Electricity Act, 2003 — Jurisdiction of State Commissions — Inter-State Open Access — Validity of Regulation 26(7) — Upheld — Challenge to RERC's power to regulate inter-state open access rejected — Power sourced from outside Rajasthan but consumed within the state through its intra-state grid is subject to State Commission's regulatory control — Section 42 empowers State Commissions to regulate open access within the state irrespective of power origin — RERC did not encroach upon CERC's jurisdiction — Impugned regulation falls within the permissible regulatory domain of the State Commission — Appeal dismissed on this issue [Paras 44-50].

Open Access — Grid Discipline — Penalties on Contracted Demand Deviations — Valid — Penalty provisions for variations in drawal upheld — Such measures necessary to maintain grid discipline and prevent commercial gaming — Held: Regulation does not unreasonably restrict the right to open access under Section 42 — Regulatory oversight is essential to ensure stable grid operation — Penalties are neither arbitrary nor excessive but proportionate to secure grid security [Paras 51-54].

Short-Term Inter-State Open Access — Regulation 26(7) — Requirement of 24-hour Advance Notice — Not Ultra Vires — Condition mandating advance scheduling for short-term inter-state open access justified — Ensures predictability, prevents gaming, and supports grid stability — Real-time market and day-ahead market continue to be available for urgent procurement — Held: Advance notice requirement serves the regulatory objective and does not foreclose open access rights [Paras 55-58].

Captive Power Plants (CPPs) — Regulation 21 — Not Discriminatory — Differential treatment of CPPs and state DISCOMs held reasonable — CPPs are subject to legitimate regulatory conditions to prevent system inefficiencies — No violation of Article 14 — Regulation 21 aims to ensure grid discipline, fair contribution, and avoidance of undue advantage by CPPs — Differential treatment is based on distinct roles of CPPs and distribution licensees [Paras 59-62].

Open Access — Statutory Right — Scope — Right to open access under Section 9 read with Section 42 is not absolute — Subject to regulatory conditions framed by State Commissions — Regulations of 2016 ensure discipline, transparency, and efficient functioning — Held: Open access continues to be available subject to compliance with statutory and regulatory conditions — No foreclosure of open access rights [Paras 63-65].

Decision — Appeals Dismissed — Validity of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2016 upheld — Held: RERC acted within statutory limits — Regulatory measures necessary for grid discipline, fair competition, and protection of consumer interests — High Court judgments affirmed [Paras 66-70].
 

Criminal Law - Summoning of Additional Accused – Scope of Section 319 Cr. PC – Satisfaction beyond Prima Facie – Summoning Restored – The Sessions Judge allowed the appellant’s application under Section 319 Cr. PC to summon Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj as additional accused based on PW-1’s evidence alleging their direct involvement – The High Court reversed the order, citing lack of corroboration from medical evidence and police investigation reports – The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge’s satisfaction was higher than prima facie and consistent with settled law under Hardeep Singh’s case – Police reports alone cannot conclusively negate involvement when direct evidence exists – Held: High Court’s interference unwarranted; Sessions Judge’s order restored [Paras 16-19].

Section 319 Cr. PC – Nature of Power – Discretion Not Mechanical – Application Restored – Power under Section 319 is discretionary and should not be exercised mechanically but requires satisfaction higher than prima facie but below proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The High Court overlooked the principle that the trial court’s discretion should not be lightly interfered with unless perverse – Held: The Sessions Judge had correctly exercised discretion and reached a plausible conclusion – Appeal allowed [Paras 17-19].

Decision – High Court Order Set Aside – Sessions Judge Order Restored – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the order of the Sessions Judge summoning Rajesh and Neeraj to face trial along with Mukesh – Trial directed to proceed expeditiously [Paras 19-21].

IBC – Commercial Wisdom of CoC – Paramount Status – Judicial Review Restricted – Resolution Plan upheld - CoC’s commercial wisdom under Section 30(4) is paramount and cannot be substituted by NCLT or NCLAT – Judicial review is confined to checking compliance with Section 30(2) by NCLT under Section 31(1) and limited grounds under Section 61(3) for NCLAT – No jurisdiction to interfere merely because distribution of avoidance recoveries favored SRA as per CoC decision [Paras 29-45, 67, 85].

