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 The Court observed that the term "passive euthanasia" is obsolete and confusing, and directed that it be replaced with the phrase "Withdrawing or Withholding of Medical Treatment" (WMT).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 Consequently, CANH constitutes "medical treatment" and is amenable to being lawfully withheld or withdrawn subject to the Best Interest Principle and procedural safeguards.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.

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.

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 – POCSO – SC/ST Act – Conviction – Quashing – Article 142 – Subsequent Marriage – FIR No. 129 of 2022 registered against the appellant for offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC, Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act – Appellant convicted by Sessions Court in S.C. ATR No. 78 of 2022 vide judgment dated 11.12.2023 – High Court dismissed application for suspension of sentence on 13.10.2025 – During pendency of appeal, the appellant and the victim/respondent No. 2 married each other and filed a joint application for quashing the FIR, proceedings and conviction – Held: Although the victim was a minor at the relevant time, she and the appellant are now husband and wife leading a happily married life – Continuation of incarceration would be harassment not only to the appellant but also to respondent No. 2 who is no longer interested in prosecuting her husband – Fit case for exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice – FIR, sessions trial and judgment of conviction and sentence quashed – Appellant discharged of all offences [Paras 5-9].

Decision: Leave granted – Appeal allowed – FIR No. 129 of 2022 and the sessions trial leading to judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2023 quashed – Appellant discharged of all offences – Criminal Appeal No. 15783 of 2023 pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered infructuous and disposed of.

Company Law – Reduction of Share Capital – Section 66 of Companies Act 2013 – Procedural Compliance and Fairness – Bharti Telecom Limited reduced share capital by cancelling shares of identified minority shareholders holding 1.09 percent shareholding at Rs.196.80 per equity share – Special resolution passed with 99.90 percent overall majority and 76.35 percent of identified shareholders present and voting – Appellants challenged on grounds of procedural infraction, biased valuation, improper DLOM application and unreasonably low price – Held: Reduction of share capital is strictly domestic concern depending on decision of majority – Statutory safeguards under Section 66 include special resolution, tribunal confirmation, creditor protection, Regional Director report and auditor certificate – All procedural requirements scrupulously followed – Reduction can be selective and in any manner decided by majority – Price fair and reasonable considering previous offers, rights issue benefit exponentially increasing shareholding, delisted status, absence of dividends and lack of marketability – No real prejudice, palpable bias or demonstrable arbitrariness established – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-51].

Valuation – Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) – Application in Capital Reduction – Shareholders Exit from Delisted Company – Appellants contended DLOM application arbitrary citing Singapore decisions holding DLOM inapplicable in oppression buyouts – Argued fair value should be enterprise value not discounted market value – BTL shares delisted since 1999-2000 with no dividends, no marketability and locked-in shareholding – Valuer applied DLOM at 25 percent rate based on illiquidity – Independent fairness report affirmed valuation – Held: Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) 113 treats fair value as market-based measurement – DLOM recognized under ICAI Valuation Standards for assets lacking marketability – No oppression setting established – Only 11 appellants insufficient to constitute minority under Section 244 – Reduction consensual with overwhelming majority approval – Singapore decisions distinguished as relating to court-ordered buyouts in oppression contexts – Section 66 does not restrict DLOM use – Valuation methodology proper considering BAL share value, BTL net asset value and appropriate discount for illiquidity – Subsequently verified by ICICI Securities and SBI Caps Securities – DLOM application valid [Paras 4-6, 38-48].

Procedure – Notice and Disclosure – Tricky Notice Doctrine – Valuation Reports – Appellants alleged notice was tricky for not supplying valuation and fairness reports, using valuer related to internal auditor, concealing methodology and issuing both reports on same date – Relied on Baillie vs Oriental Telephone, Kaye vs Croydon Tramways establishing exceptions to proper plaintiff rule – Respondent contended Section 66 unlike Sections 62, 230, 232, 236 does not mandate valuation report – Reports voluntarily obtained and kept at registered office available for one month voting period – Court examined tricky notice origins in cases of artful framing to mislead shareholders by concealing material facts – Held: Section 66 does not statutorily require valuation report – Price offered fully disclosed in notice – Valuation and fairness reports available for inspection at registered office accessible during one month period – One appellant's advocate inspected documents, sought only shareholder details, raised no valuation dispute – Notice contained complete disclosure required for capital reduction – No concealment or misleading to constitute tricky notice – Fairness report on same date as valuation indicates issuance date not time taken for evaluation – Valuations best left to experts – No procedural infraction [Paras 23-37].

