Service Law – Resignation – Withdrawal Before Acceptance – Acceptance of Resignation – The appellant tendered his resignation on 05.12.2013, but later sought to withdraw it. The respondent corporation claimed that the resignation was accepted on 15.04.2014, with effect from 07.04.2014, and rejected the withdrawal request on 23.06.2014. The appellant contested that the acceptance was never communicated and that he had continued to work even after the resignation date. Held: The Supreme Court found that the letter dated 15.04.2014 was an internal communication not served to the appellant. Additionally, the corporation's own conduct, including requesting the appellant to report for duty and considering his absence, indicated that the resignation had not been finalized. Therefore, the resignation was effectively withdrawn before its acceptance. The Division Bench's ruling was incorrect in not considering this fact [Paras 10-12].

Service Law – Reinstatement and Back Wages – The appellant was entitled to be reinstated into service. However, to balance equities, the salary payable for the period during which the appellant did not work was restricted to 50%. Held: The appellant is to be reinstated within thirty days of the order, with 50% back wages from 01.07.2014 to the date of reinstatement. This period shall count towards pensionary benefits, if any [Paras 13-13.2].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 3982 of 2019 (S-RES) is set aside. The appellant is directed to be reinstated into service within thirty days. He shall receive 50% of the salary for the period from 01.07.2014 to the date of reinstatement. This period shall be counted for pensionary benefits [Paras 13, 13.1].

Criminal Law – Arrest and Bail – Allowed - High Court Judgment – Appellant Arvind Kejriwal's arrest upheld by the High Court for alleged involvement in manipulation of the Excise Policy for undue gains. High Court denied regular bail. Appellant challenged arrest procedure under Sections 41(1) and 41A of CrPC. Held: Arrest not illegal, but continued incarceration pending trial violated personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The prosecution failed to show a clear need for custodial interrogation after 22 months of investigation. The appellant had cooperated with the investigation, and there was no risk of tampering with evidence. Bail was granted with conditions. Paras23,40−42​​.

Arrest Procedure – Compliance with Section 41A CrPC – The appellant alleged non-compliance with Section 41A notice procedure. CBI interrogated the appellant while in judicial custody, then sought arrest without issuing a formal notice under Section 41A. The Court ruled that a formal notice was unnecessary as the appellant was already in custody. The CBI complied by seeking the court’s permission for interrogation and arrest, following the appropriate legal framework. Held: Arrest procedurally valid; Section 41A notice does not apply to individuals already in judicial custody.  Paras17−27​​.

Bail – Triple Test – Appellant granted bail as the CBI possessed all relevant evidence, reducing the risk of tampering. The appellant was neither a flight risk nor a threat to witnesses. The High Court erred in denying bail, as the appellant's continued detention served no substantial purpose. He should not be penalized for exercising his right to remain silent during interrogation. Bail was granted with strict conditions, including a prohibition on public comments about the case. Paras41−42​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside. Bail granted with conditions, including a Rs. 10 lakh bail bond and prohibition on discussing the case publicly. Appellant to be released if no other charges are pending. Paras42−47​​.

Public Examination – Denial of Handkerchief – Re-Examination Denied – The petitioner, suffering from Hyperhidrosis, was not permitted to take a handkerchief into the NEET-2024 examination hall, allegedly affecting his performance. The High Court found that the petitioner was allotted the full examination time, and the denial of the handkerchief would not have materially affected his performance, as he could have wiped his sweat on his clothes. Held: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no merit in the Special Leave Petition and emphasizing the need for circumspection in individual grievances regarding public examinations, which can delay finalization of results and affect larger public interest [Paras 4, 7]​.

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – No merit found in the claim for re-examination due to the non-availability of a handkerchief during the examination [Paras 7, 8]​.

Arbitration Law – Extension of Time under Section 29A – Post-Expiry Applications – Maintainability – Appeals concerning whether an application for extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be filed after the expiry of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal. The Calcutta High Court held that such an application must be filed before the mandate expires, a view supported by the Patna High Court. However, High Courts in Delhi, Bombay, Kerala, Madras, and Jammu & Kashmir took an opposite stance, allowing post-expiry applications. – Held: The Supreme Court accepted the broader view that applications for extension could be filed after expiry, as long as sufficient cause was shown. A narrow interpretation of “terminate” under Section 29A(4) would unduly restrict arbitration proceedings, contrary to legislative intent. The Court emphasized that flexibility is inherent in the provision, allowing extensions both before and after the tribunal’s mandate ends [Paras 1-9, 20].

Interpretation of “Terminate” – Conditional Nature – Purpose of Section 29A – The expression “terminate” in Section 29A(4) of the Act was interpreted in the context of ensuring efficient arbitration, not to impose strict finality. The word “terminate” is followed by “unless,” implying that the tribunal’s mandate can continue if the court grants an extension. The Court noted that a strict literal interpretation would lead to unnecessary disruptions in arbitration, forcing parties to restart proceedings. This interpretation would also undermine the legislative goal of expediting arbitration and reducing litigation costs. The Court reiterated that judicial discretion, as envisioned in Section 29A(5), provides sufficient safeguards against abuse of process [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) maintainable even after expiry of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate – The High Court’s restrictive interpretation overturned – The matter was remitted for final hearing and disposal – Parties directed to proceed in accordance with the decision.