Avoidance Applications – Differentiation between Chapter III Avoidance Applications and Section 66 Applications – Separate treatment permitted - Applications under Sections 43, 45, 50 relate to avoidance of preferential, undervalued or extortionate transactions – Applications under Section 66 deal with fraudulent or wrongful trading – CoC's commercial decision to allow SRA to retain recoveries from Section 66 Applications is permissible – Section 66 recoveries not mandatorily to be treated as assets for creditors unless CoC so decides [Paras 53-61, 83].

Maximization of Value – Scope and Meaning – Role of CoC - Maximization of value of CD's assets is ensured when CoC evaluates feasibility, viability, and distribution as per Regulation 37 and 38 – It is for CoC to assess whether the Resolution Plan achieves this objective – Judicial review does not extend to substituting CoC’s business decision [Paras 66-67].

Section 66 Recoveries – Validity of Allocation to SRA – Not Unlawful - Resolution Plan assigning Section 66 recoveries exclusively to SRA upheld – CoC consciously accepted INR 1 as notional value after considering uncertainties – Recoveries from Section 66 were factored into SRA’s upfront bid of ₹37,250 Crores – Clause not hit by illegality or irregularity [Paras 68-85].

FD Holders – Distribution Mechanism – No Violation of NHB Act or RBI Act – Provisions directory not mandatory - Section 36(A) of NHB Act and Section 45QA of RBI Act do not guarantee full repayment of deposits – Distribution mechanism approved by CoC with 86.95% majority is legally valid – No mandatory requirement under NHB or RBI Act breached – FD Holders rights governed by collective CoC decision and binding under Section 31 [Paras 93-99].

Supersession of DHFL Board – Promoters’ Participation Rights – No right to participate or get resolution plan during CIRP - Supersession under Section 45-IE of RBI Act vacates office of Board members – Ex-Directors have no right to attend CoC meetings or receive resolution plan – Suspension under IBC is different from Supersession under RBI Act – Ex-directors can only obtain certified copy post-approval under Evidence Act, but no pre-approval rights [Paras 103-110].

Avoidance Applications Pending – NCLT to decide separately - Administrator’s pending avoidance applications under Sections 43, 45, 50 and Section 66 to be separately decided by NCLT – Recoveries from Chapter III applications to go to creditors – Recoveries from Section 66 to go to SRA as per approved Resolution Plan [Para 111].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – NCLAT orders set aside – NCLT Resolution Plan approval restored - Appeals by Piramal Capital (SRA) and Union Bank of India allowed – Resolution Plan dated 22.12.2020 approved by CoC and NCLT stands restored – All appeals by 63 Moons, FD Holders and Ex-Promoters dismissed – Avoidance applications to be decided independently by NCLT [Para 111].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Freedom of Speech – Recitation of Poem – FIR under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57, 3(5) BNS – Allegation of promoting enmity between groups – Poem does not refer to any religion, caste, or community – Expresses dissent against injustice through non-violent means – Held: Mere criticism or poetic dissent cannot constitute an offence under Section 196 or other sections invoked – Registration of FIR is an abuse of process [Paras 1-13, 31, 36].

Applicability of Section 173(3) BNSS – Preliminary Inquiry Mandatory – Court held that in cases involving speech-based offences punishable up to 7 years, the police must normally exercise discretion under Section 173(3) to conduct a preliminary inquiry – Non-exercise of discretion led to improper registration of FIR – Held: Police must balance duty under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 51A(a) before registering FIRs in free speech cases [Paras 23-30, 42(v)].

Mens Rea – Essential Ingredient under Section 196 BNS – Offence requires proof of intention to promote enmity or hatred – Held: No mens rea can be attributed to the appellant based on the plain reading of the poem – Poem promotes non-violence and sacrifice, not enmity – No case for invocation of Section 196 or similar provisions [Paras 34-35].

Standard of Strong-minded Reader – Interpretation of Alleged Offensive Speech – Court reiterated the principle that the effect of the words must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable, strong-minded individual – Held: Over-sensitivity or subjective perceptions cannot justify criminal prosecution for lawful speech [Paras 32-33].

High Court's Error – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – High Court mechanically refused to quash the FIR solely on ground of ongoing investigation – Held: There is no absolute rule restraining the High Court from quashing FIRs at nascent stage – When no prima facie offence is disclosed, High Court ought to intervene to prevent abuse of process [Paras 36-37].

Freedom of Speech – Constitutional Protection – Court emphasized that even criticism or unpopular expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a) unless it directly falls within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – Courts have a duty to protect unpopular or dissenting views and prevent misuse of criminal law against free speech [Paras 38-41].

