Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Conviction under Section 302 IPC challenged on the basis of the incident occurring on the spur of the moment – Conversion to Section 304 IPC sought – Incident involved altercation over excavation, leading to firing by appellant – High Court relied on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence – Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellant sentenced to ten years' imprisonment [Paras 3-7].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of the father of the deceased as an eyewitness accepted – Medical evidence corroborated eyewitness accounts – Presence and role of the appellant established through evidence [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Review – Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part I IPC considering the circumstances and nature of the incident – Sentence of ten years' imprisonment imposed [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellant sentenced to ten years' imprisonment [Paras 7-8].

Environmental Law – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) – Appeal against prohibition on development of resort – CRZ Notifications 1991, 2011, and 2019 apply to backwater islands – High Court's findings upheld – Islands classified under CRZ categories due to ecological sensitivity – No new construction permitted within 20 meters from HTL under CRZ 2019 – Appeals dismissed [Paras 3-40].

Property Rights – Ecological and Environmental Restrictions – Right to develop property regulated by CRZ Notifications – Legitimate expectations and property rights subject to environmental laws – Ecologically sensitive areas given special protection under CRZ Notifications [Paras 13-17].

Judicial Review – Expert Testimony – High Court solicited expert opinion and conducted surveys to ascertain ecological status – Findings based on scientific evidence and field verification upheld – Appellant's objections to expert testimony and procedural aspects dismissed [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's prohibition on resort development upheld – CRZ Notifications 1991, 2011, and 2019 apply to the islands – New construction within 20 meters from HTL not permitted under CRZ 2019 – Environmental and ecological protections prioritized [Paras 39-40].

Service Law – Unauthorized Absence – Disciplinary proceedings initiated against a police orderly who remained absent without authorization for seven years – Despite direction to report for medical examination by CDMO, respondent failed to comply – Inquiry conducted ex parte found respondent guilty – Tribunal dismissed respondent's challenge, but High Court substituted discharge penalty with compulsory retirement citing mental illness – Supreme Court reinstates discharge penalty, finds absence unjustified and High Court's reliance on medical certificate erroneous [Paras 2-23].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Proceedings – Courts should not interfere with disciplinary proceedings unless there is procedural irregularity or penalty is shockingly disproportionate – High Court's reliance on medical certificate without corroborative treatment records and ignoring respondent's non-compliance with orders for medical examination found unjustified – High Court's decision set aside [Paras 16-21].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Application in Disciplinary Matters – Not applicable where delinquent employee's absence is prolonged and unjustified – Differentiation from cases where misconduct is less severe and duration of absence is short – Judicial intervention limited to ensuring fairness and reasonableness of proceedings and penalty [Paras 12-14, 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order substituting discharge with compulsory retirement set aside – Original penalty of discharge reinstated – No order as to costs [Paras 22-23].

Employment Law – Dismissal and Reinstatement – Appellant, employed in the Assembly department of the respondent, dismissed after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of causing disruption of work – Labour Court found enquiry findings perverse, ordered reinstatement with 25% back wages – High Court affirmed reinstatement but denied back wages, erroneously stated Labour Court denied continuity of service – Supreme Court restored Labour Court's award of 25% back wages and continuity of service [Paras 2-9].

Labour Law – Industrial Disputes – Back Wages and Continuity of Service – Reinstatement naturally includes continuity of service unless explicitly denied – Back wages awarded considering partial gainful employment during dismissal period – High Court erred in setting aside 25% back wages awarded by Labour Court [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Review – Misinterpretation of Lower Court's Order – High Court misinterpreted Labour Court's order as denying continuity of service – Supreme Court corrects error, affirms reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Appellant entitled to continuity of service and 25% back wages – Retiral dues and back wages to be computed and paid within three months [Para 9].

Armed Forces Tribunal – Jurisdiction and Transfer of Cases – Appeal against a single judge's decision on Armed Forces personnel to be transferred to AFT – AFT's jurisdiction does not extend to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 – Intra-court appeals from single judge decisions are not to be transferred to AFT – High Court retains writ jurisdiction over AFT decisions [Paras 2-17].

Judicial Review – High Court's Jurisdiction – Judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution – High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be ousted – AFT decisions subject to High Court's writ jurisdiction [Paras 10-12].

Constitutional Courts – Independence and Hierarchy – High Courts as constitutional courts cannot be subordinate to AFT – Appeals from High Court single judge to Division Bench cannot be transferred to AFT [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed on merits – Appellant failed to meet criteria for alternative appointment post-discharge – No merit found in the appeal [Paras 18-19].

