False Statements in Writ Petition – Premature Release – Misrepresentation of Facts – The writ petition claimed that all four petitioners had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment without remission – The State's counter affidavit revealed that petitioners no. 2 and 4 had not completed 14 years of actual sentence – False assertions were made in both the petition and an email dated 15th July 2024, addressed to the Jail Authorities, repeating the misrepresentation – The Court noted that its interim relief granted on 19th July 2024 was based on incorrect statements regarding the furlough period of the petitioners – Held: The writ petition was dismissed with no relief granted to petitioners no. 2 and 4, and the State was directed to consider the case of petitioner no. 3 in accordance with applicable policies [Paras 1, 3, 6].

Failure to Verify Facts – Consequences for Legal Representation – While the Court recognized that exemplary costs were warranted due to the submission of false statements, it declined to penalize the petitioners for the errors made by their legal representatives – The Court emphasized that the judicial system operates on trust, and when false statements are presented, it shakes the court's faith in the Bar – The Court expressed concern over the increasing number of cases involving false statements and noted that this undermines the efficiency of judicial proceedings [Paras 2, 4, 5, 7].

Specific Relief for Petitioner No. 1 – Procedural Directions – As petitioner no. 1 had not exhausted his furlough period by 19th July 2024, the Court allowed him to challenge the impugned order dated 30th June 2023 before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution – The Court directed the State Government to consider petitioner no. 3’s case under the applicable remission policies, while no relief was granted to petitioners no. 2 and 4, as they had not completed the requisite period of imprisonment [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner no. 1 may challenge the relevant order before the High Court – The State was directed to consider petitioner no. 3’s case – No relief was granted to petitioners no. 2 and 4, and no costs were imposed on the petitioners despite the errors in legal representation [Paras 9, 10, 12].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Summons under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Appellants sought quashing of summons issued by Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 PMLA – Supreme Court held that the provisions of PMLA, being a self-contained code, prevail over the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Summons issued under Section 50 are valid, and appellants are bound to appear – No territorial jurisdiction limit under Section 50, PMLA [Paras 1-3, 13-21].

Jurisdiction and Procedure – ED’s Summons – Appellants challenged summons requiring them to appear in Delhi despite their domicile being Kolkata – Court held that Section 50 PMLA does not provide for territorial limitations, and proceedings under PMLA are governed by special procedure overriding CrPC – Summons for personal appearance in Delhi upheld – Appellants required to comply [Paras 5-10, 20-21].

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 – Challenge to Summons under PMLA based on violation of Article 21 rejected – Court found procedure under PMLA to be fair and reasonable – Summons for personal appearance in inquiry does not violate rights under Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – Appeals dismissed as meritless – Summons issued under Section 50 PMLA are legally valid, and appellants are bound to comply – No constitutional rights violated, and procedural safeguards under PMLA upheld [Paras 22-23].

Arbitration – Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Group of Companies Doctrine – Scope of Court's powers at referral stage under Section 11(6) – Prima facie determination of arbitration agreement – Non-signatory respondent – Referral of complex issues to arbitral tribunal for final determination – Court appointed arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from multiple interlinked agreements despite objections on jurisdiction and involvement of a non-signatory party. [Paras 18-35]

Referral to Arbitration – Section 11(6) of Arbitration Act – Supreme Court held that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator, the court's role is limited to ascertaining prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement – Any objections regarding the involvement of non-signatory parties to be determined by the arbitral tribunal – Principle of "competence-competence" reaffirmed. [Paras 31-34]

Impleadment of Non-Signatory – Complex issues of joinder of non-signatory party referred to arbitral tribunal – Prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement – Tribunal to decide the extent of involvement of the non-signatory respondent, applying legal doctrines and considering the available evidence. [Paras 34-35]

Decision – Appointment of Sole Arbitrator – Petition allowed – Held – Justice Mohit S. Shah, former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes – All rights and contentions of the parties, including the jurisdictional objections regarding non-signatory respondents, left open for the arbitral tribunal to decide. [Paras 35-36]

Constitutional Law – Arms Export License Cancellation – Petition under Article 32 for International Treaty Violations – Rejection by Supreme Court – Petitioners, including former civil servants and activists, sought directions to cancel licenses for exporting arms to Israel, citing India’s international obligations under the Genocide Convention and related treaties. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as foreign policy and treaty enforcement fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union Government (Article 73 and 253). The Court could not adjudicate matters involving Israel’s sovereign actions or disrupt contracts without breaching international commitments. Held: Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-50].

