Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Revisional Power – Opportunity of hearing to proposed accused – Violation of sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the Code – Appellants contend that while exercising revisional power, the High Court should have given opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused as they would be prejudiced by the order – Appellants rely on the interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 401 in Manharbhai Muljibhai Kapadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Others (2012) 10 SCC 517 – High Court allowed revision filed by complainant against dismissal of application under Section 156(3) of the Code – Direction to register FIR against appellants – Proposed accused not served notice of revision proceedings – Violation of sub-section (2) of Section 401 – Order set aside – Matter remitted back to High Court to decide revision afresh. ( Para No.2 & 6)

§ Sexual harassment inquiry - Procedure to be followed - Importance of fair and impartial inquiry process - Inadequate understanding by the Executive Council (EC) of the role of the first committee as an inquiry authority - Procedural lapses in the subsequent inquiry proceedings - Violation of principles of natural justice - Decision to terminate services quashed. (Para 1, 70-72)

§ Committee's misunderstanding of its role - EC's failure to verify legal position - Procedural fairness sacrificed for expeditious disposal - Non-compliance with prescribed inquiry procedure - Importance of adhering to principles of natural justice. (Para 66-69)

§ Balance between victim's rights and delinquent employee's rights - Fairness in procedure necessary for both parties - Proviso of "as far as practicable" to be interpreted pragmatically - Calibrated approach required. (Para 69)

§ Procedural lapses in inquiry proceedings - Glaring defects in process - Undue anxiety leading to rushed hearings and inadequate time for defense preparation - Detrimental effect on fairness of the process. (Para 71)

§ Legitimacy of decision dependent on fairness of process - Decision not withstand judicial scrutiny - Fair procedure guarantees fair outcome - Anxiety for fairness causing greater harm in this case. (Para 72-73)

§ Proceedings conducted by the committee fell short of prescribed norms - Exercise of discretion by the committee improper - Violation of principles of natural justice - Impugned judgment quashed. (Para 73)

§ Directions for a fair inquiry process - Remand of matter to Complaints Committee - Adequate opportunity to be afforded to the appellant for defense - No adjournment sought by appellant - Submission of report by the committee - Completion of entire process within three months - Application of principles of natural justice and relevant rules. (Para 77)

§ Reflection on the working of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act - Importance of properly constituted internal complaints committees - Lapses in enforcement - Need for strict compliance and proactive approach - Education and awareness programs for complainants and committee members. (Para 74-76)

§ Implementation of directions - Time-bound verification of constitution and composition of ICCs/LCs/ICs - Availability of information on websites - Orientation and capacity-building programs - Inclusion in the annual calendars of various bodies and authorities - Responsibilities of the Union of India, state governments, and other entities - Affidavits for reporting compliance to be filed within eight weeks. (Para 77)

Appeal Allowed.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Bail - Grant of bail in connection with scheduled offences under the PML Act - Appellant, Directorate of Enforcement, challenged the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent accused - Appellant contended that the High Court failed to consider the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act and the seriousness of the scheduled offences - It was argued that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate was still ongoing - High Court's decision was based on the completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet for the predicated offences – Held - High Court erred in not considering the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act and the nature of allegations - Investigation for scheduled offences under the PML Act is distinct from investigation for predicated offences - Merely filing chargesheet for predicated offences cannot be a ground for releasing accused on bail for scheduled offences - High Court's decision set aside - Matter remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of bail applications in light of the observations made - Appeals allowed. (Para 1-8)

Designation of Senior Advocates in India - Historical and Legal background - Origin of distinguished class of senior pleaders - Serjeants-at-Law and King's/Queen's Counsel in the United Kingdom - Introduction of Senior Advocates in India as a mark of excellence and recognition of professional eminence. (Para 1-2)  Criteria for designation of Senior Advocates - Evolution and development of criteria over the years - Parameters of ability, standing at the Bar, special knowledge, and experience in law - Discretion of higher judiciary in designating Senior Advocates. (Para 3-6)

2017 Judgment and Guidelines - Petition challenging the existing system of designation - Flaws in objectivity, fairness, and transparency - Introduction of Permanent Committee and objective assessment criteria - Point-based format for evaluation - Importance of constitution and functioning of the Committee. (Para 8-11)

Voting by secret ballot - Role and limitations of secret ballot in designation process - Exceptional circumstances for resorting to secret ballot - Importance of transparency and selection over election. (Para 15-20)

Cut-off marks - Publication and communication of cut-off marks - Difficulties in prescribing cut-off marks in advance - Flexibility in determining the number of successful applicants based on overall evaluation and interview process. (Para 21-22)

