Sports Governance – Applicability of S. Nithya directions to Cricket Associations – High Court applied directions mandating 75% eminent sportsperson membership and sports-person-only office bearers to District Cricket Association – Supreme Court held that S. Nithya arose in context of athletics governance and National Sports Code and cannot automatically extend to cricket associations governed by BCCI framework – Directions in S. Nithya inapplicable to district cricket bodies [Paras 10–15].

Cricket Administration – BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar – Scope and extent – Whether District Associations bound to model constitution strictly in terms of BCCI Constitution – Held: BCCI judgment required State Associations to align with BCCI Constitution but did not mandate District Associations to adopt identical constitutional structure – No material placed to show binding consensus or judicial direction requiring district bodies to replicate BCCI Constitution – High Court erred in effectively imposing such restructuring [Paras 17–20].

Fundamental Rights – Article 19(1)(c) – Right to form association – Regulatory control – Extracts from BCCI reiterated – Right protects original voluntary composition of association but does not guarantee unhindered pursuit of objectives free from regulation – However, in absence of specific mandate, judicial review cannot compel district association to restructure constitution beyond BCCI ratio [Paras 18, 20].

Judicial Review – Limits in matters of sports governance – Court declined to judicially enforce structural reforms akin to BCCI upon District Association – Nevertheless emphasized necessity of voluntary reforms ensuring transparency, good governance, conflict-free administration and professionalism in district sports bodies – Observations on constitutional value of fraternity and equitable access to sporting resources [Paras 21–23].

Elections of District Cricket Association – Pending proceedings under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act – Issues relating to life membership, composition and inquiry under Section 36 pending before High Court and statutory authority – Supreme Court refrained from commenting on proposed amendments – Directed expeditious disposal of writ appeals and statutory enquiry to enable conduct of elections at earliest – Appeal partly allowed and impugned judgment set aside to extent indicated [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Appeal(s) partly allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside to extent it applied S. Nithya directions to appellant District Cricket Association – Issues relating to membership and composition left open to be decided by High Court/statutory authority – Direction for expeditious disposal to facilitate conduct of elections – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Regularization – Casual/Daily-wage Workers – Income Tax Department – Appellants engaged as Sweeper/Cook through Employment Exchange and continued for long duration – Tribunal and High Court denied regularization relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) on ground that ten years’ service as on 10.04.2006 not completed – Supreme Court held denial unsustainable in view of parity with similarly situated employees regularized earlier – Appellants entitled to regularization [Paras 2–5, 10].

Equality – Discrimination – Similarly Situated Employees – List of daily-wage workers as on 31.10.2005 (Page 6–7 of record) included names of present appellants along with Ravi Verma and others whose services were regularized by this Court – Subsequent lists dated 11.11.2005 and 31.01.2008 also contained their names – Held: Once similarly placed workers were regularized, denial to present appellants amounts to discrimination – Principle of equal treatment applied [Paras 6–8].

Regularization – Application of Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar – In Ravi Verma v. Union of India, services of daily-wage workers regularized from 01.07.2006 on ground of discriminatory treatment – Followed in Raman Kumar v. Union of India – Present appellants held identically situated and entitled to same benefit from 01.07.2006 with consequential benefits [Paras 6–8, 11].

Umadevi (3) – Distinction between “Illegal” and “Irregular” Appointments – Reliance on Jaggo v. Union of India – Court reiterated that Umadevi does not intend to penalize long-serving employees performing perennial and sanctioned work – Outsourcing of same work indicates perennial nature – Where appointments are not illegal but at best irregular and employees have rendered long, continuous service, fair regularization warranted – Mechanical reliance on Umadevi deprecated [Paras 9–10].

Outsourcing Policy – Perennial Nature of Work – Subsequent outsourcing of duties earlier performed by appellants demonstrates continuing and indispensable requirement of services – Refusal of regularization on mere procedural technicalities contrary to principles of fairness and equity [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court dated 26.08.2019 set aside – Services of appellants directed to be regularized w.e.f. 01.07.2006 on same terms as in Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar – Consequential benefits to be released within three months – Intervenors also entitled to same relief – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Anticipatory Bail – Absconding Accused – Murder Case – Accused named in FIR involving unlawful assembly, firing and death by gunshot – Accused absconded since date of incident and did not cooperate with investigation for about six years – Reward declared for arrest – Held: As a general rule, absconding accused not entitled to anticipatory bail – Exceptional relief possible only if prima facie case of false implication made out – No such exceptional circumstances shown – High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail [Paras 40–44, 45].

