Constitution of India – Article 14 – Arbitrary Policies – High Court held the State's "First Come First Serve" basis for granting licences for group housing colonies violated Article 14 – Supreme Court affirmed, stating such policies must be rational, fair, and transparent – Cancellation of licences upheld as practice was not codified and lacked a legal foundation [Paras 30-40].

Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Section 3 – Policy Flaws – The policy did not comply with statutory requirements and was not publicly disclosed – State must ensure non-discriminatory methods for licence allotment, adhering to principles of fairness and transparency in governance [Paras 31-34].

Principle of First Come First Serve – Unfair and Non-Transparent – Supreme Court found the method inherently flawed due to its potential for misuse and lack of rational basis – Practice invalidated as it did not ensure equal opportunity for all applicants – Rejected notion that long-standing practice validated policy [Paras 36-42].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – State to consider all pending and future applications for licences under the 2017 policy, ensuring fairness and transparency [Paras 44-46].

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – Section 25 – Recovery of Debts – Broad consensus between parties to resolve the matter – Appellants to deposit a further sum of Rs. 5 crores with DRT Jaipur – Respondent allowed to withdraw Rs. 5 crores along with pre-deposit of Rs. 1.53 crores and Rs. 25 lakhs with Recovery Officer – Withdrawal subject to final outcome of pending appeal – DRT directed to expedite final decision within eight weeks – Appeals disposed of on agreed terms [Paras 1-9].

Court Directions:

Appellants to deposit Rs. 5 crores within four weeks without prejudice to rights in pending appeal

Respondents permitted to withdraw Rs. 5 crores, Rs. 1.53 crores pre-deposit, and Rs. 25 lakhs

Withdrawal subject to ultimate outcome of Appeal No. 1/2020

DRT Jaipur to decide Appeal No. 1/2020 within eight weeks

Order of attachment of shares to continue until final disposal

Recovery proceedings stayed until Appeal No. 1/2020 decided

Appeal against pre-deposit order before DRAT stands disposed of [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal disposed of in terms of the consensus – Directions issued to DRT Jaipur for expeditious resolution [Paras 8-9].

Privacy – Right to Privacy – Allegations of unauthorized surveillance using Pegasus spyware – Supreme Court addresses concerns over privacy infringement and the potential chilling effect on freedom of speech and press – Emphasis on reasonable expectation of privacy and the necessity for restrictions to pass constitutional scrutiny [Paras 27-36].

Surveillance and National Security – Judicial Review – Surveillance must be justified on constitutional grounds – State’s interest in national security must be balanced with individual privacy rights – Necessity for statutory safeguards and adherence to constitutional procedures in surveillance activities [Paras 35-50].

Constitutional Obligations – Role of the State – State’s duty to protect citizens' fundamental rights – Court criticizes the Union of India for lack of detailed affidavit and transparency – Emphasizes that the State cannot withhold information under the guise of national security without proper justification [Paras 45-51].

Independent Investigation – Committee Formation – Supreme Court appoints an independent Technical Committee overseen by Justice R.V. Raveendran to investigate the allegations – Terms of reference include examining the use of Pegasus spyware, identifying affected individuals, and recommending measures for cyber security and privacy protection [Paras 55-63].

Decision – Writ petitions partially allowed – Appointment of Technical Committee – Directions issued for a thorough investigation and report – State directed to provide necessary support to the Committee [Paras 59-64].

Tenancy Act – Surrender of Tenancy – Mandatory Notice – Requirement of three months’ notice to the landlord and the Special Officer for a valid surrender – Surrender takes effect only after acceptance by the Special Officer, ensuring the surrender is voluntary and genuine – Failure to follow prescribed procedure invalidates the surrender – Findings of lower courts on surrender held untenable [Paras 36-37].

Right to Purchase – Cultivating Tenant’s Priority – Tenant’s right to purchase the land leased under Section 15 – Tribunal upheld appellant's claim based on the recorded compromise recognizing subsisting tenancy – Evidence of part payment towards purchase considered valid – Lower courts’ findings on non-subsistence of tenancy reversed [Paras 38-39].

Procedure for Eviction – Non-Payment of Rent – Necessity of specific pleadings on rent default – No evidence of demand for arrears by landlord – Tribunal's findings on tenant's right to purchase supported by evidence – Lower courts’ decisions set aside [Para 39].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Order of Tribunal restored – Right to purchase the property under Section 15 upheld – Appreciation recorded for the assistance of amicus curiae [Paras 40].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Permanent Disability – The appellant, aged 21, suffered 69% permanent disability due to a motor accident resulting in severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility – Tribunal awarded Rs. 574,320/- which was enhanced to Rs. 1,431,752/- by the High Court – Supreme Court held that the compensation awarded by the High Court did not reflect the full impact of the disability on the appellant's earning capacity and quality of life [Paras 1-10].

Assessment of Disability – Functional Disability – Supreme Court observed that the 69% physical disability translated to 100% functional disability in terms of loss of earning capacity – Compensation should reflect the true impact on the claimant’s life and ability to earn a livelihood – Enhanced compensation awarded considering the requirement for full-time assistance and recurring medical expenses [Paras 12-16].