Points assigned for publications - Debate on the significance and quality of publications in assessing advocacy skills - Reduction of points allocated for publications from 15 to 5 - Inclusion of teaching assignments and guest courses delivered at law schools. (Para 23-28)

Criteria on account of various parameters - Role of reported and unreported judgments in designation process - Assessment of the advocate's role in the proceedings rather than the number of appearances - Consideration of quality of synopses filed in court. (Para 29-35)

Specialization and diversity - Recognition of specialized tribunals and expertise in specific fields of law - Concessions for advocates specializing in such areas - Importance of diversity in gender and first-generation lawyers for encouraging merit-based designations. (Para 35-37)

Personal interview - Need for a personal and in-depth examination of candidates - Assessment of articulation, precision, and suitability during interviews - Streamlining the number of interviews for efficiency. (Para 38-41)

General aspects - Frequency of designation process - Inclusion of younger advocates - Power of suo motu designation - Limited scope of the present judgment in fine-tuning guidelines. (Para 42-48)

Pending applications - Consideration of pending applications under the new guidelines - Opportunity for candidates to update or replace their applications - Expeditious processing of pending applications by the Secretariat. (Para 49)

Objective of the designation process - Providing better assistance to litigants and the courts - Continuous improvement in the designation process. (Para 50)

Sales Tax - Exemption - Amendment to definition of "manufacture" - Claim for exemption from payment of sales tax after amendment excluding "tea blending" from the definition of "manufacture" - Court's analysis of the relevant provisions and submissions of the parties - Appellants' contention on legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel - Court's rejection of such contentions - Nature of exemption as subject to fulfillment of conditions and within the purview of the state government's policy decision - Withdrawal of exemption as prospective, not retrospective - Court's interpretation of Section 39 of the Act, 1994 - Appellants' ceasing to be manufacturers as per amended definition - Court's ruling that appellants not entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax after the amendment. [Para 8]

Promissory Estoppel - Applicability against a statute - Court's observation that there cannot be promissory estoppel against a statute. [Para 8.2]

Vested Right - Existing right - Distinction - Court's finding that the case involves an existing right, which can be varied, modified, or withdrawn, rather than a vested right - Court's rejection of the argument that "vested right" in favor of the appellants could not be taken away by the amendment. [Para 8.3]

Policy Decision - Exemption from sales tax - Court's recognition of the state government's authority in granting, continuing, or withdrawing the exemption - Reluctance of the court to interfere with policy decisions unless withdrawal is found to be arbitrary. [Para 8.4]

Prospective Withdrawal - Amendment to definition of "manufacture" - Court's categorization of the withdrawal of exemption as prospective rather than retrospective - Court's ruling that the appellants' entitlement to exemption ceased from the date of the amendment, as they ceased to be manufacturers under the amended definition. [Para 8.5]

Section 39 of the Act, 1994 - Relevant provision for claiming exemption - Court's interpretation of Section 39 and its emphasis on the term "manufacture" as a condition sine qua non for availing exemption - Effect of ceasing to be a manufacturer on eligibility for exemption. [Para 8.4 and 8.5]

Sales Tax Exemption - No claim as a matter of right - Court's affirmation that nobody can claim exemption from sales tax as a matter of right - Requirement of fulfilling conditions for availing exemption. [Para 8.7]

Court's Decision - Appeals dismissed - Court's agreement with the view of the tribunal and the high court that the appellants are not entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax after the amendment to the definition of "manufacture" - Dismissal of the appeals. [Para 9]

Pre-referral jurisdiction of the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015 - Whether the court should decide the issue of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement at the pre-referral stage or leave it to the arbitral tribunal. [Para 1]

Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act - Post the Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015, the jurisdiction of the court under Section 11(6) of the Act is limited to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. [Para 5.2]

Distinction between the existence and validity of an arbitration clause and non-arbitrability of the dispute - The referral court must conclusively decide the issue of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement at the pre-referral stage, as it goes to the root of the matter. [Para 5.3]

Observations in the impugned order - The referral court failed to decide conclusively on the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, leaving it to be determined by the arbitral tribunal. [Para 6]

Interconnectedness of the agreements - The issue of the agreements being interconnected and the reliance on precedents were not addressed by the Supreme Court, as it should be considered by the referral court. [Para 7]

Remittance of the case - The matter is remitted back to the High Court/referral court to decide the arbitration petitions afresh, taking into consideration the observations made in the Supreme Court's judgment. [Para 8]

No expression of opinion on merits - The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement and the interconnectedness of the agreements. [Para 8]

Timeline for the decision - The referral court is directed to complete the decision on the arbitration petitions within three months from the date of receipt of the Supreme Court's order. [Para 8]

No order as to costs - In the given circumstances, no order is made regarding costs. [Para 8]

Appeal Allowed.

