Criminal Law – Murder and Common Object – Appellants convicted for murder with common object – High Court reversed trial court’s acquittal – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the assault was intentional and all accused shared a common object – Minor contradictions in witness testimonies deemed insufficient to discredit overall reliability – Application of Sections 302/149 IPC appropriate [Paras 1-12].

Appeal in Case of Acquittal – Scope and Interference – High Court justified in interfering with trial court’s acquittal under Section 378 CrPC – Trial court’s view not possible given the evidence – Supreme Court emphasizes that appellate courts can overturn acquittal if trial court findings are perverse or contrary to evidence [Paras 7-11].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Witnesses closely related to deceased but their testimonies found consistent and credible – Supreme Court criticizes trial court’s dismissal of testimonies based on minor discrepancies and relationship to the deceased – High Court’s reappreciation of evidence upheld [Paras 6, 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the appellants affirmed – Common object and intentional assault leading to death established beyond reasonable doubt [Para 12].

Termination of Concession Agreement – Arbitration Clause – Termination of Concession Agreement by Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) due to alleged default by concessionaire – Invocation of writ jurisdiction by HMRTC and HSVP to challenge termination notices and ensure continuation of metro operations – Supreme Court held arbitration clause provides sufficient recourse for resolving disputes – High Court's order for deposit of 80% of debt due into Escrow Account affirmed – Remaining disputes to be resolved through arbitration [Paras 1-28].

Jurisdiction – Article 226 – High Court's intervention justified to prevent disruption of essential metro services – Supreme Court emphasized arbitration as primary forum for dispute resolution under Concession Agreements – High Court directed to supervise interim arrangements and facilitate arbitration process [Paras 30-36].

Debt Due – Compliance with Concession Agreement – Auditors to determine debt due as per Concession Agreements – CAG report on debt due considered valid and binding – Deposit of 80% of debt due into Escrow Account mandated within three months – Remaining claims to be addressed in arbitration [Paras 37-42].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Directions for deposit of 80% of debt due into Escrow Account upheld – Parties granted liberty to pursue arbitration for resolving residual disputes – Interim measures by High Court to continue till arbitration outcomes [Para 43].

Service Law – Recruitment Rules – ANM Qualification – The requirement under Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules and Rule 15 of the 2016 Rules for candidates to possess intermediate qualifications in the science stream for appointment as Health Worker/ANM upheld – State's power to prescribe eligibility criteria for recruitment recognized – Advertisement specifying criteria consistent with statutory rules [Paras 1-33].

Eligibility Criteria – Direct Recruitment – No automatic recruitment for ANM post – Selection based on batch-wise seniority and qualifications as per rules – Requirement of intermediate in science stream for recruitment found reasonable and necessary – State's competence to prescribe additional qualifications for employment within its jurisdiction upheld [Paras 1-33].

Statutory Interpretation – Adaptation and Application of Laws – Laws in force in erstwhile state of UP continued in Uttarakhand post-reorganization – Adaptation under Section 87 of the U.P. Reorganization Act ensures continuity of existing rules – Omission to mention rules in adaptation order does not create a legal vacuum – Rules prescribing educational qualifications for ANM recruitment not repugnant to provisions of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 [Paras 26-31].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Requirement of intermediate in science for ANM recruitment upheld – Advertisement's omission of this criterion does not invalidate the statutory rule – Batch-wise seniority in selection does not override the need to meet prescribed qualifications [Para 33].

Free Speech – Criminal Charges for Facebook Post – FIR quashed – Appellant's Facebook post criticized the lack of action by the Meghalaya government and police against culprits who attacked non-tribal youths – Supreme Court held that the post did not promote enmity or hatred between communities – No intention to incite violence or disrupt public order – Free speech cannot be stifled by criminal charges without such tendencies – FIR quashed [Paras 1-16].

Section 153A IPC – Promotion of Enmity – Essential ingredients – The intention to promote enmity or hatred is necessary – The post must be read in entirety – Appellant's post was a plea for equality and justice, not incitement – Basic ingredients of Section 153A IPC not met [Paras 9-13].

Public Order – Freedom of Speech – Public discourse – Criticism of government inaction is a legitimate exercise of free speech – Voicing discontent against authorities’ inaction does not amount to hate speech – Calls for justice and protection of rights are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – FIR quashed – No offence made out under Sections 153A and 505(1)(c) IPC [Para 16].

Service Law – Regularization of Contractual Employees – Relief of regularization not available to contractual employees based on Umadevi (2006) – Contract employees had not completed 10 years of service by the time of Umadevi judgment – University’s proposed modality for recruitment process including age relaxation and additional marks for service duration approved – Contract employees granted the opportunity to compete with general candidates with some advantage [Paras 1-16].