Section 438 CrPC – Exercise of Discretion – High Court directed accused to surrender and mandated trial court to grant regular bail same day – Held: Discretion under Section 438 must be exercised judiciously considering gravity of offence, role attributed, criminal antecedents, likelihood of absconding, threat to witnesses – Impugned order failed to consider relevant factors and was perverse and unjustified [Paras 37–39, 45].

Parity – Acquittal of Co-accused – Effect on Absconding Accused – Co-accused acquitted after trial – Accused sought anticipatory bail citing parity – Held: Acquittal of co-accused does not ipso facto entitle absconding accused to bail – In trial against co-accused, prosecution not obliged to adduce evidence against absconding accused – Findings in such trial irrelevant for anticipatory bail of absconder – Parity wrongly applied [Paras 47–49].

Abscondence – Proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC – Even if formal proclamation not conclusively proved, conduct of accused in evading investigation relevant – Mere technical defect in proclamation cannot justify grant of pre-arrest bail in grave offence – Abscondence weighs heavily against grant of anticipatory bail [Paras 42–43].

Witness Intimidation – Criminal Antecedents – FIR lodged alleging threat to injured eye-witness for opposing bail – Multiple criminal cases pending against accused – Firearms allegedly not recovered – Risk of influencing witnesses and obstructing justice significant – High Court failed to consider these material aspects [Paras 45–46].

Appellate Interference – Grant of Bail – Distinction from Cancellation – Appeal against grant of bail maintainable where order is perverse, illegal or ignores relevant considerations – Post-bail conduct irrelevant for appeal against grant; relevant only for cancellation – Impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and warranted interference [Paras 38, 51].

Judicial Process – Message to Society – Grant of anticipatory bail to long-absconding accused undermines rule of law and incentivises evasion of legal process – Courts must not permit accused to benefit from own misconduct [Para 50].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 19.01.2024 granting anticipatory bail set aside – Accused directed to surrender before concerned Court within four weeks – Liberty granted to seek regular bail to be decided on its own merits – Observations confined to present proceedings.

Education Service – Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) – SET Qualification – Concerned Subject Requirement – Appellant appointed as HSST (Economics) possessing SET in Malayalam but not in Economics – Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) requires pass in SET for HSST – Though phrase “in the concerned subject” not expressly repeated in clause (iii), purposive and contextual interpretation mandates that SET must correspond to subject of appointment – Possession of SET in unrelated subject insufficient – High Court’s interpretation upheld [Paras 13–16, 21–22, 27.1].

Statutory Interpretation – Purposive Construction – Text and Context – Rule cannot be read in isolation – Court relied on Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance to hold that interpretation must advance object and suppress mischief – Reading Rule 6 with scheme of SET prospectus shows subject-specific testing – Literal omission cannot defeat legislative intent of maintaining academic standards at Higher Secondary level [Paras 15–18, 21–22].

SET Prospectus – Scheme of Examination – Paper II based on subject of Postgraduate specialisation – Demonstrates that SET is inherently subject-specific – Therefore, requirement of passing SET necessarily implies qualification in concerned subject – Accepting contrary view would lead to absurdity permitting appointment of teacher tested in unrelated discipline [Paras 18–21].

Exemption from SET – Rule 10(4) – Ten Years’ Approved Teaching Service – Appellant had only 9 years 10 months and 14 days of eligible High School teaching service – Did not satisfy statutory minimum of ten years – Not entitled to exemption from SET – Claim rejected [Para 26].

Executive Clarification – Government Letter dated 18.01.2021 – Clarified that SET must be in respective subject for HSST appointment – Held consistent with statutory scheme and not contrary to Rules – Cannot be said to impermissibly amend the Rule when read in proper context [Para 17, 27.1].

