Penal Law – Firing on Fishermen – Compensation and Quashing of FIR – An unfortunate incident occurred on 15.02.2012, where two Indian fishermen were killed after being fired upon by two Italian Military Naval officials from a passing ship. Following the award of the Arbitral Tribunal under UNCLOS, the Republic of Italy agreed to pay Rs. 10 crores as compensation. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and set aside all proceedings, directing that the compensation amount be distributed to the victims' families and the boat owner [Paras 1-12].

UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal Award – The Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS delivered its award on 21.05.2020. Italy agreed to pay Rs. 10 crores in compensation and committed to resuming its criminal investigation into the incident. The Supreme Court noted that all parties, including the Union of India, State of Kerala, and heirs of the deceased, had accepted the award [Paras 3-6].

Exercise of Powers under Article 142 – The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to quash the FIR and ongoing criminal proceedings. This was deemed appropriate to bring an end to the long-drawn dispute and in the interest of the victims' families [Paras 6-7].

Disbursement of Compensation – The Court directed that the compensation amount be transferred to the High Court of Kerala, with Rs. 4 crores to be paid to the heirs of each deceased fisherman and Rs. 2 crores to the owner of the damaged boat. The Chief Justice of Kerala High Court was requested to ensure proper disbursement and investment to protect the interests of the heirs [Para 8].

Decision – The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings, directing the disbursement of compensation as per the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal award and ensuring the protection of the victims' families' interests [Paras 7-8].

Education Law – Correction/Change in CBSE Certificates – The Supreme Court examined the constitutional and statutory validity of the CBSE Examination Byelaws, 2007, in relation to requests for correction or change in the certificates issued by CBSE. The Court observed that the Byelaws, which impose limitations on corrections to be consistent with school records, cannot override an individual's right to identity and dignity [Paras 1-56, 70-100].

Correction vs. Change – The Court distinguished between "correction" (to make the certificate consistent with school records) and "change" (based on public documents or acquired name). It ruled that corrections should be permitted if they bring the CBSE certificate in line with school records and public documents. For changes, a reasonable period of limitation and compliance with additional conditions like affidavits and indemnities were justified [Paras 57-69].

Fundamental Rights – The Court emphasized that an individual's control over their identity is fundamental and cannot be unreasonably restricted by CBSE Byelaws. The right to identity, under Article 21, includes the right to correct or change one's name to reflect the true identity, as recorded in public documents like birth certificates and Aadhaar cards [Paras 6-18, 19-21].

Administrative Procedures – The Court directed CBSE to facilitate the correction and change processes by ensuring proper administrative procedures, including the requirement to surrender the original certificate and issue a new one with annotations indicating the changes made. The Court underscored the importance of reasonable fees for administrative expenses [Paras 22-32].

Decision – Appeals Allowed in Part – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals partly by setting aside the restrictions imposed by CBSE on corrections and changes, directing that reasonable procedures and limitations be followed in alignment with constitutional principles. The Court mandated CBSE to update its records and issue new certificates accordingly, ensuring respect for the right to identity and dignity of students [Paras 33-45, 46-65].

Contempt of Court – Willful Disobedience – The Supreme Court emphasized that contempt action should proceed only for established willful disobedience of the Court's orders. The term "willful" requires intentional, conscious, and deliberate action with full knowledge of the consequences. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide, or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply [Paras 1-8].

Compliance with Court Orders – Reengagement of Employees – The Court found that the respondents had partially complied with the Court's orders by reengaging the petitioners on their posts. However, the respondents did not provide continuity of service and arrears of back wages, which was a point of contention [Paras 9-12].

Fresh Termination Orders – The respondents issued fresh termination orders without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, which the petitioners argued was a violation of the principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court's earlier judgment [Paras 24-27].

Reinstatement and Arrears – The Supreme Court reiterated that the reinstatement order should include continuity of service and back wages unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Court criticized the respondents for interpreting the orders in a way that excluded these benefits, calling for a more faithful compliance with the original judgment [Paras 55-62].

