Administrative Law – Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution – Challenge to UPSC's decision not to include petitioner for personality test – Allegation of submitting Income and Asset Certificate after the closing date of online application – Personality test ongoing – Notice issued, Dasti service permitted – Results to be kept in a sealed cover – UPSC directed to ensure compliance with the order – Listed for further hearing on 20th November, 2023. [Para 1-8]

Medical Negligence – Allegations of medical negligence against a hospital and doctors – Patient undergoing neurosurgery suffers cardiac arrest and dies – Complaint filed by the wife of the deceased – Allegations mainly pertain to lack of post-operative care and failure to shift the patient to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) – Hospital and doctors contend that post-operative care was provided as per standard procedure, and symptoms exhibited by the patient did not suggest a cardiac arrest – Affidavit from a neurosurgery professor opines that the complications were unrelated to the surgery – No history of diabetes, hypertension, or cardiac problems in the patient – Court finds that the appellant failed to establish negligence in post-operative care – Principles of Res Ipsa Loquitor not applicable – Appeal dismissed. [Para 22-34]

Income Tax – Deduction of Licence Fee as Revenue Expenditure or Capital Expenditure – Dispute over classification of variable licence fee under New Telecom Policy of 1999 – Appellant's contention of treating licence fee payments as capital expenditure and respondent-assessees' contention of treating the same as revenue expenditure. [Para 2-6]

Telecom Licence Fees – Distinction between One-Time Entry Fee and Variable Licence Fee – One-time entry fee treated as capital expenditure, while variable licence fee, calculated as a percentage of Annual Gross Revenue, considered as revenue expenditure – Applicability of Section 35ABB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [Para 6.1-6.11]

Telecommunications Policy and Licence Fee – Nature of Expenditure - Variable licence fee paid under the New Telecom Policy of 1999, examined for its nature as capital or revenue expenditure. The main contention revolves around whether the fee is deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37 or is capital in nature, to be amortised under Section 35ABB of the Income Tax Act. [Para 3]

Change in Telecommunications Policy – Impact on Licence Fee Payment – Analysis of the shift from a fixed licence fee regime (pre-1999) to a variable licence fee structure based on the Annual Gross Revenue (AGR) post-1999. Consideration of the nature of payments made under both regimes for the purpose of telecom licensing. [Paras 5-6]

Legal Principles for Expenditure Classification – Application of legal principles for determining whether an expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. Evaluation of the purpose of the licence fee payments under the 1999 telecom policy and their impact on the rights and obligations of the telecom operators. [Para 7]

Interpretation of Section 35ABB – Analysis of whether variable licence fees paid post-1999 migration to the New Telecom Policy fall under the ambit of Section 35ABB of the Income Tax Act. [Para 7]

Nature of Capital Assets and Depreciation -  Section 32 of the Income Tax Act concerning tangible and intangible assets, including licenses as intangible assets - Clarification on depreciation versus amortization of capital assets, with specific reference to Sections 35A, 35AB, 35ABA, and 35ABB of the Act - Emphasis on the progressive depletion of asset value in amortization correlating with the expected timeframe of the right. [Para 10.1, 10.2, 10.3]

Telegraph Act Provisions Relevant to Telecommunication Licenses - exclusive privilege of the Central Government in establishing telegraphs and the power to grant licenses with conditions, including payment considerations . [Para 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4]

Payment of Royalty - Distinction from Acquisition of Rights - Differentiating payments made to acquire a right from payment of royalties - Acquisition implies purchase and ownership of a right for enduring advantage, while royalty is for the use of a right or asset without ownership. Payments depending on sales or profits are generally considered royalties and classifiable as revenue expenditure. [Paras 20, 20.1 - 20.4]

Considerations Irrelevant in Determining Expenditure Nature - Factors like lump-sum vs. periodical payment, magnitude of payment, and entries in books of accounts deemed immaterial in classifying expenditure as capital or revenue. Focus on the nature of the transaction and the rights involved. [Para 21]

Licence Fee under Telecommunication Policy of 1999 - Capital Nature -  licence fee payments under the 1999 policy, including entry fee and variable annual licence fee, are capital in nature -Apportioning these as partly capital and partly revenue by the High Court is incorrect. The nature of payment remains the same despite the manner or measure of payment or annual basis. Payments relate to acquiring the right to establish, maintain, and operate telecommunication services, thus, having a capital characteristic. [Paras 25 - 27]

Judgment and Order: The Division Bench's judgment of the High Court of Delhi, and related judgments by High Courts of Delhi, Bombay, and Karnataka, set aside. Appeals by the appellant(s)-Revenue allowed, holding that licence fee payments under the 1999 policy are capital in nature. [Para 28]

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]