Education Law – Part-Time Contractual Instructors – Status – Instructors appointed under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on contractual basis for 11 months on fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month – Continued uninterruptedly for over 10 years – Supreme Court held that once original and renewed contracts expired and no fresh written contract executed, instructors ceased to be contractual – Held: Continuous engagement against recurring work creates deemed substantive posts and instructors cannot be treated as purely contractual or temporary [Paras 39–45, 70].

Service Law – “Part-Time” Teachers – Misnomer – Though described as part-time, instructors were contractually prohibited from taking any other employment and were discharging duties equivalent to regular teachers – Held: Such instructors are de facto full-time teachers – Nomenclature of “part-time contractual” held deceptive and unsustainable [Paras 41–43, 46].

Service Jurisprudence – Ad hoc / Contractual Employment – Replacement – Court reiterated that an ad hoc, temporary or contractual employee cannot be replaced by another similarly situated employee – Long continuation creates preference and legitimacy – Practice of perpetual contractual employment deprecated [Paras 44–47].

Honorarium – Revision – Stagnation – Initial honorarium of Rs.7,000/- fixed in 2013 held incapable of remaining stagnant indefinitely – Periodic revision mandatory keeping in view inflation, cost of living and nature of duties – Once revised and enhanced, honorarium cannot be unilaterally reduced in absence of contract or due process [Paras 48–53, 57].

Education Law – Project Approval Board (PAB) – Exclusive Financial Authority – PAB held to be sole authority under the Scheme to sanction budget and fix honorarium – Decisions of PAB binding on State authorities – Executive Committee or State Government cannot override or dilute PAB’s financial approvals [Paras 61–66, 70(iv)–(v)].

Honorarium – PAB Approval of Rs.17,000/- – Enforceability – PAB approved honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month for 2017–18 and State accepted the same – Failure to implement held illegal – Held: Instructors entitled to Rs.17,000/- per month from 2017–18 onwards till next revision by PAB [Paras 51–52, 66–67, 71–72].

Constitution of India – Article 23 – Begar / Forced Labour – Payment of honorarium below minimum wages and artificial stagnation or reduction held to amount to economic coercion – Supreme Court held that compelling instructors to work on meagre honorarium, coupled with prohibition on alternative employment, constitutes “Begar” and violates Article 23 [Paras 54–56, 70(viii)].

Right to Education Act – Financial Responsibility – State vs Centre – Though funding is shared between Centre and State, Section 7(5) places primary responsibility on State to implement Act – Held: State must pay honorarium first and may recover Central share later on principle of “pay and recover” – Instructors cannot be denied payment due to inter-governmental funding disputes [Paras 68–69, 70(vi)].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Objection regarding non-exhaustion of remedies under Section 24(3) rejected – Provision relates to disciplinary grievances and not pay/honorarium – Availability of alternative remedy not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Appeals by instructors and Welfare Association allowed – Appeals by State of Uttar Pradesh dismissed – Instructors entitled to honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month w.e.f. 2017–18 – State directed to commence payment at revised rate from 01.04.2026 – Arrears to be paid within six months – State permitted to recover Central Government’s share – Directions issued for periodic revision of honorarium by PAB at least once every three years.

Criminal Law – Further Investigation – Leave of Court – Mandatory Requirement – FIR registered for serious offences including gang rape – After detailed investigation, closure report filed and accepted by Judicial Magistrate after notice to informant – Supreme Court held that once a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC is accepted by the Court, further investigation under Section 173(8) can be undertaken only with prior leave of the Magistrate/Court concerned – Police or executive authorities cannot unilaterally direct further investigation [Paras 25–28].

Criminal Procedure – Section 173(8) CrPC – Power to Order Further Investigation – Who Can Exercise – Under Secretary, State Government and Superintendent of Police directed CBCID to conduct further investigation without judicial order – Supreme Court held that power to direct further investigation vests exclusively in the Magistrate or a higher Court – Superintendent of Police or investigating agency lacks jurisdiction to order further investigation on its own [Paras 27–31].

