Service Law – Persons with Benchmark Disabilities – Appointment under SSC CGLE-2018 – Candidate recommended for post of Auditor under ‘Other PwD’ category was denied appointment on ground that the post was not identified as suitable for persons suffering from mental illness – Tribunal directed medical assessment and reconsideration but High Court set aside the order – During proceedings before Supreme Court, authorities acknowledged that subsequent Government notification dated 04.01.2021 identified certain Group ‘C’ posts as suitable for such benchmark disabilities – Held: No impediment remained for accommodating the appellant and similarly placed candidate against appropriate Group ‘C’ posts – Directions issued to implement the same [Paras 11–12, 17–19].

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Identification of Posts – Central Government notification dated 04.01.2021 expanded categories of posts suitable for benchmark disabilities including mental illness and specific learning disability – Based on revised identification, authorities expressed willingness to appoint candidates subject to recommendation from SSC – Court held that candidates recommended in recruitment process should be considered for suitable posts consistent with updated statutory framework [Paras 17–19].

Administrative Process – Inter-departmental Recommendation – CAG stated that appointment could be processed only upon receipt of recommendation and dossiers from Staff Selection Commission – Supreme Court directed SSC to forward dossiers within two weeks so that appointment process could be completed without delay [Paras 20–21].

Equitable Relief – Creation of Supernumerary Posts – Court observed that even if originally advertised posts had already been filled, authorities must create supernumerary posts to accommodate the appellant and similarly placed candidate in view of their entitlement under the revised disability framework [Para 21].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Staff Selection Commission directed to forward dossiers of the appellant and similarly placed candidate to CAG within two weeks – Respondents directed to consider them for appointment to suitable Group ‘C’ posts – If posts already filled, supernumerary posts to be created – Appointment to take effect from date of joining.

Arbitration – MSME Act – Execution of Award – Facilitation Council – Remand Set Aside – Writ Petitions to Be Heard with Civil Revisions – Appellant (AP TRANSCO) contracted with Respondent No. 2 for supply of conductors in 1998 – Dispute referred to arbitration under the MSME Act; Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council passed two awards on 21.06.2010 – Challenges under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act and Special Leave Petition were dismissed – Facilitation Council on review passed order dated 11.07.2018 securing interest amounts of Rs. 5,90,86,059/- and Rs. 6,08,99,870/- and restraining appellant from receiving payments from garnishees – High Court allowed Writ Petitions on ground of violation of natural justice and remanded matter to Facilitation Council – Held: Remand to Facilitation Council not appropriate; Writ Petitions to be heard together with pending Civil Revision Petitions for common adjudication [Paras 3-4, 8-9, 11-12].

Execution Petition – Government Company as Judgment Debtor – Arrest of Officers Not Maintainable – Execution Petitions filed before Commercial Court, Vijayawada were dismissed – Commercial Court held that failure to pay decretal amount by a Government Company cannot be treated as refusal or negligence of a public servant – Arrest and detention of Chairman, Managing Director or Directors of the judgment debtor company is not maintainable in absence of pleading and proof of intentional refusal or neglect to pay – Revisions against dismissal of Execution Petitions are pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court [Para 6].

Consolidation of Proceedings – Avoidance of Conflicting Orders – Since issues in the Writ Petitions and Civil Revision Petitions arise from the same awards between the same parties, joint hearing directed to avoid conflicting orders and ensure expeditious disposal – High Court requested to dispose of the consolidated matters preferably within four months [Para 11-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 34399 and 34412 of 2018 set aside – Writ Petitions directed to be taken up along with CRP Nos. 74, 197 and 220 of 2021 and disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within four months.

Service Law – Seniority – Direct Recruits vs Internal Selectees – Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – Dispute regarding inter-se seniority between direct recruits appointed in 2000-2001 and internally selected candidates promoted in 2002 – High Court directed redrawing of seniority by treating both groups as appointed in 2002 on ground that probation of direct recruits commenced later – Held: Regulations 10(9) and 87 clearly treat training period as part of duty and appointment commences when a candidate joins service and undergoes training – Seniority cannot be postponed till commencement of probation – High Court erred in excluding training period for determining appointment date [Paras 19-22].

Service Regulations – Meaning of “Duty” and “Appointment” – Regulation 10(9) provides that a person is on duty when performing duties of a post or undergoing prescribed probation or training – Regulation 87 states that a person is appointed when he first discharges duties or commences training or probation for the post – Held: Training undertaken immediately after joining is part of service and cannot be ignored while computing seniority – Appointment of direct recruits dates back to initial joining and not to the date when probation formally begins [Paras 21-22].