Distinction Between Cadres – Chapter XXXI (HSA) and Chapter XXXII (HSST) – Higher Secondary cadre governed by distinct statutory framework with higher academic standards – Full Bench decision in Girija (relating to HSA and B.Ed.) not applicable – High Court correctly distinguished precedent [Paras 23–24].

Competing Candidate – Eligibility – Respondent No. 4 possessed BA, MA in Economics, B.Ed. and SET in Economics – Fully satisfied statutory eligibility – Direction to consider her claim with consequential benefits upheld [Paras 25, 27.2].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment affirmed – Appellant held ineligible for appointment as HSST (Economics) for lack of SET in concerned subject and for not qualifying for exemption under Rule 10(4) – Authorities directed to issue necessary orders within two months – No recovery of excess salary from appellant.

Criminal Law – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Alleged Forged Gift Deed – Appellant accused of forging notarized gift deed and transferring landed property of respondent-complainant – Investigation did not send admitted signatures for expert comparison – Dispute essentially arising out of property transactions between brothers – Held: Prima facie dispute bore predominant civil flavour and continuance of criminal proceedings not expedient in interest of justice after settlement [Paras 8–10, 19].

Quashing of Proceedings – Settlement Between Parties – Compensation Paid – During pendency of appeal, Court referred matter to mediation – Appellant agreed to compensate respondent – Court fixed Rs.60 lakhs as reasonable compensation – Amount paid in six equated monthly instalments and receipt not disputed – Held: In view of full payment and resolution of dispute, impugned orders taking cognizance and affirming same liable to be set aside and criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 15–20].

Exercise of Power under Article 136 – Prevention of Abuse of Process – Cognizance taken under Sections 420, 423, 468/469, 471 and 201 IPC – Considering familial relationship and settlement, further continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – All proceedings arising from Chargesheet No.133 of 2011 quashed – Parties restrained from instituting further civil or criminal proceedings in relation to disputed lands [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Orders dated 24.12.2011 (S.D.J.M., Berhampur) and 16.12.2020 (High Court of Orissa in Criminal Revision No.196 of 2012) set aside – Criminal proceedings arising out of PS Case No.55 of 2009 and Chargesheet No.133 of 2011 quashed – No further proceedings, civil or criminal, to be initiated regarding subject lands – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 20–23].

Essential Commodities Act – Section 3 r/w Section 7 – Cement – Decontrol – Appellants convicted for unauthorised possession of Government quota cement allegedly diverted from PWD supply – Incident dated 24.03.1994 – By Cement Control (Amendment) Order, 1989, price and distribution control of cement withdrawn w.e.f. 01.03.1989 – Further delegation to States regarding retail cement licensing rescinded on 07.08.1990 – Held: On date of alleged offence no subsisting control order under Section 3 was in force – Conviction under Section 7 legally unsustainable [Paras 14–16, 19].

Delegated Legislation – Omission of statutory provisions – Effect – Where statutory control provisions are unconditionally omitted and no saving clause preserves future prosecutions – Proceedings founded on such omitted provisions cannot be sustained – Applied principle in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India – In absence of operative order, prosecution under E.C. Act misconceived [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Liability – Requirement of Proof of Contravention – For conviction under Section 7 E.C. Act, prosecution must establish existence and violation of a valid and operative order issued under Section 3 – Failure to produce any such subsisting order or notification fatal to prosecution – Courts below erred in affirming conviction solely on appreciation of evidence without examining statutory foundation [Paras 16–17, 25].

Diversion of Government Property – IPC Offences – Court clarified that though prosecution under E.C. Act fails due to decontrol, diversion or dishonest retention of Government-supplied cement may attract offences under Indian Penal Code if ingredients satisfied – Investigating agency failed to invoke appropriate IPC provisions – High Court cannot substitute conviction under distinct offence for first time in appeal [Paras 22, 27].

CrPC – Section 222 – Minor Offence – Trial Court empowered to convict for minor offence if ingredients made out and no prejudice caused – However, no such exercise undertaken in present case – Lapse attributable to investigating agency [Para 26–27].

Appreciation of Evidence – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court and High Court recorded findings regarding diversion and unauthorised storage of cement – However, in absence of legal basis under E.C. Act, such factual findings insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 3 r/w Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act set aside – Bail bonds cancelled – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Pending applications disposed of.