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation vs Fresh / De Novo Investigation – Alleged further investigation ordered nearly seven years after acceptance of closure report and included steps from initial stage such as DNA sampling – Held: Such action amounted to impermissible fresh or de novo investigation and filling up lacunae in prosecution case, which is not permissible in law [Paras 21–22, 31].

Criminal Law – Acceptance of Closure Report – Legal Effect – Closure report accepted by Magistrate after repeated notice to informant and absence of protest petition – Supreme Court held that acceptance of closure report confers finality subject to remedies under law – Executive interference thereafter undermines judicial authority [Paras 7–8, 28–31].

Criminal Procedure – Doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio – Supreme Court reiterated that though Section 173(8) CrPC does not expressly mandate prior permission of Court, long-standing judicial practice requires investigating agency to seek leave before conducting further investigation – Such requirement is a necessary implication to safeguard accused from abuse of process [Paras 26, 28].

Police Powers – Jurisdictional Excess – Superintendent of Police directing further investigation without court approval held to be an act in excess of jurisdiction – Supreme Court deprecated such conduct as undermining rule of law and authority of courts [Para 31].

Criminal Procedure – NHRC Directions – Effect – Directions issued by NHRC for fact-finding inquiry cannot override statutory criminal procedure – Further investigation in criminal case must still conform to CrPC and judicial supervision – Executive directions cannot substitute judicial order [Paras 9–11, 28–31].

Criminal Procedure – Reliance on Dharam Pal Case – Distinguished – Supreme Court distinguished Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana – Held: Said decision concerned powers of constitutional courts to direct fresh or de novo investigation – Does not empower police or executive authorities to order further investigation without leave of Magistrate [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 20.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench set aside – Orders dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021 directing further investigation quashed – Clarified that observations shall not prejudice pending criminal revision or any other proceedings arising from FIR No. 70 of 2013.

Civil Law – Article 227 – Rejection / Striking off of Plaint – Availability of Remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – High Court erred in exercising supervisory jurisdiction to strike off plaint despite existence of specific statutory remedy – Held: Availability of remedy under CPC constitutes a near-total bar to invocation of Article 227 – Impugned order set aside and suit restored [Paras 2, 5–11].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope and Nature of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Powers are supervisory and not appellate – To be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts within bounds of jurisdiction – Cannot be invoked to correct mere errors or to bypass statutory remedies – High Court cannot act as a court of appeal in disguise [Paras 5, 5.1–5.7].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Statutory remedy for challenging maintainability of suit – Grounds for rejection often involve factual inquiry – Where such specific remedy is available under CPC, High Court must insist upon recourse to the same and desist from exercising powers under Article 227 [Paras 6.2–6.2.3, 7.4].

Article 227 vs Statutory Remedies – Availability of Alternative Remedy – In cases governed by CPC, existence of appellate or revisional remedy operates as a near-total bar against invoking Article 227 – Distinguished between civil court proceedings under CPC and proceedings under special statutes – High Court ought not to entertain petitions under Article 227 when CPC remedies exist [Paras 5.6–5.7, 7.1–7.4].

Order VI Rule 16 CPC – Striking Out Pleadings – Scope Limited to Portions of Pleadings – Cannot be stretched to justify striking off entire plaint – Rejection of plaint and striking out pleadings operate in distinct legal fields – Reliance on Order VI Rule 16 to strike off plaint under Article 227 held misconceived [Paras 6.1–6.4.1].

Property Disputes – Title Disputes – Allegations of Fraud – Such issues necessarily involve disputed questions of fact – Must be adjudicated through trial and evidence – High Courts should refrain from exercising supervisory jurisdiction in routine civil disputes involving factual controversies [Paras 6.3–6.3.2].

Judicial Discipline – Legislative Intent – When legislature provides a specific remedial mechanism, courts must respect the statutory scheme – Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to supplant or circumvent remedies expressly provided under CPC [Paras 8–9].

