Panchayat Law – Removal of Sarpanch – Misuse of Authority – Award of Contracts to Husband's Firm – Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 – Petitioner-Sarpanch faced six charges of misuse of authority, including award of Panchayat contracts to a firm in which her husband was a partner – Charges held proved by the District Development Officer; appeal and writ petition dismissed concurrently – Held: Awarding contracts to one's own family member, even through public tender, constitutes misuse of position as Sarpanch where no separation between the spouses is shown on record – SLP dismissed [Paras 2–5, 19–20].

Disqualification Provisions – Section 30(1)(g), Gujarat Panchayats Act – Broad Interpretation – Financial Patronage – Section 30(1)(g) disqualifies a member who directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, has any share or interest in any contract with or on behalf of the Panchayat – Held: Too restrictive an interpretation of the disqualification clause would frustrate the very object for which it is incorporated in the statute – Disqualification provisions must be interpreted broadly to discourage financial patronage inherently beneficial to elected representatives – Virendrasing v. Additional Commissioner relied upon [Paras 11, 18].

Natural Justice – Non-Supply of Adverse Material – No Prejudice – Petitioner contended that a report called for by the District Development Officer from the Taluka Development Officer was not supplied to her before the removal order, violating principles of natural justice – High Court rejected the contention holding that the principal charge of awarding contracts to her husband was not denied and no prejudice was caused by non-supply of the additional material – Held: Principles of natural justice are not to be applied mechanically; where the ultimate decision is sustainable on the admitted position and no prejudice is caused, interference is not warranted [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Order of the High Court affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal Restored – Appeal Against Conviction – High Court reversed Trial Court’s acquittal and convicted the accused under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 IPC – Supreme Court held that High Court erred in interfering with the plausible view of the Trial Court – Sole eye-witness (PW-5) found unreliable – Confessional statements not duly proved – Medical evidence inconsistent with prosecution’s version – Circumstantial evidence failed to establish complete chain – Conviction set aside – Trial Court’s acquittal order restored [Paras 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 16–25, 29–31]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Acquittal – Legal Standards – Reaffirmed that interference by Appellate Court in acquittal is permissible only where judgment is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or when no two views are possible – Trial Court’s view held to be plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – High Court erred in substituting its view in absence of compelling reasons – Judgment of conviction by High Court set aside [Paras 27–29]

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Sole Eye-Witness – PW-5, driver of vehicle allegedly used in abduction, gave delayed statement 21 days after incident – PW-5 did not inform police despite witnessing alleged murder and having opportunity – Admitted criminal antecedents – Did not know accused personally – Discrepancies between statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC – Held: PW-5 is not a trustworthy witness and appears to be a planted witness – Conviction cannot rest solely on his testimony [Paras 17–21]

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – PW-14 (Doctor) opined that death occurred 10 days prior to autopsy – Contradicts prosecution version that murder occurred on 11.12.2011 and body found on 04.01.2012 (i.e., after 21 days) – Medical evidence creates doubt on prosecution timeline – Held: Medical evidence does not support case beyond reasonable doubt [Para 22]

Evidence – Confessional Statement and Discovery – Statements under Section 27 of Evidence Act made by accused nos. 2–4 led to recovery of body – However, prosecution failed to examine key witnesses (CW-22 & CW-23) who recovered the body from canal – Confessional statements not duly proved – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained solely on discovery without independent corroboration [Paras 10, 23]

Criminal Conspiracy – Ingredients Not Proved – Alleged motive of land dispute, strained relations and illicit relationship – Trial Court held these were speculative and not proved – High Court itself did not find involvement of accused nos. 5 & 6 in conspiracy – Held: Prosecution failed to establish meeting of minds or concerted action necessary for conviction under Section 120-B IPC [Paras 6, 7, 24, 25]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Supreme Court held that Trial Court’s acquittal was based on plausible view and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – High Court's judgment dated 28.11.2023 set aside – Trial Court's judgment dated 30.03.2019 restored – Appellants ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 31–33]

Service Tax – Event Management Service – Reverse Charge Mechanism – Classification of Service – Booking of Foreign Speakers for Leadership Summit – Demand of Service Tax Set Aside – Appellant conducted annual “Hindustan Times Leadership Summit” and engaged foreign speakers through international booking agents – Revenue sought to levy Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zu) treating booking agents as “event managers” – Tribunal upheld tax demand for normal limitation period – Supreme Court examined statutory definitions of “event management” and “event manager” – Held: Mere booking of speakers and facilitation of their appearance does not amount to planning, promotion, organizing or presentation of an event – Booking contracts were not event management contracts – Levy under “Event Management Service” unsustainable [Paras 21–41].