NCLT and NCLAT – Composition of Benches – Technical versus Judicial Members Majority – Appellant challenged NCLAT bench of one Judicial Member and two Technical Members as violating Madras Bar Association (2010) directions for judicial majority in larger benches – Court examined constitutional bench decisions and current statutory provisions – Held: Section 418A requires NCLAT bench to have at least one Judicial and one Technical Member – No current statutory requirement for judicial majority – Provisions challenged in 2010 replaced by Companies Act 2013 – All adjudicators whether judicial or technical should be reasonable persons with resolute minds and unbiased views – Technical Members bring administrative and subject expertise for holistic adjudication – No distinction in capability or quality between judicial and technical members sitting together – Bench headed by Judicial Member with unanimous opinion – State of MP vs BR Thakare distinguished – No jurisdictional defect [Paras 16-22].

Valuation – Independence of Valuer – Internal Auditor Relationship – Conflict of Interest – Appellants alleged valuer was sister concern of BTL internal auditor with common partners and directors creating bias – Respondent argued internal auditor operates independently per ICAI guidelines, valuation affirmed by independent agencies – Court examined ICAI Basic Principles requiring internal auditor independence from undue influence – Held: Internal auditor appointed under Section 138 read with Companies (Accounts) Rules 2014 operates as independent statutory verification mechanism – Appointment does not create relationship with company causing bias – Valuer affiliation with internal auditor insufficient to establish bias – Bias must be demonstrably real and present not mere probability – Fairness report obtained from totally different unrelated agency – Valuation additionally affirmed by ICICI Securities and SBI Caps Securities – Company auditor certificate per Section 66(3) proviso confirming compliance with Section 133 accounting standards – No real danger of bias shown [Paras 33-37].

Shareholders Rights – Informed Decision Making – Document Access – Comparison with Other Exit Options – Appellants contended reports not supplied despite requests, only kept at registered office insufficient – Compared capital reduction unfavorably with voluntary buyback under Section 68 and compromise under Section 230 requiring valuation disclosure – Court distinguished statutory schemes – Held: Section 66 capital reduction is involuntary exit measure unlike voluntary buyback under Section 68 or consensual compromise under Section 230 – Different provisions have different disclosure requirements – Registered office accessible to shareholders – Most appellants resided in Delhi when registered office at Gurgaon – Modern travel ease enables document verification – One month period between notice and voting sufficient – One appellant's advocate verified reports – Firestone decision based on travel difficulty not applicable – Adequate accessibility provided – Sufficient disclosure made [Paras 25-32, 37].

Test for Tribunal Confirmation – Standards of Fairness and Reasonableness – Prejudice to Minority Shareholders – Court synthesized principles from Re Reckitt Benckiser, Re Cadbury India, British and American Trustee vs Couper – Tribunal must examine whether: (i) scheme against public interest (ii) fair, just and reasonable (iii) unfairly discriminatory or prejudicial to shareholder class (iv) creditors consenting or secured – Prejudice requires more than receiving less than desired – Must show forcing shareholders to divest at rate far below reasonable in inherently unjust manner – Reasonableness tested against past offers, extinguishments, buybacks – Held: If offered rate exceeds past rates burden exponentially high on objector to prove real prejudice – Test whether fair-minded reasonable person without microscopic scrutiny finds valuation egregiously wrong offending judicial conscience – Valuation not divorced from market reality – BTL holding only listed BAL shares – Rights issue in 2016 offered 115 shares at par exponentially increasing holdings – Appellant holding single share pre-rights received Rs.22,828.80 for 116 shares compared to highest claimed Rs.2,000 earlier offer – No egregious error in valuation – All fairness tests satisfied [Paras 42-52].