Seniority Determination – Regulation 97 – Seniority to be determined by rank in the approved list of candidates prepared by appointing authority – Provision regarding commencement of probation relates only to service conditions and does not determine seniority between recruits from different sources – Interpretation adopted by High Court that seniority begins from probation date contrary to plain language of Regulations [Paras 22-22.3].

Recruitment from Multiple Sources – Applicability of Cyclic Seniority Rule – Proviso to Regulation 97 providing cyclic order (internal selection followed by direct recruitment) applicable only when recruitment from both sources occurs in the same calendar year – In present case direct recruits appointed in 2000-2001 while internal candidates promoted in May 2002 – Therefore proviso had no application and could not be used to alter seniority of earlier recruits [Paras 22.3].

Administrative Orders – Board Proceedings Reducing Training Period – BP No.9 dated 23.04.2002 reduced training period for direct recruits from two years to three months – Held: Such administrative instruction relates only to duration of training and emoluments and does not affect date of appointment or seniority – Internal candidates had no cause of action to challenge the same for seniority purposes [Paras 23-24].

Service Law – Effect of Training on Seniority – Training imparted after entry into service is integral part of employment – Merely because trainees receive consolidated pay during training and regular pay during probation does not alter their status as members of service from the date of joining – Seniority must therefore be reckoned from initial appointment [Paras 24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing redrawing of seniority set aside – Held that seniority of direct recruit Assistant Engineers shall be counted from the date of their initial joining in service including the period of training – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC – Deceased shot dead after being chased by group of armed persons – Trial Court convicted accused and High Court affirmed conviction – Supreme Court held that evidence established that accused persons arrived together armed with firearms and chased the deceased before firing upon him – Presence in unlawful assembly with common object sufficient to attract vicarious liability – Conviction upheld.

Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Vicarious Liability – Court reiterated that two essential ingredients for application of Section 149 IPC are existence of an unlawful assembly and a common object – Once participation of accused as members of such assembly is proved, it is not necessary that each accused must have committed a specific overt act – All members become vicariously liable for the acts committed in prosecution of the common object.

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony of Related Witnesses – Several prosecution witnesses were relatives of the deceased – Held: Evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely on ground of relationship if their testimony is consistent and credible – Minor discrepancies or allegedly unnatural behaviour of witnesses does not render their evidence unreliable when supported by other evidence on record.

Independent Witness – Limited Observation – Independent witness did not see the accused firing inside the house but heard gunshots – Court held that such evidence does not discredit prosecution case when other witnesses consistently proved that accused chased the deceased and multiple shots were fired resulting in death.

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Gunshot Injuries – Post-mortem revealed multiple firearm injuries with entry and exit wounds and recovery of pellets from the body – Ballistic evidence and recovery of cartridges corroborated the prosecution case that the deceased was killed by firearm shots during the attack.

Procedural Lapses – Effect – Alleged non-compliance with Section 157 CrPC regarding forwarding of FIR to Magistrate not fatal to prosecution where such lapse was not established by evidence and overall prosecution case stood proved by reliable ocular and medical evidence.

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed judgments of the Trial Court and High Court – Conviction and life sentence imposed on appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC upheld – Appellants directed to surrender forthwith to undergo remaining sentence.

Environmental Law – NGT Jurisdiction – Section 14 – Encroachment on Park – Temple Removal – Order Without Jurisdiction – Respondent No. 1 (RWA) filed application before NGT alleging encroachment and illegal construction of temple on land earmarked as park in Sector 16A, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad – NGT constituted Joint Committee without notice to Appellant; on basis of committee report, directed removal of temple and allied structures – Appellant contended that even in the Revised Layout Plan dated 14.07.2004 of the UP Housing Board, the temple was shown as existing – Held: NGT has jurisdiction under Section 14 only over civil cases involving a substantial question relating to environment arising from the statutes specified in Schedule I; removal of alleged encroachment raised in violation of Municipal and Town Planning laws not covered by Schedule I does not attract NGT's jurisdiction; impugned order passed without jurisdiction and quashed [Paras 7-10].

Substantial Question Relating to Environment – Definition – Section 2(m) of NGT Act defines substantial question relating to environment to include direct violation of specific statutory environmental obligation affecting the community at large, or where gravity of damage to environment or property is substantial, or damage to public health is broadly measurable, or environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or point source of pollution – Such question must arise from implementation of statutes enumerated in Schedule I – Violation of Municipal Laws and Town Planning Act does not satisfy the jurisdictional condition precedent [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of NGT dated 26.07.2022 quashed and set aside – Liberty reserved to the RWA to approach the competent authority for redressal – No action to be taken against Appellants without issuing notice to them and affected parties.

