Criminal Law – Special Leave Petition – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner convicted by Trial Court and High Court – Habitual offender involved in serious crimes – No grounds found to interfere with lower courts' judgments – Petition dismissed [Para 1].

Legal Representation – Article 21 of Constitution – Right to life and liberty includes right to legal representation – Legal aid must ensure no distinction between rich and poor – Effective representation essential for justice [Paras 3-4].

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Objectives – Providing free and competent legal services to weaker sections – Ensuring justice is not denied due to economic or other disabilities – Nationwide network of Legal Services Authorities and Committees [Para 4-5].

Observations – Legal Aid Counsel and Amicus Curiae – Advocates face challenges due to lack of necessary documents – Right to effective legal representation hampered by incomplete records – Promise of competent legal services remains unfulfilled without full access to documents [Paras 8-9].

Directions – Provision of Documents – Legal aid counsel/amicus curiae must be provided with all relevant documents and official translations – Directions to National Legal Services Authority and State Legal Services Authorities for immediate compliance – Ensuring effective legal representation [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Conviction upheld – Directions issued to improve provision of documents to legal aid counsel and amicus curiae [Paras 1, 13].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Conviction – Appellant, along with two others, tried for murder under Sections 302, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC – Ocular testimony of PW1 did not attribute specific overt act or weapon possession to appellant – No evidence of appellant's direct involvement or exhortation in the assault leading to murder – Appellant's presence and collective assault inferred common intention, but lacked evidence for direct liability under Sections 302 and 324 – Convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 – Other charges not substantiated [Paras 1-16].

Common Intention – Vicarious Liability – Section 34 IPC – Essential for prosecution to establish prior meeting of minds or participation in common intention – Mere presence or minor role without clear evidence does not substantiate common intention for severe charges – Case-specific assessment necessary [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 set aside – Conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 upheld – Appellant to be released if sentence for Section 323 already served, unless required for other cases [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder Accusation – Appeal by the State of Kerala against High Court's bail grant to the respondent accused of murdering a lady doctor – High Court overlooked material evidence indicating the respondent's guilt – High Court did not consider the severity of the offense, the accused's absconding behavior, and potential witness influence – Appeal allowed; bail order set aside [Paras 1-40].

Grant of Bail – Judicial Discretion – Exercise of discretion in granting bail must be judicious – High Court failed to apply mind to the severity of the punishment and absconding nature of the accused – High Court's order flawed for not considering materials on record [Paras 33-34].

Bail Conditions – Influencing Witnesses – High Court's condition to restrict the accused from entering Ollur Police Station jurisdiction inadequate to prevent witness tampering – Most witnesses were from Thrissur and Ernakulam, beyond Ollur Police Station's jurisdiction – Importance of ensuring fair trial emphasized [Paras 35-36].

COVID-19 Pandemic Considerations – High Court misinterpreted Supreme Court directives on releasing prisoners due to COVID-19 – Directions aimed at minor offenses, not heinous crimes like murder – High Court's rationale for bail based on COVID-19 concerns deemed inappropriate [Paras 37-38].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's bail order set aside – Respondent to be taken into custody – Compliance directed to concerned police station and jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate [Paras 39-40].

Criminal Law – Bail Conditions – Sexual Harassment – Appeal against the High Court's order using rakhi tying as a bail condition for an accused of sexual harassment – Supreme Court finds the condition wholly unacceptable and diluting the offence of sexual harassment – Such conditions transform a molester into a brother by judicial mandate and perpetuate gender stereotypes – Appeal allowed; bail condition set aside [Paras 1-88].

Judicial Conduct – Gender Sensitization – Supreme Court issues guidelines for courts to avoid patriarchal notions and ensure gender sensitization – Bail conditions should protect complainant from further harassment – Orders must not reflect stereotypical notions about women – Courts should avoid suggesting or mandating compromises between prosecutrix and accused – Judges should be sensitive and avoid traumatizing prosecutrix during proceedings [Paras 44-47].

Role of Courts – Ensuring Fairness – Courts must ensure fairness and impartiality, avoiding stereotypes in judicial reasoning – Judges should be aware of diversity and not manifest bias or prejudice – Importance of judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases emphasized [Paras 31-38, 45-46].

Training and Sensitization – National Judicial Academy and State Judicial Academies to include gender sensitization in judicial training – Bar Council of India to include topics on sexual offences and gender sensitization in LL.B programs and All India Bar Examination – High Courts to formulate modules on judicial sensitivity for Judicial Services Examination [Paras 46-48, 50].

Decision – Bail conditions using rakhi tying set aside and expunged from the record – Directions issued for gender sensitization of judges and lawyers – Appeal disposed of with no order on costs [Paras 51-54].

