Criminal Law – Bail Conditions – Sexual Harassment – Appeal against the High Court's order using rakhi tying as a bail condition for an accused of sexual harassment – Supreme Court finds the condition wholly unacceptable and diluting the offence of sexual harassment – Such conditions transform a molester into a brother by judicial mandate and perpetuate gender stereotypes – Appeal allowed; bail condition set aside [Paras 1-88].

Judicial Conduct – Gender Sensitization – Supreme Court issues guidelines for courts to avoid patriarchal notions and ensure gender sensitization – Bail conditions should protect complainant from further harassment – Orders must not reflect stereotypical notions about women – Courts should avoid suggesting or mandating compromises between prosecutrix and accused – Judges should be sensitive and avoid traumatizing prosecutrix during proceedings [Paras 44-47].

Role of Courts – Ensuring Fairness – Courts must ensure fairness and impartiality, avoiding stereotypes in judicial reasoning – Judges should be aware of diversity and not manifest bias or prejudice – Importance of judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases emphasized [Paras 31-38, 45-46].

Training and Sensitization – National Judicial Academy and State Judicial Academies to include gender sensitization in judicial training – Bar Council of India to include topics on sexual offences and gender sensitization in LL.B programs and All India Bar Examination – High Courts to formulate modules on judicial sensitivity for Judicial Services Examination [Paras 46-48, 50].

Decision – Bail conditions using rakhi tying set aside and expunged from the record – Directions issued for gender sensitization of judges and lawyers – Appeal disposed of with no order on costs [Paras 51-54].

Family Courts Act – Jurisdiction and Procedure – Family Court does not have plenary powers to bypass mandatory procedural requirements ensuring fairness and transparency – Section 7 defines jurisdiction, while Section 10 integrates CPC procedures for dispute resolution – Family Courts must adhere to principles of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as mandated by Section 14 of the Act – Procedural lapses by Family Courts, especially in ex parte decisions, can vitiate proceedings [Paras 27-28, 33-37].

Guardianship – Procedural Compliance – Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction by hastening proceedings without ensuring proper service and compliance with procedural requirements – Applications filed without notice to the appellant cannot be adjudicated ex parte – The Court’s failure to follow the due process of law violates principles of natural justice [Paras 32-37].

Remand and Revival of Proceedings – Guardianship petition (G.P. No. 09/2018) and related applications remanded and revived for proper adjudication – Family Court directed to decide pending applications and the main petition on merits, ensuring fair opportunity to both parties [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Impugned judgment and orders dated 21.9.2019 and 16.10.2019 set aside – Guardianship petition and related applications to be heard afresh – Respondent to surrender U.S. citizenship and passport of the minor child as assured – Respondent restrained from traveling outside Delhi or abroad with the minor child without Court's permission [Paras 42-45].

Service Law – Pay Scale Merger – Retrospective Application – Appeal concerning the merger of pay scales for Upper Division and Lower Division Assistants/Clerks in the universities of Bihar – The communication dated 28.07.1981 provided clear guidelines for merger applicable only to posts with distinct senior and junior scales – Appellants' posts of Typist, Counter Clerk, Routine Clerk, and Store Keeper were not eligible for the merged scales – Supreme Court holds that without re-designation of posts with Vice Chancellor's approval, benefits under the Government Orders (GOs) cannot be granted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Natural Justice – Recovery of Benefits – Despite dismissal of the appeal, Supreme Court rules that benefits accrued to appellants from 1990 to 1995 should not be recovered – No misrepresentation by appellants – Delay by authorities in deciding the issue – Principles from Shyam Babu Verma and Sahib Ram cases applied – Relief granted under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Benefits accrued from 1990 to 1995 not to be recovered – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 24].

Service Law – Reservation and Merit – Reallocation of Reserved Category Candidates – Petitioners, General Category candidates, challenged the reallocation of Reserved Category candidates to Open Category posts in the selection process for Constable PAC and Fireman – Supreme Court held reallocation to be valid and consistent with prior directives – Petitioners did not establish that any candidates with lower marks were selected over them – The reallocation ensured adherence to merit and reservation principles as per Court directives in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2018) 17 SCC 398 – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Principles of Selection – Compliance with Court Orders – The selection process adhered to the principles set forth by the Supreme Court, emphasizing merit-based selection within the framework of reservation – Additional posts created by reallocation due to the invalidation of earlier selections were appropriately adjusted – No evidence of procedural irregularity affecting petitioners' prospects [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Reallocation of candidates from reserved categories to open categories upheld – Petitioners' claims found without merit – Compliance with Court directives ensured [Para 9].

Insolvency Law – Professional Fees – Jurisdiction of NCLT – The appellant, a registered valuer, was appointed during the CIRP of the corporate debtor, which was subsequently set aside by the NCLAT. The appellant's claim for professional fees was dismissed by the NCLT, which held it was functus officio. The Supreme Court held that the NCLT has the jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to determine the fees payable to professionals engaged during the CIRP, emphasizing the need for a forum to address such claims within the insolvency framework [Paras 1-21].