Final Relief – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order striking off plaint under Article 227 set aside – Original suit restored to file – Liberty granted to defendants to file application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No order as to costs [Paras 10–11].

Arbitration – Section 29A – Maintainability of Application for Extension – Arbitrator passed award after expiry of mandate under Section 29A – High Court held award to be a nullity and dismissed application for extension as not maintainable – Supreme Court held that Section 29A(5) application for extension of mandate is maintainable even after the award is passed – Award rendered after expiry of mandate is unenforceable, but court’s power to extend mandate survives – Held: Such award is not a nullity but is ineffective unless the court extends the mandate – Court's discretion includes reducing arbitrator fees, imposing costs, and substituting arbitrator(s) [Paras 1-5, 13-24].

Interpretation of Section 29A – Legislative Intent – Amendments to Section 29A intended to address delays in arbitral proceedings while preserving finality and efficacy – Provisions allow extension of arbitrator’s mandate before or after expiry – Statutory mandate terminates subject to court’s discretion – Extension application revives mandate retrospectively – Court has wide discretion to safeguard integrity and efficiency of arbitral process [Paras 10-12, 14-23].

International Arbitration – Expiry of Arbitral Mandate – Comparative Jurisprudence – Courts in UK, US, Singapore and Mauritius adopt pragmatic approach allowing retrospective extensions – Indian law aligns with global practice to avoid frustrating arbitral process due to technical non-compliance – Emphasis on party autonomy and judicial support in preserving arbitration efficacy [Paras 12-12.8].

Judicial Power – Post-Award Intervention – Power of Court under Section 29A is not denuded by arbitrator’s indiscretion in passing award after expiry of mandate – Court can revive mandate and direct proceedings to continue from where they left – Substitution of arbitrators is discretionary – Award passed during expired mandate may be validated upon extension [Paras 15-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order dismissing application under Section 29A(5) set aside – Application restored – High Court directed to consider extension application afresh in light of Supreme Court's judgment.

Bail – Interim Bail – Economic Offences – Liquor Scam – Former Excise Minister of Chhattisgarh arrested in ACB and ED cases alleging receipt of ₹2 crores per month from illegal liquor syndicate and framing of tailor-made excise policy – Multiple FIRs and ECIR based on same set of allegations – Seven chargesheets/prosecution complaints filed against 37 accused including the petitioner – Large-scale scam involving entire State and other parts of the country – Proposed examination of 864 witnesses – Investigation still ongoing with possibility of supplementary chargesheets – Prolonged custody since 15.01.2025 (ED case) and 02.04.2025 (ACB case) – Balancing prosecution’s right to complete complex investigation and accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 – Held: Indefinite incarceration not justified at interim stage – Interim bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1–11].

Bail Jurisprudence – Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Complex and Multi-Agency Investigation – Court observed that directing time-bound completion of investigation in complex cases involving specialised agencies may adversely impact prosecution – At the same time, continued incarceration for an uncertain duration infringes personal liberty – Interim arrangement warranted on peculiar facts of the case [Paras 8–10].

Conditions of Bail – Restrictive Conditions – Non-entry into State – Travel Restrictions – Witness Protection – While granting interim bail, Court imposed strict conditions including prohibition on entering State of Chhattisgarh except for court appearances, surrender of passport, disclosure of place of stay and contact details, non-interference with witnesses, and restraint on public statements concerning pending investigations – Breach of conditions to entail cancellation of bail – Held: Conditions necessary to balance liberty with fair investigation [Paras 10(i)–(x)].

Public Office – Legislative Assembly Participation – Judicial Restraint – Question regarding petitioner’s participation in State Legislative Assembly during pendency of investigation left open – Decision to be taken by Speaker – Court declined to express any opinion on the issue [Para 10(vii)].

