Civil Writ - Transgender Rights – Indirect horizontality – Omissive discrimination – Reasonable accommodation – Private school recruitment – Second School denied employment after disclosure of gender identity; violation of Arts. 14, 15, 21 and ss. 3, 9 of 2019 Act – First School’s intentional discrimination not proved though grievance redressal deficient – Public law compensation under Art. 32 awarded against Union, States and private school – Article 142 directions: Welfare Boards, Protection Cells, Complaint Officers, SHRC as appeal forum, national helpline, 3-month compliance – Expert Advisory Committee constituted with funding and timelines – Continuing mandamus issued [Paras 150–163, 165–177, 199–200, 201–213, 214–221].

Transgender Rights – Horizontal Application – Omissive Discrimination – Reasonable Accommodation – Employment Discrimination – Public Law Compensation – Structural Directions under Art. 142 – Advisory Committee – Continuing Mandamus – The 2019 Act operationalises indirect horizontality by imposing non-discrimination and accommodation duties on “establishments” including private unaided schools – State inaction in enforcing grievance redressal and equal opportunity obligations amounts to omissive discrimination – Second School’s refusal to appoint after discovering petitioner’s transgender identity held discriminatory; First School’s conduct not proved as intentional discrimination though deficient in redressal – Public law compensation awarded against State actors and the Second School – Comprehensive directions issued to set up Welfare Boards, Protection Cells, Complaint Officers, an appeal forum (SHRC), and a national helpline; Expert Advisory Committee constituted with timelines and funding – Continuing mandamus issued [Paras 131–146, 150–163, 165–177, 178–213, 199–200, 214–221].

Equality & Non-Discrimination – Articles 14, 15 & 21 – “Sex” includes gender identity – The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (“2019 Act”) extends constitutional guarantees to private spheres through Section 3 (broad non-discrimination) and Section 9 (employment) with Rule 12 (equal opportunity policy) and Section 11/Rule 13 (Complaint Officer & timelines) – Held: Act manifests indirect horizontal effect; failure to operationalise framework violates substantive equality and dignity [Paras 29–35, 39–42, 131–146].

Reasonable Accommodation – Positive obligation inherent in substantive equality – Though explicit in disability law (RPwD Act), it applies to transgender persons to remove structural barriers; undue hardship is the limiting standard – Indian jurisprudence (NALSA; Vikash Kumar; Kabir Paharia) and comparative materials (Canada/US/EU) relied upon [Paras 43–65, 48–55].

Omissive Discrimination – Legislative/administrative omission – Absolute and relative legislative omissions recognised; failure to establish mechanisms under the 2019 Act/2020 Rules (e.g., Complaint Officers, Protection Cells, policy under Rule 11) breaches equality code; courts may fill vacuums to the extent necessary (Vishaka line) [Paras 66–86, 115–130].

Stereotypes, Stigma & Substantive Equality – Anti-stereotyping principle reiterated; popular morality yields to constitutional morality (Navtej; Sabarimala; Babita Puniya; Nitisha; X2) – Formal neutrality that entrenches disadvantage is impermissible [Paras 88–96].

Employment Discrimination – First School v. Second School – First School: record showed accommodation efforts (hostel/washroom access; re-hire test), no intentional discrimination proved though handling of harassment inadequate – lack of internal redressal noted [Paras 153–158]. Second School: denial of appointment after identity disclosure; Section 9 prohibits discrimination in recruitment; St. Mary’s distinguished; violation found [Paras 160–163].

Article 32 – Public Law Compensation – Maintainability against Private Parties in appropriate cases – Relief distinct from tort damages – Rudul Sah; Bhim Singh; Nilabati Behera; M.C. Mehta; Jeeja Ghosh; CERC followed/applied – Held: compensation payable by Second School (private) and by Union/States for omissions [Paras 165–173, 176–177].

Quantum – Compensation of ₹50,000 each directed from Union of India and two States (Respondents 1–3) and ₹50,000 from Second School (Respondent 4) – Total ₹2,00,000 to petitioner; payable within four weeks [Paras 177, 214( i–iii)].

Structural Shortcomings of 2019 Act – Identification documentation hurdles; lack of workable grievance architecture; absence of reasonable accommodation norms in practice; suggestions issued (gender-neutral toilets, confidentiality, inclusive forms, curricula, security screening, medical curriculum updates) [Paras 178–198].

Directions (Article 142) – Comprehensive Structural Directions (IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING & POLICY) – HELD:

(i) Appellate authority under Rule 9 designated in every State/UT [Para 199(i)].