Passive Euthanasia - Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Die with Dignity – Distinction between Active and Passive Euthanasia – Terminology – Held: The "right to live with dignity" inherently includes the "right to die with dignity" as an integral part of Article 21. A robust distinction between active and passive euthanasia lies in the source of the harm; active euthanasia introduces an external agency of harm ("causing death"), whereas passive euthanasia involves the withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment, allowing the underlying fatal condition to take its natural course ("allowing death to occur"). The Court observed that the term "passive euthanasia" is obsolete and confusing, and directed that it be replaced with the phrase "Withdrawing or Withholding of Medical Treatment" (WMT). Euthanasia (active) remains strictly impermissible and constitutes a penal offence unless authorized by explicit legislative enactment. [Paras 33-45, 111, 293-295]

Medical Law and Ethics – Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) – Classification as Medical Treatment – Administration of nutrition and hydration through Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) or nasogastric tubes – Held: CANH is a technologically mediated medical intervention prescribed and supervised by trained healthcare professionals. It involves protocols and clinical judgment regarding dosage, materials, and complication management, distinguishing it from basic primary care or oral feeding. Merely because CANH can be administered at home by a lay person does not relegate it to non-medical status, as it still requires regular medical supervision. Consequently, CANH constitutes "medical treatment" and is amenable to being lawfully withheld or withdrawn subject to the Best Interest Principle and procedural safeguards. [Paras 114-129, 301-305]

Medical Jurisprudence – Best Interest Principle – Scope and Application – Incompetent patients in Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) – Held: Any decision to withdraw or withhold medical treatment for an incompetent patient must be rooted in their "best interests." This is not a narrow or formulaic test but a holistic evaluation of medical and non-medical considerations. Medical considerations include the futility of treatment (absence of any therapeutic benefit), irreversibility, and the indignity of prolonging life in a state devoid of awareness. Non-medical considerations involve the "Substituted Judgment" standard, where decision-makers must consider what the patient would have wanted if they had capacity, based on their past wishes, values, and lifestyle. The "Balance Sheet Approach" must be utilized to weigh the potential benefits of continued treatment against the burdens of physical suffering, invasiveness, and loss of dignity. [Paras 209-233, 306-318]

Procedural Law – Streamlining Common Cause (2018) Guidelines – Implementation Challenges – Held: To bridge the legislative vacuum and address medical practitioners' hesitation, the Court streamlined existing guidelines. (i) Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) must maintain panels of qualified medical practitioners and nominate a member for the Secondary Medical Board within 48 hours of a hospital's request. (ii) For patients in home settings, the next of kin may admit them to any hospital for the purpose of triggering the medical board process. (iii) A 30-day "Reconsideration Period" is mandatory after the concurrence of the two medical boards to allow aggrieved parties to approach the High Court, though it may be waived in cases of unanimous consensus among all stakeholders. (iv) Judicial intervention should be minimal and serves only as a safeguard or when the medical process reaches an impasse. [Paras 255-278, 322]

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Directions to High Courts and Union Government – Legislative Inaction – Held: Guidelines framed by the Court are interim measures to fill a legislative void. The Court urged the Union Government to consider enacting comprehensive legislation on end-of-life care to provide clarity and certainty. Directions issued to State High Courts to ensure Judicial Magistrates of First Class (JMFC) are apprised of their role in receiving intimations regarding the withdrawal of medical treatment. [Paras 279-291, 323, 327]

Decision: The Miscellaneous Application is allowed. The Court permitted the withdrawal/withholding of CANH for the applicant, noting he had been in PVS for 13 years with no hope of recovery. The 30-day reconsideration period was waived due to the unanimous consensus of the parents and medical boards. AIIMS was directed to admit the applicant to its Palliative Care department to ensure the withdrawal process is humane and managed under a robust End-of-Life (EOL) care plan.

Arbitration – Challenge to constitution of arbitral tribunal – Clause provided that if two nominee arbitrators failed to appoint presiding arbitrator within 30 days, appointment could be made by Secretary General of ICSID – Appellant contended that once 30-day period expired, co-arbitrators lost authority to appoint presiding arbitrator – Supreme Court held clause is enabling and not restrictive – non-appointment within 30 days does not extinguish power of co-arbitrators – ICSID appointment mechanism operates only if either party makes a request.

Arbitration Agreement – Interpretation of contractual arbitration clause – Court held that arbitration clause must be read in a commercially sensible manner – contingency allowing appointment by ICSID was merely a “fail-safe” mechanism to avoid stalemate – absence of a request to ICSID meant power of co-arbitrators to appoint presiding arbitrator continued.

Arbitral Tribunal – Improper constitution – Scope of judicial review – Where arbitral tribunal interprets contractual clause in a plausible manner, courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 cannot substitute their interpretation merely because another view is possible – arbitral autonomy and minimal judicial interference must be respected.