Decision – The Supreme Court directed the respondents to comply fully with the orders regarding the reinstatement of the petitioners with continuity of service and payment of arrears. The Court dismissed the contempt petitions related to the reengagement without arrears but allowed those concerning the fresh termination orders to proceed, mandating a proper hearing for the petitioners [Paras 63-65].

COVID-19 Vaccination Data – Submission Requirement – The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to provide complete data on the purchase history of COVID-19 vaccines within two weeks, detailing the vaccination progress and the steps to ensure drug availability for mucormycosis treatment. The Court highlighted the need for transparency in government procurement and distribution processes [Paras 1-8].

Judicial Review – Executive Policies – While acknowledging the executive's primary role in policy-making during the pandemic, the Supreme Court reiterated its authority to review such policies to ensure they do not infringe on constitutional rights. Emphasis was placed on maintaining a balance between executive discretion and judicial oversight to safeguard public interest during health emergencies [Paras 14-17].

Separation of Powers – Judicial Scrutiny – The Court clarified its jurisdiction to review executive policies under the separation of powers doctrine, underscoring the necessity for the judiciary to intervene when constitutional rights are at stake. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that executive actions are reasonable and non-arbitrary, especially in unprecedented crises like the COVID-19 pandemic [Paras 13-15].

National Vaccination Policy – The Court critiqued the Liberalized Vaccination Policy for creating disparities in vaccine access and pricing across states, highlighting the constitutional duty of the Central Government to manage public health and prevent inter-state disparities. It called for a reassessment of the policy to address concerns regarding equitable vaccine distribution and procurement efficiency [Paras 18-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Court directed the Central Government to undertake a comprehensive review of its vaccination policy, addressing the raised concerns and ensuring equitable access and distribution of vaccines across all states and union territories. The need for a transparent and coordinated national strategy was emphasized to effectively combat the pandemic [Para 24].

Admissions – B.Tech Courses – COVID-19 Pandemic – The Supreme Court addressed an appeal challenging the High Court's decision to permit admissions to B.Tech courses based on qualifying exam marks due to the pandemic. The Court held that this decision was contrary to Section 3(1) of the Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007, which mandates admissions through entrance tests followed by centralized counseling [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Statutory Compliance – The Court emphasized that the High Court's direction violated statutory provisions and that the appropriate course was left to the State Government and AICTE's discretion. The High Court's mandamus to allow admissions based on qualifying exam marks was set aside as it was against Section 3(1) [Paras 6-11].

Article 142 – Equitable Relief – Given the exceptional circumstances due to COVID-19 and the fact that 592 students (direct entry) and 243 students (lateral entry) had already been admitted under the High Court's directions, the Supreme Court, using its powers under Article 142, ruled that these admissions should not be disturbed for the academic session 2020-21 [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order but upheld the admissions already granted under it for the current academic session to avoid undue hardship to the students [Paras 12-16].

Dowry Death and Cruelty – Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – The Supreme Court held that offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC are distinct, though both involve cruelty. Conviction under each section requires separate proof of their specific ingredients. In this case, the death due to poisoning within seven years of marriage and evidence of consistent dowry demands and harassment satisfied the requirements of Section 304-B IPC. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act applies, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to rebut the presumption of causality. The argument that a conviction under Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained without charges under Section 498-A IPC was rejected [Paras 1-22].

Evidentiary Standards – Section 304-B IPC – The Court emphasized the need to prove the proximate and live link between the cruelty/harassment and the dowry death. The phrase "soon before" in Section 304-B IPC does not mean 'immediately before'; rather, it requires a factual determination based on the circumstances. The presumption of causality under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act operates once the prosecution proves the necessary ingredients of Section 304-B IPC [Paras 8-14].

