Criminal Law – Section 294(b) IPC – Obscene Acts and Songs – The offense under Section 294(b) IPC requires the utterance of obscene words to the annoyance of others – Mere abusive, humiliating, or defamatory words do not constitute an offense under Section 294(b) IPC – Absence of words involving lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings means the offense is not attracted [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Law – Section 341 IPC – Wrongful Restraint – To constitute wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, there must be obstruction preventing a person from proceeding in a direction to which they had a right to proceed – The obstruction must be voluntary, and the obstructor must intend or know that their actions would cause obstruction – The complaint failed to disclose necessary ingredients to constitute wrongful restraint [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Process – Issuance of Process – Judicial Functions – Taking cognizance and issuing process are judicial functions requiring a judicious approach – Issuance of process must be preceded by an application of judicial mind to determine if there are grounds for proceeding against the accused – Vague and general allegations without material particulars do not justify issuing process [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Criminal proceedings in STS No. 566 of 2018 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Tamil Nadu, quashed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Delay in Trial – Even after 11 years since filing the FIR, the trial has not begun due to continuous discharge applications by the accused – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for early conclusion of the trial to maintain faith in the justice system – Directed the trial to be conducted on a day-to-day basis [Paras 1-14].

Bail Conditions – Modification of Conditions – Condition restricting the appellant from entering specific districts in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh upheld – Strong apprehension of witness influence and tampering due to appellant’s power and influence – Past attempts to influence judicial officers noted – Temporary permission granted for appellant to stay in Bellary due to personal circumstances, but must leave before the trial begins [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Application for modification of condition No.(c) dismissed – Directions issued for trial to commence on a day-to-day basis and conclude within six months – Appellant permitted to stay in Bellary temporarily but must leave before the trial starts [Paras 14-15].

Tender Conditions – Judicial Review – Appellant (AAI) challenged the High Court's quashing of its tender conditions for ground handling services, including eligibility criteria and region-wise sub-categorisation of airports – High Court ruled these conditions arbitrary and discriminatory – Supreme Court overturned High Court’s decision, citing principles of judicial restraint in tender matters – Held, terms of the tender within the tendering authority’s domain, not open to judicial scrutiny unless proven arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide [Paras 6, 7, 10-13].

Locus Standi – NGO’s Standing in Tender Disputes – Respondent, an NGO, filed writ petition challenging AAI’s tender conditions – Supreme Court found NGO lacked locus standi as it was not an aggrieved party nor representing a public interest – Emphasized writ petitioners in tender disputes must show direct, tangible interest, and not merely act as advocacy bodies [Paras 5-7, 11].

Clustering of Airports – Rationality and Commercial Wisdom – AAI's decision to cluster 49 airports into region-wise sub-categories aimed at promoting regional connectivity and efficient administration – Supreme Court supported the rationale, holding that commercial and logistical considerations justify such clustering – Judicial interference not warranted unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bias [Paras 3.2, 6-7, 9, 11].

Eligibility Criteria – Technical and Financial Requirements – AAI’s criteria for 36 months of past experience and financial turnover were established based on the nature of services required – High Court's ruling of these criteria as exclusionary and discriminatory overturned – Supreme Court upheld AAI’s right to set criteria ensuring capability and quality of service providers [Paras 2.3, 3.3, 3.4, 6, 9].

MSME Orders – Applicability to Tender Conditions – High Court applied MSME Orders of 2012 and 2018 incorrectly to tender process – Supreme Court clarified that MSME policies aim at procurement, not licensing of services like GHS – AAI's conditions were consistent with objectives and regulatory framework governing airport services [Paras 3.8-3.9, 7, 11].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing AAI’s tender conditions set aside – AAI's tender criteria upheld as rational, fair, and within its policy-making domain – Writ petition by respondent NGO dismissed for lack of locus standi [Paras 12-13].

Land Lease – No Objection Certificate – Appellant (State of Maharashtra) challenged the High Court's ruling that invalidated the requirement for a No Objection Certificate from the Collector for flat transfers in specified buildings – High Court found the requirement unjustified under the applicable Government Resolutions and lease terms – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the lease terms and the Government Resolutions of 1983 and 1999 did not mandate such a requirement for the formed Co-operative Society [Paras 1-16].

Lease Terms and Conditions – Applicability of Government Resolutions – Plot leased to a builder for construction and sale of flats to private individuals – Flats subsequently transferred to a Co-operative Society – Supreme Court noted that the Government Resolutions of 1983 and 1999, which pertain to concessional land allotments to Co-operative Societies, did not apply to this scenario where the lease was initially granted to a builder following a successful bid [Paras 11-15].

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Sections 40 and 295 – State's power to dispose of land under Section 40 – Specific provisions for reclaimed land under Section 295 – Supreme Court held that the general powers of the State under Section 40 did not override the specific lease terms agreed upon with the builder and subsequently the Co-operative Society [Paras 9-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Requirement for No Objection Certificate from the Collector invalidated – Interim stay of the direction for refund of the amount granted by Supreme Court vacated.

Appointment – Legal Principles and Time Frame – The respondent applied for compassionate appointment 14 years after the death of her father, who was an employee of the Compassionate appellant – High Court directed reconsideration of the application – Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and aims to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased – Held, application made after 24 years from the employee's death does not meet the objective of compassionate appointment, which is to alleviate immediate hardship [Paras 6-9].

