Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery Conviction – Respondents initially convicted by the Sessions Court for murder, attempted murder, and robbery – High Court acquitted respondents citing minor contradictions and lack of independent witnesses – Supreme Court reinstated conviction, emphasizing reliability of injured witnesses and rejecting the High Court's undue emphasis on minor discrepancies [Paras 1-29].

Injured Witness Testimony – Credibility – Supreme Court emphasized the special status of injured witnesses – High Court erred in dismissing testimony based on trivial contradictions – Injured witness testimony considered reliable unless major contradictions are present [Paras 23-24].

FIR Timing and Independent Witnesses – Supreme Court found FIR was lodged promptly – Lack of independent witnesses not a valid ground for acquittal given the circumstances – High Court's dismissal based on these grounds was erroneous [Paras 12-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's acquittal set aside – Sessions Court's conviction and sentences reinstated – Respondents to serve remaining sentence [Para 29].

Review Petition – Delay Condonation – High Court dismissed review petition and application for condonation of 71 days delay – Supreme Court condoned the delay, stating a liberal view should be taken for such short delays – Case remanded to High Court to decide review on merits [Paras 3-4, 16].

Doctrine of Merger – Maintainability of Review – Distinction between SLP dismissed with reasons and without reasons – If SLP dismissed without reasons, no merger occurs, and review of High Court judgment is maintainable – Supreme Court reaffirmed no merger when SLP is dismissed without reasons, allowing for High Court review [Paras 6-9].

Legal Precedent and Stray Observations – Supreme Court clarified that stray observations in judgments do not constitute precedents – Emphasized focus on legal principles over perceived affronts – Rejected the idea that review petition filed post-SLP dismissal affronts Supreme Court's order [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Delay in filing review petition condoned – Matter remanded to High Court for decision on merits [Para 16].

Reservation in Single Post Cadre – Legality – High Court quashed inquiry into alleged malpractices in the selection process for Principals – Supreme Court affirmed that the post of Principal in each aided/affiliated institution being a single post in the cadre is not amenable to reservation – Emphasized that reservation in single post cadres is impermissible as it amounts to 100% reservation, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 39-49].

Government's Power to Inquire – Validity – High Court quashed order appointing an enquiry officer – Supreme Court left open the question whether the government could direct an enquiry under Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 or under Article 154 of the Constitution – Directed the High Court to examine all aspects of the selection process in pending writ petitions [Paras 22-23, 50-52].

Implementation of Appointments – Supreme Court allowed the appointed candidates to receive full benefits of their posts during the pendency of the writ petitions – Directed that the selected candidates be impleaded as parties to the pending writ petitions before the High Court for a comprehensive examination of the selection process [Paras 51-53].

Decision – Appeals disposed of with specific directions – High Court's orders on reservation affirmed – State's inquiry into the selection process quashed – Matter remanded to the High Court for detailed examination of the selection process – Interim benefits to appointed candidates upheld [Paras 53-54].

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery Conviction – Respondents initially convicted by the Sessions Court for murder, attempted murder, and robbery – High Court acquitted respondents citing minor contradictions and lack of independent witnesses – Supreme Court reinstated conviction, emphasizing reliability of injured witnesses and rejecting the High Court's undue emphasis on minor discrepancies [Paras 1-29].

Injured Witness Testimony – Credibility – Supreme Court emphasized the special status of injured witnesses – High Court erred in dismissing testimony based on trivial contradictions – Injured witness testimony considered reliable unless major contradictions are present [Paras 23-24].

FIR Timing and Independent Witnesses – Supreme Court found FIR was lodged promptly – Lack of independent witnesses not a valid ground for acquittal given the circumstances – High Court's dismissal based on these grounds was erroneous [Paras 12-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's acquittal set aside – Sessions Court's conviction and sentences reinstated – Respondents to serve remaining sentence [Para 29].

Review Petition – Delay Condonation – High Court dismissed review petition and application for condonation of 71 days delay – Supreme Court condoned the delay, stating a liberal view should be taken for such short delays – Case remanded to High Court to decide review on merits [Paras 3-4, 16].

Doctrine of Merger – Maintainability of Review – Distinction between SLP dismissed with reasons and without reasons – If SLP dismissed without reasons, no merger occurs, and review of High Court judgment is maintainable – Supreme Court reaffirmed no merger when SLP is dismissed without reasons, allowing for High Court review [Paras 6-9].

