Fee Regulation – Unauthorized Fee Enhancement – Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. enhancing tuition fees for private medical colleges without AFRC's recommendations – High Court quashed G.O., held it illegal under Rules 2006 – Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules and AFRC’s role in fee determination [Paras 1-5].

Rule 4 of Rules 2006 – Fee Fixation Process – AFRC required to recommend fee structure after detailed enquiry considering factors such as location, infrastructure cost, administration expenses, and reasonable surplus – State Government's unilateral fee enhancement deemed arbitrary and impermissible [Paras 3-5].

Refund of Excess Fee – High Court directed refund of excess fee collected under invalid G.O. after adjusting fees fixed as per previous determination – Supreme Court upheld refund order – Institutions benefited from illegal G.O. cannot retain excess amounts – Provisions for future recovery if AFRC approves higher fees noted [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Costs of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed, shared equally between appellant and State of Andhra Pradesh – Amount to be deposited with Supreme Court Registry for National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) [Paras 7-7.1].

Martial Law – Limitation Period – For Section 122, relevant dates are when aggrieved person and competent authority knew of the alleged offence – Knowledge of the offence by the aggrieved person on 13.08.2015 initiated limitation period – Convening Authority's order for trial by General Court Martial on 22.11.2018 beyond three-year limitation – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-10].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Scope of Judicial Review – Judicial review limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors causing manifest injustice or violation of natural justice principles – Merits of disciplinary decisions not reviewed – Disciplinary proceedings against appellant to continue as per law despite quashing of trial [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – General Court Martial proceedings quashed due to expiration of limitation period under Section 122 of the Army Act – Disciplinary proceedings based on charge sheet dated 19.11.2018 to continue in accordance with law [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Death Penalty – Acquittal – Investigation Lapses – No Test Identification Parade conducted – Witnesses failed to identify the accused during depositions – Prosecution failed to prove arrest, identification, discoveries, recoveries, and medical/scientific evidence – No cogent and clinching evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt [Paras 1-88].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence – Legal standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence not met – Circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis except guilt of accused – Prosecution's evidence inconsistent and unreliable – Accused acquitted due to failure to form a complete and conclusive chain of evidence [Paras 6-48].

Fair Trial Rights – Cross-examination Deficiencies – Trial Court's passive role resulted in inadequate cross-examination of material witnesses – Accused deprived of fair trial rights – Emphasized active role of trial judges in ensuring justice [Paras 34-35].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and death penalty quashed – Appellants acquitted and to be set free forthwith unless required in another case – Family of victim entitled to compensation under Section 357(A) Cr.PC [Paras 36-38].

Corporate Governance – Election of Office Bearers – Regulation 92(2) applicable only in cases of absence, not vacancy – Regulation 117(2) applicable when post vacated due to disqualification – Election of new Chairman held under Regulation 119(2) valid – High Court erred in quashing election on grounds of meeting not chaired by Vice-Chairman [Paras 4-4.4].

Regulation Interpretation – Distinction Between Absence and Vacancy – Absence pertains to temporary non-attendance, while vacancy arises from disqualification or resignation – Regulation 92(2) not applicable to vacancies – Regulation 119(2) mandates election to fill vacancies – High Court's interpretation incorrect [Paras 4.4-4.5].

Election Validity – Challenge by Non-Contestant – Writ petition challenging election invalid as respondent did not contest election – Regulation 114(4) requires disputes to be referred to President within 30 days – High Court erred in entertaining petition by non-contestant [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgments quashing election set aside – Election of office bearers of EIRC of ICSI on 27.12.2021 upheld – Writ petitions dismissed – No costs [Paras 6-6.1].

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – High Court erred in entertaining PILs without verifying credentials and adherence to procedural rules – PILs alleged corruption by Chief Minister without prima facie evidence – Non-disclosure of previous similar petition dismissed with costs – Violation of Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, and 5 of Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 – High Court's order quashing PILs upheld [Paras 1-22].

Judicial Review – Abuse of Process – Supreme Court emphasized bona fides of petitioner in PILs – Petitioners must approach statutory authorities first – High Court not a forum for preliminary investigation based on unsubstantiated allegations – PILs dismissed as abuse of judicial process [Paras 10-22].

Credibility of Petitioner – Importance in PILs – Petitioner’s failure to disclose previous similar dismissed petition – Bad faith and ulterior motives inferred – Clean hands doctrine reiterated – High Court's oversight corrected by Supreme Court [Paras 11-22].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order allowing PILs set aside – PILs dismissed at threshold – Petitioner directed to approach appropriate statutory authorities if genuine grounds exist – No costs [Paras 21-22].

Property Law – Interest on Outstanding Dues – Noida and Greater Noida Authorities – Supreme Court revisited orders directing reduced interest rates on outstanding dues for all projects other than Amrapali – Original orders (10.06.2020, 19.08.2020, and 25.08.2020) provided relief of reduced interest rates at 8% per annum – High Court ruled these orders lacked jurisdiction and had widespread financial implications not fully considered – Orders recalled [Paras 1-24].