Criminal Law – PCPNDT Act – Illegal Search and Seizure – Reversal on Appeal – The appellant, a radiologist, was convicted under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, for allegedly conducting illegal sex determination tests. A raid conducted solely by the Civil Surgeon at the appellant's clinic led to the seizure of evidence. The trial court convicted the appellant based on this evidence. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the raid and search were unauthorized, as they were not sanctioned by the full District Appropriate Authority as required under Section 30(1) of the Act – Held: The search and seizure were illegal, vitiating the entire prosecution case [Paras 1-14].

Search and Seizure – Legality of Raid – Section 30(1) of the 1994 Act – The raid on the appellant’s clinic was conducted by a team formed solely by the Civil Surgeon without the approval or involvement of other members of the District Appropriate Authority, as mandated by Section 30(1) of the Act. The Court observed that the procedural safeguards requiring the full Authority’s approval were ignored. The Civil Surgeon acted unilaterally, rendering the search illegal. Since the raid did not comply with the law, all evidence obtained through the raid was inadmissible, and the FIR was quashed [Paras 10-12].

Offence under Section 23 of the 1994 Act – Illegality of Evidence – The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on the evidence obtained from the illegal search. Since the search was unauthorized, the evidence collected was inadmissible. Consequently, continuing prosecution based on this tainted evidence would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The conviction and the FIR were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 23 of the 1994 Act set aside – FIR and complaint quashed – Appellant acquitted [Paras 13-14].

Environmental Law – Solid Waste Management – Closure of Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) – Reversal on Appeal – National Green Tribunal (NGT) ordered the closure of a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) at Baner, Pune, citing violations of environmental norms – Directed the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) to relocate the GPP and convert the land into a biodiversity park – NGT found the GPP violated the right to a clean environment of local residents – On appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the NGT’s order, holding that the plant's setup complied with the earlier Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, and was not bound by the newer 2016 Rules – Further, the delay in challenging the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted in 2016 was deemed excessive – Held: The closure of the GPP would be detrimental to public interest and environmentally unsustainable [Paras 1-56].

Environmental Regulations – Applicability of Rules – 2000 vs. 2016 Rules – GPP established before the enactment of the 2016 Solid Waste Management Rules – Pune Municipal Corporation and Noble Exchange Environment Solution sought and obtained necessary authorizations and clearances under the 2000 Rules – Supreme Court held that since the project began prior to the 2016 Rules, it was governed by the 2000 Rules, and thus, the buffer zone requirements of the 2016 Rules were not applicable – The 2016 Rules allow two years for local bodies to establish infrastructure, but the GPP was already operational by that time, and hence the 2000 Rules still applied [Paras 27-34].

Environmental Clearance – Delay in Legal Challenge – Objection to Environmental Clearance (EC) raised three years after it was granted – The Supreme Court observed that the residents were aware of the development plan and the GPP’s Environmental Clearance from 2016 – The delay in filing the challenge in 2019 was considered fatal, and the court rejected the challenge on grounds of limitation under the NGT Act [Paras 6, 26].

Public Interest – Garbage Processing Plant and Environmental Sustainability – Appeal against GPP closure allowed – The Supreme Court emphasized that closing the GPP would result in transporting waste across the city, increasing environmental hazards, and public nuisance due to odour and waste spillage – Court noted that the GPP used environmentally friendly anaerobic digestion technology to produce biogas, which supported public transport in Pune – Held: Closure of the GPP would be against public interest and environmentally harmful [Paras 42-45].

Municipal Obligations – Compliance with NEERI Recommendations – While setting aside the NGT’s order, the Supreme Court directed the Pune Municipal Corporation and the GPP operator to comply with the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute’s (NEERI) recommendations, including installing odour control systems, covering waste areas, and enhancing green cover around the plant – The court mandated regular environmental audits by NEERI every six months and strict compliance with its findings [Paras 49-56].

Decision: Appeals allowed – National Green Tribunal’s orders quashed – Garbage Processing Plant to continue operations – PMC and operator directed to implement environmental safeguards and audit mechanisms as prescribed by NEERI – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 47-57].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Threatened Demolition of Property – The petitioner, a co-owner of a legally constructed house, faced threats of demolition by municipal authorities after an FIR was filed against a family member – The petitioner argued that law should take its course against the accused, but the rest of the family should not be penalized through the demolition of their residence – Held: Actions of the State must be governed by the rule of law, and the alleged involvement in crime by one family member is no ground for the demolition of property legally constructed and occupied by other family members – The Court emphasized that such demolition threats are inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme and could be viewed as an overreach by authorities, effectively bulldozing over the laws of the land [Order].

