Insurance Policy – Interpretation and Revival – Appellant challenges NCDRC's decision allowing the respondent's claim for accident benefit – Supreme Court holds that the terms of the insurance policy must be strictly construed and the policy had lapsed before the accident occurred – Revival of the policy after the accident without disclosing the accident was considered suppression of material facts, leading to the rejection of the accident benefit claim [Paras 1-11].

Good Faith – Suppression of Material Fact – Court emphasizes the requirement of good faith (Uberrima fides) in insurance contracts – Non-disclosure of the accident at the time of policy revival indicates mala fide intent and lack of bona fides – Cites precedents highlighting that terms of the insurance policy cannot be rewritten or liberally construed beyond the agreed terms [Paras 8-9].

Accident Benefit – Policy Lapse and Revival – Condition No. 11 of the policy specifies that accident benefit is payable only if the policy is in force on the date of the accident – Policy had lapsed on 14.10.2011, and the accident occurred on 06.03.2012, with the policy being revived on 09.03.2012 – As the policy was not in force on the accident date, the accident benefit claim is not payable [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the NCDRC is set aside – Accident benefit claim of the respondent is rejected – Pending applications, if any, are disposed of [Para 11].

Investigation and Authorisation – Validity of Delegation – Appellant challenges the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court – Supreme Court upholds the validity of the authorisation given to an inspector under the second proviso to Section 3 of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Distinguishes the case from Bhajan Lal, clarifying that the second proviso does not require detailed reasons for authorisation – Observes that the authorisation was not mechanical and showed application of mind [Paras 8-8.6].

Prior Sanction for Non-Cognizable Offences – Not Required When Coupled with Cognizable Offences – High Court’s decision quashed – Supreme Court cites Pravin Chandra Mody, holding that prior sanction of a magistrate under Section 155 of J&K CrPC is not necessary when investigating a cognizable offence along with a non-cognizable one – Emphasizes that requiring prior sanction would lead to delays and hamper the investigation [Paras 9-10].

Preliminary Enquiry – Validity of Rule 3.16 – Court overturns the High Court’s declaration of Rule 3.16 as ultra vires – Holds that the preliminary enquiry under Rule 3.16 is in line with the law laid down in Lalita Kumari – States that detailed enquiries during preliminary verification are permissible to establish a prima facie case before registering an FIR [Paras 11-13].

Vicarious Liability – Misinterpretation by High Court – Supreme Court corrects the High Court’s view on vicarious liability – Holds that the respondent’s individual actions were in question, and he was not being held vicariously liable for actions of a company – Reiterates that criminal proceedings can proceed against the respondent in his individual capacity [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing the criminal proceedings and declaring Rule 3.16 as ultra vires is set aside – Criminal proceedings against the respondent to proceed as per law [Paras 15-16].

Bail under UAPA – Mens Rea Requirement – Appellant challenges the denial of bail, arguing that mere association with a terrorist organization is insufficient for offenses under Sections 38 and 39 of UAPA without proving intent to further terrorist activities – Supreme Court agrees, emphasizing that the accused must have associated with the organization with the intention to further its activities – Mere possession of materials related to CPI (Maoist) does not automatically imply such intent [Paras 1-34].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Section 43D(5) UAPA – The court reiterates that the stringent conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) apply only to offenses under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA – Since the accused was charged under Sections 13, 38, and 39, normal bail provisions apply for Section 13, and the prosecution must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing the accusations under Sections 38 and 39 are prima facie true [Paras 17-21].

Procedural Lapses and Timely Communication – The importance of timely communication and consideration of bail applications, especially under preventive detention laws, is underscored – The court notes procedural lapses in the case and emphasizes the need for expeditious handling of such matters to uphold the rights of the accused [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Special Court's order granting bail to the accused restored – Accused to complete bail formalities within one week – Observations made are limited to bail considerations and do not influence the trial [Paras 40-42].

Cheque Issued as Security – Legal Enforceability – Appellant challenges the High Court's discharge of the respondent under Section 420 IPC while maintaining the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act – Supreme Court emphasizes that a cheque issued as security can still be presented for payment if the debt becomes due and is not repaid by other means – Court distinguishes between cheques issued as security and those for discharge of legally recoverable debt [Paras 1-18].

Discharge from Criminal Proceedings – Section 420 IPC – Supreme Court agrees with the High Court's conclusion that mere dishonour of a cheque issued as security does not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC, as there is no sufficient evidence of mens rea – Upholds the discharge under Section 420 IPC [Para 11].

Maintainability under Section 138 of NI Act – Security Cheque – Court clarifies that the issuance of a cheque as security does not preclude its presentation for payment once the debt is due – Cites previous judgments to support that a security cheque can attract Section 138 of the NI Act if the loan remains unpaid and the cheque is dishonoured [Paras 12-22].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court's order discharging the respondent under Section 420 IPC upheld – Order setting aside the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act reversed – Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act restored for trial – Trial court to consider the evidence independently without being influenced by observations in this judgment [Paras 23-24].

Rectification of GST Returns – Mechanism and Restrictions – Appellant challenges the High Court's decision allowing the rectification of Form GSTR-3B for past periods – Supreme Court emphasizes that the law permits rectification of errors and omissions only at the initial stages of Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3 but in a specified manner – Once Form GSTR-3B is submitted, any changes thereto may have a cascading effect, and thus unilateral rectification by the assessee is not permissible [Paras 1-50].