Promotion to the post of District Judge based on principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test - Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - Recruitment Notice - Compliance with directions in the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. - Distinction between promotion based on merit-cum-seniority and promotion strictly on merit - Purpose of limited competitive examination - Relevance of length of service and practical experience - Distinct rules in different states - Adoption of wrong promotion method. (Para 8)

Wrong method of promotion adopted by the High Court - Contrary to observations in the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. and Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - Merit list and promotion solely on the basis of merit-cum-seniority - Denial of promotion to meritorious candidates - Principle of merit-cum-seniority affected. (Para 8.3, 8.4, 8.9)

Inapplicability of previous decisions - Decision in C.P. Kalra prior to the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. - No direct controversy on merit-cum-seniority - Importance of merit and ability - Decision in V.K. Srivastava and Ors. not supporting promotees' arguments - Lower merit candidates promoted over higher merit candidates. (Para 8.7, 8.8)

Illegal and contrary nature of impugned Select List and Notification - Non-sustainability - Stay on implementation and operation of the Select List and Notification - Promotees to return to original posts pending final outcome of writ petition - Stay order limited to non-top 68 candidates in Merit List. (Para 9)

Referral of matter to bench headed by Chief Justice of India for final hearing - Importance of the case and directions in the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. - Obtaining appropriate orders from Chief Justice on the administrative side - Scheduling of final hearing. (Para 10)

Customs duty exemption - Withdrawal of notification - Validity - Challenge to the withdrawal of a customs notification - Whether the withdrawal of the exemption notification was valid - Whether the withdrawal was in furtherance of public interest - Whether the withdrawal violated the principle of promissory estoppel - held that the withdrawal of the exemption notification by the government was valid and in furtherance of public interest [Para 2]

Exercise of power in public interest - Scope of judicial review - The power to grant or withdraw exemptions is within the exclusive domain of the executive government, which must exercise such power in the public interest - Judicial review is limited to determining the legality, bona fides, and relevance of the reasons given by the government - Merits, sufficiency, and wisdom of the economic measure are not subject to judicial scrutiny. [Para 28]

Relevant considerations for withdrawal of exemption - Availability of similar equipment manufactured domestically - The availability of equipment similar to the imported machinery within the country is a relevant factor for withdrawing the exemption - Adverse impact on domestic manufacturers or producers is a germane consideration. [Para 29]

Principles of promissory estoppel - Application against the government - The principle of promissory estoppel does not apply to the exercise of legislative power by the government - No vested right accrues to an assessee in the matter of tax concessions - Government has the right to modify or withdraw exemptions, but must give a reasonable opportunity to the affected party to restore the status quo ante. [Para 26]

Exercise of power under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Discretion of the government - The power to grant or amend exemptions under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is discretionary, but not unrestricted - The government has the duty to examine the issue in light of public interest - The power may be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. [Para 22]

Decision of the High Court - Merits review of economic measure - High Court erred in conducting a merits review of the economic measure taken by the government - Court's role limited to determining the legality, bona fides, and relevance of the decision - Impugned judgment set aside. [Para 30]

Dismissal from Service – without inquiry - Facts: Appellant employee of the respondent organization - dismissed from service - without conducting an inquiry - dismissal on the satisfaction of the President - not expedient to hold any inquiry in the interest of the security of the State - challenged dismissal - Tribunal and the High Court not find any reason to interfere with the dismissal.

Constitutional Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Dismissal without inquiry - Power of dispensing with inquiry under Rule 16(iii) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules - Satisfaction of the President in the interest of the security of the State - Not subject to further judicial review - Scope of judicial review limited to mala fides or extraneous grounds - Consideration of penalty to be imposed must be ex-parte - Factors to be considered in deciding penalty - Employee's conduct, gravity of misconduct, impact on administration, extenuating circumstances - Acts and omissions of employee justifying dismissal - Order of dismissal upheld. (Para 22, 23, 25)

Security of State - Interpretation of expression - Includes security of part of State - Various ways in which security can be affected - Passing on state secrets or defence information, secret links with terrorists, etc. - Expansive and grave nature of security concerns - Dispensing with inquiry justified. (Para 23)

Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial review - Scope of review when power to dispense with inquiry is invoked - Limited to mala fides or extraneous grounds - Satisfaction of the President not subject to scrutiny - No interference warranted if based on materials capable of arriving at a satisfaction that inquiry is not expedient in the interest of security of State. (Para 24)

Power of dismissal - Consideration of penalty - Factors to be taken into account - Employee's entire conduct, gravity of misconduct, impact on administration, extenuating circumstances - Acts and omissions of employee justifying dismissal - Dismissal upheld. (Para 25)