Eligibility Criteria – Public Advertisement – Age relaxation and benefit of additional marks for service duration – University to provide a fair opportunity for contract employees to compete in the selection process – Public advertisement must include specific mention of these benefits to inform all candidates [Paras 12-14].

Recruitment Process – Compliance with Umadevi Principles – Regular appointments must follow the established recruitment rules – Separate and exclusive tests for contract employees not permissible – Recruitment process must be open to all eligible candidates with contract employees given certain advantages [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Appeals disposed of – Directions for University to include age relaxation and additional marks for contract employees in the recruitment process – Contract employees to be given another chance in future selections if unsuccessful [Para 17].

Preliminary Enquiry – Pre-FIR Stage – Corruption Allegations – Permissibility – Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry at the pre-FIR stage in cases of corruption and disproportionate assets is permissible and desirable – Such enquiry helps ascertain if a cognizable offence is disclosed, protecting against vexatious complaints – If the enquiry finds no substance, FIR is not lodged; if prima facie offence is disclosed, FIR is registered [Paras 1-9].

Scope and Nature of Preliminary Enquiry – Discrete and Open Enquiry – Detailed procedure for conducting open enquiries as per Maharashtra State Anti-Corruption Bureau Manual – Statement and information collected during preliminary enquiry not considered as confessional – Only for assessing if a cognizable offence is disclosed – Cannot be used against the appellant during trial [Paras 10-12].

Protection of Rights – Article 20(3) and 21 of Constitution – Notice and enquiry process does not violate constitutional protections against self-incrimination – Enquiry at pre-FIR stage safeguards the interests of the accused by avoiding unnecessary harassment – Statement and documents provided to clarify assets and income sources, not confessional in nature [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Preliminary enquiry permitted to determine the existence of a cognizable offence – Clarifications provided regarding the scope and usage of statements and information collected during such enquiry [Para 14].

Service Law – Appointment of Constable – Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – Respondent acquitted under Sections 302, 323, 341, 34 of IPC due to benefit of reasonable doubt – Trial Court opined prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt – Respondent applied for constable post in Rajasthan Police – Recruitment process included disqualification for those not honourably acquitted – Held, acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not make respondent eligible for appointment [Paras 1-29].

Honourable Acquittal – Defined – Supreme Court emphasized distinction between clean acquittal and acquittal on benefit of doubt – Acquittal due to prosecution's failure to meet burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not imply clean antecedents [Paras 12-27].

Circular Application – Recruitment Disqualification – Circular dated 28.03.2017 applied during recruitment – Candidates acquitted on benefit of doubt deemed ineligible – Circular must align with judicial pronouncements that benefit of doubt does not suffice for police service eligibility [Paras 23-27].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Rajasthan Police justified in denying appointment – Impugned orders of Division Bench and Single Judge set aside – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 28-29].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Respondent invoked arbitration under Clause 12.3 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board – Dispute over whether Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, applies – High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) – Held, Section 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act provides exclusive jurisdiction to the State Electricity Commission, overriding Section 11 of the 1996 Act [Paras 1-11].

Special vs. General Law – Section 86(1)(f) as Special Provision – Supreme Court emphasized that Section 86(1)(f) of the 2003 Act is a special provision that overrides the general provisions of the 1996 Act – State Electricity Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between licensees and generating companies [Paras 10-11].

Jurisdiction – Inherent Lack – Objection to jurisdiction can be raised at any stage – Even if parties previously consented to arbitration, lack of inherent jurisdiction can be challenged at any point – Consent cannot confer jurisdiction where statute does not provide it [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act set aside – Respondent may seek remedies available under law – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Criminal Law – FIR – First Information Report – Initial telephonic message informing the police about an attack cannot be treated as an FIR – Subsequent detailed complaint recorded at 11:45 PM treated as FIR – Telephonic message lacked details like names of accused and location of the incident [Paras 21-24].

Common Intention – Establishing Common Intention – Participation in a joint criminal venture – Accused were present and facilitated the crime – Consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses indicated appellants' active role in assault – Material objects and bloodstains supported eyewitness accounts – Trial Court erred in giving primacy to medical evidence over eyewitness accounts – High Court correctly reversed acquittal based on overall evidence [Paras 31-35].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Deceased made statements implicating accused despite critical condition – Eyewitness accounts corroborated the dying declaration – Statements of the deceased considered credible [Paras 13, 28].

Judgment – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's decision to convict appellants upheld – Trial Court's acquittal reversed due to reliance on medical evidence over credible eyewitness accounts – Appellants' involvement and common intention in the murder established beyond reasonable doubt [Para 39].