Nature of Order – Interim Bail – No Opinion on Merits – Court clarified that grant of interim bail does not amount to expression of opinion on merits of allegations or entitlement to regular bail – Order passed considering peculiar facts and circumstances [Para 10(xi)].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions disposed of – Interim bail granted in FIR No. 04/2024 (ACB/EOW) and ECIR No. RPZO/04/2024 (ED) subject to stringent conditions – Pending applications closed.

Inter-State River Water Dispute – Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Article 131 of Constitution – Pennaiyar River – Suit filed by State of Tamil Nadu alleging illegal unilateral construction of check dams/diversion structures by State of Karnataka without consent of lower riparian State – Reliefs sought included declaration of illegality, injunction against construction, direction to ensure natural flows and action by Union of India – Dispute pending since 2018 [Paras 1–2.7].

Inter-State Agreements – Agreement of 1892 – Effect and Continuance – Plaintiff-State relied on Agreement of 1892 between erstwhile States of Madras and Mysore to contend that prior consent of lower riparian State was mandatory – Defendant-State asserted that Agreement was political in nature and ceased to operate after independence – Controversy left open for adjudication by Tribunal [Paras 2.2, 2.6, 13].

Interim Relief – Refusal by Supreme Court – Application seeking restraint on construction and protection of natural flows dismissed as 75% of work already completed and prima facie permissions obtained – Liberty granted to approach Central Government for constitution of Tribunal under Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 [Para 2.9].

Statutory Negotiation Process – Failure of Amicable Settlement – Complaint lodged under Section 3 of 1956 Act – Negotiation Committee and ministerial-level talks conducted under aegis of Union of India – No consensus reached due to firm stand of Tamil Nadu seeking adjudication by Tribunal – Negotiations ultimately postponed indefinitely [Paras 2.10, 4–5, 8].

Constitution of Tribunal – Mandatory Duty of Central Government – Section 4, Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 – Once Central Government forms opinion that dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, constitution of Tribunal becomes obligatory – Word “shall” in Section 4 imposes mandatory duty – Reliance placed on T.N. Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappa Sangam v. Union of India [Paras 9–10].

Direction Issued – Constitution of Water Disputes Tribunal – Supreme Court directed Union of India to issue notification in Official Gazette and constitute Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal within one month – Suit disposed of with all issues and reliefs kept open for consideration by Tribunal [Paras 10–13].

Decision: Suit disposed of – Union of India directed to constitute Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal within one month – All questions left open for adjudication by Tribunal.

Arbitration – Existence of Arbitration Agreement – Allegation of Forgery – Partnership dispute centered on an "Admission Deed" allegedly executed by partners to induct respondent into firm – Appellant denied execution and alleged forgery – Held: Arbitration clause embedded in forged document renders entire contract, including arbitration agreement, seriously disputed – Such a dispute is non-arbitrable as consent is foundational to arbitration – Prima facie doubt on document's authenticity makes arbitral reference impermissible [Paras 12-16, 20].

Arbitrability – Serious Fraud – Legal Position Reiterated – Where serious allegations of fraud affect the existence of arbitration clause itself, such disputes are non-arbitrable – Test: whether the allegation permeates the contract and the arbitration clause, rendering the agreement void – Court must decline arbitral reference if arbitration clause’s very existence is in question [Paras 13-15].

Section 8 and Section 11 Arbitration Act – Concurrent Findings – Trial and Appellate Courts rejected arbitration plea citing non-production of original deed and complex fraud – High Court under Article 227 overturned these findings – Supreme Court held: High Court exceeded jurisdiction – Supervisory power under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or reverse well-founded concurrent factual findings [Paras 21-22].

Finality of Judicial Determination – Section 9 Proceedings – Earlier High Court order declined interim relief citing absence of prima facie arbitration agreement – SLP against it dismissed – Held: Though Section 9 findings are prima facie, once final between parties, they cannot be ignored in later Sections 8/11 analysis [Paras 17-19].

