Constitutional Law - Discretionary Allotment of Government Land – Public Interest Litigation challenging arbitrary and illegal discretionary allotments of plots in Salt Lake City – Petitioner alleges deviation from Master Plan, political and financial favoritism – Supreme Court finds prior judgments have attained finality and bar re-litigation of settled matters – No fresh adjudication warranted – PIL dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Principles of Finality and Fairness – Analysis – Held – Courts should not allow re-litigation of issues already settled – Previous judgments on discretionary allotments, including Supreme Court decisions, found no grounds to quash allotments – High Court and Supreme Court addressed allegations, ensuring finality in litigation – PIL re-raising settled issues found unsustainable. [Paras 13-15]

Discretionary Quota Allotments – Policy and Compliance – Examination – Held – State government ceased discretionary allotments post guidelines issued in 1999 – Affidavit confirms minimal remaining plots under discretionary quota, no further allotments planned – Supreme Court recognizes efforts to end discretionary practices – Dismissal of PIL maintains policy consistency and judicial finality. [Paras 16-17]

Decision – Dismissal of Public Interest Litigation – Supreme Court dismisses PIL, citing settled rights and finality of previous judgments – Reaffirms policy and legal adherence by the state in allotment matters – No costs imposed. [Paras 17-17]

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator – Appeal against High Court order dismissing application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Dispute concerning termination of contract and subsequent extra costs incurred by the Appellant – Supreme Court holds Designate of Chief Justice exceeded jurisdiction in deciding tenability of claim and res judicata – Application under Section 11 should only address existence of arbitration agreement – Appeal allowed, arbitrator appointed. [Paras 1-21]

Jurisdiction of Chief Justice/Designate – Analysis – Held – Chief Justice or Designate not to examine merits or tenability of claims, limited to existence of arbitration agreement – Determination of issues like res judicata or limitation falls within arbitrator’s jurisdiction – Designate erred in dismissing application based on detailed examination of claims. [Paras 10-13]

Principles of Arbitration – Res Judicata and Limitation – Held – Consideration of res judicata and limitation involves factual analysis unsuitable for proceedings under Section 11 – Arbitrator to decide such issues during arbitration – Supreme Court corrects jurisdictional overreach by High Court’s Designate. [Paras 14-19]

Decision – Appointment of Arbitrator – Supreme Court sets aside High Court Designate’s order, appoints Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.) as sole arbitrator – Directions given for fair arbitration proceedings, including consideration of all contentions by parties. [Paras 20-21]

Criminal Law - Admissibility of Confessional Statements – Appeal against conviction based on confessional statement under TADA – Confession to police officer inadmissible under Evidence Act but admissible under TADA – Supreme Court finds confession weak evidence due to potential police torture – Conviction based solely on such confession without corroborative material deemed unsafe – Conviction set aside. [Paras 1-10]

Constitutional Law - Membership of Banned Organization – Appeal against conviction under Section 3(5) of TADA for membership of ULFA – Supreme Court holds mere membership not incriminating unless active participation in violence proven – Relies on principles from US Supreme Court decisions against guilt by association – Conviction under Section 3(5) set aside for lack of evidence of active involvement. [Paras 11-17]

Decision – Acquittal and Discharge – Supreme Court sets aside conviction and acquits appellant – Orders release of appellant from bail conditions. [Paras 18-19]

Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appeal against High Court judgment convicting appellants under Section 302 IPC – Initial trial court conviction under Section 307 IPC – Supreme Court finds inconsistency in prosecution case regarding cause of death – Post-mortem showed no gunshot wounds contrary to prosecution claims – Benefit of doubt given to appellants – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside. [Paras 1-6]

Conviction under Section 325 IPC – Analysis – Held – Appellants guilty under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC due to admission of gunshot injury to Baggar Singh – Sentence of period already undergone awarded – High Court judgment modified accordingly. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Modification of Judgment – Supreme Court modifies High Court judgment, acquits appellants of charge under Section 302 IPC, convicts under Section 325 IPC, and awards sentence of period already undergone – Appeal disposed of accordingly – Bonds of appellants discharged. [Paras 8-9]

Civil Procedure - Suit for Declaration – Appeal against High Court judgment dismissing suit for declaration of ownership and possession – Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld the suit – High Court reversed findings, holding suit not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Supreme Court finds High Court's application of Section 34 incorrect – Suit included prayer for declaration, injunction, and alternative possession – High Court's reliance on previous case law deemed misplaced – High Court judgment set aside and First Appellate Court's judgment restored. [Paras 1-15]

Specific Relief Act - Section 34 – Analysis – Held – A suit for declaration is maintainable if accompanied by consequential relief – Prayers for declaration, injunction, and alternative possession meet requirements of Section 34 – High Court misinterpreted Section 34, leading to erroneous dismissal of the suit – Appeal allowed, and suit maintained as per lower court findings. [Paras 7-13]

Decision – Restoration of Lower Court Judgment – Supreme Court restores judgment of First Appellate Court, setting aside High Court's order – Suit for declaration and injunction found maintainable under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act – No order as to costs. [Paras 14-15]

