Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Not a Matter of Right – Respondents appointed as sweepers on compassionate basis after their fathers' deaths – Later sought appointment as Junior Assistants based on eligibility – Supreme Court held compassionate employment is a concession, not a vested right – Intended solely to mitigate sudden financial distress of the family – No entitlement to specific or higher post [Paras 7–10].

Compassionate Appointment – Once Exercised, Cannot Be Re-exercised – Court held that once appointment on compassionate grounds is accepted and acted upon, the right stands consummated – Subsequent claims for higher post unsustainable – Recognized risk of creating ‘endless compassion’ if such claims allowed [Paras 9–10].

Eligibility vs. Entitlement – Possession of qualifications for a higher post does not grant automatic right to such appointment under compassionate grounds – The objective is survival support, not career advancement – Requests for upgrades contrary to scheme’s purpose [Paras 11–12].

Delay and Laches – Delay of 3 and 9 years respectively in seeking higher post – Held fatal – Court reiterated that compassionate appointments address immediate financial need – Prolonged delay indicates absence of urgency and breaks causal link with intended relief [Paras 13–15].

Negative Discrimination – Claim for parity with others who were allegedly granted similar benefit – Rejected – Court reaffirmed that illegal or mistaken reliefs granted to others cannot form basis for equal treatment – Article 14 does not sanction negative equality [Paras 16–19].

Final Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Writ petitions seeking higher posts dismissed – Compassionate appointment as sweepers held to have fulfilled intended purpose – No further relief warranted.

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court directions granting Junior Assistant posts quashed – Writ petitions dismissed – No costs.

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Section 166 – Essential Ingredients – Claimants must establish (i) occurrence of accident (ii) involvement of offending vehicle and (iii) rash and negligent act – Mere proof of occurrence of accident insufficient to fasten liability – Failure to establish involvement of specific vehicle fatal to claim [Paras 8, 16–19] .

Evidence – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities – Though strict proof beyond reasonable doubt not required in motor accident claims – Claimants must still adduce cogent and reliable evidence connecting the accident with the alleged offending vehicle – FIR omissions not fatal per se but must be examined cumulatively with other evidence [Paras 16–17] .

Witness Testimony – Credibility – Contradictory and Unreliable Evidence – P.W.1 and P.W.2 not eyewitnesses and had no personal knowledge of the accident – Their versions based on hearsay and police information – Held: Star witnesses unreliable and incapable of proving involvement of offending vehicle [Paras 13–14] .

Eyewitness Evidence – Improbable Conduct – P.W.3 and P.W.4 claimed confession by driver revealing registration numbers – Such conduct contrary to normal human behaviour – Material contradictions during cross-examination – Held: Evidence does not inspire confidence [Para 15] .

Police Records – Chargesheet – Evidentiary Value – Filing of chargesheet not conclusive proof of involvement of vehicle – Chargesheet filed after recovery of vehicle one and a half months post-accident – To be treated only as one circumstance in assessing probability [Paras 9–10, 18] .

Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report – No Damage to Vehicle – Report dated 05.10.2013 showing no damage to alleged offending vehicle – Inconsistent with collision resulting in death of two persons – Held: Strong circumstance negating involvement of vehicle [Para 18] .

Supreme Court – Article 136 – Interference with Concurrent Findings – Tribunal and High Court recorded concurrent findings of fact after proper appreciation of evidence – Interference permissible only if findings are perverse or wholly unsatisfactory – Held: No perversity or exceptional circumstance shown [Paras 12, 19] .

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – Judgments of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimoga and Karnataka High Court affirmed – Claimants failed to prove involvement of offending vehicle – No order as to costs.

PIL - Maternity Benefits – Adoptive Mothers – Constitutionality of Section 5(4), Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 – Provision granted 12 weeks’ maternity benefit only if adopted child is below three months of age – Petitioner challenged this as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 – Court noted that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 was repealed on 21.11.2025 by notification under the Code on Social Security, 2020 – Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code is pari materia to the repealed provision – Held: Petition need not be withdrawn – Petitioner permitted to amend the petition within six weeks to challenge Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code – Union of India raised no objection – Judgment to be pronounced after amended petition is filed [Paras 2–11].

Decision: Petitioner permitted to amend the writ petition to challenge Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 within six weeks – Judgment to follow upon submission of amended petition.

