Employment Law - Recruitment Process – Improper Exclusion from PPSC – Violation of Article 320 – Recruitment Process Quashed - The appellants challenged the selection of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians in Punjab undertaken without consulting the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), violating Article 320 and the 1955 Regulations – The Supreme Court held that the posts were within the purview of the PPSC and could not be removed without following the statutory procedure prescribed under the 1955 Regulations – The retrospective amendment of Regulations after the recruitment was concluded was held invalid and ineffective [Paras 24-26, 28-32].

UGC Regulations – Applicability of UGC (2010) Regulations – State Bound by Adoption – Recruitment Must Follow UGC Norms - The State of Punjab had adopted the UGC Regulations, 2010 by incorporation, which remained binding despite their repeal by UGC Regulations, 2018 – The Supreme Court held that recruitment of Assistant Professors must comply with UGC norms, including academic performance indicators (API) and qualitative assessments, rather than solely relying on multiple-choice question-based tests [Paras 33-41, 46-47].

Policy Decision – Arbitrariness in Recruitment Process – Political Expediency Disapproved - The Court observed that the recruitment process was altered post-haste before State elections, replacing a time-tested UGC compliant process with a simplified test lacking qualitative assessment – Such arbitrary and hasty decision-making, bypassing institutional safeguards and violating established legal norms, was held to be impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 30-32, 48-52, 58].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Established Recruitment Practices – Deviation Without Justification Invalid - The Court reiterated that any deviation from long-standing recruitment practices requires valid justification – The State’s abrupt change in recruitment policy without valid reasons, undermining fairness, transparency, and established standards, was held to violate the doctrine of legitimate expectation and constitutional guarantees of non-arbitrariness [Paras 58-59].

Final Decision – Recruitment Quashed – Fresh Process Directed - The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Division Bench judgment, quashed the entire recruitment process for Assistant Professors and Librarians, and directed the State of Punjab to initiate a fresh recruitment process as per the UGC Regulations, 2018, now applicable in the State [Paras 60-61].

Civil Law – Abatement of Appeal – Duty to Inform Death of Party – Order XXII Rule 10A CPC – High Court Order Set Aside - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment which had dismissed the First Appellate Court’s decree on grounds of abatement for non-substitution of deceased respondents’ heirs—Held, defendants were under a legal duty under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC to inform the court and plaintiffs about the deaths during the First Appeal—Failure to disclose the death amounts to abuse of process and parties cannot derive advantage from their own omission—Remand directed for fresh hearing of the Second Appeal [Paras 1-79].

Doctrine of No Advantage from Own Wrong – Nullus Commodum Capere Potest de Injuria Sua Propria – Applicability to Civil Litigation – The Court distinguished between the legal maxims ‘ex injuria jus non oritur’ and ‘nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria’—Held, Rule 10A CPC is intended to prevent parties from gaining advantage through suppression of death of a party—Observations made on ethical obligations of pleaders and equitable principles requiring courts to avoid legal technicalities defeating substantive justice—High Court failed to appreciate these principles [Paras 45-56].

Equitable Considerations – Remand for Fresh Adjudication – Importance of Rule 10A CPC – The Court observed that Rule 10A CPC, though procedural and lacking penal consequences, has substantial equitable impact—Failure to comply requires courts to assess abatement claims carefully, balancing justice over procedural lapse—Second Appeal restored to High Court for fresh adjudication—Directions issued to decide the matter on merits, considering decree’s nature (joint or divisible) and allowing opportunity to cure abatement if necessary [Paras 70-79].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Second Appeal Restored – The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, restored Second Appeal No. 190 of 2008 to the High Court's file, and directed expeditious disposal within three months, emphasizing that courts must prevent abuse of process through suppression of material facts [Paras 73-79].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 376 IPC – Exception in Peculiar Circumstances – Continuation Unnecessary – The appeals arose from refusal by High Court to quash criminal cases including Section 376 IPC despite mutual settlement – Supreme Court noted second FIR (376 IPC) was lodged immediately after first FIR by opposite side and complainant categorically expressed no intention to pursue case – Held: Though ordinarily Section 376 IPC cases are not quashed on settlement, facts justified exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process [Paras 3, 5-8].

