Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Alleged violation of orders dated 07.03.2006 and 09.03.2007 – Petitioners alleged UPPSC suppressed facts, shifted stands and refused to disclose marks and cut-off – Respondents (Chairman and Secretary of UPPSC, and State) filed affidavits explaining compliance steps, production of merit lists and reasons for non-recommendation – Tendered unconditional apology – Held: No willful or deliberate disobedience established – Mere error of judgment or different interpretation of orders does not constitute contempt [Paras 26-27].

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Posts of Principals and Senior Lecturers – Issue already settled in Mohd. Altaf case – Petitioners’ eligibility recognized, interview conducted in 2006 and names included in revised merit list – However, no vacancies available against 1997 batch due to prior adjustment of 1996 candidates – Respondents’ stand explained with vacancy charts – Held: Contempt not proved, but legitimate claims of petitioners may be considered if eligible in law [Paras 18-25, 28].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Scope – Court cannot materially add to or alter original order in contempt proceedings – Relief beyond ensuring compliance not permissible – Substantive grievances must be agitated separately [Para 26].

Decision: Contempt petitions dismissed – Respondents not guilty of willful disobedience – Petitioners’ claims may still be considered on merits by authorities in accordance with law – Interlocutory applications also disposed of [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Speedy Trial – Delay of Over Two Decades – Chargesheet Filed in 1991, Trial Not Commenced Till 2008 – Appellant Faced Investigation and Prosecution for Over 21 Years – Held: Violation of Fundamental Right Under Article 21 – Proceedings Quashed – FIR lodged in 1987, chargesheet filed in 1991 – Appellant facing prosecution for over two decades without commencement of trial – No explanation from prosecution for delay – Trial court record remained with High Court for several years due to writ petition – Held: Constitutional right to speedy trial violated – Proceedings cannot continue [Paras 14–18].

Criminal Law – Powers Under Section 482 CrPC and Article 227 – Scope – High Court Must Interfere Where Continuation of Proceedings Would Be Abuse of Process – Court Must Exercise Inherent Powers Sparingly and in Rare Cases – Though High Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 227, they are to be exercised cautiously and only when ends of justice demand interference – In the present case, continuation of trial after inordinate delay amounts to abuse of process [Paras 10–12].

Juvenile Justice – Date of Occurrence Determines Age – Appellant Was 18 at Time of Alleged Offence – However, Age Irrelevant in View of Disproportionate Delay and Absence of Direct Evidence – Held: Prosecution Cannot Sustain – Appellant claimed minority at time of offence – Court declined to examine juvenile plea due to disposal on other grounds – No substantive material to link appellant directly with offence – Accusations vague and general [Paras 8–9, 19].

Prosecution – Delay Not Attributable to Accused – Failure to Examine Any Witness Even After Filing Chargesheet – Investigative Lapses and Administrative Negligence Cannot Override Fundamental Rights – No Exceptional Circumstance to Justify Delay – Delay entirely attributable to prosecution – No action taken to expedite trial – State failed to demonstrate any compelling justification – Held: Proceedings vitiated [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 78 of 1987 quashed against the appellant – Appellant’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution to a speedy trial held violated – No need to examine merits or juvenile plea [Paras 18–20].

Military Law – General Court Martial – Validity of Convening Authority – Section 109 of the Army Act – Appellant challenged jurisdiction of GCM alleging it was not convened by competent authority – Held: Warrant issued by Chief of Army Staff empowering field officers to convene GCM was valid – Convening order issued by Major General commanding 16 Corps was lawful – GCM not vitiated [Paras 10–11]

Confession – Voluntariness – Summary of Evidence – Appellant claimed his confessional statement was extracted under coercion – GCM found statement voluntary and supported by witnesses – Held: Statement recorded in presence of independent officers and not retracted during trial – Admissible and reliable evidence – GCM rightly relied on confession in convicting the appellant [Paras 12–13]

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Court Martial Proceedings – Single Judge of High Court quashed GCM proceedings citing lack of evidence and procedural irregularities – Division Bench reversed – Held: High Court under Article 226 cannot sit in appeal over findings of GCM – Judicial review is limited to examining legality of decision-making process, not reappreciation of evidence – Single Judge erred in interfering with GCM's conclusions [Paras 15–16]

Army Discipline – Section 63 of Army Act – Act prejudicial to good order and military discipline – Allegation of crossing into Pakistan while on leave – GCM held full trial, examined witnesses, provided opportunity for defence – Sentence of imprisonment and dismissal from service confirmed by competent authority – No procedural illegality found [Paras 13–14]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Division Bench upheld – No infirmity in GCM proceedings – No costs awarded [Paras 17–19]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Principles reiterated from Bhajan Lal case – FIRs and charge-sheets cannot be quashed merely on allegations of mala fides if prima facie material discloses cognizable offence – Mala fides of complainant irrelevant when ingredients of offence exist – High Court rightly observed its jurisdiction under Section 482 to be sparing and limited – Supreme Court reiterated caution that such powers should be exercised in rarest of rare cases [Paras 25-31].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Categories of cases warranting quashment summarized – Courts cannot appreciate evidence or test witness credibility at Section 482 stage – Defence pleas or contradictions are matters for trial – Where charge-sheet is filed and charges framed, quashing should not be granted ordinarily [Paras 28-32].

