Criminal Law – Bail – Serious Offences – The accused, named in the FIR, were involved in a land dispute with the informant – They attacked the informant's family, resulting in the death of the informant's brother and serious injuries to others – The High Court granted bail without considering the seriousness and gravity of the offences and without providing cogent reasons – The bail order is quashed and set aside [Paras 1-5].

Cancellation of Bail – High Court's Failure – The High Court failed to consider the nature of the allegations and the seriousness of the offences – The informant's statement consistently named the accused – The High Court's observation that the accused could not be identified due to the dark night is without basis and is a matter for trial – The High Court's order granting bail is unsustainable [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order releasing the accused on bail quashed – Accused to surrender before the concerned Jail Authority forthwith [Para 5].

Education – Fundamental Right – Article 19(1)(g) – The right to establish educational institutions is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) – Reasonable restrictions on this right can be imposed only by a law enacted by the legislature, not by an executive resolution or instruction – The Pharmacy Council of India's moratorium on the opening of new pharmacy colleges for five years, imposed through executive instructions, is invalid [Paras 28-55].

Reasonableness of Restrictions – The power to regulate includes the power to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public – However, such restrictions must be imposed by law and satisfy the test of proportionality – The Pharmacy Council of India’s moratorium failed this test as it was not enacted through proper legislative procedure [Paras 34-38, 41-48].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The moratorium imposed by the Pharmacy Council of India through resolutions dated July 17, 2019, and September 9, 2019, is invalid – High Courts’ orders quashing these resolutions upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 55-58].

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Appellant challenged the dismissal of his application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. – Alleged possession of disproportionate assets during his tenure at BSFC and ONGC – Initial investigation found allegations false but FIR registered 12 years later – Charge sheet filed seven years after FIR registration – Application for discharge dismissed by Special Judge (Vigilance) and High Court – Supreme Court conducted a limited inquiry, found calculation errors in the charge sheet, and ruled that no prima facie case was made out [Paras 1-20].

Procedural Delay – Extended Litigation – Allegations from 1974-1988 led to FIR in 2000, charge sheet in 2007, and protracted litigation – Appellant superannuated in 2010 and continued to contest the case – Supreme Court noted the prolonged duration and deemed the continuation of prosecution unjust apart from being illegal [Paras 19-20].

Legal Principles – Scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of sifting through evidence at the discharge stage – Reiterated that discharge should be granted if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on the material on record [Paras 13-18].

Decision:

Criminal Appeal allowed – Judgments of the High Court of Patna and the Special Judge (Vigilance) set aside – Appellant discharged from the case – No order as to costs.

Sports Law – BCCI Constitution – Cooling-off Period – Clause 6(4) – Proposed amendment to limit the cooling-off period to office bearers who complete two consecutive terms at the same level (state association or BCCI) – Amendment accepted with modifications to ensure cooling-off period applies to all office bearers, not just President and Secretary, to prevent monopolization of power and encourage wider participation in administration [Paras 1-16].

Disqualification Criteria – Clause 6(5) – Amendments to modify disqualification criteria for holding office in BCCI – Provisions modified to disqualify individuals only upon conviction and sentencing for criminal offences, rather than merely being charged – Amendment ensures fairness and protects against frivolous prosecutions [Paras 17-19].

Administrative Amendments – Clauses 7(3), 15(3)-(4), 19(2) – Administrative changes to enhance the clarity and functionality of BCCI operations – Amendments accepted to ensure clear delegation of powers and responsibilities among office bearers and management personnel [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Amendments to the BCCI Constitution as proposed in the third column of the tabulated chart accepted – Amendments ensure balance between maintaining organizational integrity and preventing the concentration of power, while accommodating practical needs of sports administration – Proposed deletion of Clause 45 requiring Court's leave for amendments not pressed by BCCI [Paras 23-28].

Election Law – False Declaration – Corrupt Practices – The appellant was disqualified for making a false declaration about the assets of her spouse in her election affidavit – The false declaration constitutes a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as adopted by Section 39 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 – The High Court's decision to set aside the election upheld [Paras 1-76].

Undue Influence – The non-disclosure of assets was deemed as 'undue influence' under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, leading to the setting aside of the election for corrupt practices – The principles of transparency and integrity in elections require full disclosure of candidate and spouse assets to prevent undue influence and maintain the purity of elections [Paras 38-55].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The High Court’s decision affirming the Principal District and Sessions Judge's order to set aside the appellant’s election upheld – No costs [Paras 75-76].