(ii) Welfare Boards for transgender persons under Rule 10(1) in every State/UT [Para 199(ii)].

(iii) Transgender Protection Cells at district (DM) and State (DGP) levels under Rule 11(5) in every State/UT [Para 199(iii)].

(iv) Every “establishment” to designate Complaint Officer under Section 11 and Rule 13(1) – States/UTs to ensure compliance [Para 199(iv)].

(v) SHRC designated as forum to hear objections/appeals against head of establishment’s decision under Rule 13(3) [Para 199(v)].

(vi) Dedicated nation-wide toll-free helpline to receive violations of the 2019 Act/2020 Rules and immediately alert Protection Cells – wider scope than Rule 13(5) mechanism [Para 199(vi)].

(vii) Union of India and States to ensure strict compliance with above directions within three months from judgment [Para 200].

(viii) Continuing mandamus – Union to ensure compliance in all States and report; matter to be relisted after six months with Committee report [Paras 218, 221].

Advisory Committee – Constitution, Funding & Timelines – Court constituted expert Advisory Committee chaired by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Asha Menon (Retd.) with trans-rights activists and experts; ex-officio Secretaries of key Ministries as advisory members; MoSJE to fund and provide logistics; initial ₹10,00,000 to be deposited with Registry in two weeks; Committee to submit report/model Equal Opportunity Policy within six months; Union to consider and bring its policy within three months thereafter [Paras 201–213, 215–217].

Registry/Communication – Circulation of judgment to all High Courts and State/Union authorities; relist after six months with policy draft/report [Paras 220–221].

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions – Discrimination by Second School established – Public law compensation of ₹2,00,000 awarded (₹50,000 each by Union and two States; ₹50,000 by Second School) – Comprehensive structural directions issued under Art. 142 – Advisory Committee constituted with timelines and funding – Continuing mandamus for compliance and monitoring [Paras 160–177, 199–221].

Criminal Law - Religious Conversion – U.P. Conversion Act – Quashing – Article 32 Maintainability – Multiple FIRs – FIR No. 224/2022 lodged by a person not competent under unamended Section 4 held void ab initio – Subsequent FIRs (47/2023, 54/2023, 55/2023, 60/2023) found cyclostyled, delayed and hit by T.T. Antony test of sameness – Forensic/Aadhaar material non-probative – Held: FIRs 224/2022, 47/2023, 54/2023, 55/2023, 60/2023 quashed; FIR 538/2023 quashed insofar as U.P. Conversion Act offences, IPC (Ss. 307, 386, 504) to continue separately; SLP (Crl.) No. 8615/2024 de-tagged; interim protection continued [Paras 133–161].

Religious Conversion – U.P. Conversion Act, 2021 – Competency of Informant – Jurisdictional Defect – FIR No. 224/2022 lodged by person not falling within categories specified under unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act – Restriction on locus is mandatory and not directory – FIR registered contrary to special statute cannot be cured under general powers of police under Sections 154 & 156 CrPC – Held: Investigation and charge-sheet rendered void ab initio – FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 103-119, 133-134].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 4 of U.P. Conversion Act – Special Law vs. General Law – Restriction on who may initiate complaint analogous to Section 195 CrPC and Section 32 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Specific statutory bar overrides general police powers – Investigation cannot commence without valid informant – Held: Defect incurable and goes to root of jurisdiction [Paras 112-116].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Religion – Articles 25 & 21 – Mere propagation of faith or charitable work in the name of religion not criminalised under the U.P. Conversion Act or IPC – Doing charity, quoting scripture, or holding gatherings not offence unless accompanied by coercion or fraud – Criminalisation of voluntary religious activity violates fundamental rights – Held: Prosecution founded on such premise unsustainable [Paras 57-63, 132-133].

Evidence – Credibility of Witnesses – Victim-witness affidavits dated 24.05.2022 identical in wording and timestamp – One affidavit containing another’s name indicates copying from common draft – Section 161 CrPC statements of victims recorded a year apart verbatim identical – Court termed investigation “mechanical and pre-meditated” – Held: Statements unreliable; investigation tainted by mala fides [Paras 122-128].

Multiple FIRs – Impermissibility – FIR Nos. 54/2023, 55/2023 & 60/2023 are verbatim reproductions of FIR No. 224/2022 relating to same incident dated 14.04.2022 – Lodged at same police station within 24 hours with only change in complainant’s name – Held: Subsequent FIRs hit by rule of sameness under T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – Quashed [Paras 141-147].