Taxation – Strict Interpretation of Charging Provisions – Scope of Taxing Statute – Court reiterated that taxing statutes must be strictly construed – If activity does not fall squarely within charging provision, tax cannot be imposed by inference or analogy – Revenue failed to establish that service in question falls within four corners of Section 65(105)(zu) – Benefit of strict interpretation goes to assessee [Paras 42–44].

Service Tax – Role of Booking Agents – Principal–Agent Relationship Irrelevant for Classification – Revenue focused on absence of principal–agent relationship between speakers and booking agents – Supreme Court held that such inquiry was irrelevant – Core issue was nature of service rendered – Booking of speakers for participation cannot be equated with management of the event itself – Participation in event is not management of event [Paras 39–41].

Circulars – Binding Nature – TRU Circular dated 08.08.2002 – Circular clarifies that event managers are engaged in managing venues, logistics, publicity, stage arrangements and overall execution of event – Booking agents performed none of these activities – Circular supports assessee’s contention and limits scope of taxable event management services [Paras 28, 43–44].

Service Tax – Classification Dispute – Manpower Recruitment or Supply Service – International Merchandising Case Distinguished – Appellant relied on International Merchandising Company LLC v. CST to argue alternative classification – Supreme Court held that while dual classification is impermissible, facts of present case are distinguishable – Nevertheless, even without reclassification, levy under event management fails on merits – Revenue cannot sustain demand merely by rejecting alternative classification [Paras 45(a)–(e)].

Interpretation – Common Parlance Test – Meaning of Event Management – Applying common parlance test, Court held that event management is ordinarily understood as comprehensive organization and execution of events – Individual contracts for booking speakers are not commonly understood as event management – Supports exclusion of impugned service from taxable category [Paras 46–48].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment of CESTAT dated 31.08.2017 set aside – Demand of Service Tax under “Event Management Service” quashed – No Service Tax payable on booking of speakers for Leadership Summit.

Service Law - Public Employment – Pharmacist Recruitment – Essential Qualification – Diploma in Pharmacy – Validity of Cadre Rules Upheld – Appellants holding B.Pharma/M.Pharma challenged Rule 6(1) of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024) prescribing Diploma in Pharmacy as minimum qualification – Supreme Court held that fixation of eligibility criteria lies within exclusive domain of employer – Prescription of Diploma as essential qualification not arbitrary or unconstitutional – High Court’s view affirmed [Paras 41, 61–65].

Constitution of India – Article 309 – Rule-Making Power – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 can be struck down only on grounds of lack of competence or violation of fundamental rights – Courts cannot rewrite service rules or substitute employer’s policy with judicial opinion – State entitled to determine suitability of qualifications for public posts [Paras 50, 59].

Repugnancy – Central Legislation vs State Service Rules – Pharmacy Act, 1948 – No Conflict Found – Pharmacy Act and Pharmacy Practice Regulations govern professional education, standards and registration – Cadre Rules operate in field of public employment – Registration as Pharmacist does not confer right to public employment – No repugnancy between Cadre Rules and Central enactment [Paras 46–49].

Higher Qualification – Degree vs Diploma – Not Automatically Equivalent – Bachelor/Master of Pharmacy cannot be treated as higher qualification presupposing Diploma in Pharmacy – Diploma and Degree courses are distinct streams with different objectives and training – Lateral entry provision does not establish equivalence – State justified in treating Diploma as essential qualification [Paras 53–56, 62].

