Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Appointment and Reappointment – High Court's power to issue writ of quo warranto when an appointment is made contrary to statutory provisions – State government's reappointment of Vice-Chancellor without authority held invalid – Chancellor retains power of appointment and reappointment under Section 8 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 – State government's invocation of Section 60 to reappoint Vice-Chancellor as removal of difficulty measure invalid [Paras 1-11, 28-51].

Statutory Interpretation – Calcutta University Act, 1979 – Sections 8 and 60 – Appointment of Vice-Chancellor – Statutory scheme of appointment and reappointment under Section 8 – Chancellor's authority to appoint and reappoint Vice-Chancellor – Section 60's "removal of difficulty" clause cannot override specific provisions of Section 8 – Deletion of "subject to the provisions of this section" in amended Section 8(2)(a) does not transfer reappointment power to State government [Paras 14-41].

University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations – Compliance – UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 – Appointment of Vice-Chancellor to be made by Chancellor as per UGC Regulations – State government's appointment contrary to UGC Regulations invalid – UGC Regulations have statutory force and prevail over conflicting State legislation [Paras 51-56].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Reappointment of Vice-Chancellor by State government invalid – Chancellor retains authority to appoint and reappoint Vice-Chancellor – Compliance with UGC Regulations required [Paras 57-58].

Prevention of Corruption – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 8(1)(f) of Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Sanction must be granted within three months, extendable by one more month for legal consultation – Non-compliance with this period does not automatically lead to quashing of proceedings – The sanctioning authority is accountable for the delay and subject to judicial review and administrative action by the Central Vigilance Commission [Paras 28-39].

Judicial Review – Accountability – Delay in Sanction – Delay in granting sanction for prosecution requires accountability of the sanctioning authority – Affected parties can seek appropriate remedies, including judicial directions for action on the sanction request – Central Vigilance Commission to enquire and take corrective action in case of delay [Paras 33-37].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – No evidence of non-application of mind by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) – Delay in granting sanction not raised at trial or High Court level, thus not examined in detail by Supreme Court – Appellant permitted to seek appropriate remedies based on principles laid down [Paras 40-41].

Criminal Law – Section 294(b) IPC – Obscene Acts and Songs – The offense under Section 294(b) IPC requires the utterance of obscene words to the annoyance of others – Mere abusive, humiliating, or defamatory words do not constitute an offense under Section 294(b) IPC – Absence of words involving lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings means the offense is not attracted [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Law – Section 341 IPC – Wrongful Restraint – To constitute wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, there must be obstruction preventing a person from proceeding in a direction to which they had a right to proceed – The obstruction must be voluntary, and the obstructor must intend or know that their actions would cause obstruction – The complaint failed to disclose necessary ingredients to constitute wrongful restraint [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Process – Issuance of Process – Judicial Functions – Taking cognizance and issuing process are judicial functions requiring a judicious approach – Issuance of process must be preceded by an application of judicial mind to determine if there are grounds for proceeding against the accused – Vague and general allegations without material particulars do not justify issuing process [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Criminal proceedings in STS No. 566 of 2018 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Tamil Nadu, quashed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Delay in Trial – Even after 11 years since filing the FIR, the trial has not begun due to continuous discharge applications by the accused – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for early conclusion of the trial to maintain faith in the justice system – Directed the trial to be conducted on a day-to-day basis [Paras 1-14].

Bail Conditions – Modification of Conditions – Condition restricting the appellant from entering specific districts in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh upheld – Strong apprehension of witness influence and tampering due to appellant’s power and influence – Past attempts to influence judicial officers noted – Temporary permission granted for appellant to stay in Bellary due to personal circumstances, but must leave before the trial begins [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Application for modification of condition No.(c) dismissed – Directions issued for trial to commence on a day-to-day basis and conclude within six months – Appellant permitted to stay in Bellary temporarily but must leave before the trial starts [Paras 14-15].

Tender Conditions – Judicial Review – Appellant (AAI) challenged the High Court's quashing of its tender conditions for ground handling services, including eligibility criteria and region-wise sub-categorisation of airports – High Court ruled these conditions arbitrary and discriminatory – Supreme Court overturned High Court’s decision, citing principles of judicial restraint in tender matters – Held, terms of the tender within the tendering authority’s domain, not open to judicial scrutiny unless proven arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide [Paras 6, 7, 10-13].

Locus Standi – NGO’s Standing in Tender Disputes – Respondent, an NGO, filed writ petition challenging AAI’s tender conditions – Supreme Court found NGO lacked locus standi as it was not an aggrieved party nor representing a public interest – Emphasized writ petitioners in tender disputes must show direct, tangible interest, and not merely act as advocacy bodies [Paras 5-7, 11].

Clustering of Airports – Rationality and Commercial Wisdom – AAI's decision to cluster 49 airports into region-wise sub-categories aimed at promoting regional connectivity and efficient administration – Supreme Court supported the rationale, holding that commercial and logistical considerations justify such clustering – Judicial interference not warranted unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bias [Paras 3.2, 6-7, 9, 11].

Eligibility Criteria – Technical and Financial Requirements – AAI’s criteria for 36 months of past experience and financial turnover were established based on the nature of services required – High Court's ruling of these criteria as exclusionary and discriminatory overturned – Supreme Court upheld AAI’s right to set criteria ensuring capability and quality of service providers [Paras 2.3, 3.3, 3.4, 6, 9].