Delayed FIR – FIR No. 54/2023 lodged nine months after incident – Complainant earlier appeared as VHP member and not as victim in FIR No. 224/2022 – Subsequent change of stand unexplained – Held: Complaint mala fide and aimed at curing defect in earlier FIR – Quashed [Paras 148-156].

Investigation – Forensic and Case Diary Material – Seizure of Aadhaar cards, printers, and peripherals unsupported by UIDAI confirmation of forgery – Differing photographs on cards; possibility of lawful updating – Forensic report only showing charitable activities of ‘World Vision’ organisation – No link with alleged mass conversion – Held: Material lacks probative value; investigation devoid of credibility [Paras 130-133].

Religious Gatherings and Charity – Organisation of religious meetings or aid programmes not an offence – U.P. Conversion Act and IPC contain no bar on religious charity unless tied to coercion – Receiving foreign aid or conducting welfare activities through mission institutions per se not illegal – Held: Continuation of prosecution would amount to criminalising constitutionally protected conduct [Paras 132-133].

Criminal Law – Abuse of Process – Duty of Courts – Where FIR is jurisdictionally defective and investigation patently mala fide, courts must intervene even post-charge-sheet to prevent miscarriage of justice – Power under Articles 32 & 226 rightly invoked – Bhajan Lal, Neeharika Infrastructure and Arnab Ranjan Goswami principles applied [Paras 67-79, 90-93, 133-134, 155].

Article 32 – Maintainability of Writ Petition for Quashing FIR – Though ordinarily remedy lies under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC, Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction in exceptional cases of blatant illegality and violation of fundamental rights – Present petitions maintainable and entertained to secure justice [Paras 89-94, 161(c)].

FIR No. 47/2023 – Distinct Date (25.12.2021) but identical allegations – Witness statements replicated; video recording contains biblical verse “Psalm 2:8” with theological references, not inducement – Held: No offence made out; FIR quashed [Paras 135-140].

FIR No. 538/2023 – Allegations of firing and extortion besides conversion – Complainant not competent under Section 4 (pre-2024) regarding conversion charges – Offences under U.P. Conversion Act quashed – IPC charges (Ss. 307, 386, 504) to be examined separately – SLP (Crl.) No. 8615/2024 de-tagged; interim protection continued [Paras 157-160].

Post-Charge-Sheet Quashing – Permissibility – Filing of charge-sheet does not bar exercise of writ or inherent jurisdiction – Courts can look into entire record to prevent abuse of process – Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Abhishek v. State of M.P. applied [Paras 85-88].

Decision – FIR No. 224/2022 quashed for incurable statutory defect – FIR Nos. 47/2023, 54/2023, 55/2023 & 60/2023 quashed for duplication, delay and mala fides – FIR No. 538/2023 partly quashed (U.P. Conversion Act counts only) – IPC counts kept open – All consequential proceedings set aside – Appeals/Petitions allowed – No order as to costs [Paras 161-166].

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – Intra-group Licensing – Scope of Restraint – Suit filed by respondent sought to restrain petitioner from creating third-party interest including license or assignment of ‘Kirloskar’ trademarks – Trial Court granted injunction on 09.01.2025 – High Court stayed the injunction on 25.07.2025 permitting limited licensing to group companies – Later, by order dated 10.10.2025, High Court modified earlier order to prohibit even such licensing – Held: Prima facie, modified order expanded restraint without proper consideration of earlier licensing practices and despite pendency of appeal – Operation of 10.10.2025 order stayed [Paras 2–10].

Trademark Ownership – Difference between Assignment and Licensing – Petitioner argued that licensing does not amount to transfer of ownership and is distinguishable from assignment – Court noted there was no dispute over ownership of the mark and no prior adjudication on internal licensing history – Modified restraint seen as excessive at interlocutory stage [Paras 5–8].

Judicial Discretion – Modification of Interim Orders – Supreme Court observed that expanding the scope of an interim injunction during pendency of appeal and without full factual analysis was not warranted – Ordered interim stay on modified order [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Notice issued returnable on 04.11.2025 – Effect and operation of High Court order dated 10.10.2025 stayed – Parties allowed to exchange affidavits/written submissions in the meantime

Service Law – Medical Practitioners – Retirement Age – Parity Between Allopathy and AYUSH Doctors – Issue arose whether doctors practicing indigenous systems of medicine (AYUSH) are entitled to the same retirement age as allopathic doctors – Division Bench decisions in NDMC v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma (2021) 17 SCC 642, State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 503, and Dr. Solamon A. v. State of Kerala distinguished – Court observed that Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma turned on a policy decision of Union Cabinet extending parity in retirement age, while Dr. P.A. Bhatt upheld classification based on educational qualifications – Ambiguity persists in judicial approach [Paras 2–6].