Object and Purpose – Immediate Relief – Supreme Court reiterated that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to help the family tide over sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner – Emphasized that it is not a means to secure employment irrespective of the time elapsed since the death – Held, reconsideration of such application after 24 years defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment [Paras 8-9].

Eligibility and Norms – Humanitarian Consideration – Supreme Court cited previous judgments to underline that compassionate appointment should be strictly governed by the policy in place at the time of the employee's death – Applications must be timely and based on current policy norms, not those at the time of the applicant’s majority or other subsequent changes in the applicant's circumstances [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment directing reconsideration of the respondent's application for compassionate appointment set aside – Supreme Court held that such direction, after a lapse of 24 years from the employee's death, is against the principles and purpose of compassionate appointment [Paras 9-10].

Interest Award – Discretion of Arbitral Tribunal – Appellant challenged the arbitral award including interest at 18% per annum for various periods – Supreme Court held that while the arbitral tribunal has discretion to award interest, it must justify the reasonableness of the rate – Held, awarding 18% interest without reasoning deemed unreasonable, especially given the respondent's delay in pursuing claims [Paras 7, 10-13].

Delay in Raising Claims – Impact on Interest Award – Respondent delayed raising claims for 12 years and further delayed arbitration proceedings – Supreme Court found that such delays should affect the entitlement to interest – Directed exclusion of interest for periods of inactivity by the respondent [Paras 12-14].

Reasonable Interest Rate – Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court referenced prior judgments to determine a reasonable interest rate in arbitration cases – Held, interest rate should be aligned with economic conditions and reduced from 18% to 9% for the pre-reference, pendente lite, and post-award periods [Paras 15-20].

Article 142 of the Constitution – Power to Do Complete Justice – Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 to adjust the interest rate, ensuring it reflects current economic realities and serves justice [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Interest for periods of respondent's inactivity excluded – Interest rate for remaining periods reduced to 9% per annum – Execution proceedings to proceed in accordance with the revised calculations [Paras 21-23].

Preventive Detention – Delay in Passing Detention Order – Appellant challenged the detention order passed five months after the proposal – Supreme Court held that the delay snapped the "live and proximate link" between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention – Held, the unexplained delay vitiated the detention order, rendering it invalid [Paras 12-15, 20-21].

Detention Order – Consideration of Bail Status – Detaining authority unaware of appellant’s release on bail in both criminal cases – Supreme Court found the omission of this vital fact critical, as it could influence the detaining authority's decision – Held, detention order invalid due to non-consideration of appellant’s bail status [Paras 22-28].

Legal Principles – Subjective Satisfaction – Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of genuine subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, which must consider all relevant facts, including bail status – Any suppression or non-disclosure of material facts vitiates the detention order [Paras 24-28].

Preventive Detention – Constitutional Safeguards – Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to safeguards provided under the Constitution and relevant enactments, given the serious invasion of personal liberty in preventive detention cases [Para 28].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment upholding the detention order set aside – Detention order dated 12.11.2021 quashed – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 29-30].

Bail – Adequacy of Reasons – Appellant challenged the High Court’s order granting bail to the first respondent – Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order lacked specific reasons and was formulaic – Held, courts must provide clear reasons based on the case's facts when granting bail in serious criminal matters, considering factors such as the crime's gravity, the accused's role, potential witness tampering, and the accused's availability for trial [Paras 10-11, 13].

Serious Offence – Consideration of Evidence – High Court failed to consider critical aspects such as the nature of the crime, role of the accused, and evidence indicating the first respondent’s involvement – Supreme Court highlighted the importance of considering these factors, especially in serious offences like murder, when deciding on bail applications [Paras 15-19].

Interference with Trial – Impact of Bail on Trial Progress – Evidence showed that the first respondent, after being granted bail, avoided trial proceedings, leading to delays – Supreme Court emphasized that bail should not be granted if it disrupts the judicial process or trial progress [Para 19].

Judicial Discretion – Requirement for Reasoned Decisions – Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court’s generic reasoning for granting bail and underscored the necessity for reasoned judicial orders that reflect a thorough consideration of case-specific facts and circumstances [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s order granting bail to the first respondent set aside – First respondent directed to surrender within two weeks – Supreme Court clarified that observations made in the order shall not affect the merits of the trial [Paras 20-22].

Land Acquisition – Enhanced Compensation – Appellant challenged the High Court's order permitting MTDC to withdraw the amount deposited towards enhanced compensation – Supreme Court held that the intent of its previous order was to allow the claimants to receive the entire enhanced compensation, with 50% released without security and 50% with security – Held, High Court erred in allowing MTDC to withdraw the deposited amount [Paras 9-13].

Judicial Interpretation – Substantive Justice over Technicalities – Supreme Court emphasized that its orders should be understood on their substance rather than technicalities – In matters of compensation to land losers, the view advancing the cause of justice should be preferred over technical interpretations [Para 14].

Compensation Payment – Purpose and Justice – Supreme Court reiterated that compensation payment should be timely and effectively reach the claimants – Observed that procedural technicalities should not impede the rightful compensation to those who lost their land [Para 14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s order permitting withdrawal of the deposited compensation set aside – MTDC’s application for withdrawal of the deposited amount rejected – Supreme Court emphasized the need to prioritize substantive justice in compensation matters [Paras 13-15].