Penal Code – Sections 425, 427, 447 – Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 – Section 3(1) – Criminal Procedure Code – Section 321 – Kerala assembly ruckus case – Withdrawal of Prosecution – Destruction of property not freedom of speech – Committing acts of destruction of public property cannot be equated with either the freedom of speech in the legislature or with forms of protest legitimately available to the members of the opposition – To allow the prosecution to be withdrawn in the face of these allegations in respect of which upon investigation a final report has been submitted under Section 173 of the CrPC and cognizance has been taken would amount to an interference with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons – Such an action is clearly extraneous to the vindication of the law to which all organs of the executive are bound – Hence the mere finding of the High Court that there is no absence of good faith would not result in allowing the application as a necessary consequence by ignoring the cause of public justice and the need to observe probity in public life – Members of the State Legislature have in their character as elected representatives a public trust impressed upon the discharge of their duties – Allowing the prosecution to be withdrawn would only result in a singular result which is that the elected representatives are exempt from the mandate of criminal law. This cannot be countenanced as being in aid of the broad ends of public justice – CJM was justified in declining consent for the withdrawal of the prosecution under Section 321 – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-33].

Constitution of India – Article 194(2) – Acts of vandalism cannot be said to be manifestations of the freedom of speech and be termed as "proceedings" of the Assembly – Article 194(2) is divided into two limbs: First limb of Article 194(2) which provides the members absolute immunity with respect to anything said or any vote given in the House is a manifestation of the freedom of speech provided under Article 194(1) – Second limb of Article 194(2) gives the members immunity in respect of the publication of 'any report paper votes or proceedings' by or under the authority of the house – Legal immunity to 'anything said or any vote given' in the first limb and the 'publication of a report paper votes or proceedings' in the second limb of Article 194(2) flow from the freedom of speech that is provided under Article 194(1) – Exercise of these manifestations of the freedom of speech – as provided in Article 194(2) – has been provided with express immunity. However the only difference between the two limbs of Article 194(2) is that the first limb protects the exercise of the freedom and the second limb protects the member against the publication of the said exercise of the freedom – Legal proceedings against the exercise of the freedom can only be initiated by those aware of the exercise of freedom which would mean either those who are present in the House or those who become aware of it when the speech vote or the like is published – While the freedoms protected by both the limbs are substantively the same the second limb is clarificatory in the sense that it prevents 'any person' from initiating proceedings against the exercise of freedom of speech inside the House when they obtain knowledge of the exercise of the said freedom through a publication – Immunity provided for the exercise of the manifestations of the freedom of speech in the second limb of under Article 194(2) cannot exceed the freedom of speech provided in the first limb of Article 194(2) – Acts of destruction of public property are not privileged under the first limb of Article 194(2) – Consequently acts of vandalism cannot be said to be manifestations of the freedom of speech and be termed as “proceedings” of the Assembly – It was not the intention of the drafters of the Constitution to extend the interpretation of ‘freedom of speech’ to include criminal acts by placing them under a veil of protest – Hence the Constitution only grants the members the freedom of speech that is necessary for their active participation in meaningful deliberation without any fear of prosecution – Moreover the word ‘proceedings’ in Article 194(2) follows the words ‘any report paper votes’ – Reports papers and votes are actions that are undertaken by the members of the Assembly in their official capacity for participation and deliberation in the House – These are essential functions that a member has to perform in order to discharge her duty to the public as their elected representative – On application of the interpretative principle of noscitur a sociis the phrase ‘proceedings’ takes colour from the words surrounding it – Since the words associated with the phrase ‘proceedings’ refer to actions that are exercised by the members in their official capacity in furtherance of their official functions the meaning of the word ‘proceedings’ must also be restricted to only include such actions [Paras 34-47].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Held – Orders of High Court and CJM affirmed – Application for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC rejected – Immunities under Article 194(2) do not extend to acts of vandalism or destruction of public property [Paras 48-50].