Insurance Law – Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package (PMGKY) – Meaning of "Requisitioning" of Services – Appellant’s husband was a private doctor who died of COVID-19 – Claim rejected on ground that his services were not specifically requisitioned – High Court upheld rejection stating the municipal notice only directed keeping clinics open and was not a requisition – Held: The notice dated 31.03.2020 issued by NMMC invoking the Epidemic Diseases Act and threatening action under Section 188 IPC for closing clinics constituted a "requisition" of services – The context of the pandemic and the mandatory nature of the order to keep dispensaries open for the public amounts to drafting/requisitioning of services – A narrow view cannot be taken given the compelling circumstances – Paras [21-24, 26, 30].

Administrative Law – Executive Orders during Pandemic – Interpretation – Notices issued under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and COVID-19 Regulations must be interpreted in the context of the emergency – A direction to private practitioners to keep clinics open under threat of criminal prosecution is an exercise of power to requisition services for containment measures – The distinction between "directing to keep open" and "requisitioning" is artificial in such circumstances – Paras [23-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed - The finding of the High Court that there was no requisition is set aside - Matter remanded for verification of factual evidence regarding cause of death and eligibility - Paras [30-31].

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 436-A CrPC – Applicability to Heinous Offences – High Court granted bail relying on Section 436-A – Held: Section 436-A explicitly excludes offences for which the punishment of death has been specified – The accused are charged under Section 302 IPC and Section 16 UAPA, which carry the death penalty – High Court erred in applying Section 436-A – Paras [7-11].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 vs. National Security – Bail in Terror Cases – Jnaneshwari Express Derailment – Held: While Article 21 guarantees speedy trial, individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to national interest and security – In cases of mass casualties and attacks on sovereignty, the Court must balance rights with societal security – High Court erred in granting bail solely on the ground of delay without adequately weighing the gravity of the offence (148 deaths) – Paras [15-16, 21.1, 22].

Bail – Cancellation/Interference by Supreme Court – Factors – Accused were released on bail in 2022/2023 – Held: Despite the High Court's error, bail is not cancelled at this stage because the accused have been on bail for over 3 years without misusing liberty, and the trial is proceeding at a "glacial pace" (28 witnesses remaining after 15 years) – Sending them back to custody now would not serve a fruitful purpose – Paras [21.2-21.3, 22].

Directions – Speedy Trial – UAPA Cases – Directions issued in personam for day-to-day trial of the present case – Directions issued in rem to all High Courts to assess pending UAPA cases, designate special courts, and ensure sufficient staffing to prevent delay in trials involving reverse burden of proof – Paras [24].

Decision: Appeals allowed to the extent of setting aside the reasoning on Section 436-A, but interference with liberty declined due to passage of time – Directions issued for speedy trial – Para [23].

Criminal Law – Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1), 50, 52-A, 57 NDPS Act – Independent Witnesses – Non-examination – Held: Absence of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution if the testimony of official witnesses is consistent and credible – In the present case, official witnesses deposed in unison that no independent persons were available at the time of seizure – No material contradiction found – Paras [20-22].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Section 52-A – Sampling Procedure – Appellant contended that drawing samples at the spot instead of before a Magistrate vitiates trial – Held: Relying on Bharat Aambale, mere non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52-A is not fatal unless it affects the integrity of the seized substance – Here, samples were drawn at the spot, sealed, produced before the Magistrate, and certified – Chain of custody was intact and integrity of samples preserved – Paras [23-27].

Criminal Law – Evidence – Discrepancy in Weight of Sample – Reduction in sample weight from "about 50g" to 40.6g – Held: Minor variation due to loss of moisture over time (40 days) does not undermine the prosecution case – Forensic report confirmed the sample contained dry broken fragments – Paras [29-30].

Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances vs. Statutory Minimum – Appellant pleaded for reduction of sentence citing youth and minor child – Held: Court has no discretion to reduce sentence below the statutory minimum prescribed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act – Humanitarian grounds are relevant for executive remission but cannot override statutory mandates – Para [32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Conviction and sentence of 10 years upheld - Para [34-35].

Rent Control and Eviction Laws – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 vs. State Rent Control Acts – Overriding Effect – Conflict between Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (1990) – Held: Suhas H. Pophale laid down incorrect law by holding that the PP Act 1971 is prospective and does not apply to tenants inducted prior to 16.09.1958 or prior to the premises becoming public premises – The Constitution Bench in Ashoka Marketing conclusively held that the PP Act is a special statute enacted later in time and overrides the Rent Control Acts (also special statutes) based on the purpose and policy of the legislation – Paras [6-9, 12].

