Employer-Employee Relationship – Contractors' Employees – Full Bench of the Bombay High Court affirmed that persons employed through contractors in industries under the BIR Act are considered employees under Section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act – Held complaints by such employees maintainable even without direct employer-employee relationship with the principal employer [Paras 6-8].

Judicial Interpretation – Conflicting Judgments – Supreme Court noted conflicting views in prior judgments on similar issues, including decisions in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd., Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, and Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. – Emphasized need for larger bench to provide authoritative resolution [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Matter referred to a larger bench – Highlighted the importance and impact of the controversy, particularly in Maharashtra – Directed Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench for deciding the issues involved [Paras 11-12].

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].

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].