Bail under UAPA – Mens Rea Requirement – Appellant challenges the denial of bail, arguing that mere association with a terrorist organization is insufficient for offenses under Sections 38 and 39 of UAPA without proving intent to further terrorist activities – Supreme Court agrees, emphasizing that the accused must have associated with the organization with the intention to further its activities – Mere possession of materials related to CPI (Maoist) does not automatically imply such intent [Paras 1-34].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Section 43D(5) UAPA – The court reiterates that the stringent conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) apply only to offenses under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA – Since the accused was charged under Sections 13, 38, and 39, normal bail provisions apply for Section 13, and the prosecution must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing the accusations under Sections 38 and 39 are prima facie true [Paras 17-21].

Procedural Lapses and Timely Communication – The importance of timely communication and consideration of bail applications, especially under preventive detention laws, is underscored – The court notes procedural lapses in the case and emphasizes the need for expeditious handling of such matters to uphold the rights of the accused [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Special Court's order granting bail to the accused restored – Accused to complete bail formalities within one week – Observations made are limited to bail considerations and do not influence the trial [Paras 40-42].

Cheque Issued as Security – Legal Enforceability – Appellant challenges the High Court's discharge of the respondent under Section 420 IPC while maintaining the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act – Supreme Court emphasizes that a cheque issued as security can still be presented for payment if the debt becomes due and is not repaid by other means – Court distinguishes between cheques issued as security and those for discharge of legally recoverable debt [Paras 1-18].

Discharge from Criminal Proceedings – Section 420 IPC – Supreme Court agrees with the High Court's conclusion that mere dishonour of a cheque issued as security does not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC, as there is no sufficient evidence of mens rea – Upholds the discharge under Section 420 IPC [Para 11].

Maintainability under Section 138 of NI Act – Security Cheque – Court clarifies that the issuance of a cheque as security does not preclude its presentation for payment once the debt is due – Cites previous judgments to support that a security cheque can attract Section 138 of the NI Act if the loan remains unpaid and the cheque is dishonoured [Paras 12-22].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court's order discharging the respondent under Section 420 IPC upheld – Order setting aside the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act reversed – Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act restored for trial – Trial court to consider the evidence independently without being influenced by observations in this judgment [Paras 23-24].

Rectification of GST Returns – Mechanism and Restrictions – Appellant challenges the High Court's decision allowing the rectification of Form GSTR-3B for past periods – Supreme Court emphasizes that the law permits rectification of errors and omissions only at the initial stages of Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3 but in a specified manner – Once Form GSTR-3B is submitted, any changes thereto may have a cascading effect, and thus unilateral rectification by the assessee is not permissible [Paras 1-50].

Impact of Auto-Populated Records – Changes from Pre-GST Period – Court notes that the GST regime introduced auto-populated records and entries, a different dispensation from the pre-GST period which did not have such provisions – Allowing changes contrary to the statutory mandate would lead to chaotic situations and collapse of the tax administration of Union, States, and Union Territories [Paras 39-50].

Procedural Safeguards – Judicial Accountability – Supreme Court criticizes the High Court's decision for not adhering to the statutory provisions – Holds that the stipulations in the Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 are consistent with the provisions of the CGST Act and the Rules framed thereunder – No necessity of reading down paragraph 4 of the Circular as done by the High Court [Paras 50-52].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Writ petition filed by the respondent dismissed – No order as to costs – Applications disposed of [Para 52].

Senior Advocate Designation – Withdrawal of Privilege – Petitioner challenges the withdrawal of his Senior Advocate designation by the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the decision was disproportionate and failed to consider his long-standing service and contributions – Supreme Court notes the petitioner’s history of transgressions and balances the need for maintaining decorum with giving one final chance for redemption [Paras 1-13].

Contempt of Court – Repeated Misconduct – Petitioner made serious allegations against the judiciary and circulated them publicly, leading to contempt proceedings and withdrawal of his Senior Advocate designation – Supreme Court observes that the petitioner’s actions showed a pattern of misbehavior, but still grants a conditional restoration of designation for a limited period to test his conduct [Paras 2-10].

Restoration of Designation – Conditional Grant – Court decides to temporarily restore the petitioner’s Senior Advocate designation for two years starting from January 1, 2022 – During this period, the Gujarat High Court will monitor his conduct and has the discretion to withdraw the designation permanently if any misconduct is observed – Emphasizes that the petitioner’s future conduct will determine the final decision on his designation [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions – Temporary restoration of Senior Advocate designation for two years from January 1, 2022 – Gujarat High Court to monitor and decide on permanent restoration based on petitioner’s conduct – No costs awarded [Para 13].

Waqf Act – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Suit for Permanent Injunction – High Court’s decision that civil courts can entertain suits for permanent injunction even if they pertain to waqf properties challenged – Supreme Court holds that as per Section 85, any dispute related to waqf properties falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals – High Court’s ruling set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-24].

Section 83 of Waqf Act – Tribunal’s Authority – It is well established that Section 83(1) mandates Waqf Tribunals to determine any disputes, questions, or matters related to waqf properties – Civil courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain such matters – Clarifies scope of Tribunal’s authority and exclusivity [Paras 25-30].

Precedent and Statutory Interpretation – Examination of historical legislative amendments and prior case law affirming Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Noted that any decision regarding waqf property disputes must be directed to the Waqf Tribunal – Emphasis on consistent statutory interpretation to avoid jurisdictional conflict [Paras 31-35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Judgment of High Court reversed – Suit for permanent injunction to be tried by Waqf Tribunal – Civil court’s jurisdiction barred in matters involving waqf properties as per Section 85 of the Waqf Act [Para 36].

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Termination of Daily Wagers – Appellants employed on daily wage basis terminated without compliance with Section 25F – Industrial Tribunal declared termination void and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages – High Court set aside the Award, holding appointments were irregular and not entitled to protection under Section 25F – Supreme Court held termination of workmen, despite irregular appointments, is retrenchment under Section 2(oo) and requires compliance with Section 25F – Reinstatement not automatic; reasonable compensation awarded [Paras 1-32, 36-42].

Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act – Conditions Precedent to Retrenchment – Mandatory compliance required for workmen in continuous service for over 240 days – Non-observance renders termination void – Relief not automatically reinstatement but can be monetary compensation based on case facts [Paras 22-25, 30-31, 33-34].

Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Considering nature of service and duration, Supreme Court awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- as lump sum compensation to each appellant instead of reinstatement with back wages – Compensation deemed just and reasonable given the circumstances [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Award of Industrial Tribunal modified to grant lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to each appellant within three months [Para 44].

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].