Settlement After Serious Allegations – Consent of Complainant Considered – Complainant affirmed before Court, through affidavit, that she is settled post-marriage and further prosecution would disrupt personal life – Supreme Court recognized the voluntary, consistent, and unambiguous stand of complainant to withdraw from prosecution as a decisive factor – Held: Court's powers under Section 482 CrPC remain flexible to secure ends of justice in special facts [Paras 5-8].

Second FIR Lodged as Retaliation – Contextual Consideration – The second FIR, containing graver charges, followed a first FIR filed against complainant’s side alleging assault – Supreme Court inferred possible retaliatory motive and concluded continued trial would cause harassment without achieving justice – All proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 7-9].

Final Relief – Quashing Allowed – Supreme Court quashed both FIR No. 302/2023 and FIR No. 304/2023, including Sessions Case No. 29/2024 – High Court’s order refusing quashment set aside – Reaffirmed that inherent powers should be exercised prudently to prevent misuse of criminal law machinery [Paras 9].

Electricity Act - Electricity Regulatory Commissions – Jurisdiction to Initiate Investigation under Section 128 – Investigation Petition Rejected – The Supreme Court held that UPERC exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a consumer petition under Section 128 seeking investigation into the functioning of a distribution franchisee appointed in Agra – The Court clarified that jurisdiction to direct investigation under Section 128 lies solely with the ERCs upon being satisfied about specific violations by the licensee, and such satisfaction was not demonstrated in this case – Petition under Section 128 held not maintainable, UPERC and APTEL orders quashed [Paras 1-3, 78-81].

Electricity Distribution – Validity of Distribution Franchisee Model – Input-Rate Model Upheld – The Court reaffirmed the legality of the input-rate model of franchise distribution in high-loss urban areas – It observed that franchise appointment without separate licensing under Section 14 is permissible, provided the licensee remains responsible for compliance – Allegations that input rates were fixed below bulk supply prices do not by themselves warrant investigation absent proof of statutory breach [Paras 4-5, 61-66].

Regulatory Oversight – Consumer Interest and Public Interest – Scope Delineated – The Court reiterated that while consumer interest and public interest are integral to tariff determination under Sections 61-63, they do not permit ERCs to overreach statutory limits – Public interest concerns cannot be a standalone ground to invoke ERC jurisdiction beyond explicit provisions of the Electricity Act [Paras 35-39, 48].

Adjudicatory Powers – Licensee-Franchisee Disputes Not within ERC Adjudication – Section 86(1)(f) Limited in Scope – The Court held that State ERCs have no adjudicatory power over disputes involving consumers or franchisees – Such disputes must be addressed before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) or through contractual mechanisms – The adjudication power of ERCs remains confined to disputes between licensees and generating companies [Paras 50-52].

Investigation Standards – Threshold of Satisfaction under Section 128 – High Standard Required – The Court underscored that mere allegations or concerns about cross-subsidization or profit margins do not justify investigation under Section 128 – An investigation is warranted only when clear material establishes prima facie contravention of license conditions or statutory violations – Absence of material evidence from the petitioners and expert committee noted [Paras 57-68].

Scope of ERC Authority – No Direct Oversight of Franchisees – Franchisee Governed via Licensee – The Court clarified that ERCs regulate licensees but have no direct regulatory control over franchisees – The franchisee functions as an agent of the licensee, and accountability flows through the licensee – Regulatory inquiries must be directed at licensees, with franchisee actions examined indirectly where necessary [Paras 69-75].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of UPERC and APTEL Set Aside – Expert Committee Report Nullified – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Torrent Power, setting aside the orders of UPERC and APTEL, and quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 128 – The Court held that the UPERC lacked jurisdiction in the matter, rendering the Expert Committee report ineffective – No costs imposed [Paras 78-81].

Criminal Law -  Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 120B and 420 of the - Appeal by Victim Against Acquittal  – Corporate Entity as Victim – Section 2(wa) CrPC – Right of Appeal Upheld – In a case involving sale of counterfeit products infringing trademarks and copyrights, the Court held that the appellant company Asian Paints Limited qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC, having suffered commercial and reputational injury due to the criminal acts – The Court clarified that juristic persons like companies are covered under the definition of ‘victim’ and are entitled to file appeal under Section 372 CrPC – High Court’s dismissal of appeal as non-maintainable was set aside and matter remitted for decision on merits [Paras 36-37, 51-52].

Proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Independent and Standalone Remedy – Not Constrained by Section 378 – The Supreme Court reiterated that the right conferred on a ‘victim’ under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is a substantive and independent right, not restricted by Section 378 CrPC – Appeal by victim is maintainable against acquittal orders, including those passed by the First Appellate Court – Procedural limitations applicable to State or complainant under Section 378 do not dilute the victim’s substantive right to appeal [Paras 43-44, 47].

Appeal Against First Appellate Court Order – Next Level Appeal Permissible – Victim Can Challenge Acquittal in High Court – The Court clarified that where acquittal occurs at First Appellate Court level, the victim’s appeal lies to the next higher court i.e., the High Court – Proviso to Section 372 CrPC is applicable even in such situations – High Court’s restrictive interpretation rejected [Paras 45-47].

Victim Need Not Be Complainant – Distinction Upheld – Corporate Victim’s Right Recognized – The Court upheld the principle that a victim under Section 2(wa) need not be the original complainant or informant – Despite the FIR being lodged by an investigator, the company suffering direct injury is the victim and entitled to file appeal – Distinction between ‘victim’ and ‘complainant’ reaffirmed [Paras 23, 44].

Purpose of Victim Appeal Right – Expansive Interpretation Favoured – The Court reiterated that the 2009 amendment introducing Section 372 proviso was intended to strengthen victim rights in the justice process, granting a right of participation and remedy to victims against acquittals or inadequate outcomes – Liberal and purposive construction of the victim’s right to appeal was adopted [Paras 49-50].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Appeal Restored for Merits Hearing – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order rejecting maintainability, restored the appeal before High Court for consideration on merits, and directed expeditious hearing in light of the prolonged pendency since 2016 [Paras 51-52].

Matrimonial Law - Admissibility of Secretly Recorded Conversations – Balance between Right to Fair Trial and Privacy – Section 122 of Indian Evidence Act – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the husband challenging the High Court’s decision disallowing the admission of secretly recorded conversations in a matrimonial proceeding – Held: Spousal communications recorded during marriage are admissible under the exception provided in Section 122 of the Evidence Act where litigation is between spouses – Privacy rights under Article 21 cannot override the right to fair trial in matrimonial disputes – The order of the Family Court allowing such evidence was restored [Paras 8-13].

Spousal Privilege – Exception in Divorce Proceedings – Section 122 of the Evidence Act – Privilege Not Absolute – The Court clarified that Section 122 establishes privilege over spousal communications but expressly carves out an exception in cases of proceedings between spouses – Disclosure of such communications in divorce proceedings is permissible without the consent of the other spouse – High Court’s reasoning invoking privilege was incorrect [Paras 8.1-10.1].

Right to Privacy – Constitutional Scope – Article 21 – Privacy Cannot Override Statutory Exceptions – The Court held that privacy between spouses is protected under common law principles but is subject to statutory exceptions under Section 122 – In matrimonial disputes, privacy does not prevent relevant evidence from being introduced, ensuring balance with the right to fair trial – Constitutional privacy protections are not absolute in private disputes between spouses [Paras 11-12].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of Audio Recordings – Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act – Admissibility Upheld with Safeguards – Secretly recorded spousal communications are admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, subject to authentication and compliance with Section 65B certification requirements – The Family Court was correct in accepting electronic evidence including CDs, transcripts, and memory cards [Paras 9.5-10.6].

Precedence of Fair Trial – Balancing Competing Rights – Doctrine of Proportionality Applied – The Court applied the doctrine of proportionality, concluding that in matrimonial disputes, admitting evidence like secret recordings is essential to enable a fair adjudication of claims of cruelty or other matrimonial offences, without disregarding legitimate privacy concerns, which are protected by procedural safeguards such as in-camera proceedings [Paras 10.3-12.6].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Family Court Order Restored – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment and restored the Family Court’s order allowing the appellant-husband to submit the supplementary affidavit and electronic recordings in divorce proceedings – Directed the Family Court to consider the evidence in accordance with law – Appeal disposed of with no order as to costs [Para 13].