Arbitration Law – Interim Relief – Section 9 of the Arbitration Act empowers courts to grant interim measures to secure the amount in dispute in arbitration – The courts are not strictly bound by the provisions of the CPC, but must be guided by the underlying principles of procedural law – A strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of the applicant justify granting interim relief without strict adherence to the technicalities of the CPC [Paras 1-49].

Proof of Intent – While proof of actual attempts to deal with or dispose of the property to defeat the realization of an arbitral award is not necessary, a strong possibility of diminution of assets can suffice – Courts must weigh the consequences of granting or refusing interim relief [Paras 50-51].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The order directing the appellant to deposit security amounts upheld – No costs [Paras 52-53].

Securities Law – SEBI Adjudication – Petitioner sought documents relied upon by SEBI in a show cause notice concerning alleged fund diversion – SEBI provided some documents but withheld others citing confidentiality – High Court dismissed the petition – Supreme Court upheld, emphasizing procedural compliance by SEBI and principles of natural justice [Paras 1-88].

Fair Hearing – Disclosure of Documents – Supreme Court emphasized that only documents relied upon by SEBI need to be provided – Confidential documents or those not relied upon are exempt from disclosure – Adequate disclosure ensures fair hearing without compromising the investigation's integrity [Paras 29-49].

Regulatory Compliance – SEBI Adjudication Rules – Compliance with procedural requirements under SEBI Adjudication Rules – Adjudicating officer’s decision to proceed based on preliminary examination upheld – Importance of following statutory framework to ensure fairness and transparency in proceedings [Paras 44-50].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – SEBI directed to continue with the inquiry without relying on documents not provided to the petitioner – Petitioner's liberty to challenge adverse orders in appropriate forum preserved.

Service Law – Terminal Benefits – Appellants, former employees of the Research and Analysis Wing, sought terminal benefits and pension after the merger of their posts was retrospectively applied – The Cabinet Secretariat initially reclassified the posts, merging them in a manner that was challenged – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed for reconsideration and the merger's proper implementation – High Court set aside CAT’s order – Supreme Court reinstated CAT’s direction, ordering terminal benefits and pension to be calculated and paid based on earlier CAT orders [Paras 1-12].

Retroactive Application – Merger of Posts – Supreme Court addressed the retrospective application of the merger of Assistant Foreign Language Examiner (AFLE) and Deputy Foreign Language Examiner (DFLE) posts – Emphasized no adverse impact on career prospects of existing direct recruits due to the merger – Upheld CAT's order on the merger's effects on terminal benefits and pension [Paras 3.1-3.7].

Pension and Terminal Benefits – Calculation and Payment – Supreme Court directed Union of India to calculate and pay terminal benefits and pension from 1st January 2023 – Denied arrears of pension from the date of superannuation to 31st December 2022 – Granted 6% interest per annum on terminal benefits from the date of superannuation until actual payment [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Appeal disposed of with directions to calculate and pay terminal benefits based on CAT orders dated 26th May 2008 and 7th July 2010 – Terminal benefits to be cleared by 31st December 2022 – Pension effective from 1st January 2023 – No arrears of pension allowed from superannuation date to 31st December 2022 – Interest at 6% per annum on terminal benefits from superannuation date until payment – No order as to costs.

Securities Law – SEBI Investigation – Non-compliance with Summons – Appellants were under investigation for aiding and abetting market manipulation by Ketan Parekh – Failed to comply with multiple summons issued by SEBI requiring the production of documents and information – SEBI imposed penalties under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act – SAT upheld SEBI’s decision [Paras 1-47].

Penalties – Quantum and Proportionality – Supreme Court examined the appropriateness of the penalties imposed – Affirmed that non-compliance with summons constitutes a fresh offence under the amended Section 15A(a) – Penalty of rupees one crore was justified given the severity of the appellants' offences and the obstruction of SEBI’s investigation [Paras 32-34, 40-44].

Statutory Interpretation – Powers of SEBI and Delegated Authorities – Clarified the authority of SEBI and its Investigating Officers under Section 11C(3) to compel the production of documents and information – Upheld the penalties as within the statutory framework and necessary for ensuring compliance and market integrity [Paras 45-46].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Penalties imposed by SEBI and upheld by SAT affirmed – Appellants directed to bear their respective costs.