Equality Before Law – Articles 14 and 16 – Classification Between Allopathy and AYUSH Practitioners – Court held that difference in qualifications, nature of work, duties, and responsibilities justifies separate treatment – Allopathic doctors perform critical care, trauma management, surgeries, and emergency procedures, unlike AYUSH practitioners – Distinction has rational nexus with public interest and sufficiency of qualified allopathy doctors – Classification constitutionally valid [Paras 7–9].

Judicial Discipline – Reference to Larger Bench – Divergent Judicial Views – Considering conflicting precedents and continuing ambiguity regarding parity of service conditions between allopathic and AYUSH doctors, matter referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement [Para 9].

Interim Directions – Continuance of AYUSH Doctors – Pending reference, States permitted to continue AYUSH doctors beyond their prescribed retirement age up to the age applicable to MBBS doctors, on half pay and allowances – Such continuance optional; benefits subject to final outcome before Larger Bench [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Matter referred to Larger Bench – Interim arrangement for continuation of AYUSH doctors till Larger Bench decides issue – Directions regarding pay, allowances, and pension adjustments issued [Paras 9–12].

Service Law – Recruitment to Public Posts – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Dispute relating to recruitment of Graduate Primary Teachers in Karnataka – Challenge raised by married women candidates regarding rejection of caste-cum-income certificates issued in the name of parents instead of husbands – Held: High Court erred in entertaining writ petitions directly when efficacious alternative remedy before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) was available – KSAT is the competent forum for adjudication of service and recruitment disputes under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Constitution Bench ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India applied – T.K. Rangarajan v. State of T.N. distinguished as an exceptional case invoking Article 142 – Division Bench rightly set aside Single Judge’s order and relegated parties to KSAT – Appeals dismissed – Interim orders made absolute [Paras 26-33, 35-39, 40-47, 49-50].

Maintainability – Writ under Articles 226 and 227 – When not maintainable – Availability of effective alternative remedy – Exceptions reiterated, namely (i) violation of fundamental rights, (ii) breach of natural justice, (iii) lack of jurisdiction, and (iv) challenge to vires of statute – None of these exceptions attracted in the present case, as the dispute concerns rejection of documents in a recruitment process – High Court not to act as court of first instance in such service matters [Paras 32-37].

Administrative Tribunals – Powers and Efficacy – KSAT vested with powers akin to High Court under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Empowered to grant interim relief including ex parte orders, review its decisions, punish for contempt, and regulate its own procedure – Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Rules prescribe six-month period for disposal – Hence, remedy before KSAT held to be effective, efficacious, and expeditious [Paras 38-46].

Public Employment – Provisional and Final Select Lists – Provisional list confers no vested right – Direction to act upon provisional list dated 18.11.2022 would create administrative uncertainty – Validity of final select list dated 08.03.2023 to be decided by KSAT – State’s refusal to revive provisional list upheld [Para 48].

Interim Protection – Supreme Court’s prior interim orders noticed – (i) 03.01.2024: Stay of High Court’s directions and keeping appointments under 08.03.2023 list in abeyance; (ii) 22.01.2024: Permitting 11,494 appointees to continue subject to outcome; 481 posts reserved for married women candidates; (iii) 04.10.2024: State allowed to fill remaining vacancies while keeping 500 posts reserved – All interim directions made absolute – 500 reserved posts to be filled as per KSAT’s final verdict [Paras 21(A)-(C), 49].

Recruitment – Facts and Background – Notification dated 21.03.2022 for 15,000 Graduate Primary Teacher posts; exams held on 21–22.05.2022; results declared 17.08.2022; provisional list issued 18.11.2022; dispute arose over validity of certificates of married women candidates – Single Judge’s order dated 30.01.2023 directing inclusion of such candidates – Division Bench judgment dated 12.10.2023 setting aside Single Judge’s order and relegating parties to KSAT – Supreme Court upholds Division Bench view and directs expeditious disposal [Paras 3-20, 47, 49-51].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Division Bench judgment affirmed – Matters relegated to Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal for final adjudication – Interim orders dated 03.01.2024, 22.01.2024, and 04.10.2024 made absolute – 500 reserved posts to abide KSAT’s final decision – Tribunal requested to decide within six months – Merits of eligibility and certificate issues left open [Paras 47, 49-51].