Education Law - Affiliation and Recognition - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Section 14 and 16 - Civil Appeals challenging denial of affiliation and examination permissions for students admitted in various academic sessions - Supreme Court examines validity of admissions prior to recognition and the role of affiliation by the examining body - Held - Admissions made before NCTE recognition are invalid - Institution must obtain both recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the examining body before admitting students - Directions given for regularizing admissions for specific batches subject to eligibility criteria. [Paras 1-23]

Recognition vs. Affiliation - Purpose and Distinction - Analysis - Held - Recognition by NCTE is a prerequisite for affiliation by the examining body - Recognition allows an institution to offer a course, while affiliation permits students to take public examinations - Examining body retains discretion to ensure compliance with its criteria despite NCTE recognition - Automatic affiliation not implied by NCTE recognition. [Paras 15-17]

Admissions and Examinations - Regularization of Admissions - Supreme Court orders regularization of admissions for 2002 and 2003 batches - Admissions made in 1999 without NCTE recognition deemed invalid - Appeals for 2004-2006 and 2005-2007 academic sessions dismissed as infructuous - Directions for fresh admission of 1999 students meeting eligibility criteria without age restriction. [Paras 12-14, 18-19, 21-23]

Decision - Appeals Partially Allowed and Partially Dismissed - Supreme Court dismisses appeals regarding 1999 admissions and 2004-2007 sessions - Allows regularization and result declaration for 2002 and 2003 batches subject to eligibility - Sets aside High Court's direction for damages to students admitted in 2002 and 2003 - Fresh admissions for 1999 students directed without additional fees and age restriction. [Paras 23]

Employment Law - Termination and Reinstatement – Civil Appeal against orders of Tribunal and High Court directing reinstatement and back wages to the Respondent – Respondent appointed for a fixed term of three years – Termination before completion of term challenged on grounds of stigmatic order – Supreme Court finds appointment period ended before Tribunal’s order – No reinstatement beyond expiry of the fixed term – Orders modified to deem Respondent in service up to term end only – No back wages awarded considering Respondent’s conduct and employer’s financial status. [Paras 1-6]

Effect of Stigmatic Termination – Analysis – Held – Reference to unauthorized absence not examined for stigmatic effect as fixed-term appointment ended before Tribunal’s order – Relief beyond fixed-term appointment not justified – Tribunal and High Court orders modified accordingly. [Paras 5-6]

Award of Back Wages – Discretion of Court – Analysis – Held – Conduct of employee and financial status of employer are relevant factors in awarding back wages – In this case, conduct of Respondent and financial status of Appellant do not justify back wages – No back wages awarded. [Para 6]

Decision – Modification of Orders – Supreme Court modifies Tribunal and High Court orders to limit Respondent’s service period to end of fixed term and deny back wages – Appeal allowed in these terms. [Para 6]

Land Acquisition - Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Civil Appeal against High Court decision dismissing challenge to land acquisition – Appellant's repeated challenges to acquisition of land for Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project – Supreme Court upholds previous decisions validating acquisition – Doctrine of Res Judicata applies to prevent re-litigation – Appeal dismissed with costs for abuse of court process. [Paras 1-50]

Principle of Res Judicata – Analysis – Held – Doctrine of Res Judicata ensures finality in litigation and prevents abuse of judicial process – Relitigation of issues previously adjudicated is barred – Court emphasizes public policy considerations and the necessity of concluding litigation to maintain judicial integrity and fairness. [Paras 14-21]

Application of Constructive Res Judicata – Examination – Held – Appellant barred from raising issues which could have been litigated in earlier proceedings – The repeated attempts to challenge the acquisition constitute abuse of process – Principles of Res Judicata extend to writ petitions to prevent re-agitation of decided issues. [Paras 19-27]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal with Costs – Supreme Court dismisses appeal, imposes costs on appellant for misuse of judicial process – State Government directed to complete the infrastructure project without delay – Reaffirms that land acquisition for public purposes should not be impeded by frivolous litigation. [Paras 30-50]

Criminal Law - Disparaging Remarks Against Judicial Officer – Criminal Appeal against High Court order – Appellant, a judicial officer, directed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC to be registered as a complaint and proceeded under Section 200 CrPC – High Court made severe disparaging remarks against the appellant for this decision – Supreme Court holds that High Court's remarks were unjustified and not warranted – Higher courts should observe restraint and avoid using strong language against lower judiciary – Remarks expunged. [Paras 1-13]

Judicial Discretion - Registration of Complaint – Analysis – Held – Judicial officer exercised discretion as per law, calling for a police report and considering affidavits and documents before deciding to proceed under Section 200 CrPC – High Court should not substitute its discretion for that of the lower court unless judicial discretion is shown to be arbitrary or perverse – Supreme Court finds no arbitrariness or perversity in the appellant’s order. [Paras 9-11]

High Court Criticism of Lower Courts – Guidelines – Analysis – Held – Disparaging remarks against lower judiciary can demoralize judicial officers and diminish public confidence in the judiciary – Advised that higher courts should use alternative measures to address perceived judicial errors without public criticism – Supreme Court emphasizes need for judicial restraint. [Para 11]

Decision – Expunction of Remarks – Supreme Court expunges disparaging remarks made by the High Court against the appellant – Directions of the High Court not challenged in appeal remain unaltered – Appeal allowed to the extent of expunging remarks. [Paras 13-14]