Right to Information vs. Right to Privacy – Balance of Rights – Petitioners (Banks) challenged the RBI’s directive to disclose information under RTI – Supreme Court acknowledged the conflict between the fundamental right to information and the fundamental right to privacy – Held, courts must balance these rights carefully, ensuring neither is disproportionately compromised [Paras 39-42].

Judicial Precedent – Reconsideration of Earlier Judgments – Supreme Court found the RBI directive based on the judgment in Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525, which did not adequately consider the right to privacy – Held, it is permissible for the Court to reconsider and possibly refer such matters to a larger bench if earlier judgments did not lay down correct positions of law [Paras 39-42].

Disclosure of Information – Statutory Exemptions and Privacy – Petitioners argued that the RBI’s directive violated provisions under the RBI Act, Banking Regulation Act, and RTI Act – Supreme Court noted the necessity of protecting confidential information and the fundamental right to privacy of individuals against unwarranted disclosure [Paras 13, 14, 18-21].

Ex Debito Justitiae – Correction of Judicial Mistakes – Supreme Court cited principles of inherent judicial duty to correct mistakes to prevent gross miscarriage of justice – Emphasized no man should suffer due to court errors, reinforcing the principle of ex debito justitiae [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Writ petitions entertained – Preliminary objections rejected – Matter referred for reconsideration to ensure balanced protection of rights to information and privacy – Observations in Jayantilal N. Mistry’s case to be re-evaluated for alignment with the right to privacy as a fundamental right [Paras 43].

Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Appellant challenged the High Court’s dismissal of revision petitions confirming trial court’s refusal to reject plaints under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Supreme Court held that the respective suits were barred by limitation as they were filed 10 years after the execution of sale deeds – Held, vague allegations and clever drafting to invoke Section 17 of the Limitation Act do not suffice to bring suits within limitation period [Paras 7, 7.9].

Cause of Action – Allegations of Fraud – Supreme Court noted that mere allegations of fraud without specific details are insufficient to establish a valid cause of action – Plaintiffs' claim of discovering fraud in 2015 was deemed too vague to delay the start of the limitation period [Paras 7.7, 7.8].

Judicial Review – Exercise of Powers under Order VII Rule 11 – Supreme Court emphasized that courts must consider the averments in the plaint and determine if the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless – Held, both trial court and High Court erred in not rejecting the plaints as barred by limitation [Paras 7.9, 8].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment and trial court's orders set aside – Applications for rejection of plaints allowed – Plaintiffs' suits rejected as barred by limitation [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – High Court upheld trial court's decision – Supreme Court set aside the conviction – Held, reliance on voluntary statements made to police inadmissible under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Article 20(3) of the Constitution – Lack of direct or scientific evidence linking appellants to crime – Recovery of weapon and stolen items deemed unreliable [Paras 1-88].

Evidence – Admissibility of Voluntary Statements – Statements made to police inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act – Trial court's reliance on video-recorded confessions improper – High Court erred in affirming reliance on such statements – Confessional statements must be recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to be admissible [Paras 13-24].

Recovery of Evidence – Doubtful Nature of Recovered Items – Recovery of weapon and stolen items occurred months after arrest – Independent witness to recovery turned hostile – Recovered items not conclusively linked to the crime – Court emphasized rigorous scrutiny in cases based on circumstantial evidence [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants to be released unless required in connection with another case [Paras 17].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Scope of Rule 3B – Unmarried women are entitled to safe and legal abortion under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act read with Rule 3B – The rule includes all women who face a change in material circumstances, irrespective of marital status – The exclusion of unmarried women is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Interpretation of Rule 3B must be broad and inclusive to uphold constitutional values of equality and reproductive autonomy [Paras 121-137].