Decision – FIR and Proceedings Quashed – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the High Court’s order – Directed that police authorities must be sensitized about constitutional rights and proper application of BNSS in free speech cases [Paras 42-44].
 

Customs Law – Classification of Imported Goods – Confiscation and Penalty – Appellants imported goods claiming them as Base Oil under CTH 27101960 – Customs Authorities classified the goods as High-Speed Diesel (HSD) under CTH 27101930, a prohibited item for private import, leading to confiscation and penalties – Customs Classification – Incomplete Compliance with IS 1460:2005 – Goods not conclusively proved to be HSD – The Department relied on three laboratory test reports that covered only a part of the 21 prescribed parameters under IS 1460:2005 – The Supreme Court held that without full testing, the goods could not be classified as HSD merely on the basis of partial conformity – Held: Absence of full parameter compliance leaves classification inconclusive [Paras 45-55].

Burden of Proof – Rule 4 of the General Rules of Interpretation and "Most Akin" Test – The Court clarified that the correct test for classification is not mere preponderance of probability but whether the goods are “most akin” to HSD under Rule 4 – Held: The Department failed to prove that the goods were most akin to HSD, thus rendering the confiscation and penalties unsustainable [Paras 39-43, 81-85].

Expert Evidence – Inconclusive and Evasive – The Court found that the expert from IOCL, Dr. Gobind Singh, gave evasive and non-committal responses on key aspects like flash point and untested parameters – Held: Expert evidence that avoids clear conclusions cannot form the basis for adverse action against the appellants [Paras 62-71].

Significance of Flash Point – Non-Conformity with Petroleum Act and IS 1460:2005 – The Court emphasized that flash point is a significant criterion under both the Petroleum Act and IS 1460:2005 – In the present case, samples had flash points far above the typical HSD range – Held: Non-conformity on flash point reinforced the inconclusiveness of classification as HSD [Paras 68-70].

Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability vs. Most Akin Test – The Court held that the High Court erred in applying mere preponderance of probability for classification where statutory parameters were prescribed – For classification under Customs Tariff Act, the goods must be “most akin” to the specified product – Held: Applying only the preponderance test was insufficient [Paras 78-84].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Classification as HSD Set Aside – Supreme Court restored the CESTAT's decision, allowed re-export, quashed the confiscation and penalty orders – The Court also directed the Customs Authorities to ensure that future laboratory facilities must be equipped to test all parameters essential for classification [Paras 86-90].
 

Service Law – Approval of Charge-sheet – Applicability of Article 311(1) – Approval Held Not Mandatory – The High Court quashed the dismissal order on the ground that the charge-sheet was not approved by the Chief Minister – The Supreme Court held that Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules did not require approval of the charge-sheet by the appointing authority – Further held: Article 311(1) guarantees protection only against dismissal by a subordinate authority but does not mandate initiation of proceedings or issuance of charge-sheet by the appointing authority itself – Approved initiation of proceedings was sufficient [Paras 17-20, 30-33].

Distinction from Gopinath and Promod Kumar – Inapplicability – Rules considered in B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar required explicit approval of charge-sheet, whereas Rule 55 did not – The Court held that precedents relied upon by the High Court were based on different statutory schemes – Hence, misapplied to the present case [Paras 16, 26-28, 34-38].

Subsequent Application of 2016 Rules – Saving Clause in Rule 32(3) – The Court held that proceedings initiated under the 1930 Rules continued validly despite the promulgation of 2016 Rules – Rule 16 permitted disciplinary proceedings to be initiated by authorities other than the appointing authority – Draft charge-sheet having been approved along with initiation proposal was sufficient compliance [Paras 28-30].

Stare Decisis – Long-standing Precedents Upheld – The Court reaffirmed earlier judgments such as Shardul Singh, Srinivasa Sastry, Radhakrishna Moorthy, and Thavasippan – Held: Charge-sheet may be issued by a subordinate officer provided authority to impose penalty vests in competent authority [Paras 21-27].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Dismissal Order Restored – The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court and upheld the dismissal order – Liberty granted to respondent to file departmental appeal or revision within one month, waiving limitation [Paras 40-45].
 

Criminal Proceedings – Cross FIRs between Advocates – Quashing in Interest of Justice – Incident arose from personal animosity between two lawyers – First FIR registered by appellant alleged physical assault; second FIR by respondent alleged abuse and threats – Supreme Court held both FIRs stemmed from same transaction and prolonged animosity – Quashed both FIRs to ensure professional harmony [Paras 1–4, 9, 16–17].

