduced compensation and interest rate without assigning reasons – Supreme Court held such non-speaking orders as calling for interference – Determined appropriate compensation based on established legal principles and precedents – Multiplier of 16 applied for a 35-year-old deceased – Compensation recalculated to Rs. 13,44,000/- [Paras 3-6].

Judicial Review – Speaking Order: High Court’s order reducing compensation and interest rate set aside due to lack of reasoning – Emphasized necessity for judicial orders to provide reasons to uphold principles of justice and transparency – Recalculated compensation ensuring adherence to legal standards and precedents [Para 3].

Compensation Calculation – Established Precedents: Followed principles laid out in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others and Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation – Multiplier and dependency criteria applied – Ensured just compensation for dependents based on earnings and age of deceased [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Compensation of Rs. 13,44,000/- awarded with 7% interest per annum from the date of application till realization – Respondent directed to pay the compensation within three months, crediting any prior payments made [Paras 5-6].

Education – Admission – Qualifying Marks – Appellant challenged the decision allowing respondent's admission to a post-graduate course by rounding off her marks from 54.71% to 55% – Supreme Court held that when eligibility criteria are prescribed, they must be strictly adhered to without any rounding off – Appeal allowed, setting aside the decisions of the High Court and the Single Judge [Paras 1-12].

Rounding Off of Marks – Legal Inadmissibility – The Court emphasized that no statutory provision or rule permits the rounding off of marks for the purpose of meeting eligibility criteria – Highlighted that such practices undermine the rigor and fairness of the eligibility standards, affecting other candidates adversely [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment of the High Court and the Single Judge permitting the rounding off of marks set aside – Held that prescribed qualifying marks must be strictly adhered to without any alteration [Para 12].

Promotion and Disciplinary Actions – Appellant was denied promotion due to disciplinary proceedings and subsequent minor penalties – Appellant argued non-promotion constituted double punishment violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Supreme Court held non-promotion due to pending disciplinary actions and minor penalties is not double punishment but a consequence of conduct [Paras 1-12].

Service Regulations – Application of sealed cover procedure – Appellant's results for promotion kept in a sealed cover due to ongoing disciplinary proceedings – Promotion considered but not granted based on seniority-cum-merit criteria and adverse service record [Paras 3-5, 7-10].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 16 – Non-promotion due to disciplinary record does not constitute discrimination – Legitimate for employer to consider service record and disciplinary actions while evaluating suitability for promotion [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Civil appeal dismissed – Appellant's claim for promotion and challenge to the disciplinary actions rejected – Court emphasized adherence to established criteria for promotion and justified consideration of service record and disciplinary actions [Para 12].

Divorce by Mutual Consent – Cooling Period – Appeal against the fixing of second motion after six months for mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act – Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to grant divorce without the cooling period, given irreconcilable differences and prolonged separation – Legislature’s intention of saving marriages through a cooling period acknowledged but deemed inapplicable in cases requiring complete justice [Paras 1-15].

Article 142 of the Constitution – Powers of Supreme Court – Supreme Court used Article 142 to dissolve marriage by mutual consent immediately – Emphasized necessity in specific circumstances where continued marital ties cause undue hardship [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Marriage dissolved by mutual consent – Directed immediate dissolution of marriage, invoking Article 142 to bypass the statutory cooling period due to prolonged separation and mutual agreement of parties [Paras 14-15].

Seniority – Ad hoc service – Appellants challenged the High Court’s direction to count ad hoc service towards seniority – High Court had held that ad hoc service must be included for seniority calculation – Supreme Court reversed the decision, emphasizing appointments were purely ad hoc and not according to rules – Seniority to be fixed by dates of regular appointment, not ad hoc service [Paras 1-25].

Appointments and Seniority – Competency and Process – Appointments made by District Education Officers on ad hoc basis were not as per the prescribed rules – Seniority to be determined by dates of confirmation and continuous service post-regularization – High Court’s reliance on earlier judgments found misplaced in context [Paras 14-16, 20-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Directions for refixation of seniority by excluding ad hoc service upheld – Writ petition by Respondents dismissed [Paras 25].

Criminal Law – Commutation of Death Sentence – Respondent convicted of rape and murder of an 18-year-old girl – Trial court awarded death sentence, considering it as "rarest of rare" – High Court commuted to life imprisonment – Supreme Court upheld commutation, affirming the High Court’s decision not to impose death penalty as case did not fit "rarest of rare" criteria [Paras 1-25].

Sentencing Policy – Judicial Discretion and Clemency – Discussion on consistency in sentencing and the balance between judicial discretion and executive clemency powers – Court recognized need for a comprehensive sentencing policy but acknowledged the complexity of foreseeing all potential circumstances – Emphasized that life imprisonment means imprisonment for natural life, subject to clemency powers [Paras 8-16].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Supreme Court confirmed the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment, highlighting the judicial process's consideration of the case's totality and ensuring justice through appropriate sentencing [Paras 6-16].