Criminal Law – Bail – Grant of Bail – Respondent accused granted bail by the High Court – Appellant, wife of the deceased, challenged the bail order – Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the threat to witnesses – Order granting bail was unreasoned and showed non-application of mind – Bail order set aside and respondent directed to surrender forthwith [Paras 1-34].

Criminal Procedure – Section 439 CrPC – Discretion in Granting Bail – Courts must exercise discretion judiciously and consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, and potential threats to witnesses – High Court's order lacked proper reasoning and assessment of these factors [Para 16-19, 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the respondent by the High Court set aside – Respondent directed to surrender forthwith – High Court's judgment in bail matters to be detailed and reasoned [Para 32-34].

Electricity Law – Captive Generating Plants – Open Access – Appeal by power distribution company against the order of Electricity Regulatory Commission allowing captive power plant to supply electricity to its sister concern – Supreme Court held that the establishment of a captive power plant primarily for own use or for use by an association of persons (including corporate bodies) is permissible under the Electricity Act – Conditions of Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 satisfied – No interference warranted with orders of the Regulatory Commission and Appellate Tribunal [Paras 1-26].

Regulatory Framework – Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Sections 2(8), 9, and 42(2) of the Electricity Act and Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules – Liberal interpretation to promote establishment of captive power plants for reliable and cost-effective power, facilitating industrial growth and employment – Policy under Section 3 of the Electricity Act aligns with the provisions promoting captive power generation [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Orders of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 25-27].

Service Law – Pay Scale – UGC Scale of Pay – Respondent appointed as Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant in an Ayurvedic college sought UGC pay scale as per 1990 Rules – State contended 1990 Rules not applicable as college under Ayush Department – Supreme Court held 1990 Rules applicable to institutions under Higher Education Department, not Ayush Department – Respondent governed by 1987 Rules at appointment and later by 2013 Rules – No parity with librarians under Higher Education Department – High Court orders set aside [Paras 6-23].

Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Doctrine applicable when employees are similarly circumstanced in every way – Differing eligibility criteria and governing rules preclude application of UGC scales to respondent – Policy decisions on pay scales not interfered with by courts unless discriminatory or arbitrary [Paras 18-20, 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's orders set aside – Respondent not entitled to UGC scale of pay [Paras 26-27].

Property Law – Cancellation of Allotment – Default in Installment Payments – Appellant, a 55-year-old woman, allotted a plot under the Middle-Income Group Scheme – Made initial payments but defaulted on four installments due to husband's ill-health – Paid balance with interest before cancellation notice was served – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging cancellation – Supreme Court held that appellant's payments and willingness to pay additional compensation showed no willful delay – Cancellation order set aside on payment of additional Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation [Paras 1-6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cancellation order set aside on condition of appellant paying additional Rs. 2 lakhs within six weeks – Respondents to hand over possession and execute necessary documents thereafter [Para 6].

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Respondents found guilty of contempt for not complying with Supreme Court and High Court orders – Despite multiple opportunities to settle the dispute or comply, respondents failed – Supreme Court sentenced respondent No. 1 to seven days of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs – Fine to be deposited before the High Court with Rs. 4 lakhs to the petitioner and Rs. 1 lakh to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority – Sentence kept in abeyance for two weeks to allow compliance [Paras 1-5].

Decision: Respondent No. 1 sentenced to seven days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on respondents – Sentence suspended for two weeks for compliance [Para 4].

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Commissioner – Order 26 Rule 9 and Rule 11 CPC – Court has wide powers to appoint a commissioner for local investigations to elucidate any matter in dispute or to ascertain the market value of any property, mesne profits, damages, or annual net profits – Commissioners do not perform judicial acts but ministerial acts to aid the court – Court can confirm, vary, or set aside the commissioner's report [Paras 1-26].

Arbitration – Reference to Arbitration – Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 – For a matter to be referred to arbitration, all parties must agree in writing and apply to the court for an order of reference – Agreement must be explicit and reflect a meeting of minds – Court cannot refer a matter to arbitration based solely on the submission of one party without the explicit agreement of the other [Paras 15-26].

Decision: Appeal Disposed of – Orders of the lower courts set aside – Chartered Accountant’s report treated as a commissioner’s report under Order 26 Rule 11 CPC, not as an arbitration award – Case remanded to trial court for reconsideration of objections to the commissioner’s report [Paras 36-37].

Constitutional Law – Education – Regulation of Fees – Section 87 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 – Notification requiring unaided educational institutions to disclose income expenditure accounts and balance sheets on their websites and prohibiting them from charging any costs from parents – Supreme Court held clause (a) of the notification as substantive and not peripheral, thus ultra vires Section 87 – Clause (b) held consistent with legislative intent and valid [Paras 1-18].

Administrative Law – Power of Government – Notification under Section 87 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 – Government's power to make peripheral or insubstantial changes – Substantive changes require legislative action – Enhancement of penalty amounts under Section 14 of the 2016 Act struck down as it constituted a substantive change [Paras 9-17].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Clause (a) of the notification struck down – Clause (b) upheld – Enhancement of penalty amounts under Section 14 struck down [Paras 21-23].

Service Law – Selection – Posts of Constable (General) – Appellant’s application found with incorrect and incomplete information regarding criminal antecedents – Application liable to be rejected at any stage of selection process – Supreme Court held suppression of material information in application form as ground for rejection of candidature [Paras 2-4].

Criminal Antecedents – Disclosure – Misrepresentation – Appellant did not disclose pending FIRs and criminal cases in job application – Court emphasized necessity of honesty in uniformed services – Candidate’s suppression of facts and false statement justified rejection of application [Paras 6.1-6.3].

Judicial Precedents – Relevant Cases – Reference made to past judgments highlighting suppression of material facts and misrepresentation by candidates in service applications – Previous rulings supported the decision to reject candidature based on suppression and dishonesty [Paras 6.4-6.11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the High Court quashed and set aside – Rejection of respondent’s candidature for the post of constable upheld [Para 9].

Service Law – Extension for exercising the switchover from CPF to GPF – The Pension Regulations and GPF Scheme require employees to opt for either CPF or GPF. The Supreme Court held that employees do not have an inherent right to demand an extension for exercising the switchover option [Paras 1-18].

Service Law – Pension and Provident Fund Schemes – The court distinguished between CPF and GPF, noting that they are governed by different rules. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that options once exercised under the CPF or GPF schemes are final and binding, and any subsequent extensions granted by the University were without proper authority [Paras 12-17].

Service Law – Discrimination in Pension Benefits – The court addressed claims of discrimination by employees who were denied the chance to switch over to GPF, despite some employees being granted such extensions. The Supreme Court held that allowing one set of employees to benefit from illegal extensions does not entitle others to the same benefit under the principle of "no equality in illegality" [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – The decisions of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in N.C. Bakshi batch of cases upheld. Appeal in Shashi Kiran batch of cases allowed, setting aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench [Para 18].