Just Compensation – Realistic Recompense – Emphasis on providing compensation that restores dignity and accounts for ground realities – Importance of recognizing the non-quantifiable impacts on the claimant’s life such as loss of self-dignity and becoming a burden on others – Adequate compensation to ameliorate the claimant’s suffering and aid in negotiating life's unforeseeable twists [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,767,800/- with additional sums awarded under specific heads: expenses for bystander, future medical expenses, compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power, and loss of earning – Directions issued for payment within six weeks with adjustments for any amounts already paid [Paras 18, 20].

Evidence Act – Sections 91 and 92 – Partnership Agreement – Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act apply when the document contains all terms of the contract – Written agreements are conclusively presumed to be the full and final statement of the parties' intentions – Oral evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of the document is excluded unless it falls within the exceptions under Section 92 – The trial court and High Court erred in holding the plaintiffs entitled to only 10% share in the partnership firm despite clear terms in the partnership deeds [Paras 19-24, 37-39].

Partnership Firm – Share in Profits and Losses – Amendment of Partnership Deed – The 1995 Deed amended the terms of the partnership firm, including the share of profits and losses – Plaintiffs were entitled to 25% share each as per the 1995 Deed – Defendants' contention that the share was by mistake is unsupported – Burden on defendants to prove the mistake, which they failed to do – Courts must give effect to the terms of the written agreement [Paras 25-36, 40].

Expulsion of Partners – Validity – Clause 17 of the 1992 Deed allowed expulsion of partners on specified grounds – Trial court upheld the expulsion of plaintiffs based on sound reasons – No interference warranted in the expulsion decision [Paras 40-41].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Plaintiffs entitled to 50% share in profits and losses till 18.6.2004 – Expulsion of plaintiffs from the partnership firm effective from 18.6.2004 upheld – Other directions of the trial court maintained [Paras 42-45].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – High Court quashed proceedings citing the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC and delay in lodging the FIR – Supreme Court held that quashing was impermissible without a full trial – The aspect of delay and necessity for sanction should be considered during the trial, not in a petition under Section 482 – The presence of serious allegations and potential misuse of power by police officers justifies continuation of proceedings [Paras 8-16].

Indian Penal Code and Atrocities Act – Allegations Against Police Officers – Appellant alleged police officers abused their power, leading to injury and threats – Allegations include ransacking the complainant's house and using casteist slurs – Supreme Court observed that such allegations, if proven, fall outside the scope of official duties, negating the protection under Section 197 CrPC – High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings without trial found to be erroneous [Paras 7, 15-16].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Requirement for sanction debated – Supreme Court clarified that in cases of misuse of power where actions are not part of official duties, sanction is not required – The Court emphasized that determination of the necessity for sanction should be based on trial evidence [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashing criminal proceedings set aside – Case to proceed in the Special Court for offenses under IPC and Atrocities Act – Directions issued for expeditious trial [Para 16].

Military Engineering Service – Seniority Determination – Principles for adjudging seniority – Supreme Court held that for candidates selected in one and the same selection, the placement in the order of merit can be adopted as a principle for determining seniority – Where selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of the initial date of appointment or continuous officiation is valid for determining inter se seniority of officers in the absence of any rule or guidelines to the contrary – Tribunal's and High Court’s observations on appointments from select panels after a significant delay emphasized the need for accountability in the recruitment process [Paras 18-22].

DoPT Office Memorandum – Application of Principles – The OM dated 3rd July 1986 clarifies the principles for determining seniority among direct recruits, promotees, and transferees – The principle that seniority is determined by the order of merit in the selection list applies within a single selection but not necessarily across different recruitment processes – Seniority should reflect the date of entry into service when comparing candidates from different Commands [Paras 10-13, 19].

Irregular Appointments – Judicial Review – Supreme Court disapproved of appointments made from the 1983 select panel in 1987-1988 without being challenged – Emphasized the need for institutional accountability to prevent arbitrary actions and uncalled-for litigation – However, the Court refrained from disturbing the status of individuals promoted based on revised seniority lists due to elapsed time and specific circumstances [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Appeals partially allowed – Tribunal's order for recasting seniority lists based on the initial date of appointment upheld – Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside – Seniority of specific respondents not disturbed due to unique circumstances under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 23-24].

Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958 – Applicability – Exemption for Non-Residential Clubs – The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, do not apply to non-residential clubs in view of the exemption under Section 3(j) – The term "club" includes associations of individuals with some degree of permanence and corporate identity, pursuing a common aim other than the acquisition of gain – The activities of a non-residential club catering to its members do not fall within the scope of commercial establishments as defined in the Act [Paras 9-27].

Definition and Scope – Non-Residential Club – The Court emphasized that a non-residential club is an establishment that provides services and facilities to its members, distinct from commercial entities that primarily engage in the supply of meals or refreshments for profit – The second respondent club, Bhilai Steel Plant, was found to be a genuine club offering various facilities to its members, including sports and social activities, and thus exempt under Section 3(j) of the Act [Paras 24-38].

Judicial Review – Role of Bye-Laws and Actual Functioning – The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of considering both the bye-laws and the actual functioning of an establishment to determine its nature – In this case, the bye-laws and the functioning of the club supported its classification as a non-residential club exempt from the Act’s provisions – The Court disapproved of the High Court’s interference with the Appellate Authority's findings, which were based on substantial evidence [Paras 36-40].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The judgment of the High Court was upheld, confirming the exemption of the respondent club from the application of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, and negating the need for reinstatement or compensation for the appellants under the Act [Paras 42].