Administrative Law – Promotion Procedures – The respondent, a Senior Scientist, challenged the non-promotion decision under the Career Advancement Scheme of ICAR, which allocated 50% marks for personal interviews – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court found the allocation excessive and arbitrary, violating the principles of fair evaluation – Supreme Court upholds the findings, emphasizing that such high weightage for interviews is contrary to established legal principles and leads to subjective assessment [Paras 1-88]​​.

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – The Supreme Court reiterates that while courts should not interfere in administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary or violate fundamental rights, the excessive weightage given to interviews in this case justified judicial intervention – The decision-making process must adhere to fairness and transparency, especially in public employment [Paras 22-30]​​.

Legal Principles – Weightage of Interview Marks – The Court referred to precedents including Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, emphasizing that interview marks should not disproportionately affect the selection process – Allocation of 50% marks for interviews in promotions is excessive and can lead to arbitrariness [Paras 31-40]​​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court directs ICAR to reassess the respondent's promotion without the arbitrary weightage for interviews – Reinforces the need for objective criteria in public employment evaluations [Paras 41-50]​​.

Administrative Law – Drug Price Fixation – The Central Government issued a demand based on drug prices fixed in 1989, which were higher than those fixed in 1986 – High Court quashed the demand, holding it was retrospective and violated statutory provisions – Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision, stating the 1989 prices cannot apply retrospectively to transactions from 1981 to 1987 – Demand for Rs. 71.21 crores declared invalid as it was based on a superseded notification​​.

General Clauses Act – Section 6 – Supersession of Notification – Supreme Court discusses the legal effect of supersession, determining that the 1989 notification did not retrospectively affect the liability under the 1986 notification – Supersession replaced the earlier notification without obliterating liabilities incurred under it, supporting the High Court's ruling against retrospective application​​.

Principle of Unjust Enrichment – Central Government's Argument – The Central Government argued that Glaxo India Ltd. should not retain excess amounts charged, invoking the principle of unjust enrichment – Supreme Court rejects this, affirming that statutory and procedural compliance is paramount, and retrospective application would violate legal standards​​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court confirms the High Court's decision, quashing the Central Government's demand – Orders that the Central Government reconsider demands based on legally applicable drug prices without retrospective effect​​.

Constitutional Law – Dismissal without Inquiry – The respondent, a First Secretary in the Indian Embassy in Beijing, was dismissed without an inquiry under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) due to national security concerns – Supreme Court upholds the dismissal, citing sufficient material and justifiable reasons for bypassing the inquiry in the interest of state security – Emphasizes the necessity of non-disclosure of sensitive information and validates the Government’s discretion in such matters [Paras 1-27]​​.

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Supreme Court reiterates the limited scope of judicial review in cases involving national security and sensitive information – Affirms that the decision to dispense with an inquiry must be supported by credible and substantial material on record – Court’s role is to ensure the decision is not arbitrary, but detailed reasons need not be disclosed in the dismissal order [Paras 12-19]​​.

Disproportionate Punishment – The Court finds no disproportionality in the penalty of dismissal given the serious charges and sensitive nature of the respondent’s duties – Highlights the need for stringent action to safeguard national interests [Paras 23-24]​​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s order requiring a speaking order – Restores the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding the respondent’s dismissal without an inquiry [Paras 26-27]​​.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Possession of Opium:

Appellant convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for possessing 7.10 kg of opium – The substance was identified as opium by physical characteristics and confirmed by forensic analysis indicating 0.8% morphine content [Paras 3-5, 19-20].

Opium – Classification as Commercial Quantity – Morphine Content Irrelevant:

The court held that for pure opium under Section 2(xv)(a) of the NDPS Act, the percentage of morphine content is irrelevant for determining whether the quantity is commercial – Entire quantity of opium considered, irrespective of morphine content [Paras 14-25].

Application of Notification on Mixtures – Retrospective Effect:

The Notification dated 18.11.2009, specifying that the whole quantity of a mixture should be considered for punishment, cannot be applied retrospectively – Penal provisions enhancing sentences cannot operate retrospectively as per Article 20 of the Constitution of India [Paras 13].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act upheld – The appellant possessed a commercial quantity of opium as defined in Entry No. 92 of the relevant Notification, and the morphine content did not affect this classification [Paras 26].

Civil Procedure – Reopening Evidence – Recall of Witnesses:

Applications under Section 151 CPC for reopening evidence and under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recalling witnesses for further cross-examination – Trial court dismissed applications on the grounds of delay – High Court upheld the trial court’s decision [Paras 6, 14].

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Relevant Considerations:

Electronic records such as compact discs containing recorded conversations are admissible under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, read with Section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, if they are relevant, accurate, and authenticated – Evidence sought to be introduced was alleged to contain admissions relevant to the dispute [Paras 7-8].

Inherent Powers of the Court – Section 151 CPC:

Section 151 CPC allows courts to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process – This power is discretionary, to be used sparingly and in appropriate cases – The deletion of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC does not preclude reopening evidence or recalling witnesses under Section 151 if justifiable [Paras 9-12].