Section 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Not Permissible – High Court rightly refused appointment under Section 11 due to unresolved question over arbitration agreement’s existence – Held: Appointment of arbitrator without establishing agreement would be premature and legally untenable [Para 23].

Decision:

Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 6013 of 2021 (filed by Rajia Begum) dismissed –

Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 20262 of 2021 (filed by Barnali Mukherjee) allowed –

Order directing arbitration under Section 8 set aside –

Order rejecting appointment under Section 11 affirmed.

Election Law – Panchayat Elections – Bar under Article 243-O – Respondent's nomination for Zila Panchayat election was rejected – Writ Petition dismissed by Single Judge citing constitutional bar and availability of remedy under Section 131H of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act – Division Bench stayed rejection and directed participation in elections – Held: Article 243-O expressly bars interference in Panchayat elections except by way of election petition – Division Bench acted beyond jurisdiction by interfering with completed electoral process [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Review – Article 226 of Constitution – Limitation – High Court’s plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 is subject to statutory schemes like Panchayat election law – Supreme Court reiterated that where election laws provide for a complete mechanism (such as election petition), writ jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly – High Court erred in granting interim relief bypassing statutory remedy [Paras 9.3-10.3].

Election Process – Rejection of Nomination – Improper Rejection – Respondent claimed wrongful rejection based on non-disclosure of acquittal in prior criminal case – Held: Even such claims fall within purview of election petition under Section 131H(1)(b) of the Panchayati Raj Act – Courts cannot entertain such grievances at pre-election stage [Paras 10.1-10.3].

Due Process – Natural Justice – High Court stayed order of Single Judge without impleading or hearing appellant, who had been declared elected unopposed – Held: Interim directions issued without hearing directly affected party are legally unsustainable [Para 11].

Constitutional Framework – Purpose of Article 243-O – Provision aims to preserve sanctity of electoral process by limiting judicial interference – Remedy lies in election petition after process concludes – Upholding procedural integrity is in public interest [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Interim order of High Court set aside – Special appeal before High Court dismissed – Appellant's unopposed election upheld – Supreme Court cautions against judicial interference in electoral processes contrary to constitutional mandate.

Criminal Law – Bail – Sections 304, 279, 337, 338, 427, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Allegations of conspiracy, destruction and fabrication of evidence following a fatal road accident – FIR registered for offences under IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act and Motor Vehicles Act – High Court rejected applications for regular bail – Appeals before Supreme Court [Paras 2–3].

Bail – Subsequent Acts after Offence – Appellants not alleged to be perpetrators of the accident – Allegations confined to post-incident conduct relating to alleged replacement of blood samples – Juveniles travelling in backseat not accused of causing accident – Driver being tried before Juvenile Justice Board – Nature of allegations considered while assessing entitlement to bail [Paras 7–8].

Custodial Detention – Prolonged Incarceration – Appellants in custody for periods extending up to nearly eighteen months – Trial not commenced and likelihood of delay due to examination of nearly 100 prosecution witnesses – Continued incarceration held to cause grave prejudice to appellants [Paras 7, 11].

Bail – Balancing of Factors – Gravity of allegations under Sections 467 IPC and provisions of PC Act considered – Court held that seriousness of charge alone cannot justify indefinite detention when trial is likely to be prolonged – Bail can be granted with stringent conditions to safeguard trial [Paras 9–11].

Interference with Trial – Apprehension of Witness Tampering – State and impleaded respondents opposed bail on ground of possible influence on witnesses – Court held that such apprehension can be addressed by imposing strict conditions while granting bail [Paras 9–10, 12].

Conditions of Bail – Directions Issued – Appellants directed to be produced before Trial Court and released on bail on appropriate conditions – Appellants directed to cooperate with trial, not misuse liberty, and not contact witnesses directly or indirectly – Violation to entail cancellation of bail [Paras 12–16].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Impugned order of Bombay High Court dated 16.12.2025 set aside – Appellants granted regular bail subject to conditions – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12–16].