Civil Petition – Challenge to the constitutionality of designating Advocates as Senior Advocates – Allegations of creating a privileged class of Advocates – Violation of equality, Right to Practice, and Right to Life – Petitioner claims the system is monopolized by a select few – Reckless allegations against various members of the legal profession. [Para 1-14]

Constitutional Validity – Classification of Advocates as Senior Advocates and other Advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961 – Challenge under Article 14 – Presumption of constitutionality – Burden on petitioners to show a clear transgression of constitutional principles – Classification based on merit and expertise – No violation found. [Para 15-20]

Role of Senior Advocates – Recognition of merit by the Court – Presumption that the legislature understands and appreciates the needs of the people – No clear transgression of constitutional principles – Writ petition dismissed. [Para 20-22]

Service Law - Employment – Disqualification based on color blindness – Appellant's challenge to the denial of candidature as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by TANGEDCO – Examination of relevant facts and legal principles – Special leave granted. [Para 1-6]

Employment - Color Vision Deficiency - Suitability for the position of Assistant Engineer (AE) in TANGEDCO - Appellant's color vision deficiency discovered after selection - Appellant is a graduate in electrical engineering with practical experience - TANGEDCO's argument that the appellant is not a person with benchmark disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Examination of the principle of reasonable accommodation - Duty of the employer to accommodate persons with disabilities without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden - Appellant offered the position of Junior Assistant, which is inconsistent with his qualifications - Appellant's refusal of the offered position justified - TANGEDCO's organizational structure and possibilities for accommodating the appellant in departments that do not require intense engagement with color - Direction to appoint and continue the appellant as AE (Electrical) with appropriate responsibilities - Entitlement to 50% of full arrears of salary and allowances with full service continuity - Impugned judgment set aside. [Para 17-28]

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Petitioner seeks permission for medical termination of pregnancy after discovering pregnancy at 24 weeks due to lactational amenorrhea – Grounds include post-partum depression and family circumstances – Medical Board report recommends against termination due to viability of the fetus – Subsequent email from AIIMS seeks direction on fetal heart stopping – Split verdict by two-Judge Bench –Bench constituted to resolve the matter – Further report sought from AIIMS on fetal condition and impact of medication on pregnancy. [Para 1-9]

Jurisdiction of the Court - Recalling an order - Application for recall filed after the disposal of a case - Availability of limited routes to challenge judgments for finality and dispute resolution - Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution - Exercise of power to do complete justice - Urgent and unique circumstances of a medical termination case - Justification for the exercise of jurisdiction. [Para 18-23]

Relief sought - Pregnancy beyond twenty-four weeks - Statutory limits under Section 3(2B) and Section 5 of the MTP Act - Absence of substantial fetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board - Absence of immediate necessity to save the life of the petitioner - Refusal of medical termination due to the viability of the fetus and potential risks - Alternative options considered by the Court. [Para 24-26]

Decision - Refusal of the prayer for medical termination of pregnancy - Planned delivery by AIIMS at the appropriate time - Union Government to bear all medical costs for delivery and related expenses - Option of giving the child up for adoption discussed - Disposal of the petition and application. [Para 27-29]

Recall of Order - Application for recall allowed - Directions issued for the pending case - Disposal of pending applications. [Para 29-30

Transfer of Cases – Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of multiple cases from Bihar to Mumbai – Complaints pending before various Courts in Bihar – Petitioner's grounds for transfer based on inconvenience and lack of merit in complaints. [Para 2-3]

Grounds for Transfer – Petitioner's claims of not visiting Bihar and inconvenience in contesting proceedings there – Court's assessment of these contentions. [Para 4]

Dismissal of Transfer Petition – Transfer Petition found devoid of merit and dismissed – Petitioner-wife advised to take appropriate legal steps in response to the complaints filed against her. [Para 5-6]

Criminal Appeal – Bail – Appellant's Bail Conditional on Husband's Surrender – High Court's conditional grant of bail to the appellant, dependent upon the surrender of the main accused, the husband of the deceased, modified by the Supreme Court. The Court holds that bail of one accused should not be dependent on the surrender of another accused.

Unnatural Death – Charges and Accusations – Case involves charges under Sections 304-B/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code relating to the unnatural death of a lady. The appellant is accused as the brother-in-law of the deceased. The main accused, the husband of the deceased, is absconding.

Legal Precedent – Independence of Cases for Co-Accused – Emphasizes that the question of granting bail to a co-accused should be considered independently and not be contingent on the actions or status of another accused.