Constitutional Law – Rule of Law – Due Legal Process – The Court observed that the alleged crime must be proven through due legal process in a Court of law – State actions should not transgress the rule of law by demolishing property based solely on accusations – Held: The State is to maintain the status quo regarding the petitioner's property until the matter is resolved through due legal process [Order].

Decision: Issue notice returnable in four weeks – Status quo in respect of the petitioner’s property is to be maintained by all concerned until the returnable date [Order].

Criminal Law – Preventive Detention – COFEPOSA Act – Detention order quashed due to procedural violations – The appellant, wife of the detenu (Shaji A.K.), challenged the preventive detention of her husband under COFEPOSA for allegedly engaging in illegal foreign exchange transactions – Detention based on statements, WhatsApp chats, and documents linking the detenu to hawala transactions – Detention order passed on 31st August 2023 and confirmed on 28th November 2023 by the Central Government – Supreme Court quashed the detention on the grounds of (i) non-supply of crucial documents (statements of a key witness) relied on by the Detaining Authority, and (ii) excessive and unjustified delay of nearly nine months in considering the detenu’s representation – Held: Both procedural lapses violated the detenu’s fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which mandates the earliest opportunity for making an effective representation [Paras 1-72].

Constitutional Law – Article 22(5) – Right to make effective representation – Non-supply of key documents – The Detaining Authority had relied upon multiple statements, including those of Preetha Pradeep, in arriving at its subjective satisfaction for the detention order – These statements were not provided to the detenu, violating his right to make an effective representation – Supreme Court emphasized that the right to representation under Article 22(5) requires the supply of all material documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority – Citing precedent from cases such as M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India (1990) and Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2000), the Court held that failure to supply such documents vitiates the detention [Paras 17-44].

Preventive Detention – Delay in consideration of representation – The detenu’s representation, submitted on 27th September 2023, was not transmitted or decided until June 2024, despite repeated judgments stressing the importance of expeditious consideration of such representations – The delay of almost nine months, largely due to jail authorities sending the representation via ordinary post, was deemed excessive – Supreme Court held that such delay infringes the detenu’s constitutional right under Article 22(5) – Referencing earlier cases such as Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1981), Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1981), and Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1982), the Court reaffirmed that even delays of 20-27 days in considering a representation can vitiate the detention [Paras 45-63].

Failure of Prison Authorities – Negligent transmission of representation – The Court criticized the prison authorities for their negligent handling of the detenu’s representation, which was sent via ordinary post without any tracking mechanism – Supreme Court expressed the need for authorities to adopt modern communication methods (e.g., email, speed post) to ensure that representations are promptly transmitted to the Detaining Authority and Central Government – The failure to promptly forward the representation deprived the detenu of his valuable constitutional right to a speedy decision, thereby invalidating the detention [Paras 60-70].

Preventive Detention – Procedural lapses – Inadequate explanation for delays – The Court noted the lack of any plausible explanation for the delay in deciding the representation even after it was received by the Central Government and Detaining Authority – Despite receiving the representation on 14th/15th May 2024, the authorities delayed its consideration by 20-27 days without any justification – Relying on Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India (1989) and B. Alamelu v. State of Tamil Nadu (1995), the Court reiterated that such unexplained delays violate constitutional guarantees and render the detention unlawful [Paras 63-71].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Detention order set aside – High Court’s order in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1271 of 2023 quashed – Detenu to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 72].

Transfer Petition – Request for Transfer of Proceedings – Insufficient Grounds for Transfer – The petitioner, P. Srinivasan, sought the transfer of criminal proceedings from Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, to Saket, New Delhi, primarily on the grounds of relocation and failure of local police to conduct proper investigation. The court observed that while the petitioner had legitimate grievances regarding the investigation, relocation alone was insufficient to justify transfer. Instead, the court expanded the scope of the petition and directed a fresh investigation by a new Investigating Officer – Transfer Petition dismissed, and fresh investigation ordered [Paras 5-11].

Failure of Local Police to File Final Report – Contradictory Statements by Police – Despite the Nellore police’s claim that a final report was submitted on 08.12.2021, there was no record of such a report being filed. The police took contradictory stands before the High Court and the Judicial Magistrate regarding the status of the final report. The court declared the purported final report as "non-est" and ordered the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nellore, to appoint a new Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within three months [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Oversight – Expanding Scope of Transfer Petition – Instead of transferring the case, the court took cognizance of the police's failure to file a proper report and ensured judicial oversight by issuing directions to expedite the investigation. The court emphasized that the transfer of proceedings should not be based solely on the petitioner’s convenience when more effective remedies could be provided through judicial orders [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The Transfer Petition is dismissed. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Nellore, is directed to appoint a new Investigating Officer to complete the investigation of FIR No. 244/2019 within three months. The purported final report is declared non-est, and a fresh report is to be filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. [Paras 10-11].