Corporate Governance – Fiduciary Duty – Proper Plaintiff Rule and Exceptions – Fraud on Minority – Appellants invoked exceptions to Foss vs Harbottle including fraud on minority and tricky notice requiring individual shareholder action – Argued directors owe fiduciary duty to minority requiring higher fairness standard in forced exit – Court examined evolution from Foss vs Harbottle through Baillie, Kaye vs Croydon Tramways, Claude-Lila Parulekar – Held: Proper plaintiff rule subject to exceptions for ultra vires acts, fraud on minority, illegal majority action and tricky notice – However Section 66 is statutorily sanctioned with safeguards – Eleven appellants do not constitute minority under Section 244 requiring minimum 100 members or one-tenth share value – No oppression established – Reduction consensual with 99.90 percent overall and 76.35 percent identified shareholders approving – Tribunal scrutiny ensures fairness ex debito justitiae – Claims of justice satisfied through statutory protections [Paras 25-27, 40-43].

Price Determination – Comparison with Previous Transactions – Strategic Partnership Distinguished – Appellants compared offered price unfavorably with 2001 buyback at Rs.96, 2006 promoter offer at Rs.400, 2007 broker offer at Rs.2,000, and 2018 SingTel preferential allotment at Rs.310 – Argued capital reduction price should match or exceed benchmarks – Court examined each transaction contextually – Held: 2001 buyback and 2006 promoter offer both preceded rights issue – 2007 broker offer unsubstantiated and far before rights issue – 2018 SingTel transaction was strategic partnership requiring premium under FEMA regulations distinguished from capital reduction – Rights issue fundamental game-changer offering 115 shares at par for every share – Fair value cannot be divorced from market value especially where company's only business is holding listed subsidiary shares – Seasoned retail investors made informed calculated decision – Majority including identified shareholders voted in favor – Subsequent verification by independent agencies for Custodian affirmed valuation – No unreasonableness demonstrated [Paras 12-14, 46-50].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – NCLT and NCLAT orders confirming reduction of share capital upheld – Share price of Rs.196.80 per equity share approved – No procedural infraction established – Valuation methodology proper with valid DLOM application – Price fair and reasonable considering all circumstances – Special resolution passed with overwhelming majority – Statutory safeguards complied with – No demonstration of real prejudice, palpable bias or obvious unfairness – Pending applications disposed of.

Anticipatory Bail – Spurious Liquor Manufacturing Case – Supplier of Bottles and Caps – Appellant not initially named in FIR – Added as accused based on custodial interrogation of co-accused who stated that appellant supplied plastic bottles and caps with Government labels for manufacturing spurious liquor – No raid conducted at appellant's business establishment – Appellant granted interim protection by Supreme Court and cooperated with investigation – Appellant previously arraigned in two successive cases with similar allegations and released on bail – Held: Appellant entitled to anticipatory bail as not initially named in FIR, no raid at his premises, already cooperated with investigation, and no allegation of misuse of interim protection [Paras 2-10].

Investigation – Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Prosecution contended that appellant's custodial interrogation required to uncover larger conspiracy and money trail involving manufacture and supply of spurious liquor – Investigation revealed 400 calls between appellant and accused no.23 who coordinated supply of fake bottles and caps – Financial transactions discovered between appellant and accused no.2 – Court observed that appellant already appeared before Investigating Officer during interim protection and cooperated with investigation – No material to show custodial interrogation indispensable at this stage [Paras 5-9].

Identity Confusion – Addition of Accused – Initially memo dated 30.10.2025 filed to add Manoj Kotaria as accused no.20 – Subsequently memo dated 11.11.2025 filed to change name to Mutta Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kotaria – Witnesses referred to appellant variously as Manoj Kothariya, Manoj Kumar, owner of Mishramal Heerachand Plastic Dealers – Defence contended confusion about identity – Prosecution relied on witness statements ascribing role of supply of bottles and caps to appellant – Court noted appellant not initially named and confusion regarding identity exists [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Procedure – Successive Prosecution – Appellant arraigned as accused in two successive criminal cases (Crime Nos. 69 of 2025 and 115 of 2025) registered in quick succession with same set of allegations unsupported by material – In each instance appellant arrested, remanded and ultimately released on bail – Court considered pattern of successive prosecution while granting anticipatory bail [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 05.12.2025 of Andhra Pradesh High Court refusing anticipatory bail set aside – Interim protection granted vide order dated 06.01.2026 made absolute – Appellant to be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No. 171 of 2025 on terms and conditions imposed by arresting officer or Trial Court – Conditions imposed: appellant shall cooperate with investigation and trial and shall not influence witnesses.