Defense and Rebuttal – Section 113-B Evidence Act – The defense failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The appellant's attempt to forge medical records to show a cordial relationship between the families was rejected by the Trial Court. The Court held that the presumption of dowry death was not rebutted, thus upholding the conviction under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 15-18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court, convicting the appellant under Section 304-B IPC. The appellant's failure to discharge the burden under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and lack of any substantive evidence to challenge the conviction warranted dismissal of the appeal [Paras 22-23]. Appeal Dismissed.

Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – The deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze just after one year of her marriage, having been subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry by the accused. The court emphasized that Section 304-B IPC, which defines 'dowry death', should be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of dowry demands and bride burning. The prosecution must establish a proximate and live link between the dowry death and the harassment for dowry. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act operates against the accused once the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are satisfied [Paras 8-24].

Recording of Statements – Section 313 CrPC – The examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality; it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. The Court must question the accused fairly, with care and caution, putting incriminating circumstances before them and seeking their response. This process incorporates the principle of natural justice "audi alteram partem" [Paras 20-21].

Interpretation of "Soon Before" – The phrase "soon before" in Section 304-B IPC does not mean 'immediately before'. Courts must use their discretion to determine if the period between cruelty or harassment and the death is proximate enough to invoke the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act [Paras 14-15].

Non-categorization of Deaths – Section 304-B IPC – Section 304-B IPC does not categorize death as homicidal, suicidal, or accidental because dowry deaths can be any of these. The provision addresses deaths occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" to cover all scenarios where dowry harassment leads to death [Para 23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – The High Court and Trial Court were correct in convicting the appellants under Section 304-B IPC, as the appellants failed to discharge the burden under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the conviction under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) was set aside due to insufficient evidence proving the factum of suicide beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent of setting aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC [Paras 37-38]. Appeal Allowed in Part.

Criminal Procedure Code – Anticipatory Bail – The High Court's rejection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not preclude it from granting protection from arrest in exceptional circumstances. However, such protection must be narrowly tailored and justified with reasons, and for the shortest duration necessary. The High Court's grant of 90 days protection without sufficient reasoning or consideration of the investigating agency's concerns was deemed excessive [Paras 1-28].

Inherent Powers – High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. recognizes the inherent power of the High Court to pass orders to secure the ends of justice. This power can be exercised to provide protection in exceptional circumstances even after rejecting anticipatory bail, provided the Court balances the interests of the applicant with those of the investigating agency and society at large [Paras 23-25].

Constitutional Provisions – Article 21 – The grant or rejection of anticipatory bail impacts the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted liberally to favor the applicant while ensuring that restrictions are not imposed unless explicitly provided by the legislature [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders granting 90 days protection from arrest to the respondents-accused, citing lack of reasoning and excessive duration. The investigating agency is allowed to proceed in accordance with the law, and any subsequent bail applications or requests for police remand should be decided on their merits [Para 28]. Appeal Allowed.

Multiple Punishments – Concurrent or Consecutive Sentences – It is legally obligatory upon the Court of first instance to specify in clear terms whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively when awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment. Section 31(1) CrPC vests complete discretion with the Court to order the sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently, having regard to the nature of offences and surrounding factors. If the Court does not specify concurrent running of sentences, they are presumed to run consecutively. Additionally, if sentences are to run consecutively, the Court must state the order in which they are to be executed [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Discretion in Sentencing – The discretion to order concurrent or consecutive running of sentences must be judiciously exercised with reference to the nature of the offence/s committed and the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no straitjacket approach, but the decision must be based on judicial lines and not mechanically [Paras 10-11].

Principle of Single Transaction – The principle related to 'single transaction' cannot be imported to decide whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. This principle is primarily relevant for determining whether multiple offences can be tried in a single trial [Paras 14-14.1].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – In this case, the Supreme Court modified the punishment awarded to the appellants, providing that the maximum period of imprisonment to be served by them shall be 14 years and not beyond. This decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the period of imprisonment already served (over 13 years) and other relevant factors [Paras 16-19.1]. Appeal Partly Allowed.