Constitution – Article 142 – Power to Do Complete Justice – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings in light of peculiar facts – Appellants were medical students facing continuous harassment, multiple litigations, and prolonged trials – Court emphasized Article 142 power is elastic, residuary, corrective, and transcends statutory limitations to ensure equity and justice – Criminal proceedings quashed to protect appellants’ careers while directing them to file written apology – No compensation ordered due to their status as students [Paras 34-41].

Criminal Procedure – FIRs arising out of college disputes – FIRs lodged by college staff alleging assault, criminal intimidation, and damage to property by appellants – Trial court framed charges – Supreme Court noted both sides had exchanged allegations and apologies – Held continuation of proceedings would serve no purpose – Proceedings quashed under Article 142 despite existence of prima facie material [Paras 25, 33-40].

Judicial Power – Scope of Supreme Court under Articles 136, 142 – Even where quashing not permissible under Section 482 CrPC, Court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to secure complete justice in unique circumstances – High Court’s refusal to quash not interfered with on Section 482 grounds but proceedings quashed directly under Article 142 [Paras 35-37, 39-41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 412/2005 and Case Crime No. 21/2006 quashed in exercise of powers under Article 142 – Appellants directed to file written apology before trial court – No order as to compensation [Paras 37-40].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Voice Identification – PW8, grandfather of accused, deposed that he identified accused Dalbir Singh by his voice during night-time assault resulting in murder – Though no other assailant was identified or named, trial court and High Court accepted PW8’s testimony – Held: Voice identification by a person closely acquainted with the accused is legally valid even in dark conditions – Conviction upheld [Paras 4–7]

Evidence Law – Sole Witness – Related Witness – Credibility – PW8, a relative of both accused and deceased, was the sole identifying witness – Held: Relationship alone does not discredit testimony – Courts must assess credibility and corroboration – Evidence of closely related witness can be relied upon if found cogent and trustworthy [Paras 4, 7]

Criminal Law – Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus – Doctrine Rejected – Though co-accused were acquitted, conviction of appellant upheld based on credible specific evidence – Held: Indian courts do not apply this maxim as mandatory rule – Evidence must be carefully sifted – Conviction can be sustained if grain can be separated from chaff [Paras 8–10]

Criminal Trial – Discrepancies – Normal vs. Material – Witness discrepancies must be assessed for materiality – Normal discrepancies due to observation error, lapse of time, or stress do not undermine credibility – Only material discrepancies affect the case adversely [Para 10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of fact.

Constitutional Law – Creation of Judicial Districts – Validity of Notification – Delhi Bar Association challenged the notification issued by the Lt. Governor on 28.06.2000 dividing Delhi into nine civil districts – Petitioners argued that the Lt. Governor had no authority and that only Delhi Legislative Assembly could decide such matters – Held: Lt. Governor acted lawfully under Section 19 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Notification valid [Paras 42–53]

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Administrative Reorganization – Reorganization of courts in Delhi had been under discussion since 1979 – Multiple stakeholders including High Court, Delhi Government, and Central Government involved – Supreme Court had issued directions earlier in WP(C) No. 741/1989 – Held: Policy decisions taken after such long deliberation cannot be interfered with unless arbitrary or illegal – No such issue found here [Paras 36–39]

Separation of Powers – Court’s Power to Issue Directions – Objection raised that Supreme Court overstepped by directing bifurcation of courts – Rejected – Directions were aimed at implementation of overdue administrative reforms and did not amount to legislation – Held: Court acted within its powers to ensure efficient justice delivery [Paras 40–41]

Interpretation of “State Government” – Applicability of General Clauses Act – Petitioners argued Bengal General Clauses Act should apply, making the Lt. Governor’s action invalid – Rejected – General Clauses Act, 1897 applies post-Article 239AA – Lt. Governor acts on behalf of NCT of Delhi under constitutional authority [Paras 44–45]

Repugnancy – Central vs State Legislation – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 is a central law extended to Delhi – Even if Delhi Legislative Assembly had similar powers, its laws would be subordinate to central law under Article 239AA – Held: Notification under a central law prevails – No conflict or illegality [Paras 49–52]

Decision: Writ Petitions No. 437/2000 and 451/2000 dismissed – Notification upheld as valid – WP(C) No. 741/1989 delinked and TC(C) No. 38/1996 sent to Delhi High Court for decision on merits.