Application for Reopening Evidence – Post-Argument Stage:

Court's discretion to consider applications for reopening evidence or recalling witnesses should continue until judgment is pronounced – Each case must be considered on its merits, even after arguments have commenced [Paras 13, 17].

Decision:

Appeals allowed in part – Orders of the High Court and Trial Court dismissing IA No. 216/2009 under Section 151 CPC are set aside – Orders affirmed in regard to dismissal of IA No. 217/2009 under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC – Trial Court to consider IA No. 216/2009 afresh in accordance with law [Paras 18-19].

Civil Procedure – Reopening Evidence – Recall of Witnesses:

Applications under Section 151 CPC for reopening evidence and under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recalling witnesses for further cross-examination – Trial court dismissed applications on the grounds of delay – High Court upheld the trial court’s decision [Paras 6, 14].

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Relevant Considerations:

Electronic records such as compact discs containing recorded conversations are admissible under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, read with Section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, if they are relevant, accurate, and authenticated – Evidence sought to be introduced was alleged to contain admissions relevant to the dispute [Paras 7-8].

Inherent Powers of the Court – Section 151 CPC:

Section 151 CPC allows courts to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process – This power is discretionary, to be used sparingly and in appropriate cases – The deletion of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC does not preclude reopening evidence or recalling witnesses under Section 151 if justifiable [Paras 9-12].

Application for Reopening Evidence – Post-Argument Stage:

Court's discretion to consider applications for reopening evidence or recalling witnesses should continue until judgment is pronounced – Each case must be considered on its merits, even after arguments have commenced [Paras 13, 17].

Decision:

Appeals allowed in part – Orders of the High Court and Trial Court dismissing IA No. 216/2009 under Section 151 CPC are set aside – Orders affirmed in regard to dismissal of IA No. 217/2009 under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC – Trial Court to consider IA No. 216/2009 afresh in accordance with law [Paras 18-19].

Constitutional Law – Temporary Employment – Regularization:

Respondent, a temporary appointee under the Anshkalik Scheme, sought regularization and reinstatement – High Court’s direction for regularization based on parity with other similarly situated employees – Supreme Court held that regular appointments must be made through the U.P. Public Service Commission, and temporary employees have no right to the post [Paras 3-4, 11].

Administrative Law – Precedent – SLP Dismissal:

Dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court without detailed discussion on merits does not constitute a binding precedent – Respondent cannot derive benefits from such dismissal [Para 10].

High Court’s Power under Article 226 – Regularization:

Following the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the High Court cannot regularize temporary employees – Mere regularization of some employees does not confer a right to others for similar treatment – Illegalities cannot be perpetuated through judicial orders [Paras 12-13].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed – Temporary employees have no right to the post and cannot claim regularization or reinstatement based on parity with others [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering and Corruption – The case involves allegations of amassing illicit wealth by former ministers, including the former Chief Minister of Jharkhand – The Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI due to the complex, multi-state, and multi-national nature of the investigation – Emphasizes the necessity of a thorough and expert investigation by an agency like the CBI given the scale and scope of the alleged corruption and money laundering​​.

Jurisdiction – Powers of Investigation – The appellant argued that only the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has the authority to investigate offences under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) – The Supreme Court rejects this argument, clarifying that the CBI can investigate offences under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act while any findings related to money laundering can be shared with the ED – Reinforces that the investigation under PMLA does not preclude other agencies from investigating related predicate offences​​.

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits and Exercise – The Supreme Court underscores the importance of proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly in complex cases involving high-profile allegations of corruption – Emphasizes that the gravity and magnitude of the allegations justify the High Court’s decision to involve the CBI for a systematic, scientific, and analyzed investigation​​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court finds no merit in the appeal and directs that the CBI continues its investigation as per the High Court's order – Orders that the parties bear their own costs​​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – The appellant, a headmistress, and her husband were accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act for allegedly using casteist slurs – Supreme Court quashes the proceedings against the appellant, finding no prima facie case against her as the alleged offending words were spoken by her husband, not her – Emphasizes that the complaint did not attribute any casteist remarks to the appellant and the incident did not occur in a place within public view, thus not fulfilling the ingredients of the offence [Paras 1-30]​​.

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Supreme Court reiterates that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or to meet the ends of justice – In this case, allowing the proceedings to continue would be unjust and amount to harassment, as the complaint did not establish essential ingredients of the offence against the appellant [Paras 13-27]​​.

Precedents and Legal Principles – The Court referred to various precedents, including R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, to highlight the circumstances under which proceedings can be quashed – Emphasizes the necessity of allegations to constitute a prima facie offence and the requirement for evidence to support the charges [Paras 14-23]​​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's judgment and quashes the complaint against the appellant in Crime No. 50 of 2006, Police Station Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – Directs that the appellant should not face further prosecution under the specific charges​​.