Decision – Modified Bail Conditions – Supreme Court modifies the High Court’s conditions for granting bail to the appellant, removing the necessity for the surrender of the husband of the deceased for the appellant to be enlarged on bail. Appeals stand allowed as per the modifications. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Criminal Appeal – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellant challenging conviction and 10-year sentence for possession of commercial quantity of heroin – The appeal arises from the High Court's affirmation of the trial court's conviction and sentencing. [Para 1-6]

 Search and Seizure – Procedure under Section 52A of NDPS Act – Counsel for appellant argued that the seizure and sampling were in violation of mandatory procedures outlined in Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act – Counsel for the respondent argued that the search was lawful and complied with the requirements of the NDPS Act. [Para 7-9, 11]

 Legal Procedure – Importance of Compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act – The Court examined Section 52A(2), (3), and (4) of the NDPS Act which outlines the correct procedures for seizure, inventory preparation, and certification by the Magistrate – The Court stressed that these procedures form the primary evidence in cases under the NDPS Act. [Para 10-12]

 Evidence – Lack of Compliance with Section 52A Vitiates Conviction – The Court observed that the mandatory procedure under Section 52A was not followed during the seizure and sampling – The absence of primary evidence led to the vitiation of the entire trial. [Para 13-16]

 Decision – Conviction and Sentencing Set Aside – Due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedures of Section 52A, the Court set aside the appellant’s conviction and 10-year sentence – The appellant had already served more than 6 years in prison and was on bail, hence his bail bonds were canceled. [Para 17-19]

Criminal Appeal – Challenge to Conviction – Life imprisonment imposed by High Court after acquittal by Trial Court – Charges under Sections 302, 376, 511, 454, 380 read with Section 34 of IPC – Allegation of murder, rape, and theft – Contradictions in witness testimony and lapses in prosecution's case – High Court's reliance on evidence of PW1 and prior enmity – Conviction for murder and attempt to rape upheld, while acquittal for rape sustained . [Para 1-15]

Evidence – Reputation as a Fact – Distinction between character and reputation – Reputation as an internal fact – Evidentiary value of reputation – Reliance on Lahu Kamlakar Patil And Another v. State of Maharashtra – Unnatural conduct affecting the credibility of a witness – Importance of assessing the conduct of a witness under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. [Para 16-20]

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles governing circumstantial evidence – The five golden principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Importance of establishing a chain of evidence – Presumption of innocence in favor of the accused when an order of acquittal is given – Role of the appellate court in dealing with appeals against acquittals – The double presumption in favor of the accused. [Para 22-23]

Non-examination of Material Witnesses - Failure to examine material witnesses by the prosecution - Court's discretion to take note of such failure - Adverse inference can be drawn when essential witnesses are deliberately withheld and could have provided a different perspective on the case. [Para 24]

Effect of Absconding - Absconding as a relevant fact - Mere absconding cannot solely establish guilt - It may be due to fear of false implication or arrest - Absconding should be proven as a fact. [Para 25]

Decision - Inconsistencies in prosecution witness testimony - Lack of evidence of immediate action by a witness - Doubt regarding the origin of the first information report - Trial court's scrutiny of circumstantial evidence - Prosecution's failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt - Acquittal and release of the appellant. [Para 26-31]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201, IPC – Life Imprisonment

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court and the High Court for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for three years for Section 201. [Para 1]

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Together and Recovery of Deceased's Body

The prosecution's case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, notably two main circumstances: (a) the deceased and the appellant were last seen together, and (b) recovery of the deceased's body at the instance of the appellant. [Para 5]

Witness Testimony – PW-6 and PW-9 – Contradictions and Gaps

PW-6 provided evidence on the last sighting of the appellant and the deceased together. However, his testimony contained inconsistencies and gaps, notably in identifying the appellant. PW-9’s evidence raises serious doubts about PW-6’s claims, as he attested that the appellant was present at a work site around the same time as claimed by PW-6. [Para 6-8, Para 10]

Failure to Conduct Test Identification Parade

The failure to conduct a test identification parade to establish the identity of the appellant raises questions on the validity of PW-6’s identification. PW-6 was shown the appellant at the police superintendent's office, casting doubts over his courtroom identification of the appellant. [Para 9-10]

Non-Examination of Key Witnesses

The prosecution failed to examine a crucial witness, Hari Chand Sharma, who could have corroborated PW-6’s statement on the last sighting of the appellant and the deceased. [Para 8]

Acquittal – Insufficient Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt

Given the inconsistent and uncorroborated testimonies, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant was thus acquitted, and the earlier judgments were set aside. [Para 11-12]

Ceiling Act - Surplus land declaration and vesting - Dispute regarding possession of surplus land - Original petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order declaring the land surplus and the vesting notification - High Court refrained from deciding the issue of possession in earlier rounds of litigation - Serious dispute between parties on the question of possession - Delay of about seven years in filing the first writ petition - Insufficient documentary evidence regarding possession between alleged date of taking possession and filing of the first writ petition - High Court should have refrained from deciding the issue of actual possession and relegated the petitioner to a suit - Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside, and writ petition dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to institute a suit. [Para 19-37]