Constitution of India – Article 32 – Right to Speedy Justice – Petition by victim’s legal heir alleging prolonged delay in pronouncement of judgment in criminal revisions pending before High Court – Judgment reserved in revisions since 05.02.2020 but not pronounced – Consequential stay stalled trial arising out of murder case of 1994 – Held: Although Supreme Court ordinarily does not supervise listing or functioning of High Courts, extraordinary intervention may be warranted where prolonged inaction results in infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 – Delay in adjudication affecting criminal justice process considered serious constitutional concern [Paras 3, 6].

Constitution of India – Article 139A – Withdrawal of cases from High Court – Power of Supreme Court to withdraw proceedings involving substantial questions of general importance – Court held that continued pendency of criminal revisions and non-pronouncement of judgment despite earlier directions of Supreme Court raised issues relating to enforcement of constitutional guarantees and administration of criminal justice – Held: Appropriate to withdraw pending criminal revisions from Allahabad High Court for adjudication by Supreme Court to ensure effective and time-bound resolution [Paras 4–8].

Criminal Law – Withdrawal of prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Trial court partly allowed application for withdrawal of prosecution against one accused and rejected withdrawal against remaining accused – Revisions filed by accused pending before High Court since 2012 – Supreme Court earlier in Criminal Appeal No.2914/2024 set aside withdrawal of prosecution for one accused and directed reconsideration of remaining revisions – Non-disposal of revisions despite such direction necessitated intervention [Paras 7–8].

Criminal Justice Administration – Delay in adjudication – Impact on trial – Court noted that stay operating in criminal revisions effectively stalled trial arising from incident dated 30.05.1994 for decades – Held: Such prolonged stagnation undermines credibility of criminal justice system and prejudices victims and prosecution alike – Supreme Court exercised constitutional powers to restore effectiveness of adjudicatory process [Paras 6–8].

Judicial Discipline – Binding effect of Supreme Court judgments – Court emphasized that directions issued in earlier judgment must be implemented in light of Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution – Withdrawal of pending revisions ensured proper implementation of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling [Para 7].

Decision: Notice issued. In exercise of powers under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution, Criminal Revision Nos. 1678/2012, 1874/2012 and 1900/2012 pending before the Allahabad High Court withdrawn to the Supreme Court for disposal and tagged with the present writ petition. Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court directed to transmit complete records within three weeks.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Spectrum as Asset – Whether amenable to CIRP – Core Issue – Question whether TSPs can invoke moratorium under IBC to restructure spectrum usage rights and wipe off licence dues – Held: Spectrum allocated to TSPs and reflected as “intangible asset” in books of account cannot be subjected to proceedings under IBC – IBC cannot be guiding principle for restructuring ownership and control of spectrum [Paras 1–1.2, 69(A)].

Natural Resources – Spectrum – Public Trust Doctrine – Spectrum recognised as scarce and finite natural resource – Ownership vests in people of India with Union holding it as trustee – Allocation must subserve common good under Article 39(b) – Licence confers only limited, conditional and revocable privilege – No proprietary interest transferred to TSPs [Paras 13–17, 24].

Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 4 – Exclusive Privilege of Union – Central Government has exclusive privilege to establish and license telecommunication systems – Licence is statutory contract emanating from sovereign power – Conditions including licence fee and spectrum usage charges integral to privilege – Failure to comply empowers suspension or termination – Control always retained by Licensor [Paras 18–19, 32–36].

Spectrum Trading Guidelines, 2015 – Regulatory Supremacy – Trading subject to prior approval and mandatory clearance of dues – Defaulting licensee cannot transfer spectrum without compliance with Guidelines 10, 11 and 12 – Insolvency process cannot override statutory and regulatory conditions governing spectrum transfer – IBC cannot substitute telecom regulatory approvals [Paras 26–30].

Accounting Treatment – Intangible Asset – Ownership Distinguished – Recognition of spectrum usage rights as “intangible asset” under AS 26/Ind AS 38 based on control and future economic benefits – Accounting recognition does not equate to ownership or transfer of title – Ownership not essential for accounting asset but essential under Sections 18 and 36 IBC – Spectrum remains property of Union [Paras 47–58].