Arbitration – Arbitral Award – Patent Illegality – Judicial Intervention – Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Scope of interference limited to grounds under Section 34 – Judicial intervention on merits of award not permissible – Award can be set aside if it violates “public policy of India” or principles of natural justice – “Public policy” limited to fundamental policy of Indian law, not expanding into mere erroneous application of law – Findings based on no evidence or ignoring vital evidence can be set aside – High Court's interference with arbitral award set aside – Appeal dismissed [Paras 42-46].

Change in Law – Relief under Contract – License Agreement between PSA SICAL and Port Trust – Change in law adversely affecting rights under contract – Article 14.3 providing relief without compensation – Arbitral Tribunal’s finding on change in law justified – High Court's interference beyond permissible limits [Paras 56-58].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Held – Arbitral Tribunal's award reinstated – High Court’s order set aside – Principles of limited judicial intervention reaffirmed [Paras 60-66].

Civil Procedure Code – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Admission of second appeal with formulation of substantial questions of law – High Court's duty to hear and decide on the substantial questions – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside for summary disposal of second appeal without proper consideration of formulated questions – Matter remanded to High Court for reconsideration on formulated questions of law [Paras 1-18].

Substantial Question of Law – Scope of High Court's Powers – Under Section 100 CPC, after admission of second appeal with substantial questions of law, High Court must consider and decide on these questions – High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal summarily – Emphasizes necessity for detailed examination and determination of substantial questions of law [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – High Court’s judgment and order set aside – Second appeal restored for reconsideration by High Court on already formulated substantial questions of law – High Court requested to prioritize and expedite the matter [Paras 17-18].

Service Law – Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments – Determination of Seniority – Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, particularly Rules 4 to 7 – Appellant challenged the seniority list re-determined in 2016 which counted services rendered by ad hoc appointees from the date of their initial appointment in 1985 – Supreme Court held that seniority should be counted from the date of regularisation, not initial ad hoc appointment [Paras 1-11].

Ad hoc Appointments – Seniority Determination – Regularisation Rules – Appellants' seniority to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment after regularisation, per Rules 1979 – Ad hoc services rendered before regularisation not counted for seniority – Supreme Court quashed the re-determined seniority list of 2016 and restored the final seniority list of 2001, which considered seniority from the date of regularisation in 1989 [Paras 7-11].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – Judgments of High Courts quashed – Seniority list of 2001 restored, counting seniority from the date of regularisation (23.02.1989) – Revised seniority list of 2016 quashed [Para 11].

Criminal Procedure Code – Sections 156(3), 200, and 438 – Indian Penal Code – Sections 418, 419, 420, 405, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B read with 34 – Fraud and misappropriation of funds – Setting aside of anticipatory bail – High Court granted anticipatory bail on the ground that the magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC directing the complaint to be investigated and that the mandate of Section 200 of the CrPC had not been complied with since the complainant was not examined on oath – Any Judicial Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code – If the magistrate orders an investigation, they are not required to examine the complainant on oath because they have not taken cognizance of any offence therein – For the purpose of enabling the police to start an investigation, it is open to the magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR – There is nothing illegal in doing so – The power under Section 156(3) can be exercised by the magistrate even before taking cognizance provided the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence – Orders granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 to the accused shall accordingly stand set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-33].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – High Court's order set aside – Anticipatory bail granted to the respondents under Section 438 stands canceled – Orders directing investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC upheld [Paras 24-25].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) – Initiation by Financial Creditor – Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Meaning of 'Financial Debt' – Definition in Section 5(8) does not exclude interest-free loans – Loan advanced to meet working capital requirements without interest qualifies as financial debt – Reversal of NCLT and NCLAT orders dismissing the petition under Section 7 – Appeal allowed and petition revived for fresh decision in accordance with law [Paras 1-33].

Loan Agreement – Consideration for Time Value of Money – Section 5(8) of IBC – Interpretation – Financial debt includes any amount raised under a transaction having the commercial effect of borrowing – Inclusive definition extends to loans advanced for operational funding without interest – NCLT and NCLAT’s restrictive reading of financial debt reversed – Judgment emphasizes legislative intent and holistic reading of statutory provisions [Paras 7-29].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Orders of NCLT and NCLAT set aside – Petition under Section 7 of IBC revived for fresh decision by Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law and findings [Paras 32-33].