Judicial Discipline – Doctrine of Precedent – Stare Decisis – Two-Judge Bench in Suhas H. Pophale failed to follow the binding ratio of the five-Judge Bench in Ashoka Marketing and three-Judge Bench in M/s. Jain Ink – A smaller bench cannot distinguish a larger bench judgment on the ground that a specific argument was not canvassed – Suhas H. Pophale overruled – Paras [9-10, 13(xi)].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospectivity – Public Premises Act, 1971 – The Act applies to all "public premises" as defined in Section 2(e) regardless of when the tenancy was created – The definition of "unauthorised occupation" in Section 2(g) includes continuance in occupation after authority has expired or been determined – Termination of tenancy by notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act renders occupation unauthorised, irrespective of whether tenancy was created before or after the PP Act came into force – Paras [13(vii)-(x)].

Decision: Reference answered – Suhas H. Pophale overruled – PP Act 1971 overrides State Rent Control Acts for all public premises – Matters to be decided accordingly – Para [14].

Criminal Law – Bail – Economic Offences – Prolonged Incarceration – Appellants accused of defrauding consortium of 17 banks through shell companies – Prosecution invoked serious charges under IPC and PC Act – Appellants in custody for over 5.5 years, over 2.5 years in the present case – Chargesheet over 4 lakh pages and 736 witnesses – Charges not yet framed – Held: Bail cannot be denied solely on gravity of charges where co-accused are on bail and trial is unlikely to conclude in near future [Paras 6, 7, 24, 25].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Inordinate delay in trial constitutes violation of fundamental rights – Court emphasized that bail must be considered where prolonged custody without trial results in punitive effect – Prosecution’s delay in allowing inspection of unrelied documents worsened the prejudice to accused [Paras 5, 11–14, 25].

Bail Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence – Seriousness Not Sole Ground – Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” – Courts cannot allow pre-trial incarceration to become punishment – Accused presumed innocent until proven guilty – Co-accused granted bail in similar matters; hence, parity principle applies [Paras 11, 14, 17, 18, 25].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 479 BNSS – Not a Bar to Bail in Grave Offences – Court rejected State’s interpretation that accused in grave offences should be denied bail under Section 479 BNSS – Held: Provision must be construed in line with personal liberty – Delay in trial cannot be a ground to indefinitely detain undertrial prisoners [Paras 20–23].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Appellants granted bail with stringent conditions including surrender of passports, restriction on travel, and mandatory appearance before trial court – No opinion expressed on merits of the case.

POSH Act – Inter-departmental Complaint – Jurisdiction of ICC – Phrase “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 is procedural and not jurisdictional – ICC at aggrieved woman’s workplace competent to inquire into complaint even if respondent is from another department – No requirement under POSH Act for respondent and complainant to belong to the same department – Wide and inclusive definitions of “employee”, “workplace”, and “respondent” support such interpretation – Appeal dismissed [Paras 30-46, 72].

Sexual Harassment – Statutory Interpretation – Social Welfare Legislation – Narrow reading of Section 11 would defeat purpose of POSH Act – Requirement for aggrieved woman to complain only to ICC at respondent’s department would create procedural and psychological barriers – Interpretation must advance the object of enabling redressal at the complainant’s own workplace – Expansive scope of "workplace" under Section 2(o)(v) includes inter-departmental scenarios [Paras 47-57, 72].

Service Law – Role of ICC – Two-stage Inquiry – ICC has dual role: preliminary fact-finding under POSH Act and formal inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules if disciplinary action is warranted – ICC at aggrieved woman’s department conducts fact-finding; ICC at respondent’s department acts as inquiry authority during disciplinary proceedings – Such bifurcation aligns with DoPT OM dated 16.07.2015 – No violation of respondent’s rights or prejudice caused [Paras 58-68, 70-71, 72].

Employer’s Duty – Departmental Coordination – ICC’s fact-finding report to be sent to respondent’s employer for action – Employer of respondent bound to cooperate and act under Section 19(f) of POSH Act – Inter-departmental cooperation necessary for effective implementation – Held: No procedural error or jurisdictional defect – Recommendations of ICC to be acted upon by disciplinary authority of respondent [Paras 66-68, 73].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – ICC at aggrieved woman’s workplace held competent to conduct inquiry – Report to be transmitted to respondent’s employer for necessary action – ICC at respondent’s department to conduct further disciplinary inquiry if initiated – No jurisdictional infirmity in proceedings [Paras 72-73].