Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Death Penalty – Acquittal – Investigation Lapses – No Test Identification Parade conducted – Witnesses failed to identify the accused during depositions – Prosecution failed to prove arrest, identification, discoveries, recoveries, and medical/scientific evidence – No cogent and clinching evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt [Paras 1-88].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence – Legal standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence not met – Circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis except guilt of accused – Prosecution's evidence inconsistent and unreliable – Accused acquitted due to failure to form a complete and conclusive chain of evidence [Paras 6-48].

Fair Trial Rights – Cross-examination Deficiencies – Trial Court's passive role resulted in inadequate cross-examination of material witnesses – Accused deprived of fair trial rights – Emphasized active role of trial judges in ensuring justice [Paras 34-35].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and death penalty quashed – Appellants acquitted and to be set free forthwith unless required in another case – Family of victim entitled to compensation under Section 357(A) Cr.PC [Paras 36-38].

Reservation Law – Constitutionality – 103rd Constitution Amendment – Introduced 10% reservation for EWS in education and public employment – Petitioners argued it violated basic structure by excluding socially and educationally backward classes and exceeding the 50% reservation cap – Supreme Court upheld the amendment – Held, economic criteria for reservation does not violate the Constitution’s basic structure – Exclusion of SCs, STs, and non-creamy layer OBCs balances nondiscrimination and compensatory discrimination – Exceeding 50% reservation cap permissible as it is not inflexible [Paras 1-88].

Economic Criteria – Validity – Economic criteria for EWS reservation upheld – Does not violate essential features of Constitution – Ensures inclusive march towards egalitarian society – Held, reservation based on economic criteria valid even if it exceeds 50% cap as ceiling is flexible [Paras 2-5].

Exclusion of Certain Classes – Non-Violation of Equality Code – Exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS reservation does not violate Equality Code – Balances compensatory discrimination with nondiscrimination – Amendments enable but do not mandate reservations [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Petitions dismissed – 103rd Constitution Amendment upheld – Reservations for EWS up to 10% valid – Exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs permissible – Ceiling limit of 50% flexible and can be breached in specific contexts [Paras 1-88].

Criminal Practice – Supply of Documents – Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 – Rule 4 – Right of accused to receive the list of documents, material, etc. – Supreme Court highlighted the need for uniform guidelines for criminal trials – Noted that the right to receive documents applies after adoption of the Draft Rules – Emphasized the importance of equal rights for accused across states to avoid prejudice – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-24].

Right to Fair Trial – Disclosure of Evidence – Judicial oversight and public prosecutor’s role in ensuring fair trial – Supreme Court reiterated the importance of disclosure of all material, including exculpatory evidence – Noted gaps in current practice where some states have not adopted Draft Rules, impacting accused’s rights – Directed High Courts and State Governments to expedite the adoption of the Draft Rules [Paras 11-19].

Procedural Compliance – Implementation of Draft Rules – Emphasized the need for High Courts and State Governments to incorporate Draft Rules into existing frameworks – Directed that Draft Rule 4, concerning the supply of documents, be implemented at the trial stage, not at appellate stages – Observed misuse of procedural delays by accused to hamper justice – Appeal dismissed with directions to expedite trial proceedings [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Courts directed to adopt Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 – Accused's request for documents denied due to procedural stage – Trial courts to ensure compliance with Rule 4 once adopted – No costs [Paras 13-14].

Martial Law – Limitation Period – For Section 122, relevant dates are when aggrieved person and competent authority knew of the alleged offence – Knowledge of the offence by the aggrieved person on 13.08.2015 initiated limitation period – Convening Authority's order for trial by General Court Martial on 22.11.2018 beyond three-year limitation – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-10].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Scope of Judicial Review – Judicial review limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors causing manifest injustice or violation of natural justice principles – Merits of disciplinary decisions not reviewed – Disciplinary proceedings against appellant to continue as per law despite quashing of trial [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – General Court Martial proceedings quashed due to expiration of limitation period under Section 122 of the Army Act – Disciplinary proceedings based on charge sheet dated 19.11.2018 to continue in accordance with law [Paras 10-12].

Corporate Governance – Election of Office Bearers – Regulation 92(2) applicable only in cases of absence, not vacancy – Regulation 117(2) applicable when post vacated due to disqualification – Election of new Chairman held under Regulation 119(2) valid – High Court erred in quashing election on grounds of meeting not chaired by Vice-Chairman [Paras 4-4.4].

Regulation Interpretation – Distinction Between Absence and Vacancy – Absence pertains to temporary non-attendance, while vacancy arises from disqualification or resignation – Regulation 92(2) not applicable to vacancies – Regulation 119(2) mandates election to fill vacancies – High Court's interpretation incorrect [Paras 4.4-4.5].

Election Validity – Challenge by Non-Contestant – Writ petition challenging election invalid as respondent did not contest election – Regulation 114(4) requires disputes to be referred to President within 30 days – High Court erred in entertaining petition by non-contestant [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgments quashing election set aside – Election of office bearers of EIRC of ICSI on 27.12.2021 upheld – Writ petitions dismissed – No costs [Paras 6-6.1].