Arbitration Law – Conduct of parties – Acquiescence and waiver – Even where statutory waiver under Section 4 may not strictly apply, conduct of party during arbitral proceedings is relevant to determine its understanding of contractual scheme – appellant participated in arbitration and did not object to appointment of presiding arbitrator on multiple occasions – challenge raised only after preliminary meeting – conduct indicated acquiescence.

Arbitration Procedure – Section 16 challenge – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal – Plea regarding lack of jurisdiction must be raised before submission of statement of defence – although challenge was filed within prescribed timeline, past conduct of party remained relevant while adjudicating validity of such challenge.

Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards – Limited scope – Court reiterated that under Section 34 and further appellate scrutiny under Section 37, interference is permissible only in cases of patent illegality, violation of arbitration agreement, or other statutory grounds – interpretation of contract by arbitral tribunal is generally binding if plausible.

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld arbitral award and affirmed decisions of the Bombay High Court under Sections 34 and 37 refusing to set aside the award – arbitral tribunal held to be validly constituted and no patent illegality established.

Criminal Law – Murder by Arson – Parricide Allegation – Parents allegedly killed when their hut was set ablaze – Trial Court convicted son and daughter-in-law relying mainly on motive and dying declarations – High Court acquitted accused – Supreme Court held prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Investigation found selective and deficient – Acquittal affirmed [Paras 26-28, 31].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Principles Governing Reliability – Court reiterated that a dying declaration is an important exception to hearsay under Section 32 Evidence Act and can form sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence of the Court – However Court must ensure it is voluntary, truthful and not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination – Where declaration appears doubtful or suspicious, corroboration becomes necessary [Paras 7, 13-14].

Multiple Dying Declarations – Suspicion and Inconsistencies – Case involved two written declarations and several alleged oral declarations – First declaration (FIS) recorded in hospital without medical certification and in presence of villagers and relatives – Second declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate with conflicting testimony regarding authorship and without medical certification – Held: Surrounding circumstances created serious doubt about voluntariness and authenticity – Declarations did not inspire confidence [Paras 17-18].

Oral Dying Declarations – Credibility of Witnesses – Several witnesses claimed that deceased made oral statements implicating accused immediately after incident – However testimonies inconsistent and witnesses closely related or interested in property dispute – Independent witnesses who first noticed the fire not examined – Held: Oral declarations unreliable and unsafe to rely upon [Paras 19-22].

Criminal Investigation – Defective Investigation – Investigating Officer failed to prepare scene mahazar, conduct forensic examination, investigate possible accidental fire from gas cylinder, or examine independent witnesses – Arrest circumstances and presence of accused near scene not established – Held: Investigation appeared predetermined and selective, undermining prosecution case [Paras 24, 28, 31].

Witness Testimony – Interested Witnesses and Motive – Prosecution relied largely on relatives allegedly hostile to accused due to property dispute – Independent villagers and first witnesses to incident not examined – Evidence of motive also weakened by testimony that accused was entitled to share in property – Held: Prosecution evidence insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 21-22, 26].

Criminal Procedure – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC – Trial court asked only four general questions without putting incriminating circumstances such as motive, dying declarations and medical evidence – Supreme Court held such casual examination violates statutory duty and causes serious prejudice to accused – Courts and prosecutors must ensure every incriminating circumstance is put to the accused [Paras 29-30].

Standard of Proof – Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof – Criminal conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt and not on conjectures, suspicion or perceived motive – Where evidence fails to exclude other hypotheses, benefit of doubt must go to the accused [Para 30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed judgment of High Court acquitting the accused – Prosecution case found unreliable due to doubtful dying declarations, interested witnesses and defective investigation – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Sine Qua Non – Dispute arising from a Collaboration Agreement of 2012 led the appellant to lodge a complaint with the Commissioner of Police – FIR not registered on complaint, whereupon appellant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate along with a complaint under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC – Magistrate by order dated 05.04.2023 directed the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC – Respondents challenged the Magistrate's order and FIR under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court – High Court quashed the Magistrate's order and the FIR on the grounds of suppression of facts in the Section 156(3) application, non-conduct of preliminary inquiry by the Magistrate and absence of reasoning and application of mind – High Court further quashed the complaint and all subsequent proceedings and characterised the complaint as based on false, malicious and vague allegations without any foundation – Held: The sine qua non for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR is a finding that the complaint, on its face, does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence – No such finding recorded by the High Court – Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 7-9].

Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Before embarking on quashment of an FIR, the High Court must record a conclusion that the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence – Labelling a complaint as false, malicious or vague without any foundation in the order is not sufficient to quash the FIR – High Court must pass a detailed reasoned order [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on all grounds under Section 482 CrPC – Interim order operating in favour of the respondents to continue subject to further orders by the High Court – High Court directed to decide the petition expeditiously.