Environmental Law – Aravalli Hills – Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – Land Notified under Sections 4 & 5 – Treated as Forest – Any non-forest use requires approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Applicants’ plea of exemption for constructions rejected – Court held that once land is notified and treated in government records as forest, it attracts restrictions of Forest (Conservation) Act – Prior Central Government approval mandatory [Paras 7-13, 20-21].

Development Permissions – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Exemption under Section 23 – Not Absolute – Conditions imposed in exemption not complied with – Show cause notice for withdrawal issued – Subsequent notification under Punjab Land Preservation Act overrides earlier exemptions – Applicants cannot rely on exemption to justify constructions [Paras 10, 12].

Construction Activities – Notification under Section 4, Punjab Land Preservation Act – Prohibition on clearing or breaking of land – Bar on fresh construction – Clause (g) exception applicable only to local inhabitants for domestic use – Not available to private developers selling plots across country – Development of plots amounts to prohibited activity [Paras 12-13].

Ecological Concerns – Aravalli Region – Reports of EPCA and Central Ground Water Board – Found violations of Court’s orders, evidence of large-scale constructions, degradation of land, and acute water scarcity – Aravalli Hills require protection at any cost – Sustainable development principle emphasised [Paras 15-19].

Precedent – Earlier Judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – Held that any area recorded as forest in government records is to be treated as forest irrespective of ownership – Applicants cannot resile from earlier stand where such land was consistently treated as forest by the State Forest Department – State cannot now claim earlier treatment was erroneous [Paras 7-9, 13].

Decision – Interlocutory Applications dismissed – Court reiterated that lands notified under Sections 4 & 5 of Punjab Land Preservation Act are forest for purposes of Forest (Conservation) Act – No construction permissible without compliance of statutory requirements – Applicants’ claims rejected [Para 21].

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 – Exemption Notification – Interpretation – Pentazocine (Fortwin) – Respondent pharma company granted exemption from price control till 31-10-1999 under para 25 DPCO, 1995 – Union sought recovery of alleged overcharge on sales made after 31-10-1999 – High Court held exemption applied to drugs manufactured by 31-10-1999 even if sold later – Held, exemption relates to manufacture, not sale – Price control attaches to manufactured drug; sale process beyond manufacturer’s control – Purposive construction requires exemption to cover stock manufactured during exemption period regardless of sale date – Appeal dismissed, High Court order upheld [Paras 23-28].

Statutory Interpretation – Exemption Notifications – Purposive Construction – Applied – Notification exempted “drug manufactured” up to specified date – Must be construed pragmatically to avoid absurdity of requiring sale also before expiry date – Exemption continues to apply to such stock until exhausted – Earlier decisions in Cynamide India, Prag Ice and Oil Mills and Panipat Coop. Sugar Mills distinguished – Principle from New India Assurance v. Nusli Wadia and Oriental Insurance v. Brij Mohan applied [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — Exemption held applicable to drugs manufactured up to 31 October 1999, even if sold thereafter — Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on Union of India.

Service Law – Promotion – Article 14 – Non-communication of ACR entries – Held arbitrary – Appellant denied promotion to post of Superintending Engineer as ACR graded “good” instead of “very good”, though not communicated – Held: Every entry in ACR (poor, fair, average, good, very good, outstanding) must be communicated within reasonable time to allow representation – Non-communication is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 – Office Memoranda restricting communication to adverse entries declared illegal – Orders of Gauhati High Court set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 9-20, 45-49].

Natural Justice – Expanding scope – Fairness and transparency in administration require communication of all ACR entries – Right to be considered for promotion is a legal right – Denial of opportunity to contest non-adverse but benchmark-affecting entry violates principles of fairness – Natural justice not rigid; content expands with constitutional mandate of non-arbitrariness [Paras 13, 26, 30-39].

Promotion – Benchmark requirement – Where benchmark is “very good”, even a single “good” entry operates as adverse and must be communicated – Phraseology irrelevant; effect on rights determines adverse character – Right to representation before DPC consideration recognized [Paras 10-11, 18].

State as Model Employer – Article 14 – State must act fairly toward employees – Non-communication of entries has civil consequences such as denial of promotion, pension, benefits – Communication of all entries boosts morale, ensures fairness and good governance [Paras 19-20, 24, 40].

Decision – Appeal allowed – “Good” entry of 1993-94 to be communicated to appellant within two months – Appellant permitted to make representation; authority to decide within two months – If upgraded, DPC to reconsider promotion retrospectively; if promoted, appellant entitled to higher pension, arrears with 8% interest – No costs [Paras 47-49].