Legal Precedent and Stray Observations – Supreme Court clarified that stray observations in judgments do not constitute precedents – Emphasized focus on legal principles over perceived affronts – Rejected the idea that review petition filed post-SLP dismissal affronts Supreme Court's order [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Delay in filing review petition condoned – Matter remanded to High Court for decision on merits [Para 16].

Reservation in Single Post Cadre – Legality – High Court quashed inquiry into alleged malpractices in the selection process for Principals – Supreme Court affirmed that the post of Principal in each aided/affiliated institution being a single post in the cadre is not amenable to reservation – Emphasized that reservation in single post cadres is impermissible as it amounts to 100% reservation, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 39-49].

Government's Power to Inquire – Validity – High Court quashed order appointing an enquiry officer – Supreme Court left open the question whether the government could direct an enquiry under Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 or under Article 154 of the Constitution – Directed the High Court to examine all aspects of the selection process in pending writ petitions [Paras 22-23, 50-52].

Implementation of Appointments – Supreme Court allowed the appointed candidates to receive full benefits of their posts during the pendency of the writ petitions – Directed that the selected candidates be impleaded as parties to the pending writ petitions before the High Court for a comprehensive examination of the selection process [Paras 51-53].

Decision – Appeals disposed of with specific directions – High Court's orders on reservation affirmed – State's inquiry into the selection process quashed – Matter remanded to the High Court for detailed examination of the selection process – Interim benefits to appointed candidates upheld [Paras 53-54].

Euthanasia – Legality – Petitioner, in a persistent vegetative state for 37 years, sought permission for euthanasia – Supreme Court deliberated on the issue of passive euthanasia and the role of the judiciary in sanctioning it – Held that passive euthanasia is permissible under exceptional circumstances with the approval of the High Court, which must act as parens patriae [Paras 1-144].

Passive Euthanasia – Procedure – Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts to follow when considering passive euthanasia – High Court to constitute a Bench of at least two judges to decide, seeking the opinion of a committee of three doctors – Views of near relatives, next friend, and doctors to be considered [Paras 128-144].

Parens Patriae Doctrine – Explained the doctrine as the inherent power of the state to act as guardian for those unable to care for themselves – Applied to cases involving incompetent persons unable to make decisions regarding withdrawal of life support [Paras 128-132].

Decision: Petition dismissed with observations – Supreme Court recommended Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 of the IPC, which criminalizes attempted suicide – High Courts authorized to permit passive euthanasia under specified conditions until legislation is enacted [Paras 143-144].

Land Acquisition – Invocation of Emergency Provision – Appellants challenged acquisition of agricultural land for construction of district jail, claiming lack of urgency and unjustified invocation of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act – High Court upheld acquisition, dismissing writ petition – Supreme Court found no real urgency justifying dispensation of Section 5A inquiry, quashed notifications [Paras 1-42].

Constitutional Law – Public Purpose and Right to Property – Concept of public purpose must align with welfare state principles – Expropriatory legislation must be strictly construed – Right to property, though not fundamental, remains a significant legal and human right, and abridgement requires strict adherence to legal procedures [Paras 15-25].

Procedure under Land Acquisition Act – Section 5A Inquiry – Recognized as a substantial right providing landowners an opportunity to object – Dispensation of this right requires demonstrable urgency – In absence of urgency, Section 17(4) cannot be invoked merely on executive assertion [Paras 26-41].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 relating to appellants' land quashed – Appellants' possession to remain undisturbed except in accordance with law [Paras 41-42].

Euthanasia – Legality – Petitioner, in a persistent vegetative state for 37 years, sought permission for euthanasia – Supreme Court deliberated on the issue of passive euthanasia and the role of the judiciary in sanctioning it – Held that passive euthanasia is permissible under exceptional circumstances with the approval of the High Court, which must act as parens patriae [Paras 1-144].

Passive Euthanasia – Procedure – Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts to follow when considering passive euthanasia – High Court to constitute a Bench of at least two judges to decide, seeking the opinion of a committee of three doctors – Views of near relatives, next friend, and doctors to be considered [Paras 128-144].

Parens Patriae Doctrine – Explained the doctrine as the inherent power of the state to act as guardian for those unable to care for themselves – Applied to cases involving incompetent persons unable to make decisions regarding withdrawal of life support [Paras 128-132].

Decision: Petition dismissed with observations – Supreme Court recommended Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 of the IPC, which criminalizes attempted suicide – High Courts authorized to permit passive euthanasia under specified conditions until legislation is enacted [Paras 143-144].