Sanction for Prosecution – Protection under Section 197 CrPC – Allegation against public servant for criminal acts committed during discharge of official duties – Supreme Court held that sanction under Section 197 is required if the act is reasonably connected with the official duties – Protection intended to prevent unnecessary harassment of public servants while also ensuring it does not shield corrupt officers [Paras 1-11].

Official Duty and Criminal Acts – Scope of Section 197 CrPC – Acts of cheating, fabrication of records, or misappropriation generally not protected under Section 197 unless reasonably connected with discharge of official duties – Test to determine connection involves forming a prima facie view of the reasonable connection between the act and the official duties [Paras 7-9].

Similar Protection for Co-Accused – Consistency in Protection – In similar circumstances, superior officers involved in the same transaction were granted protection under Section 197 CrPC – Supreme Court found no reason to deny the same protection to the appellant, who was a lower division clerk accused of conspiring with his superiors – Sanction from competent authority was necessary, and in its absence, the proceedings were quashed [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's decision upheld, granting protection under Section 197 CrPC to the appellant – Sanction required for prosecution, proceedings quashed due to lack of sanction [Paras 11-12].

Contract Law – Concluded Contract – South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Appellant) issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) to M/S. S. Kumar's Associates AKM (JV) (Respondent) for a work contract – Respondent mobilized resources and commenced work but did not furnish Performance Security Deposit or sign Integrity Pact – Dispute over whether these omissions prevented a binding contract from forming – Supreme Court held that non-compliance with these conditions precluded contract formation [Paras 1-24].

Letter of Intent – Legal Nature – LoI issued to respondent intended to initiate contract – Court clarified that an LoI generally indicates intention to contract and does not create a binding agreement unless conditions are met – Reference to Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. & Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 751 and Jawahar Lal Burman v. Union of India (1962) 3 SCR 769 to discuss the conditional nature of contract formation via LoI [Paras 10-12, 20-22].

Performance Security and Integrity Pact – Conditions Precedent – Court found that furnishing Performance Security Deposit and signing the Integrity Pact were conditions precedent to forming a binding contract – Respondent's failure to fulfill these requirements justified cancellation of award and forfeiture of bid security [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Interpretation – Conditions Subsequent vs. Conditions Precedent – Court distinguished between conditions subsequent and conditions precedent in contract formation – Emphasized that the latter must be fulfilled for a contract to be binding – Held that in this case, the conditions were clearly precedent, not subsequent [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision upheld, which allowed only the forfeiture of bid security amount and not the recovery of additional costs – Appellants directed to refund the balance amount of Rs. 10 lakh after deducting bid security to respondent within two months [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly and Rioting – Appellants convicted for forming an unlawful assembly and rioting with the common object to snatch voters list and cast bogus votes – Incident occurred during a general election, causing injuries to several individuals – Convictions under Sections 323 and 147 IPC affirmed – Supreme Court stresses the importance of free and fair elections, and that any attempt to disrupt this process must be dealt with severely [Paras 1-88].

Witness Testimony – Injured Eyewitnesses – Reliance on testimonies of injured eyewitnesses (PW5, PW8, PW10) and other independent witnesses (PW1, PW3, PW4) – Injuries corroborated by medical evidence – Supreme Court emphasizes the high evidentiary value of injured eyewitnesses' testimony [Paras 5-7].

Burden of Proof – Presence and Participation – Presence of the accused at the scene established through injuries sustained by both the accused and the victims – Injuries on accused persons not explained, affirming their involvement – Court reiterates that every member of an unlawful assembly is liable for the actions committed in pursuit of the common object [Paras 34-48].

Freedom of Voting – Constitutional Principle – Supreme Court underscores that freedom of voting is integral to the freedom of expression and essential for democracy – Booth capturing and bogus voting undermine democratic principles and must be addressed firmly [Paras 75-82].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of six months' simple imprisonment for offences under Sections 323 and 147 IPC upheld – Court directs appellants to surrender to serve their sentence [Paras 10-11].