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope of Rejection of Plaint – Rejection of Plaint on Ground of Res Judicata Set Aside – The appellant challenged the orders of the Trial Court and High Court which allowed rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of res judicata due to an earlier ex parte decree – Supreme Court held that adjudication on res judicata involves an analysis of previous pleadings, judgments, and facts which cannot be undertaken merely on averments in an Order VII Rule 11 application – Held: Res judicata must be decided at trial, particularly when fraud and collusion are alleged, and plaint contains specific pleadings regarding invalidity of earlier decree – Appeal allowed, suit restored [Paras 3-12].

Fraud Allegations – Collusive Ex Parte Decree – Prima Facie Bar of Res Judicata Inapplicable – Appellant pleaded fraud and collusion in obtaining ex parte decree in prior partition suit, alleged suppression of material facts during purchase of property – Supreme Court held that whether prior decree binds appellant requires detailed inquiry into facts and circumstances, and such issues cannot be summarily decided at preliminary stage – Held: Fraud allegations require trial stage determination, not rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 4-10].

Res Judicata – Principles Clarified – Examination at Trial Stage Required – Referring to Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. and Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Supreme Court reiterated that res judicata can only be decided upon full appreciation of prior proceedings, pleadings, and judgments, not solely on plaint averments – Held: Courts below erred in rejecting plaint without trial; appeal allowed and suit restored [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Rejection of Plaint Set Aside – Suit Restored – Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Trial Court and High Court, restored the suit to original number and directed expeditious disposal considering pendency since 2009 – Clarified no opinion on merits; all defences including res judicata to remain open for trial determination [Paras 13-15].

Civil Law – Fresh Suit  – Res Judicata – Section 11 CPC – Relief Barred – Earlier findings upheld - The plaintiff’s challenge based on coercion and misrepresentation regarding the execution of Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds was earlier rejected by three courts – The issue now raised was identical and held barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC – Held: Liberty granted by High Court in second appeal did not revive adjudicated claims or create new cause of action [Paras 5-6, 9-10].

Limitation – Fresh Suit Filed Based on Liberty Reserved – Claim Time-Barred – Agreements Executed in 1998 - The second suit filed by plaintiff for declaration and possession was barred by limitation, as the cause of action dated back to the execution of agreements in 1998 – The liberty granted in second appeal cannot override statutory limitation periods – Held: No application of Section 14 of Limitation Act; suit not before wrong forum but improperly framed [Paras 7, 10].

Civil Procedure – Order 23 CPC – Leave to File Fresh Suit – No Immunity from Limitation – Order 23 Rule 1 and Rule 2 CPC Considered - Though liberty to file a comprehensive suit was granted, it does not extend to revive barred or decided claims – The High Court rightly observed that Order 23 CPC does not exempt parties from adhering to limitation laws [Para 7].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Suit Deficient – Important Stakeholders Not Impleaded – Belgaum Urban Development Authority and Badminton Association were necessary parties to the dispute concerning civic amenities and property layout – Held: Suit rightly found defective for non-joinder [Para 11].

Final Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Findings of High Court Affirmed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that the second suit was barred by limitation and res judicata and that liberty granted earlier did not override legal bars – Held: No interference warranted – SLP dismissed [Paras 10, 12].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction under Section 138 – Presumption Properly Raised – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the High Court's reversal of acquittal and conviction under Section 138 NI Act, arguing that foundational facts were not proved and no presumption under Sections 118 and 139 should have been raised – Held: Respondent had proved foundational facts and appellant failed to rebut presumption – High Court rightly convicted appellant – No interference called for [Paras 5–9].

Compensation – Quantum of Fine – No Double Recovery – The appellant argued that compensation awarded was disproportionate as the respondent was granted the entire cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in addition to a fine – Held: Fine imposed was Rs.10,10,000/- out of which Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC – There was no separate or excess compensation – Argument rejected [Paras 10–14].

Fine and Sentence – Justified in Facts – The Court held that the imposition of fine equivalent to the cheque amount was in consonance with the law laid down in R. Vijayan v. Baby, (2012) 1 SCC 260 – There was no illegality or excessiveness in sentencing – No reduction warranted [Paras 11–14].

Time to Pay Fine – Three Months Granted – On request of counsel for the appellant, the Court granted three months’ time to deposit the fine amount – In default, appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months – Amount to be paid to respondent upon deposit [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed with modification regarding time to pay – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Appellant granted three months to deposit cheque amount; default will attract simple imprisonment for six months [Paras 14–16].