Jurisdiction – Scope of Relief – Supreme Court observed that relief granted in original orders extended beyond scope of Amrapali projects, impacting numerous unrelated builders – Orders based on applications not adequately contested by concerned authorities – High Court emphasized importance of jurisdictional limitations and proper procedural adherence [Paras 10-17].

Financial Impact – Public Interest – High financial burden on Noida and Greater Noida Authorities due to reduced interest rates – Amounts involved significant, totaling over Rs. 7000 crores – High Court found such substantial financial implications required comprehensive consideration and detailed deliberation, beyond summary proceedings [Paras 18-24].

Decision – Applications allowed – Orders dated 10.06.2020, 19.08.2020, and 25.08.2020 recalled – Noida and Greater Noida Authorities to calculate amounts due based on original contractual terms and state government order dated 09.06.2020 – Builders other than Amrapali Group of Companies directed to adhere to original payment terms [Paras 23-24].

Property Tax – Capital Value System – Amendments to MMC Act, 1888 – High Court upheld amendments but struck down Rules 20, 21, and 22 of 2010 and 2015 Capital Value Rules – Supreme Court reinstated these rules, holding them intra vires the MMC Act – Emphasized legislative competence and rational basis for amendments aimed at modernizing property tax assessment – Appeals allowed, High Court decision set aside [Paras 1-88].

Tax Law – Legislative Competence – State Legislature's power under Entry 49, List II – Adoption of capital value system for property tax assessment upheld – Distinguished from Entry 86, List I – Tax on lands and buildings not encroaching upon central subjects – Supreme Court confirmed validity under state legislative domain [Paras 155-158].

Water and Sewerage Taxes – Vacant Lands – Upheld imposition on vacant lands – Rejected argument that taxes are fees requiring quid pro quo – Affirmed as valid tax measures aimed at revenue generation for municipal services – Recognized statutory framework allowing recovery of charges where services provided [Paras 158-159].

Education Cess – Validity – Submissions challenging levy under Section 140(1)(ca) dismissed – Court confirmed cess as a legitimate municipal tax component – Emphasized comprehensive statutory basis and municipal need for education funding [Paras 160-162].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment striking down Rules 20, 21, and 22 of 2010 and 2015 Capital Value Rules set aside – MMC Act amendments and capital value system for property tax assessment upheld – Contempt petition segregated for separate hearing – No costs [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Practice – Supply of Documents – Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 – Rule 4 – Right of accused to receive the list of documents, material, etc. – Supreme Court highlighted the need for uniform guidelines for criminal trials – Noted that the right to receive documents applies after adoption of the Draft Rules – Emphasized the importance of equal rights for accused across states to avoid prejudice – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-24].

Right to Fair Trial – Disclosure of Evidence – Judicial oversight and public prosecutor’s role in ensuring fair trial – Supreme Court reiterated the importance of disclosure of all material, including exculpatory evidence – Noted gaps in current practice where some states have not adopted Draft Rules, impacting accused’s rights – Directed High Courts and State Governments to expedite the adoption of the Draft Rules [Paras 11-19].

Procedural Compliance – Implementation of Draft Rules – Emphasized the need for High Courts and State Governments to incorporate Draft Rules into existing frameworks – Directed that Draft Rule 4, concerning the supply of documents, be implemented at the trial stage, not at appellate stages – Observed misuse of procedural delays by accused to hamper justice – Appeal dismissed with directions to expedite trial proceedings [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Courts directed to adopt Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 – Accused's request for documents denied due to procedural stage – Trial courts to ensure compliance with Rule 4 once adopted – No costs [Paras 13-14].

Reservation Law – Constitutionality – 103rd Constitution Amendment – Introduced 10% reservation for EWS in education and public employment – Petitioners argued it violated basic structure by excluding socially and educationally backward classes and exceeding the 50% reservation cap – Supreme Court upheld the amendment – Held, economic criteria for reservation does not violate the Constitution’s basic structure – Exclusion of SCs, STs, and non-creamy layer OBCs balances nondiscrimination and compensatory discrimination – Exceeding 50% reservation cap permissible as it is not inflexible [Paras 1-88].

Economic Criteria – Validity – Economic criteria for EWS reservation upheld – Does not violate essential features of Constitution – Ensures inclusive march towards egalitarian society – Held, reservation based on economic criteria valid even if it exceeds 50% cap as ceiling is flexible [Paras 2-5].

Exclusion of Certain Classes – Non-Violation of Equality Code – Exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS reservation does not violate Equality Code – Balances compensatory discrimination with nondiscrimination – Amendments enable but do not mandate reservations [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Petitions dismissed – 103rd Constitution Amendment upheld – Reservations for EWS up to 10% valid – Exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs permissible – Ceiling limit of 50% flexible and can be breached in specific contexts [Paras 1-88].