Cooperative Societies - State Reorganisation - Multi-State Cooperative Society - Section 103 of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 - Deeming Fiction - Scope and Applicability - Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur, originally registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, had their area of operations spanning across the newly formed States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand upon bifurcation of erstwhile State of U.P. under the Reorganisation Act, 2000 - High Court held both societies to be Multi-State Cooperative Societies under Section 103 of 2002 Act and directed elections to be conducted by the Central Registrar - Held: Section 103 of the 2002 Act does not operate automatically or universally - Deeming fiction is conditional upon factual determination that the objects of the Society, as reflected in bye-laws, extend to more than one State - Conceptual distinction between 'objects' and 'area of operation' is fundamental - Mere geographical spread of membership or activity cannot substitute the requirement that principal objects must themselves be multi-state in character - Bye-laws of both societies disclosed objects confined to promoting interests of local canegrowers within a single State - Impugned judgment of High Court quashed [Paras 1, 22-24, 26].

State Reorganisation Act - Sections 87 and 93 - Overriding Effect - Harmonious Construction - Section 87 of Reorganisation Act embodies the doctrine of legislative continuity, ensuring that statutory regimes governing cooperative societies remain operational during the transitional period - Section 93 contains a non-obstante clause giving the Reorganisation Act overriding effect over any inconsistent law - Both States took necessary steps for reorganisation of the societies under the transitional framework before the 2002 Act came into force - Deeming fiction under Section 103 of 2002 Act cannot retrospectively unsettle completed statutory action for reorganisation - Held: Provisions of two statutes must be harmoniously construed to give effect to both - Operation of legal fiction under Section 103 must be restricted in cases where reorganisation of societies has already been completed under Sections 87 and 93 of the Reorganisation Act [Paras 13-14, 21-24].

Legal Fiction - Strict Construction - Deeming Provision - Section 103 of 2002 Act - A legal fiction must be strictly confined to the purpose for which it is created and cannot be extended beyond its legitimate field - Deeming provision under Section 103 of 2002 Act cannot be construed in isolation to override the express statutory scheme of the Reorganisation Act - Held: In absence of multi-state objects in bye-laws, statutory pre-conditions for invoking Section 103 of 2002 Act are absent and societies cannot be treated as Multi-State Cooperative Societies [Para 22].

Decision: Civil Appeal Nos. 8743, 8744 and 8745 of 2013 allowed - Judgment and order dated 14.03.2007 of the High Court quashed and set aside - Civil Appeal No. 8746 of 2013 dismissed - Judgment and order dated 05.09.2006 upheld - Authorities under State Cooperative law directed to conduct elections of the Societies expeditiously - No order as to costs [Paras 26-27].

Election Law – Disqualification – More than Two Children Norm – Section 45(1)(v) – Respondent gave birth to third child after cut-off date – Statutory disqualification attracted – Election rightly declared void – Concurrent findings of Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and High Court upheld [Paras 19–20]

Election Petition – Evidence – Non-cross-examination – Effect – Respondent failed to cross-examine petitioner’s witnesses despite repeated opportunities – Evidence remained uncontroverted – Tribunal justified in accepting petitioner’s case – Adverse inference drawn against respondent [Paras 7, 19–20]

Election Disputes – Burden of Proof – Discharge by Petitioner – Petitioner led cogent documentary and oral evidence proving disqualification – In absence of rebuttal, Tribunal bound to accept unrebutted evidence – Finding of disqualification inevitable [Paras 7, 20]

Election Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Challenge rejected – Objection to jurisdiction not substantiated on legal grounds – Issue not meriting interference [Para 18]

Relief in Election Petition – Declaration of Returned Candidate’s Election as Void – Section 44-E – Petitioner entitled not only to challenge election but also seek declaration of self as duly elected – Statutory right recognised [Para 22]

Consequential Relief – Declaration of Election Petitioner as Winner – Section 44-J(2)(b) – Where only two candidates contested and returned candidate is disqualified, remaining candidate entitled to be declared elected – Fresh election unwarranted [Paras 23–25]

Election Law – Avoidance of Unnecessary Elections – Legislative Intent – Scheme of Sections 44-E and 44-J aims to avoid re-election where result is determinable from existing votes – Tribunal must grant effective relief [Paras 14, 22–24]

Fresh Election – When Not Required – Only Two Candidates in Fray – Setting aside election of returned candidate leaves sole valid candidate – Direction for re-election erroneous – Appellate Tribunal and High Court erred [Paras 23, 25–26]