Conduct of Advocate – Threat to Court – Apology and Undertaking Accepted – Appellant threatened suicide during court hearing if FIR against respondent was quashed – Court termed conduct contemptuous but accepted unconditional written apology and undertaking not to repeat – Chose magnanimity over punishment in interest of professional reform [Paras 5, 11–14].

Article 142 – Substantial Justice – Court Power to Quash Proceedings – Court

emphasized duty to deliver justice even where parties fail to appreciate their best interest – Invoked Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings, emphasizing future professional conduct over past conflict [Paras 15–17].

Settlement – Unconditional Apology by Respondent Advocate – Respondent filed affidavit apologizing to Court, Bar Council, Bar Association, and appellant – Undertook to maintain cordial conduct – Court recognized sincerity and included apology on record while granting relief [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR No. 500/2017 and STC No. 607/2019 quashed entirely –

FIR No. 499/2017 and C.C. No. 106/2022 quashed only against second respondent – Apologies and undertakings recorded – Past animosity held resolved through judicial intervention [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction - Inconsistent Witness Testimony – Conviction Set Aside – Deceased Mohan Singh was allegedly attacked by five men – Trial Court convicted all; High Court acquitted one – Remaining four appellants challenged conviction – Supreme Court found key prosecution witnesses (family members) gave embellished versions, timelines contradicted FIR and each other – Held: Evidence untrustworthy, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Convictions set aside [Paras 7–17, 19].

Delay in Recording Witness Statements – Impact on Credibility – Statements of material witnesses, including child witness and wife of deceased, recorded after 7–17 days – Court held such unexplained delay casts serious doubt on credibility and integrity of prosecution case – Investigating Officer’s testimony confirmed discrepancies [Paras 14, 17].

Medical Evidence – Discrepancies on Cause of Death – Post-mortem attributed death to gunshot injury but later clarified as stab wound – Bullet not recovered – Held: Medical evidence failed to support firearm theory – Seizure of pistol from accused Arun rendered inconsequential [Paras 5, 18].

Benefit of Doubt – Sole Reliance on Dubious Oral Testimony – Court emphasized need for credible, corroborated evidence in criminal trials – Rule of caution invoked due to admitted enmity between accused and deceased – Held: Conviction cannot rest solely on suspicious family testimony – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 16, 19–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – All four appellants acquitted – Those on bail discharged; remaining accused (Ramlal) to be released unless required in other matters – Fine amounts to be refunded [Para 20].

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Eviction of Son from Family Home – Claim of SelfAcquired Property – Dispute Pending – Eviction Refused – Appellantmother sought eviction of son Krishna Kumar alleging harassment – Tribunal allowed limited stay; Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction – Supreme Court found property was already transferred by deceased husband to daughters and others – Held: With title under challenge and son not shown to be misbehaving post order, eviction not warranted – Maintenance right under Section 4/5 sufficient [Paras 4–5, 17–29, 33– 35].

Right to Residence – Property Already Transferred – Tribunal’s Power to Evict Limited – Court held that once senior citizen has gifted or sold property, eviction claim loses basis unless transfer itself is void – Since property partly gifted to daughters and sold to third parties, claim of exclusive ownership failed – Eviction jurisdiction under Section 23 not applicable absent interest in property [Paras 24–26, 32].

Pending Civil Suits – Right to Share in Property – Eviction Cannot

Prejudice Title Claims – Respondent-son had filed civil suits claiming 1/6^th share and seeking cancellation of gift deeds – Supreme Court held eviction under Senior Citizens Act should not interfere with pending title adjudication – Tribunal ought to have refrained from ordering eviction until title claims are resolved [Paras 19, 24, 33].

Scope of Tribunal’s Powers – Maintenance, Not Possession – Eviction Discretionary – Tribunal may order eviction only if necessary to protect senior citizens – No post-order misbehavior by son proved – High Court rightly balanced equities and limited son’s occupancy to one room and shop – Appellant’s right to peaceful living protected without ordering eviction [Paras 27–29, 31–34].

Decision: Civil appeal dismissed – High Court’s order setting aside eviction upheld – Tribunal’s conditions on occupancy and maintenance to continue – Eviction may be reconsidered only if misbehavior resumes or title dispute is resolved [Paras 35–37].