Foreign Affairs – Judicial Review of Foreign Policy – The Court reaffirmed the principle of non-intervention in foreign policy, noting that any judicial directive against exporting arms to a sovereign nation like Israel could strain international relations. It ruled that such matters, including arms contracts, are best left to the Union Government's discretion, considering national and international interests [Paras 25-40].

International Law Obligations – Implementation through Parliament – The Court underscored that while international law is part of Indian law unless excluded by legislation, enforcing treaties like the Genocide Convention requires parliamentary enactment, not judicial intervention [Paras 35-50].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Court refuses to interfere in foreign policy – Arms export licenses remain valid. [4].

Company Law – Appeal under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013 – Rectification of the Register of Members – Allegation of Oppression and Mismanagement – The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of the appellants’ claims by the NCLT and NCLAT. The appellants had sought rectification of the Register of Members under Sections 59 and 88 of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging fraud and oppression in the company's management by erasing their shareholding. The Court emphasized that the NCLT and NCLAT failed to properly examine the documentary evidence, including share certificates and financial transactions, requiring further inquiry into factual issues. [Paras 1-37]

Jurisdiction – Scope of NCLT’s Summary Jurisdiction – Adjudication of Fraud Claims – Powers under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 – The Court reiterated that while NCLT has summary jurisdiction, it must thoroughly examine factual disputes, especially where claims of fraud and fabricated documents are involved. The case law under Section 59 allows NCLT to adjudicate fraud issues when clear factual evidence is presented. Ignoring material evidence without full inquiry was deemed improper. [Paras 23-35]

Limitation – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – The Court held that the question of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, must be fully examined in light of the events and the date of knowledge of the appellants regarding the alleged fraudulent exclusion of their names from the Register of Members. NCLAT’s summary dismissal of the claim as time-barred was erroneous. [Paras 12, 18]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court restored the appellants' Company Petition to the NCLT for fresh consideration on merits, directing that proper inquiry into the evidence be undertaken. The judgments of both the NCLT and NCLAT were set aside. [Paras 34-37]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 of CrPC – Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person already in custody for a different offence – Held, an accused can apply for anticipatory bail in relation to a different offence while in custody – Supreme Court clarifies that arrest in one offence does not preclude arrest for another, and formal arrest can be made even while the accused is in custody in another case – No express bar in CrPC on anticipatory bail for those already in custody – [Paras 20-70]. 

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty and Anticipatory Bail – The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to apply for anticipatory bail is a statutory right, rooted in the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 – Rejection of the argument that being in custody eliminates the humiliation and loss of dignity caused by subsequent arrests – The right to anticipatory bail cannot be extinguished merely because the person is already in custody for another offence – [Paras 58-64]. 

Judicial Precedent – Contradiction in High Court Rulings – Rajasthan, Allahabad, and Delhi High Courts ruled that a person in custody cannot apply for anticipatory bail in a different offence – Supreme Court disapproved of this view, citing errors in the reasoning and potential misuse by investigative agencies – The Court followed earlier rulings allowing formal arrest in different offences even while in custody – [Paras 37-53]. 

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appeal was dismissed, holding that anticipatory bail can be sought even by a person in custody for another offence – The High Court was directed to decide the application on merits – [Paras 67-69]. 

Armed Forces Law – Appointment of Judge Advocate – Army Rules 39, 40 – Whether the appointment of a junior officer as Judge Advocate without recording reasons for non-availability of a senior officer invalidates the General Court Martial (GCM) proceedings – Held, the failure to record reasons in the convening order for appointing a junior officer as Judge Advocate, as mandated by Union of India & Anr. v. Charanjit Singh Gill, renders the GCM proceedings invalid. The junior officer's appointment without justification violates Army Rule 40(2), which requires Judge Advocates to be of equal or higher rank to the officer facing trial unless specific reasons are recorded. [Paras 25-40].