Impact of Auto-Populated Records – Changes from Pre-GST Period – Court notes that the GST regime introduced auto-populated records and entries, a different dispensation from the pre-GST period which did not have such provisions – Allowing changes contrary to the statutory mandate would lead to chaotic situations and collapse of the tax administration of Union, States, and Union Territories [Paras 39-50].

Procedural Safeguards – Judicial Accountability – Supreme Court criticizes the High Court's decision for not adhering to the statutory provisions – Holds that the stipulations in the Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 are consistent with the provisions of the CGST Act and the Rules framed thereunder – No necessity of reading down paragraph 4 of the Circular as done by the High Court [Paras 50-52].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Writ petition filed by the respondent dismissed – No order as to costs – Applications disposed of [Para 52].

Senior Advocate Designation – Withdrawal of Privilege – Petitioner challenges the withdrawal of his Senior Advocate designation by the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the decision was disproportionate and failed to consider his long-standing service and contributions – Supreme Court notes the petitioner’s history of transgressions and balances the need for maintaining decorum with giving one final chance for redemption [Paras 1-13].

Contempt of Court – Repeated Misconduct – Petitioner made serious allegations against the judiciary and circulated them publicly, leading to contempt proceedings and withdrawal of his Senior Advocate designation – Supreme Court observes that the petitioner’s actions showed a pattern of misbehavior, but still grants a conditional restoration of designation for a limited period to test his conduct [Paras 2-10].

Restoration of Designation – Conditional Grant – Court decides to temporarily restore the petitioner’s Senior Advocate designation for two years starting from January 1, 2022 – During this period, the Gujarat High Court will monitor his conduct and has the discretion to withdraw the designation permanently if any misconduct is observed – Emphasizes that the petitioner’s future conduct will determine the final decision on his designation [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions – Temporary restoration of Senior Advocate designation for two years from January 1, 2022 – Gujarat High Court to monitor and decide on permanent restoration based on petitioner’s conduct – No costs awarded [Para 13].

Waqf Act – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Suit for Permanent Injunction – High Court’s decision that civil courts can entertain suits for permanent injunction even if they pertain to waqf properties challenged – Supreme Court holds that as per Section 85, any dispute related to waqf properties falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals – High Court’s ruling set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-24].

Section 83 of Waqf Act – Tribunal’s Authority – It is well established that Section 83(1) mandates Waqf Tribunals to determine any disputes, questions, or matters related to waqf properties – Civil courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain such matters – Clarifies scope of Tribunal’s authority and exclusivity [Paras 25-30].

Precedent and Statutory Interpretation – Examination of historical legislative amendments and prior case law affirming Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Noted that any decision regarding waqf property disputes must be directed to the Waqf Tribunal – Emphasis on consistent statutory interpretation to avoid jurisdictional conflict [Paras 31-35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Judgment of High Court reversed – Suit for permanent injunction to be tried by Waqf Tribunal – Civil court’s jurisdiction barred in matters involving waqf properties as per Section 85 of the Waqf Act [Para 36].

Privacy – Right to Privacy – Allegations of unauthorized surveillance using Pegasus spyware – Supreme Court addresses concerns over privacy infringement and the potential chilling effect on freedom of speech and press – Emphasis on reasonable expectation of privacy and the necessity for restrictions to pass constitutional scrutiny [Paras 27-36].

Surveillance and National Security – Judicial Review – Surveillance must be justified on constitutional grounds – State’s interest in national security must be balanced with individual privacy rights – Necessity for statutory safeguards and adherence to constitutional procedures in surveillance activities [Paras 35-50].

Constitutional Obligations – Role of the State – State’s duty to protect citizens' fundamental rights – Court criticizes the Union of India for lack of detailed affidavit and transparency – Emphasizes that the State cannot withhold information under the guise of national security without proper justification [Paras 45-51].

Independent Investigation – Committee Formation – Supreme Court appoints an independent Technical Committee overseen by Justice R.V. Raveendran to investigate the allegations – Terms of reference include examining the use of Pegasus spyware, identifying affected individuals, and recommending measures for cyber security and privacy protection [Paras 55-63].

Decision – Writ petitions partially allowed – Appointment of Technical Committee – Directions issued for a thorough investigation and report – State directed to provide necessary support to the Committee [Paras 59-64].

Tenancy Act – Surrender of Tenancy – Mandatory Notice – Requirement of three months’ notice to the landlord and the Special Officer for a valid surrender – Surrender takes effect only after acceptance by the Special Officer, ensuring the surrender is voluntary and genuine – Failure to follow prescribed procedure invalidates the surrender – Findings of lower courts on surrender held untenable [Paras 36-37].

Right to Purchase – Cultivating Tenant’s Priority – Tenant’s right to purchase the land leased under Section 15 – Tribunal upheld appellant's claim based on the recorded compromise recognizing subsisting tenancy – Evidence of part payment towards purchase considered valid – Lower courts’ findings on non-subsistence of tenancy reversed [Paras 38-39].

Procedure for Eviction – Non-Payment of Rent – Necessity of specific pleadings on rent default – No evidence of demand for arrears by landlord – Tribunal's findings on tenant's right to purchase supported by evidence – Lower courts’ decisions set aside [Para 39].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Order of Tribunal restored – Right to purchase the property under Section 15 upheld – Appreciation recorded for the assistance of amicus curiae [Paras 40].