IBC – Sections 18 and 36 – Assets of Corporate Debtor – Only assets over which corporate debtor has ownership rights fall within CIRP/liquidation estate – Explanation excludes assets owned by third party held under contractual arrangement without transfer of title – Spectrum licence does not create ownership rights – Hence excluded from insolvency pool [Paras 60–63].

Harmonious Construction – IBC vis-à-vis Telecom Laws – Where two special statutes operate, Court must reconcile – Telecom laws constitute complete code governing allocation, use and transfer of spectrum – IBC cannot trench upon sovereign and statutory powers relating to natural resources – Applying IBC to restructure spectrum would disturb legislative scheme – Embassy Property applied [Paras 64–68].

Moratorium – Section 14 IBC – Limited Scope – Moratorium preserves status quo but does not create new rights – Cannot be invoked to compel renewal, transfer or continuation of statutory licence contrary to governing law – Insolvency proceedings cannot neutralise sovereign control over natural resources [Paras 65, 67].

Operational Debt – DoT Dues – Though NCLAT treated licence dues as operational debt, Supreme Court clarified that spectrum itself cannot form insolvency asset – Regulatory dues arising from sovereign grant cannot be wiped off through CIRP – Insolvency cannot be used as device to evade statutory obligations [Paras 9, 67–68].

Statutory Interpretation – Dominant Purpose Test – IBC intended for insolvency resolution and value maximisation of corporate debtor – Telegraph Act, TRAI Act and Wireless Telegraphy Act govern telecom sector exclusively – Distinct subjects and purposes – IBC cannot override telecom regulatory regime merely by broad reading of “asset” or Section 238 [Paras 66–68].

Decision: Civil Appeal Nos. 1810, 2227, 2263, 4570 and 4571 of 2021 dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 6546 of 2021 filed by Union of India allowed in part – Spectrum allocated to TSPs cannot be subjected to IBC proceedings – Parties to bear own costs [Para 69].

Service Law - Armed Forces – Disability Pension – Broad Banding – Arrears – Limitation – Conflicting decisions of Armed Forces Tribunal regarding restriction of arrears to three years – Supreme Court held that once entitlement to broad banding of disability pension stood judicially affirmed in Union of India v. Ram Avtar (2014), arrears cannot be curtailed by invoking limitation, delay or laches – Benefit payable from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable [Paras 8, 23; ].

Pension – Nature of Right – Disability Pension – Not bounty or largesse – Deferred compensation and vested right – Pensionary benefits partake character of property – Any deprivation of accrued arrears without authority of law violates Article 300A – Disability pension recognises sacrifice in service of nation [Paras 15, 19; ].

Judgment in Rem – Ram Avtar (2014) – Three-Judge Bench decision extending broad banding to personnel retiring on completion of tenure – Held: Judgment is in rem – Union of India ought to have extended benefit uniformly instead of compelling ex-servicemen to litigate individually – Rights crystallised on 10.12.2014 [Paras 13–16; ].

Policy Decision – Government Communications – Letters dated 15.09.2014, 18.04.2016 and 10.10.2018 reflected conscious policy decision to grant arrears from 01.01.1996/01.01.2006 – Having taken policy decision with financial concurrence, Union of India cannot resile and restrict arrears to three years – Selective application impermissible [Paras 17–19; ].

Limitation and Section 22 AFT Act – Continuing/Recurring Right – Claims for re-computation of disability pension not barred – Right to approach Tribunal accrued only after decision in Ram Avtar – Objections founded on delay and limitation held without merit – Tarsem Singh distinguished [Paras 21–22; ].

Recurring Cause of Action – Disability pension being a continuing entitlement, once found due, arrears must flow from date of accrual – Benefit cannot be confined to three years preceding application [Paras 20–21; ].

Decision: Appeals filed by Union of India dismissed – Appeals filed by ex-servicemen allowed – Orders of Tribunal restricting arrears to three years set aside – Ex-servicemen held entitled to disability pension with benefit of broad banding from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable, along with interest @ 6% per annum – No order as to costs.