Equality – Articles 14 and 16 – Reasonable Classification – Diploma Holders as Separate Class – Classification based on Diploma qualification has intelligible differentia and rational nexus with object of effective public health delivery – Emphasis on compulsory hospital-based practical training for Diploma holders – No hostile discrimination or arbitrariness established [Paras 37–38, 61–64].

Minimum Qualification – Meaning of “Minimum” – Exclusion of Degree Holders Valid – Expression “minimum qualification” does not imply automatic inclusion of higher qualifications – In absence of specific rule permitting equivalence, higher qualification cannot be read into eligibility criteria – Note in Appendix-I validly requires degree holders to also possess Diploma [Paras 44–45, 53–55].

Judicial Precedents – Employer’s Discretion in Recruitment Policy Reaffirmed – Supreme Court relied on consistent line of authorities holding that prescription of qualifications is policy matter – Courts cannot expand eligibility by interpretative process – Decisions in Jyoti K.K., Zahoor Ahmad Rather, Anita, and others applied [Paras 51–60].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Constitutional validity of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 as amended in 2024 upheld – Contempt Petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Compromise Between Parties – Neighbourhood Dispute – FIR registered for offences under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) BNS, 2023 arising out of a minor altercation between neighbours – During investigation, parties entered into an amicable settlement – Accused approached High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR – High Court declined to quash FIR and merely directed compliance with arrest guidelines under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines – Held: High Court erred in not exercising inherent powers to quash proceedings despite compromise [Paras 3–6, 11].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Inherent power of High Court is of wide plenitude and may be exercised to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process of law – Even non-compoundable offences can be quashed where dispute is private in nature and continuation of proceedings would be futile – Principles reiterated from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [Paras 6–8].

Nature and Gravity of Offence – Civil Flavour – No Societal Impact – Allegations pertained to voluntarily causing hurt, rioting, mischief and criminal intimidation arising out of neighbourhood quarrel – Except offence of rioting, other offences compoundable – No heinous or serious offence affecting society at large involved – Compromise arrived at prior to filing of charge-sheet – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose [Paras 5, 9–10].

Compromise – Effect on Criminal Proceedings – Where chances of conviction are bleak due to amicable settlement and wrong is essentially personal, quashing of proceedings is justified – Criminal trial in such circumstances would be an exercise in futility and defeat ends of justice [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – FIR No. 152 of 2025 registered at Police Station Bahariya, District Prayagraj and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed – Pending applications disposed of.

Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 – Section 3(2) – First Proviso – Interpretation – Notices of motion for removal of a Judge given in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the same day – Motion admitted in Lok Sabha but refused in Rajya Sabha – Contention that Joint Committee was mandatory and Speaker lacked authority to constitute Committee unilaterally rejected – Held: First proviso is situational and applies only where motions given on the same day are admitted in both Houses – Mere giving of notices on the same day does not disable the Presiding Officer of one House from proceeding independently where the motion is not admitted in the other House – Proviso cannot be read as exhaustive or as creating a disabling consequence not expressed by Parliament.

Statutory Interpretation – Proviso – Limits of operation – Proviso cannot be construed to nullify or curtail the substantive provision unless such intent is manifest – Main provision of Section 3(2) vests power in the Speaker or Chairman upon admission of motion – Rejection of a motion in one House does not render the other House incompetent to proceed – Interpretation suggested by petitioner would amount to judicial legislation and lead to absurd and obstructive consequences.

Parliamentary Autonomy – Removal of Judges – Constitutional Scheme – Interpretation that one House’s refusal to admit a motion would veto proceedings in the other House rejected – Such construction would undermine autonomy of Houses and frustrate mechanism for investigation into allegations of misbehaviour – Safeguards for Judges cannot be read so as to paralyse the statutory removal process itself.

Constitution of India – Article 91 – Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha – Powers – Office of Chairman of Rajya Sabha falling vacant due to resignation of Vice-President – Deputy Chairman acting under Article 91(1) – Held: Deputy Chairman is constitutionally empowered to perform all duties of the Chairman during vacancy – Definition of “Chairman” in Section 2(a) of the Inquiry Act cannot be read in isolation or so as to override constitutional mandate – Deputy Chairman was competent to refuse admission of the motion.

Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 – Role of Deputy Chairman – Constitution prevailing over statutory silence – Argument that Rules 16 and 17 limit Deputy Chairman’s powers rejected – Held: Where statute is silent, constitutional provisions must fill the gap – Doctrine of constitutional silence and necessity applied – Vacancy in constitutional office cannot be allowed to bring statutory machinery to a standstill.

Bias – Hypothetical Apprehension – Doctrine of Necessity – Contention that Deputy Chairman could be a signatory to the motion and hence judge in his own cause rejected as speculative – Even otherwise, recusal or doctrine of necessity would apply – Constitutional and statutory functioning cannot be impeded by hypothetical bias.

Effect of refusal of motion by Deputy Chairman – Validity of Speaker’s action – Even assuming refusal by Deputy Chairman to be illegal – Speaker’s admission of Lok Sabha motion and constitution of Committee not vitiated – Applicability of first proviso depends on existence of admitted motions in both Houses at the time of Speaker’s action – No retrospective invalidation of Speaker’s lawful exercise of power.

Prejudice – Removal Proceedings against Judge – Threshold – Constitution of Inquiry Committee does not by itself cause demonstrable or legal prejudice – Committee report not self-executory – Multiple constitutional and statutory safeguards remain, including special majority requirement under Article 124(4) – Alleged loss of Joint Committee does not amount to prejudice warranting interference under Article 32.

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 32 – Maintainability – Absence of challenge to impugned order – Decision of Deputy Chairman refusing admission not specifically challenged by pleadings or prayer – Courts cannot quash or ignore an order not put in issue – Relief cannot be granted on hypothesis or assumptions – Settled limits of writ jurisdiction reiterated.

Secretary-General of Rajya Sabha – Administrative role – Limits (Observations for future guidance) – Secretariat exceeded administrative remit by undertaking substantive scrutiny of notice and facts – Inquiry Act does not contemplate adjudicatory role for Secretariat – Observations held academic and not forming basis for relief, decision of Deputy Chairman remaining unchallenged.

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Constitution of Inquiry Committee by Speaker of the Lok Sabha upheld – No relief granted to petitioner.

Reservation – Public Employment – Migration of Reserved Category Candidates – Selection on Own Merit – Appointment Against Unreserved Posts – High Court Interference Set Aside – Recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) in Airport Authority of India – Reserved category candidates selected against unreserved posts on basis of higher or equal merit without availing any relaxation – High Court directed appointment of writ petitioner and reworking of roster – Supreme Court held that a reserved category candidate securing marks higher than or equal to general category candidates must be treated as an unreserved candidate – Appointment against unreserved post on own merit valid – High Court orders unsustainable [Paras 18, 27–34].

Reservation Roster – Nature and Purpose – Not a Tool for Selection – Reservation roster is a post-based administrative mechanism to monitor cadre strength and identify future vacancies – Roster comes into operation only after completion of selection and joining of candidates – Roster cannot be applied as a parallel or overriding selection mechanism – Division Bench erred in applying roster at the selection stage [Paras 19, 28–30].

Merit List – Inclusion of Reserved Category Candidates in Unreserved List – Legally Permissible – All candidates initially considered on merit – Reserved category candidates who did not avail any concession and outperformed general category candidates rightly included in unreserved list – Remaining candidates considered for respective reserved categories – Selection methodology upheld as consistent with DoPT instructions and settled law [Paras 27–31].

Reservation Law – Migration on Merit – Settled Legal Position Reaffirmed – Supreme Court relied upon Indra Sawhney, Saurav Yadav and Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav – Open category is not a quota but is open to all candidates irrespective of caste or category – Merit alone governs appointment to unreserved posts – Concept of “migration” clarified as merit-based adjustment and not conferment of double benefit [Paras 32–33].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits on Court’s Power – Courts should not interfere with recruitment conducted strictly as per rules and settled reservation principles – No vested right to appointment merely because reserved vacancies remain unfilled – High Court erred in directing appointment when all unreserved posts were filled strictly on merit [Paras 33–34].