Delay in Election Litigation – Impact – Election held in 2022 – Litigation consumed over 3 years – Denial of consequential relief would defeat justice – Court must ensure fruits of litigation are not lost [Para 24]

Equitable Relief – Successful Election Petitioner – Denial of office after successful challenge amounts to travesty of justice – Restoration of Tribunal’s order justified [Paras 24–25]

Election Law – Principle – “Next Highest Votes” – In limited candidate scenario, candidate securing next highest valid votes entitled to be declared elected upon disqualification of returned candidate [Paras 9, 23]

Scope of Interference – Supreme Court – Concurrent findings on disqualification not interfered with – Interference limited to erroneous denial of consequential relief [Paras 19–20, 27]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of High Court and Election Appellate Tribunal set aside to extent of denying consequential relief – Order of Election Tribunal restored – Appellant declared elected as Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti – Directions for fresh election quashed – Compliance directed within two weeks – Connected SLP dismissed.

Public Health - COVID-19 Vaccination - Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) - No-Fault Compensation - Article 21 - Petitioners, parents and family members of individuals who died or suffered serious injuries following COVID-19 vaccination, sought constitution of an independent expert medical board, formulation of AEFI protocols, and compensation - Respondent Union of India contended that vaccines underwent rigorous regulatory approval, existing AEFI surveillance mechanism is adequate and transparent, and aggrieved persons may seek remedies before consumer courts or civil courts - Held: Court is not adjudicating upon vaccine efficacy or sitting in scientific review over the regulatory approval process - Constitutional inquiry is confined to whether absence of any structured framework to address serious adverse events following a State-led mass immunisation programme raises constitutional concerns warranting an institutional response - Directed Union of India to expeditiously formulate a no-fault compensation framework for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination [Paras 2-3, 12, 17, 37-38].

Right to Health - Article 21 - Positive Obligation of State - Right to health and bodily integrity is a recognised facet of the right to life under Article 21 - State bears a positive obligation to safeguard health of its citizens and ensure conditions necessary for meaningful enjoyment of life - Where grave harm is alleged to have occurred in the course of a State-led public health intervention, affected families cannot be left without any accessible mechanism of redress - Absence of such an institutional framework raises constitutional concerns - Directive Principles under Articles 41 and 47 further illuminate the State's welfare obligations in matters of public health [Paras 14-17, 20, 24-25, 27].

No-Fault Compensation - Vaccine Injury - Inadequacy of Fault-Based Remedies - Principle of no-fault liability is not alien to Indian law, as reflected in Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Several countries including Australia, United Kingdom, Japan and the WHO-COVAX initiative have recognised dedicated no-fault compensation mechanisms for vaccine-related injuries - Insisting upon proof of negligence and fault in each individual case imposes an onerous burden upon affected families - Multiplicity of individual proceedings risks inconsistent outcomes and unequal access to relief - Relationship between individual and State in the context of a mass immunisation programme cannot be viewed through the prism of fault-based liability - State's responsibility must extend beyond surveillance to providing fair compensation to those who suffered vaccine-related injury [Paras 26-31, 34].

AEFI Surveillance - Independent Expert Body - Existing Mechanism - Court satisfied that existing framework of National and State AEFI Committees is adequate for investigation of deaths and injuries following vaccination - No material placed on record to indicate that such mechanisms are non-functional - Held: It would not be appropriate for the Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to constitute a parallel body to undertake individual medical determinations - No separate court-appointed expert body considered necessary - Union of India directed to continue ensuring efficient AEFI monitoring and periodic public disclosure of relevant data, consistent with directions in Jacob Puliyel [Paras 35-36, 38].

Separation of Powers - Judicial Review - Policy Formulation - Executive vested with competence and authority to draft policies - Constitutional separation of powers cannot eclipse the judicial duty to safeguard fundamental rights when executive policies, or absence thereof, result in violation of rights - Court's direction to formulate a no-fault compensation framework shall not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Union of India or any authority [Paras 33, 38].

Decision: Writ petition and all connected matters disposed of - Union of India directed through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination - Existing AEFI surveillance mechanisms to continue with periodic public disclosure of data - No separate court-appointed expert body constituted - Liberty reserved to all persons to pursue such other remedies as may be available in law [Para 38].