Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Dignity – Article 21 – The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live with human dignity, which encompasses the right to food and basic necessities. The Court directed both Central and State governments to ensure food security for migrant workers and unorganized labourers, stressing the constitutional obligation to provide at least bare necessities to all citizens [Paras 1-56].

Migrant Workers – Registration and Welfare Schemes – The Court directed the Central Government to develop a portal for the registration of unorganized labourers and migrant workers in consultation with the National Informatics Centre (NIC). The process of registration under the National Database for Unorganized Workers (NDUW Project) was to commence by July 31, 2021, and be completed by December 31, 2021. The Court underscored the need for cooperation between States, Union Territories, and contractors to facilitate this process and ensure that welfare schemes reach the intended beneficiaries [Paras 57-70].

Food Distribution – The Court instructed the Department of Food and Public Distribution to allocate and distribute foodgrains as per the States' demand for disbursement to migrant workers. States were directed to implement schemes for the distribution of dry ration to migrant workers and to continue these schemes until the COVID-19 pandemic persists. The "One Nation One Ration Card" scheme was to be implemented by all States by July 31, 2021, to ensure portability of ration cards for migrant workers [Paras 71-80].

Statutory Obligations – The Court mandated the registration of all establishments and licensing of contractors under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, ensuring compliance with statutory duties. This includes the provision of necessary amenities and the maintenance of proper records of migrant workers by the contractors [Paras 81-100].

Community Kitchens – States and Union Territories were directed to run community kitchens at prominent places to provide meals to migrant labourers who lack the means to procure food, with such kitchens to operate at least until the pandemic continues [Paras 101-110].

Decision – Writ Petitions Disposed Of – The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petitions with directions to ensure the welfare and rights of migrant workers and unorganized labourers, emphasizing the constitutional mandate to provide basic necessities and the statutory duty to protect these workers [Paras 111-120].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Revival of Void Acts – The Supreme Court upheld the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation Amendment and Validation) Act 2019, stating that the legislature can revive an act declared void due to repugnancy by removing the basis of invalidity and making substantive changes, provided it does not overrule the court judgment directly [Paras 25-29].

Repugnancy – Article 254 of the Constitution – The Court emphasized that Article 254(2) allows a State law repugnant to a Central law to prevail in the State if it has received Presidential assent. The 2019 Act, having received such assent, complies with this provision and thus prevails over the 2013 Act in Tamil Nadu [Paras 34-39].

Separation of Powers – The Court reiterated that the legislature cannot overrule a judicial decision directly but can render it ineffective by curing the defects pointed out by the court through valid legislation. The 2019 Act was held to be a valid legislative measure that addresses the defects highlighted by the High Court [Paras 36-40].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation Amendment and Validation) Act 2019. The Act was found to be within the legislative competence of the State and in compliance with the constitutional provisions under Article 254(2) [Paras 45-49].

Arbitration – Applicability of Limitation Act – The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006. This is in line with Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which extends the Limitation Act to arbitrations as it applies to court proceedings [Paras 18-19].

Arbitration – Maintainability of Counterclaim – The Court also held that counterclaims are maintainable in arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006. The Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect micro, small, and medium enterprises, and excluding counterclaims would undermine its purpose. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provisions, including those allowing counterclaims, are applicable to such proceedings [Paras 19-24].

Registration Requirement – The Court clarified that to seek benefits under the MSMED Act, the supplier must be registered as an enterprise under the Act at the time of entering the contract and supplying goods or services. Registration obtained after entering the contract does not apply retrospectively [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed and Partly Dismissed – The appeals were partly allowed, affirming the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the maintainability of counterclaims under the MSMED Act, 2006. However, the Court dismissed the appeals of appellants who were not registered under the MSMED Act at the time of entering the contract, thus not entitled to its benefits [Paras 28].

Penal Code – Section 364A – Essential Ingredients – The Supreme Court held that for a conviction under Section 364A IPC, the prosecution must prove: (i) kidnapping or abduction, (ii) a threat to cause death or hurt, or conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension that the person may be put to death or hurt, or causing hurt or death, (iii) to compel the government, any foreign state, or any person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom [Paras 1-12, 33].