Army Rules – Rule 103 – Invalidity of GCM Proceedings – The appellant’s reliance on Rule 103, which permits certain irregularities in the appointment of a Judge Advocate, was rejected. The rule does not apply when the officer appointed is not "fit" for the role. In this case, the omission of reasons for appointing a junior officer under Rule 40(2) could not be cured by Rule 103. [Paras 42-60].

Judicial Precedent – Charanjit Singh Gill Case – Applicability – The Supreme Court reiterated the principle from Charanjit Singh Gill that a Judge Advocate must be of equal or higher rank than the officer facing trial, or specific reasons for appointing a junior officer must be recorded. The court held that failing to follow this requirement invalidates the GCM proceedings. [Paras 62-75].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision quashing the General Court Martial, citing procedural irregularities in the appointment of the Judge Advocate. The court confirmed that the GCM proceedings were invalid due to the failure to record reasons for appointing a junior officer. [Paras 80-90].

Judicial Appointments – Elevation to High Court – Writ petition under Article 32 challenging the process of reconsideration for elevation of two senior-most District and Sessions Judges in Himachal Pradesh High Court – Petitioners argued against the appointment of officers junior to them without reconsideration of their names as directed by the Supreme Court Collegium – High Court Chief Justice's individual decision found inconsistent with collective decision-making required by Collegium system – Court emphasized the necessity of plurality in decision-making for judicial appointments – Writ petition allowed, directing fresh reconsideration of petitioners' names for elevation as Judges of the High Court [Paras 1-32]. 

Judicial Review – Limited scope – Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review in matters of judicial appointments – Distinction between 'eligibility' and 'suitability' emphasized – Judicial review limited to assessing 'eligibility' and 'lack of effective consultation' while 'suitability' remains non-justiciable [Paras 11-17]. 

Collegium Process – Collective Decision-Making – Supreme Court reiterated that elevation for judgeship in a High Court requires collective decision-making by the High Court Collegium – Chief Justice acting alone cannot make decisions regarding reconsideration for elevation – Lack of plurality in the reconsideration process vitiated the decision [Paras 18-32]. 

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – The High Court Collegium to reconsider the names of the petitioners for elevation to the High Court in compliance with the Supreme Court Collegium’s decision and the Law Minister’s communication – The individual decision of the Chief Justice found procedurally and substantially flawed – Writ petition allowed [Para 32]. 

Suo Motu Criminal Revision – High Court Powers Under Section 397 CrPC – The petitioner challenges the Madras High Court’s decision, which invoked its suo motu criminal revision powers under Section 397 of the CrPC, to interfere with a final closure report filed by the DVAC – Held: The High Court overstepped by effectively directing the framing of charges, a power that lies with the Special Judge under Section 227 CrPC – The closure report should be weighed along with earlier investigation reports, and the Special Judge is to decide whether to proceed with the trial or discharge the accused [Paras 2, 7-10].

Assignment of Case – Violation of Madras High Court Rules – The petitioners argued that, as per Rule XIV of the Madras High Court Rules, the suo motu revision should have been assigned to a Division Bench, but it was handled by a Single Judge – Held: This alleged violation must be addressed, as the Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster and assignment to the Division Bench would be necessary for MPs/MLAs cases [Paras 4-5].

Section 227 CrPC – Powers of the Special Judge – The petitioners submitted that the Special Judge is required to consider whether sufficient grounds exist to frame charges based on the materials presented, including the closure and earlier investigation reports – Held: The High Court's direction to the Special Court to frame charges bypassed this procedure, undermining the Special Judge’s role under Section 227 CrPC [Para 6].

Reports Under Section 173(8) CrPC – Reliance on Vinay Tyagi Precedent – The petitioners relied on the Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali decision, which held that all investigation reports, including supplementary reports under Section 173(8), must be considered cumulatively before framing charges – Held: The High Court erred by treating the final closure report as a supplementary report and directing the Special Court to frame charges without proper consideration of the reports [Paras 9-10].

Decision:

Notice issued, returnable in four weeks. Dasti notice to be served on the Standing Counsel for the State. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court is stayed.