Constitutional Law – Power of High Court – Direction for CBI Investigation – Limits of Jurisdiction – High Court, while hearing an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge’s order in recruitment matters, converted the appeal into suo motu PIL and directed CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction – Exercise of power to order CBI inquiry under Article 226 permissible only where sufficient material exists disclosing prima facie commission of offence – Power to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional circumstances where fairness of investigation or public confidence is at stake – No such material existed here – Directions unsustainable [Paras 9–14, 18–24].

Public Employment – Recruitment Irregularities – Challenge to selection process for various posts in Legislative Council and Assembly Secretariat of U.P. – Allegations of favoritism and manipulation by private recruiting agencies – Writ petitions contained no prayer for CBI inquiry – Division Bench acted suo motu without foundation or pleading – Held: Ordering CBI inquiry based on “doubts” or “assumptions” violates settled principles – Directions quashed [Paras 15–21, 23].

Judicial Review – Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation – Scope – High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, could not convert pending special appeal into suo motu PIL – Such action not in consonance with rules or judicial propriety – Matter left to Chief Justice of High Court to examine procedure and registry’s action in this regard [Paras 18–19, 25].

CBI Inquiry – Principles Reiterated – Direction for CBI investigation to be last resort – Permissible only when: (i) prima facie material discloses cognizable offence, (ii) local police incapable of impartial probe, (iii) involvement of high-ranking officials or systemic failure, or (iv) case has national ramifications – Mere allegations or administrative irregularities do not justify CBI inquiry – High Court’s assumption-based approach deprecated [Paras 10–14, 21–23].

Recruitment Process – Role of Specialized Agency – Following Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021) 4 SCC 631, Single Judge directed future Class III recruitments in U.P. Legislative Assembly/Council to be conducted by U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission and not private agencies – Division Bench should have confined adjudication to legality of that direction – CBI inquiry beyond pleadings and scope of appeal [Paras 3–5, 17, 24–25].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders dated 18.09.2023 and 03.10.2023 set aside – Direction for CBI preliminary inquiry and registration of suo motu PIL quashed – Division Bench requested to hear Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 on merits in accordance with law – No opinion on merits expressed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 24–25].

Property Law – Agreement to Sell – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Whether agreement to sell executed during lifetime of deceased transfers ownership – Held: No – Agreement to sell does not create interest or title in immovable property; ownership transfers only upon execution and registration of sale deed – As no conveyance existed during lifetime, the property remained vested in deceased and formed part of matruka property – Reliance placed on Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, and Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, (2004) 8 SCC 614 [Paras 7–10].

Mohammedan Law – Matruka Property – Definition and Devolution – “Matruka” means property (movable or immovable) left behind by a deceased Muslim – Held: Such property devolves first to satisfy debts and legacies (limited to one-third of estate) and remainder distributed among heirs as per Quranic injunctions and Mulla’s Principles – Wife being a sharer entitled to one-fourth share in absence of child or grandchild; balance devolves on residuaries – Cited Jamil Ahmad v. Vth ADJ, Moradabad, (2001) 8 SCC 599 and Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 738 [Paras 8–15].

Inheritance – Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Principle – Held: A person cannot transfer a better title than he possesses – Widow who held only one-fourth share could not convey ownership of entire estate – Sale deed executed beyond her legal share invalid to that extent [Para 15].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – When no substantial question of law arises, High Court must dismiss appeal in limine with reasons – Though High Court examined merits after so finding, no prejudice caused as conclusion consistent with law – Referred Surat Singh v. Siri Bhagwan, (2018) 4 SCC 562; Hasmat Ali v. Ameena Bibi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1142 [Para 5].

Language of Judgments – Translation Quality – Observed with concern the poor translation of trial court judgment from vernacular to English – Emphasized need for accuracy since words and punctuation bear decisive legal implications – Concern earlier echoed in Chairman, Managing Committee v. Bhaveshkumar Manubhai Parakhia (Order dated 18.03.2025) [Para 17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – View taken by First Appellate Court and High Court upheld – Property in question forms part of matruka property – Wife entitled to 1/4th share; remaining 3/4th to devolve per Mohammedan inheritance law – No interference warranted – No order as to costs [Paras 15–18].