Delay and Laches – Challenge to Selection – Though issue of delay was raised, Supreme Court decided the matter on merits in view of crystallised law governing migration and merit-based selection [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 allowed – Judgment of Single Judge and Division Bench of Kerala High Court set aside – Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12937 of 2021 dismissed – No order as to costs.

Student Suicides – Mandatory FIR – Institutional Responsibility – Higher Educational Institutions – Supreme Court earlier clarified mandatory registration of FIR on disclosure of cognizable offence in cases of student suicides and reiterated the unequivocal moral and legal obligation of educational institutions to promptly report such incidents – Rising incidents of student suicides across HEIs necessitated structural intervention beyond penal accountability – Held: HEIs cannot shirk their duty to provide safe, inclusive and supportive environments irrespective of individual autonomy of students [Paras 1, 5, 10].

National Task Force (NTF) – Constitution – Scope and Functions – Court constituted a National Task Force to examine causes of student suicides, assess existing legal and institutional frameworks and recommend preventive, remedial and reformative measures – NTF undertook extensive data analysis, stakeholder surveys, institutional visits and consultations across States – Interim report placed before Court highlighting systemic failures and institutional gaps [Paras 3, 11].

Student Mental Health – Structural Inequalities – Marginalised Groups – Students from SC/ST/OBC communities, PwDs, transgender persons, women, rural and non-English backgrounds face disproportionate stressors within HEIs – Affirmative action cannot end at access but must extend to support systems – Tokenistic functioning of Equal Opportunity Cells and Internal Complaints Committees noted – Held: Inclusion must be substantive and institutionalised, not symbolic [Paras 18–22].

Ragging – Academic Pressure – Institutional Stressors – Persistence of ragging despite regulatory frameworks – Normalisation of exploitative academic cultures, rigid attendance norms, faculty shortages, excessive workload and opaque evaluation systems identified as major contributors to distress – Medical and technical institutions found particularly vulnerable – Held: Competitive institutional culture directly impacts student mental health and social isolation [Paras 23–28].

Mental Health Services in HEIs – Treatment Gap – Faculty Limitations – Majority of HEIs lack full-time qualified mental health service providers – Stigma, confidentiality concerns and administrative mistrust reduce service uptake – Faculty members overburdened and ill-equipped to manage crises – Held: Mental health services must be professional, student-centric and confidentiality-driven, not ad-hoc or symbolic [Paras 29–33].

Financial Stress – Scholarships – Administrative Failures – Delays and inconsistencies in scholarship disbursement exacerbate student distress – Institutions imposing adverse academic consequences on students for governmental delays deprecated – Held: No student shall be denied classes, examinations, hostels or degrees due to delayed scholarship payments [Paras 34–35, 45(viii)].

Existing Legal and Policy Framework – Fragmentation – Lack of Accountability – Multiple UGC regulations, national policies and programmes exist but remain scattered and weakly enforced – Absence of implementation roadmaps and consequences for non-compliance identified as major gaps – Held: Binding compliance mechanisms are essential to translate policy into practice [Paras 36–43].

Exercise of Article 142 – Binding Directions to HEIs and Authorities – Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions mandating suicide reporting, data maintenance, faculty recruitment, administrative appointments, medical access, scholarship clearance and strict compliance with UGC regulations – Directions declared binding on all HEIs with accountability to Central and State Governments [Paras 45–52].

Future Framework – SOPs – Well-being Audits – Universal Design – Court directed NTF to prepare model SOPs for well-being audits, faculty sensitisation and mental health services – Objective to create a unified Student Well-being and Suicide Prevention Framework integrating all existing mechanisms – Held: Preventive governance must be measurable, enforceable and integrated into accreditation systems [Paras 47–50].

Decision: Interim directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution – Union of India and State Governments directed to ensure immediate communication and compliance by all Higher Educational Institutions – Matter to continue for consideration of final report of National Task Force.

IBC – Section 7 – Admission of CIRP – Debt and Default – Mandatory Admission – Financial creditor sought initiation of CIRP against real estate developer – NCLT dismissed petition holding IBC was invoked as recovery mechanism and project was viable – NCLAT reversed and admitted CIRP – Held: Once existence of financial debt and occurrence of default are established, admission under Section 7 is mandatory – Considerations of project viability, stage of completion, receivables, or prejudice to homebuyers are extraneous at admission stage [Paras 12.1–12.7, 12.21–12.22].