Conviction – Section 364A Set Aside – The Court found that the evidence did not establish a threat to cause death or hurt, nor did it show conduct giving rise to reasonable apprehension of death or hurt. Consequently, the conviction under Section 364A IPC was set aside. However, the Court upheld the conviction for kidnapping under Section 363 IPC and sentenced the appellant to seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000 [Paras 35-44].

Legal Principles – Interpretation of Conjunctions – The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting conjunctions like "and" and "or" correctly in statutory provisions, highlighting that all conditions connected by "and" must be met for a conviction under Section 364A IPC [Paras 13-16].

Precedents Cited – The Court referred to several precedents, including:

Anil alias Raju Namdev Patil vs. Administration of Daman & Diu Daman and Another (2006) 13 SCC 36

Arvind Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) SCC Online SC 400

Malleshi vs. State of Karnataka (2004) 8 SCC 95

Netra Pal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2001 Cri LJ 1669 (Del)]

Suman Sood alias Kamaljeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan (2007) 5 SCC 634

Vikram Singh alias Vicky and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 502

Vishwanath Gupta Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 11 SCC 633 [Paras 22-32].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The appeal was partly allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 364A IPC but upheld the conviction under Section 363 IPC, sentencing the appellant to seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000 [Paras 44-45].

Service Law – Promotion – Reservation for PwD – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an employee appointed on compassionate grounds, who later became eligible for promotion under the PwD category, can avail reservation in promotion. The Court held that the source of recruitment should not affect the entitlement to reservation in promotion for PwD. The mandate of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act requires reservation in promotions for identified posts, irrespective of the initial mode of appointment [Paras 1-31].

Legislative Intent – The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the 1995 Act is to ensure equal opportunities and career progression for PwD. Section 47 of the Act mandates non-discrimination in promotion and ensures that employees acquiring disabilities are not denied promotional opportunities [Paras 13-18].

Precedents – The Court referred to previous judgments, including Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India (2016) and Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka (2020), which upheld the principle that reservation in promotion applies to PwD. The Court also noted that identification of posts under Section 32 should not be used to delay or deny reservations mandated under Section 33 [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision granting reservation in promotion to the respondent. The Court directed the State of Kerala to implement reservation in promotion for PwD in all identified posts within three months, ensuring compliance with the mandate of the 1995 Act [Paras 29-31].

Customs Law – Absolute Confiscation – Import of Goods in Violation of Notifications – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of absolute confiscation of goods imported in violation of government notifications and trade notices under the FTDR Act. The Court held that the goods imported beyond permissible quantities and without a license are 'prohibited goods' and liable to absolute confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The contention that the goods were of 'restricted' category was rejected [Paras 1-56].

Discretion in Confiscation – The Court criticized the Adjudicating Authority for failing to consider the option of absolute confiscation and proceeding as if it had to provide an option for payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation. The Court emphasized that the discretion under Section 125(1) must be exercised consciously and cautiously, and in this case, the goods were correctly deemed liable for absolute confiscation by the Appellate Authority [Paras 57-70].

Legality of High Court's Mandamus – The High Court had issued directions for the release of goods based on the Adjudicating Authority’s orders, which were under appeal. The Supreme Court found this to be improper as it preempted the statutory appellate process and undermined the authority of the customs officials [Paras 71-80].

Equitable Relief – Despite finding the imports to be illegal, the Supreme Court considered the hardship faced by the importers due to prolonged litigation and the perishable nature of the goods. The Court allowed for the possibility of re-export of the goods on payment of redemption fine and subject to fulfilling other statutory requirements [Paras 81-100].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order directing the release of the goods but permitted the importers to re-export the goods on payment of redemption fine and compliance with other statutory obligations. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration of the penalty and other conditions [Paras 101-110].

Penal Law – Firing on Fishermen – Compensation and Quashing of FIR – An unfortunate incident occurred on 15.02.2012, where two Indian fishermen were killed after being fired upon by two Italian Military Naval officials from a passing ship. Following the award of the Arbitral Tribunal under UNCLOS, the Republic of Italy agreed to pay Rs. 10 crores as compensation. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and set aside all proceedings, directing that the compensation amount be distributed to the victims' families and the boat owner [Paras 1-12].

UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal Award – The Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS delivered its award on 21.05.2020. Italy agreed to pay Rs. 10 crores in compensation and committed to resuming its criminal investigation into the incident. The Supreme Court noted that all parties, including the Union of India, State of Kerala, and heirs of the deceased, had accepted the award [Paras 3-6].

Exercise of Powers under Article 142 – The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to quash the FIR and ongoing criminal proceedings. This was deemed appropriate to bring an end to the long-drawn dispute and in the interest of the victims' families [Paras 6-7].

Disbursement of Compensation – The Court directed that the compensation amount be transferred to the High Court of Kerala, with Rs. 4 crores to be paid to the heirs of each deceased fisherman and Rs. 2 crores to the owner of the damaged boat. The Chief Justice of Kerala High Court was requested to ensure proper disbursement and investment to protect the interests of the heirs [Para 8].

Decision – The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings, directing the disbursement of compensation as per the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal award and ensuring the protection of the victims' families' interests [Paras 7-8].

Education Law – Correction/Change in CBSE Certificates – The Supreme Court examined the constitutional and statutory validity of the CBSE Examination Byelaws, 2007, in relation to requests for correction or change in the certificates issued by CBSE. The Court observed that the Byelaws, which impose limitations on corrections to be consistent with school records, cannot override an individual's right to identity and dignity [Paras 1-56, 70-100].

Correction vs. Change – The Court distinguished between "correction" (to make the certificate consistent with school records) and "change" (based on public documents or acquired name). It ruled that corrections should be permitted if they bring the CBSE certificate in line with school records and public documents. For changes, a reasonable period of limitation and compliance with additional conditions like affidavits and indemnities were justified [Paras 57-69].

Fundamental Rights – The Court emphasized that an individual's control over their identity is fundamental and cannot be unreasonably restricted by CBSE Byelaws. The right to identity, under Article 21, includes the right to correct or change one's name to reflect the true identity, as recorded in public documents like birth certificates and Aadhaar cards [Paras 6-18, 19-21].

Administrative Procedures – The Court directed CBSE to facilitate the correction and change processes by ensuring proper administrative procedures, including the requirement to surrender the original certificate and issue a new one with annotations indicating the changes made. The Court underscored the importance of reasonable fees for administrative expenses [Paras 22-32].

Decision – Appeals Allowed in Part – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals partly by setting aside the restrictions imposed by CBSE on corrections and changes, directing that reasonable procedures and limitations be followed in alignment with constitutional principles. The Court mandated CBSE to update its records and issue new certificates accordingly, ensuring respect for the right to identity and dignity of students [Paras 33-45, 46-65].

Contempt of Court – Willful Disobedience – The Supreme Court emphasized that contempt action should proceed only for established willful disobedience of the Court's orders. The term "willful" requires intentional, conscious, and deliberate action with full knowledge of the consequences. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide, or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply [Paras 1-8].

Compliance with Court Orders – Reengagement of Employees – The Court found that the respondents had partially complied with the Court's orders by reengaging the petitioners on their posts. However, the respondents did not provide continuity of service and arrears of back wages, which was a point of contention [Paras 9-12].

Fresh Termination Orders – The respondents issued fresh termination orders without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, which the petitioners argued was a violation of the principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court's earlier judgment [Paras 24-27].

Reinstatement and Arrears – The Supreme Court reiterated that the reinstatement order should include continuity of service and back wages unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Court criticized the respondents for interpreting the orders in a way that excluded these benefits, calling for a more faithful compliance with the original judgment [Paras 55-62].

Decision – The Supreme Court directed the respondents to comply fully with the orders regarding the reinstatement of the petitioners with continuity of service and payment of arrears. The Court dismissed the contempt petitions related to the reengagement without arrears but allowed those concerning the fresh termination orders to proceed, mandating a proper hearing for the petitioners [Paras 63-65].