Environmental Law – Firecrackers in Delhi–NCR – Temporary relaxation on “test case” basis – Supreme Court permits sale and use of only NEERI-approved green crackers at designated locations for a limited window (sale: 18–20 Oct 2025 – use: 6–7 AM & 8–10 PM on the day before and on Diwali) – Ban on barium-containing crackers, series/laris, e-commerce sales and inflow from outside NCR – Strict patrols, QR-code verification, random sampling, licence renewals for the limited period, and AQI/soil/water monitoring directed – Rationale: balance right to life and health with livelihood/festive interests; prior Delhi–NCR ban in 2024 distinguished as both GNCTD and Union now seek calibrated relaxation – Directions modelled on Arjun Gopal (2018) regime – Test-case relaxation only for specified period [Paras 1–4, 12–14, 18–24].

Right to Life vs. Profession – Court reiterates primacy of health and environment over commercial/festive considerations – While acknowledging cultural practice of bursting crackers, uncontrolled use cannot be permitted to cause short/long-term health damage – Balance struck via narrow relaxation with strict compliance and enforcement [Paras 1–3, 16–20].

Green Crackers – NEERI formulations – Court notes NEERI/CSIR work cutting particulate emissions by 30–80% through zeolites, water-releasing molecules, and metallic composites; barium banned in India and replaced by strontium/potassium – NEERI SOP for manufacturer registration, product-wise approvals, QR codes; concern over QR misuse flagged – Enforcement directed via testing and penal action for violations [Paras 12–13, 14(A)(i), 14(C)(iii)-(v), (vi)-(vii)].

Operational Directions – Sale only 18–20 Oct 2025 at locations identified by District Collectors/Commissioners with police/SPCB patrols – Use only two time slots on two days (pre-Diwali and Diwali) – Confiscation of non-approved products; prohibition on e-commerce; no series/laris; no inflow from outside NCR; renewal of expired/cancelled trader licences for stipulated period – CPCB/SPCBs to monitor AQI 14–25 Oct 2025 and collect soil/water samples; report to Court – Relaxation expressly on “test case” basis [Para 24(A)–(M)].

Earlier Ban & Data – 2024 complete ban by GNCTD (14.10.2024 to 01.01.2025) and its expansion to entire NCR (19.12.2024) noted; present relaxation sought by GNCTD and Union distinguishes current context – Court records that AQI differences between 2018 and 2024 were not substantial (except Covid period), supporting calibrated approach with stringent safeguards [Paras 11, 21, 23–24].

Decision: Limited, strictly regulated relaxation granted – Only NEERI-approved green crackers – Detailed enforcement, monitoring, and reporting mandated – Relaxation confined to specified days/hours and expressly on test-case basis; IAs to be listed after three weeks for further directions [Paras 24–25].

Service Law – Waiting List/Reserved Panel – Counsel’s Concession – High Court directed absorption on future SC vacancy relying on 15.01.1999 assurance – Held: Wait list is not a source of recruitment and operates only if a selected candidate does not join – A concession contrary to statutory Recruitment Rules is not binding; cannot be enforced to extend life of wait list or fill future vacancies – Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside [Paras 12–13, 15–18; 1997 process closed].

Waiting List – Nature and Operative Period – The Court reiterates that mere placement in a wait list/“Reserved Panel” confers no vested right; it operates only if a selected candidate does not join and cannot continue indefinitely or after a fresh recruitment begins – Reliance placed on Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat (three-Judge Bench) – Held, respondent’s right as a waitlisted candidate extinguished when all three selected candidates joined in 1997 [Para 12].

Concession by Counsel – Not Binding if Contrary to Law/Rules – The 15.01.1999 statement that respondent would be “absorbed” against next SC vacancy could not override Recruitment Rules or revive a closed selection – Wrong concession on law by counsel is not binding on the client; Court refers to Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. K. Santhakumari – Held, State can place correct legal position and decline to act on an erroneous concession that violates statutory Rules [Paras 15–16, 17].

Future Vacancies & Prejudice to Fresh Candidates – Giving effect to the 1999 concession would fill posts in subsequent recruitment from an earlier list, prejudicing new aspirants and impermissibly extending the life of the wait list – Hence, the High Court’s absorption direction is unsustainable [Para 17].

Facts – 1997 selection for three SC Technician posts; respondent placed first in Reserved Panel; all three selectees joined; multiple rounds before CAT/High Court; 2013 recruitment and interim “one post to be kept vacant” order; ultimate HC (25.06.2024) direction to absorb with notional effect from 19.07.2013 set aside [Paras 3–11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated 25.06.2024 set aside – Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 18].