Section 7(5)(a) IBC – Discretion – Limited Scope – Vidarbha Industries Exception – Corporate debtor relied on Vidarbha Industries to contend discretionary power to refuse admission – Supreme Court reiterated that Vidarbha Industries is a narrow exception confined to peculiar facts involving adjudicated and realisable counter-claims – Innoventive Industries and E.S. Krishnamurthy reaffirmed as governing law – Held: No discretion survives once debt and default are proved except in rare Vidarbha-type situations [Paras 12.5–12.7].

IBC Not a Recovery Tool – Parallel Proceedings under SARFAESI and DRT – Allegation of misuse of IBC by financial creditor pursuing SARFAESI and DRT remedies – Held: Pendency or initiation of recovery proceedings does not bar invocation of Section 7 – Overriding effect of Section 238 IBC – Allegations of mala fides must be specifically pleaded and proved under Section 65 [Paras 12.11–12.15].

Restructuring / OTS – Default – Effect – Corporate debtor entered restructuring-cum-OTS and defaulted in instalment payments – Revocation of restructuring by financial creditor held contractually justified – Subsequent alleged non-cooperation by creditor cannot erase admitted default – Held: Failure to honour instalments constitutes valid trigger for CIRP [Paras 12.9–12.10, 12.19].

Commercial Wisdom – Committee of Creditors – Non-justiciability – Issues of feasibility, viability, revival, liquidation or project completion fall exclusively within domain of CoC – Courts cannot examine such issues at Section 7 admission stage – Held: Judicial review is limited and commercial wisdom of CoC is non-justiciable except on statutory grounds [Paras 12.16–12.17].

Real Estate Insolvency – Homebuyers’ Interests – Statutory Safeguards – Court acknowledged vulnerability of homebuyers when projects enter CIRP – However, IBC framework provides safeguards through authorised representatives, Regulation 4E and exclusion of possessed units from liquidation estate – Held: Protection of homebuyers must operate strictly within the IBC framework and cannot dilute statutory trigger of insolvency [Paras 10–10.5, 13.21].

Proceedings under Section 7 – Nature – In Personam at Pre-admission Stage – Supreme Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 7 remain in personam until admission – Only financial creditor and corporate debtor have right of audience at pre-admission stage – Other creditors or third parties have no independent right to intervene [Paras 13.5, 13.11].

Intervention – Locus Standi – Housing Society – Co-operative housing society sought intervention claiming to represent homebuyers – Society neither financial creditor nor operational creditor – No privity of contract or statutory recognition as authorised representative – Held: Society lacks locus standi to intervene at Section 7 stage or in appeal against admission [Paras 13.1–13.5, 13.7–13.13].

Homebuyers as Financial Creditors – Mode of Participation – Individual allottees recognised as financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) – Participation statutorily channelised through authorised representatives under Section 21(6A) read with Regulation 16A – Collective representation outside statutory framework impermissible [Paras 13.12–13.14].

Rule 11 NCLAT Rules – Inherent Powers – Limits – Inherent powers cannot override statutory scheme of IBC or create substantive participatory rights – Held: Rule 11 cannot be invoked to permit intervention where statute consciously excludes such participation [Paras 13.15–13.16].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – No Vested Right – Denial of hearing to non-stakeholder does not violate natural justice absent legally vested right – Held: No prejudice shown as homebuyers’ interests are adequately safeguarded post-admission under IBC [Paras 13.19–13.21].

Directions to CoC – Transparency and Accountability – Supreme Court issued prospective directions requiring disclosure of complete allottee details in Information Memorandum – Mandatory recording of reasons where CoC declines handover of possession under Regulation 4E or recommends liquidation – Objective: transparency, accountability and protection of homebuyers [Para 15.1].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – Judgment of NCLAT admitting Corporate Debtor into CIRP upheld – Rejection of intervention application by housing society affirmed – Interim stay vacated – Directions issued to Committee of Creditors regarding transparency and reasoned decision-making – No order as to costs.