Juvenile Justice – Heinous Offences – Interpretation of 'heinous offences' under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Offences with maximum sentence more than 7 years but no minimum sentence or minimum sentence less than 7 years do not qualify as 'heinous offences' – Such offences are to be treated as 'serious offences' – Offences involving juveniles must consider the intent of the Legislature and the purpose of juvenile protection [Paras 2-35].

Judicial Interpretation – Legislative Intention – Courts cannot legislate or rewrite statutes – Gaps in legislation must be addressed by the Legislature, not the judiciary – Statutes should be interpreted based on their language and legislative intent, without adding or omitting words unless absolutely necessary to avoid absurdity [Paras 22-31].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Offences with no minimum sentence or minimum sentence less than 7 years treated as 'serious offences' – Directions issued for legislative action – High Court to amend judgment to remove name of Child in Conflict with Law – Judgment to be sent to relevant authorities for addressing the issue legislatively or through an Ordinance [Paras 36-38].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 166 – Contributory Negligence – The deceased, a pillion rider on a motorcycle, was struck by a car – Tribunal awarded compensation for the accident caused by the car’s rash and negligent driving – High Court reduced the award by 10% due to alleged contributory negligence for having three persons on the motorcycle – Supreme Court holds no evidence supported contributory negligence finding – High Court’s reduction set aside [Paras 1-14].

Compensation Assessment – Employment and Income Proof – Tribunal accepted the testimony of the deceased’s employer regarding his monthly income – High Court rejected it due to lack of supporting records – Supreme Court reinstates Tribunal’s finding, noting employer’s testimony was credible and unchallenged – High Court erred in substituting minimum wage assumptions for proven income [Paras 15-18].

Multiplier Application – Age Factor – Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 based on the deceased's age – High Court applied 14, considering the claimants' age – Supreme Court clarifies multiplier should be based on deceased's age per precedents (Reshma Kumari, Munna Lal Jain) – High Court’s application of lower multiplier incorrect [Paras 19-29].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Tribunal’s award restored – Compensation to be paid as originally determined by the Tribunal without deduction for contributory negligence – No order as to costs [Para 29].

Service Law – Border Security Force Act, 1968 – Misconduct – Appellant, a BSF constable with 17 years of service, dismissed for overstaying leave – Applied for leave extension due to family emergency but rejoined late – Summary Security Force Court convicted and dismissed him – Statutory petition dismissed by Director General BSF – High Court reversed Single Judge’s order for reconsideration of punishment – Supreme Court modifies penalty to discharge enabling pension eligibility after 20 years of service [Paras 1-7].

Leave Extension – Communication and Evidence – Appellant contacted Unit Adjutant for leave extension due to niece's abduction – Adjutant acknowledged communication and advised extension – Single Judge noted appellant's oral statement corroborating circumstances – Division Bench observed belated application but didn't find explanation false – Supreme Court considers 17 years of service and peculiar facts for lenient view [Paras 3-7].

Proportionality of Punishment – Discharge vs. Dismissal – Appellant had prior penalties for unauthorized absence – Supreme Court declines reinstatement but finds dismissal disproportionate – Orders discharge with effect from completion of 20 years for pension eligibility – No back wages awarded for interim period [Paras 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Appellant to be treated as discharged from service from date of completing 20 years for pension eligibility – No back wages between dismissal and pension eligibility date – Arrears of pension to be paid within three months [Para 7].

Consumer Law – Free Gifts – Appellant advertised a holiday voucher scheme with free gifts contingent on referrals – Respondent purchased vouchers but made no referrals – District Forum awarded free gifts (laptop, mobile, TV) and compensation – State Commission and NCDRC upheld the decision – Supreme Court examines scheme terms and finds gifts conditional on referrals – Appeal allowed, lower orders set aside [Paras 1-8].

Referral Scheme – Terms and Conditions – Appellant's scheme required referrals for free gifts – Respondent claimed entitlement without making referrals – Email communication clarified gift conditions – Supreme Court notes absurdity of awarding high-value gifts without fulfilling conditions – Orders against appellant reversed as contrary to scheme terms [Paras 2-7].

Jurisdiction and Evidence – Respondent argued email was not on record – Appellant countered it was referenced in District Forum reply – Supreme Court accepts appellant's evidence, finds no right to gifts without referrals – Appeal allowed, complaint dismissed [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – NCDRC and lower orders set aside – Respondent's complaint dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 8].