Reproductive Rights – Constitutional Protection – Right to reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 extends to unmarried women – Legal interpretation should support these rights equally for married and unmarried women – Law must not be guided by patriarchal principles regarding permissible sex and family structures [Paras 100-103, 121-137].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The exclusion of unmarried women from Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, is set aside – Directions issued for inclusive interpretation of Rule 3B to encompass all women facing changes in material circumstances [Paras 136-137].

Civil Procedure – Review Petition – Trial Court initially rejected plaintiff's application to file a rejoinder – Plaintiff filed review petition, presenting the rejoinder was already filed – Trial Court reviewed its decision and accepted the rejoinder – High Court disapproved, stating review powers were exceeded – Supreme Court held review was justified, allowing rejoinder and permitting defendants to file sur-rejoinder if new facts are introduced [Paras 1-16].

Civil Procedure – Article 227 Jurisdiction – High Court interfered with Trial Court's procedural order under Article 227 – Supreme Court limited High Court's interference, emphasizing necessity of expeditious trial proceedings and balance in procedural operations [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Trial Court's order accepting the rejoinder reinstated with modification – Defendants permitted to file sur-rejoinder limited to new facts in rejoinder – Directions for expeditious trial proceedings reiterated [Paras 12-16].

Electricity Law – Grant of Licence – Minimum Area of Supply – Appeal against the cancellation of distribution licence – Interpretation of Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Explanation to Rule 3 of the Distribution of Electricity Rules, 2005 – Held, 'minimum area of supply' within a municipal council or corporation does not imply the entire area but must fall within the defined boundaries – The licence granted to JSPL for an industrial park and two villages within a revenue district is valid – Interpretation should support distribution in specified areas to promote efficient electricity supply and competition [Paras 26-46].

Regulatory Compliance – Statutory Interpretation – The 'area of supply' as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act does not necessitate the entire municipal or revenue district but should be within it – Emphasis on practical application and historical permissions granted under previous laws [Paras 31-45].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The cancellation of JSPL's distribution licence is set aside – The licence granted by CSERC is reinstated with specified conditions on supply obligations [Paras 44-46].

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Issue – Limitation – Determination of Limitation as a Preliminary Issue – Issue of limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) CPC when it can be decided on admitted facts – Though limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, it becomes a question of law when foundational facts determining the starting point of limitation are clearly stated in the plaint – The Court can frame and decide the preliminary issue on limitation if it warrants postponement of settlement of other issues [Paras 1-18].

Civil Procedure – Concurrent Findings – Scope of Appeal – Concurrent findings by three courts are binding unless infected with perversity – Interference in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is limited to cases where the judgment is absolutely perverse [Paras 3-4].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court – Preliminary issue of limitation correctly determined based on admitted facts in the plaint [Paras 27-28].

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Husband's Duty to Provide – Husband is required to earn money even by physical labor if he is able-bodied and cannot avoid his obligation except on legally permissible grounds – The Court directed the husband to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000 per month to the wife [Paras 9-13].

Social Justice – Section 125 CrPC as Social Legislation – Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are meant to achieve social justice and prevent destitution and vagrancy – The object is to provide speedy remedy for food, clothing, and shelter to deserted wives and children [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondent directed to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to appellant-wife from the date of filing the Maintenance Petition – Respondent to deposit arrears within eight weeks, adjusting any amount already paid or deposited [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction and death sentence for rape and murder – Prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence without medical examination of the accused – Failure to obtain Forensic Sciences Laboratory report on blood/semen stains – Prosecution’s failure to provide medical evidence critical when victim is deceased – Serious doubts raised on prosecution’s case due to lack of trustworthy ocular evidence and delay in FIR transmission [Paras 9-13, 58-68, 69-81].

Judicial Responsibility – Higher Scrutiny in Heinous Crimes – Courts must carefully assess evidence quality, especially in heinous crimes – Sessions Court and High Court failed to scrutinize contradictions and procedural lapses adequately – Injustice to the appellant due to improper investigation and judicial oversight [Paras 83-84].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and death penalty set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case [Para 85].