IBC – Section 60(5)(c) – Scope and Application – The Supreme Court clarified that Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC grants the NCLT jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising out of or related to the insolvency resolution process. This includes determining the claims of professionals like registered valuers whose services were utilized during the CIRP [Para 18].

Costs and Expenses – CIRP – The court highlighted the definitions and provisions under Regulations 31 and 34 of the IRP Regulations, which encompass fees for professionals as part of the insolvency resolution process costs. The NCLT is thus empowered to assess and adjudicate the professional charges claimed by the appellant [Paras 12-15, 19].

Redressal Mechanism under IBC – Jurisdiction of NCLT and IBBI – The Supreme Court distinguished between the grievance redressal mechanism available under the IBC for addressing misconduct by resolution professionals and the jurisdiction of the NCLT to determine professional fees as part of CIRP costs. It stated that the NCLT's jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) is not ousted by the availability of other grievance mechanisms [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the NCLAT was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the NCLT to determine the appellant's claim for professional fees afresh. The earlier order of the NCLT was also set aside to facilitate this determination [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation – Tampering of Court Records – The appellant challenged the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent, accused of serious offenses including forgery and manipulation of court records. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the matter. The bail order was set aside due to inadequate reasoning and lack of consideration of relevant factors [Paras 1-10].

Seriousness of Offense – Consideration in Bail Matters – The Supreme Court highlighted that tampering with court records is a grave offense that can significantly undermine the administration of justice. The court stressed that such allegations require cautious consideration while granting bail [Paras 8.2-8.3].

Beneficiary of Forged Documents – Implications for Bail – The court noted that the respondent benefited from the forged and manipulated court order, which was used to secure an acquittal in a separate case. This fact alone warranted a more stringent approach in considering the bail application [Paras 8.3-8.4].

Locus Standi – Right to Challenge Bail – The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the appellant lacked the locus to challenge the bail order, noting the appellant's role in bringing the tampering allegations to light and the serious nature of the offense involved [Para 8.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order granting bail was quashed and set aside. The respondent was directed to surrender forthwith. The court clarified that observations in the order were confined to the bail issue and should not influence the trial's merits [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Bail Cancellation – The appellant challenged the High Court's order granting bail to the second respondent, accused of murdering the appellant's son. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's order lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to consider the seriousness of the offense and the prima facie evidence against the accused. The High Court's decision was deemed to not meet the required judicial standards, thus the bail order was set aside [Paras 1-10].

Article 21 – Personal Liberty vs. Public Interest – While the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 is paramount, it must be balanced with the public interest in ensuring that those accused of serious crimes are held accountable. The Supreme Court highlighted that in cases of serious offenses like murder, the liberty of the accused must be weighed against the need for justice and public safety [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Reasoning – Necessity of Detailed Justification – The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for its cursory reasoning in granting bail, which merely referenced the "larger mandate of Article 21" without addressing the gravity of the crime or the evidence on record. The Court reiterated the necessity for reasoned judicial orders to uphold the principles of open justice and ensure transparency in judicial decision-making [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The order of the High Court granting bail was set aside. The second respondent was directed to surrender forthwith [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning Additional Accused – Examination-in-Chief – Appeal against High Court's quashing of the Trial Court’s order summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC – Supreme Court holds that accused can be summoned on the basis of examination-in-chief of the witness and need not wait till cross-examination – Prima facie case against the proposed accused suffices – Appeal allowed; Trial Court's order restored [Paras 1-8].

Application of Section 319 CrPC – Broad Interpretation of Evidence – Evidence in Section 319 CrPC includes examination-in-chief – Court can summon additional accused if prima facie evidence is available – No need to await cross-examination or further evidence testing – The aim is to ensure the real perpetrators face trial – High Court erred in appreciating evidence on merits at the summoning stage [Paras 6-8].

Summoning Based on Witness Testimony – Injured eyewitness testimony named additional accused, initially not charge-sheeted due to DSP’s enquiry report – Trial Court’s reliance on witness’s examination-in-chief justified – High Court’s reasons for quashing summoning order found unsustainable [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order quashing Trial Court's summoning of additional accused set aside – Trial Court’s summoning order restored – Additional accused to face trial as summoned [Paras 8-8.2].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Limitation Period – Appeal against High Court's decision to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Demand for arbitration was made on 07.11.2006 and reiterated on 13.01.2007 – Time began running from 12.02.2007 after no arbitrator was appointed – Subsequent final rejection by appellant on 10.11.2010 did not reset limitation period – Applications under Section 11 filed on 06.11.2013 were time-barred – High Court erred in finding applications within limitation – Appeals allowed; High Court's appointment of arbitrator set aside [Paras 1-22].

Final Payment and Demand – Contractual Obligations – Final payments for road repair works were received by March 2003 – Respondent's demand for price variation reimbursement made on 08.09.2003 – Further demands and letters did not extend limitation – Claims were time-barred by February 2013 – Applications for arbitration appointment were ex facie time-barred [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment dated 20.08.2019 set aside – Applications for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act dismissed as time-barred [Para 22].