Fee Regulation – Unauthorized Fee Enhancement – Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. enhancing tuition fees for private medical colleges without AFRC's recommendations – High Court quashed G.O., held it illegal under Rules 2006 – Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules and AFRC’s role in fee determination [Paras 1-5].

Rule 4 of Rules 2006 – Fee Fixation Process – AFRC required to recommend fee structure after detailed enquiry considering factors such as location, infrastructure cost, administration expenses, and reasonable surplus – State Government's unilateral fee enhancement deemed arbitrary and impermissible [Paras 3-5].

Refund of Excess Fee – High Court directed refund of excess fee collected under invalid G.O. after adjusting fees fixed as per previous determination – Supreme Court upheld refund order – Institutions benefited from illegal G.O. cannot retain excess amounts – Provisions for future recovery if AFRC approves higher fees noted [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Costs of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed, shared equally between appellant and State of Andhra Pradesh – Amount to be deposited with Supreme Court Registry for National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) [Paras 7-7.1].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Life – Compensation to Riot Victims – The Supreme Court held that the victims of the 1992-93 Bombay riots, due to the failure of the State Government to maintain law and order, were entitled to compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to live with human dignity. The State Government’s failure led to violations of Article 21, and the affected persons have a right to seek compensation from the State Government. The Court mandated the formation of a committee to ensure compensation is paid to the victims or their legal heirs and provided directives for the disbursement of such compensation, including interest for delayed payments [Paras 20-26].

Mandamus for Implementation of Commission Recommendations – The Court recognized that while the recommendations of the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, are not binding, once accepted by the Government, a writ court can issue a mandamus for their implementation. The Court directed the State Government to implement the recommendations for police reforms and to compensate the victims adequately [Paras 10, 19].

Police Reforms – Implementation of Recommendations – The Court emphasized the need for the State Government to implement the recommendations made by the Srikrishna Commission regarding police reforms, which included improvements in training, physical fitness, weaponry, and communication systems, and measures to reduce political interference in police functioning [Paras 18, 26].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The State Government is directed to pay compensation to the victims of the 1992-93 riots as per the guidelines and to implement the police reforms recommended by the Srikrishna Commission. A committee is formed to oversee the process, and the State Government is required to submit reports of compliance within specified timeframes [Paras 28-29].

Contract Law – OTS Scheme – Extension of Time – The Supreme Court held that the borrower cannot claim an extension of time under the OTS Scheme as a matter of right. The High Court erred in granting further time for the borrower to make the balance payment under the OTS Scheme beyond the stipulated period, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bank is permitted to mutually agree to extend the time, but such extensions cannot be enforced by the borrower through judicial orders. The High Court's decision was quashed, emphasizing the necessity to adhere strictly to the terms and conditions of the OTS Scheme [Paras 7-8].

Negative Discrimination – Not Applicable – The Court rejected the claim of negative discrimination, stating that the borrower must establish a right to claim such extensions. The bank's extension of time to other borrowers does not create a precedent or entitlement for the respondent [Paras 7.1].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The High Court's judgment and order dated March 10, 2022, granting an extension for the respondent to make the balance payment under the OTS Scheme, is quashed and set aside. The original writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed [Paras 8].

Employees' Pension Scheme – Amendments – Validity – The Supreme Court examined the amendments to the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, made by the Central Government through the notification dated 22nd August 2014. The Court upheld the legality of the amendments, including the revised method for determining pensionable salary based on the average of the last 60 months instead of 12 months and capping the maximum pensionable salary at Rs. 15,000 per month. The Court found the amendments to be within the power of the Central Government under Section 7 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and justified based on relevant material and not arbitrary or whimsical [Paras 1-12, 36].

Requirement for Employee Contribution – Ultra Vires – The Supreme Court held that the requirement for employees to contribute 1.16% of their salary exceeding Rs. 15,000 per month to remain in the pension scheme was ultra vires the parent Act. The Act does not contemplate any contribution by employees to the pension fund, and such a stipulation in the scheme without legislative backing was illegal. The Court suspended the operation of this part of its judgment for six months, allowing the legislature time to bring appropriate amendments if deemed necessary. In the interim, employees are required to make the 1.16% contribution as a stop-gap measure [Paras 13-15, 35].

Reasonable Classification – Validity – The Court rejected the argument that all employees constitute a homogeneous class and held that the Central Government is within its power to differentiate between employees based on their salary levels and offer improved social benefits to those in the lower wage bracket. This classification meets the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 29-31, 33].

Decision: The appeals are partly allowed. The amendments to the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, made by the notification dated 22nd August 2014 are upheld, except for the provision requiring employees to contribute 1.16% of their salary exceeding Rs. 15,000 per month, which is declared ultra vires the parent Act. The operation of this part of the judgment is suspended for six months to allow for legislative amendments. During this period, employees will continue to make the 1.16% contribution as a temporary measure [Paras 35-36].