Service Law – Pay Scale Merger – Retrospective Application – Appeal concerning the merger of pay scales for Upper Division and Lower Division Assistants/Clerks in the universities of Bihar – The communication dated 28.07.1981 provided clear guidelines for merger applicable only to posts with distinct senior and junior scales – Appellants' posts of Typist, Counter Clerk, Routine Clerk, and Store Keeper were not eligible for the merged scales – Supreme Court holds that without re-designation of posts with Vice Chancellor's approval, benefits under the Government Orders (GOs) cannot be granted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Natural Justice – Recovery of Benefits – Despite dismissal of the appeal, Supreme Court rules that benefits accrued to appellants from 1990 to 1995 should not be recovered – No misrepresentation by appellants – Delay by authorities in deciding the issue – Principles from Shyam Babu Verma and Sahib Ram cases applied – Relief granted under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Benefits accrued from 1990 to 1995 not to be recovered – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 24].

Family Courts Act – Jurisdiction and Procedure – Family Court does not have plenary powers to bypass mandatory procedural requirements ensuring fairness and transparency – Section 7 defines jurisdiction, while Section 10 integrates CPC procedures for dispute resolution – Family Courts must adhere to principles of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as mandated by Section 14 of the Act – Procedural lapses by Family Courts, especially in ex parte decisions, can vitiate proceedings [Paras 27-28, 33-37].

Guardianship – Procedural Compliance – Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction by hastening proceedings without ensuring proper service and compliance with procedural requirements – Applications filed without notice to the appellant cannot be adjudicated ex parte – The Court’s failure to follow the due process of law violates principles of natural justice [Paras 32-37].

Remand and Revival of Proceedings – Guardianship petition (G.P. No. 09/2018) and related applications remanded and revived for proper adjudication – Family Court directed to decide pending applications and the main petition on merits, ensuring fair opportunity to both parties [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Impugned judgment and orders dated 21.9.2019 and 16.10.2019 set aside – Guardianship petition and related applications to be heard afresh – Respondent to surrender U.S. citizenship and passport of the minor child as assured – Respondent restrained from traveling outside Delhi or abroad with the minor child without Court's permission [Paras 42-45].

Service Law – Reservation and Merit – Reallocation of Reserved Category Candidates – Petitioners, General Category candidates, challenged the reallocation of Reserved Category candidates to Open Category posts in the selection process for Constable PAC and Fireman – Supreme Court held reallocation to be valid and consistent with prior directives – Petitioners did not establish that any candidates with lower marks were selected over them – The reallocation ensured adherence to merit and reservation principles as per Court directives in Ashish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2018) 17 SCC 398 – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Principles of Selection – Compliance with Court Orders – The selection process adhered to the principles set forth by the Supreme Court, emphasizing merit-based selection within the framework of reservation – Additional posts created by reallocation due to the invalidation of earlier selections were appropriately adjusted – No evidence of procedural irregularity affecting petitioners' prospects [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Reallocation of candidates from reserved categories to open categories upheld – Petitioners' claims found without merit – Compliance with Court directives ensured [Para 9].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Limitation Period – Appeal against High Court's decision to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Demand for arbitration was made on 07.11.2006 and reiterated on 13.01.2007 – Time began running from 12.02.2007 after no arbitrator was appointed – Subsequent final rejection by appellant on 10.11.2010 did not reset limitation period – Applications under Section 11 filed on 06.11.2013 were time-barred – High Court erred in finding applications within limitation – Appeals allowed; High Court's appointment of arbitrator set aside [Paras 1-22].

Final Payment and Demand – Contractual Obligations – Final payments for road repair works were received by March 2003 – Respondent's demand for price variation reimbursement made on 08.09.2003 – Further demands and letters did not extend limitation – Claims were time-barred by February 2013 – Applications for arbitration appointment were ex facie time-barred [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment dated 20.08.2019 set aside – Applications for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act dismissed as time-barred [Para 22].

Default Bail – Fundamental Right – Appeal regarding default bail under the first proviso to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court holds default bail as a fundamental right under Article 21 – The State cannot extend the period for filing charge sheets through supplementary charge sheets beyond the period specified under Section 167 – Appeals allowed; appellant entitled to default bail [Paras 1-17].

Criminal Procedure – Investigation Period – The charge sheet for offenses under IPC and Arms Act filed within 180 days, but not for UAPA – Application for default bail filed after 180 days, with charge sheet under UAPA filed 211 days post-arrest – The appellant’s right to default bail upheld due to failure to file charge sheet within the statutory period [Paras 13-14].

Court Jurisdiction – Special Courts for UAPA – Argument on jurisdiction for granting 180 days extension by Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of special courts – Different situation in Uttar Pradesh as special courts were not notified – The extension granted by CJM found permissible in this context [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Appellant entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. – Conditions to be set by trial court [Paras 16-17].