MSME Orders – Applicability to Tender Conditions – High Court applied MSME Orders of 2012 and 2018 incorrectly to tender process – Supreme Court clarified that MSME policies aim at procurement, not licensing of services like GHS – AAI's conditions were consistent with objectives and regulatory framework governing airport services [Paras 3.8-3.9, 7, 11].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing AAI’s tender conditions set aside – AAI's tender criteria upheld as rational, fair, and within its policy-making domain – Writ petition by respondent NGO dismissed for lack of locus standi [Paras 12-13].

Land Lease – No Objection Certificate – Appellant (State of Maharashtra) challenged the High Court's ruling that invalidated the requirement for a No Objection Certificate from the Collector for flat transfers in specified buildings – High Court found the requirement unjustified under the applicable Government Resolutions and lease terms – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the lease terms and the Government Resolutions of 1983 and 1999 did not mandate such a requirement for the formed Co-operative Society [Paras 1-16].

Lease Terms and Conditions – Applicability of Government Resolutions – Plot leased to a builder for construction and sale of flats to private individuals – Flats subsequently transferred to a Co-operative Society – Supreme Court noted that the Government Resolutions of 1983 and 1999, which pertain to concessional land allotments to Co-operative Societies, did not apply to this scenario where the lease was initially granted to a builder following a successful bid [Paras 11-15].

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Sections 40 and 295 – State's power to dispose of land under Section 40 – Specific provisions for reclaimed land under Section 295 – Supreme Court held that the general powers of the State under Section 40 did not override the specific lease terms agreed upon with the builder and subsequently the Co-operative Society [Paras 9-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Requirement for No Objection Certificate from the Collector invalidated – Interim stay of the direction for refund of the amount granted by Supreme Court vacated.

Appointment – Legal Principles and Time Frame – The respondent applied for compassionate appointment 14 years after the death of her father, who was an employee of the Compassionate appellant – High Court directed reconsideration of the application – Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and aims to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased – Held, application made after 24 years from the employee's death does not meet the objective of compassionate appointment, which is to alleviate immediate hardship [Paras 6-9].

Object and Purpose – Immediate Relief – Supreme Court reiterated that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to help the family tide over sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner – Emphasized that it is not a means to secure employment irrespective of the time elapsed since the death – Held, reconsideration of such application after 24 years defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment [Paras 8-9].

Eligibility and Norms – Humanitarian Consideration – Supreme Court cited previous judgments to underline that compassionate appointment should be strictly governed by the policy in place at the time of the employee's death – Applications must be timely and based on current policy norms, not those at the time of the applicant’s majority or other subsequent changes in the applicant's circumstances [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment directing reconsideration of the respondent's application for compassionate appointment set aside – Supreme Court held that such direction, after a lapse of 24 years from the employee's death, is against the principles and purpose of compassionate appointment [Paras 9-10].

Interest Award – Discretion of Arbitral Tribunal – Appellant challenged the arbitral award including interest at 18% per annum for various periods – Supreme Court held that while the arbitral tribunal has discretion to award interest, it must justify the reasonableness of the rate – Held, awarding 18% interest without reasoning deemed unreasonable, especially given the respondent's delay in pursuing claims [Paras 7, 10-13].

Delay in Raising Claims – Impact on Interest Award – Respondent delayed raising claims for 12 years and further delayed arbitration proceedings – Supreme Court found that such delays should affect the entitlement to interest – Directed exclusion of interest for periods of inactivity by the respondent [Paras 12-14].

Reasonable Interest Rate – Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court referenced prior judgments to determine a reasonable interest rate in arbitration cases – Held, interest rate should be aligned with economic conditions and reduced from 18% to 9% for the pre-reference, pendente lite, and post-award periods [Paras 15-20].

Article 142 of the Constitution – Power to Do Complete Justice – Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 to adjust the interest rate, ensuring it reflects current economic realities and serves justice [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Interest for periods of respondent's inactivity excluded – Interest rate for remaining periods reduced to 9% per annum – Execution proceedings to proceed in accordance with the revised calculations [Paras 21-23].

Preventive Detention – Delay in Passing Detention Order – Appellant challenged the detention order passed five months after the proposal – Supreme Court held that the delay snapped the "live and proximate link" between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention – Held, the unexplained delay vitiated the detention order, rendering it invalid [Paras 12-15, 20-21].

Detention Order – Consideration of Bail Status – Detaining authority unaware of appellant’s release on bail in both criminal cases – Supreme Court found the omission of this vital fact critical, as it could influence the detaining authority's decision – Held, detention order invalid due to non-consideration of appellant’s bail status [Paras 22-28].

Legal Principles – Subjective Satisfaction – Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of genuine subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, which must consider all relevant facts, including bail status – Any suppression or non-disclosure of material facts vitiates the detention order [Paras 24-28].

Preventive Detention – Constitutional Safeguards – Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to safeguards provided under the Constitution and relevant enactments, given the serious invasion of personal liberty in preventive detention cases [Para 28].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment upholding the detention order set aside – Detention order dated 12.11.2021 quashed – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 29-30].