Governor’s Role in Legislative Process – Challenged inaction of Governor regarding assent to Bills passed by Punjab Vidhan Sabha – Governor’s withholding of assent without valid constitutional basis – Dispute over the constitutional role and limitations of the Governor in the legislative process of a state. [Paras 1, 4-8, 19-21, 25-27, 44-46]

Adjournment and Prorogation of Legislative Assembly – Distinction between adjournment sine die and prorogation of legislative sessions – Legality of reconvening Punjab Vidhan Sabha by the Speaker after adjournment sine die – Speaker's authority in regulating procedures of the House affirmed. [Paras 29-34, 37-38, 40-41, 43-44]

Constitutional Function of the Governor – The Governor as a symbolic head, bound by the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers except in discretionary areas – Governor's exercise of powers in legislative matters, constrained by constitutional provisions and democratic principles. [Paras 15-17, 20-21, 25-26, 44-45]

Jurisdiction under Article 32 – Invocation of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 for resolution of constitutional issues involving the Governor's role and legislative procedures in Punjab Vidhan Sabha. [Paras 1, 9-10]

Decision – Petition allowed; Sessions of Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 19 and 20 June 2023, and 20 October 2023 declared valid – Governor directed to act on Bills presented for assent in a manner consistent with Article 200 of the Constitution. [Paras 44-47]

Civil Appeal – Environmental Compliance and Prosecution – Appellant challenged National Green Tribunal's order allowing prosecution for non-compliance with environmental norms – Issues related to ex-post facto Consent to Establish (CTE) and environmental clearance (EC) – Supreme Court set aside part of NGT's judgment, confirming the rest, allowing the appeal in part. [Para 1-12]

Environmental Clearance (EC) – Validity and expiration of EC for construction – NGT's observations on expired EC and illegal construction between specific dates set aside by Supreme Court as beyond the scope of the appeal before NGT – Matters left open for appropriate proceedings. [Para 7, 12(a)]

Consent to Establish (CTE) – Ex-post facto CTE and its implications – Appellant's prosecution for activities conducted before grant of ex-post facto CTE discussed – Supreme Court held that appellant bound by the terms of ex-post facto CTE, confirming NGT's judgment in this regard. [Para 8-11, 12(b)]

Prosecution Approval – Challenge to approval for prosecuting appellant under environmental laws – Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with NGT's judgment confirming prosecution as per conditions of ex-post facto CTE. [Para 11, 12(b)]

Decision – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside NGT's observations on EC, but confirming its decision on legality of prosecuting the appellant as per ex-post facto CTE conditions. [Para 12]

Transfer Petition under Section 25 CPC - Petitioner seeks transfer of matrimonial case from Karnataka to Maharashtra.

Mutual Consent Divorce - Parties referred to Supreme Court Mediation Centre, leading to settlement agreement for mutual consent divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Settlement Agreement - Agreement detailing dissolution of marriage, financial settlements, property division, and child custody arrangements. Terms include Rs.7,50,000 payment by petitioner to respondent, no claim by son in respondent's property, and division of other assets.

Decree of Divorce - Court accepts the settlement agreement, granting mutual consent divorce and quashing proceedings initiated by each party against the other.

Disposition - Transfer Petition disposed of as per the mutually agreed terms and conditions. Related pending applications also disposed of.

Transfer Petition in Matrimonial Dispute – Settlement and Mutual Divorce – Petition filed under Section 25 CPC for transfer of matrimonial case from Karnataka to Maharashtra. Parties arrive at a settlement during mediation, agreeing to dissolve their marriage via mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution. [Para 1-2]

Settlement Terms – Property and Financial Arrangements – Settlement includes various financial terms: ₹7,50,000 payment by wife to husband, handling of local body taxes and CIDCO transfer charges by husband, and arrangements concerning a gold loan and property transfer. [Para 3-4]

Mutual Divorce Decree – Acceptance of Settlement Agreement – Supreme Court accepts the lawful settlement agreement, allowing the application for divorce by mutual consent. Marriage dissolved under Section 13 B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [Para 5-6]

Disposition – Quashing of Proceedings – All proceedings initiated by the parties against each other quashed, with the terms of the settlement becoming part of the order. Transfer petition consequently disposed of. [Para 6]

Civil Appeal – Pay Scale Parity – Appeal by Union of India against High Court order granting pay scale parity to Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) employees with Central Secretariat Service (CSS) employees – High Court’s decision based on recommendations of VIth Central Pay Commission and historical parity. [Para 1-3, 11]

Judicial Review – Limited scope in matters of pay scale fixation – Intervention permissible in cases of arbitrariness or palpable discrimination – High Court's intervention based on historical parity and Pay Commission’s recommendations. [Para 5, 10, 15]

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Historical parity of pay scales among similar posts – High Court recognized parity between OFB headquarters employees and CSS/CSSS employees – Consideration of Pay Commission's recommendations to maintain parity. [Para 6, 14]

Decision – Dismissal of appeal by Supreme Court – High Court's order upheld for maintaining pay scale parity among similarly placed employees – Recognition of historical parity and adherence to Pay Commission's recommendations. [Para 15-16]

Recruitment Process – Interpretation of Recruitment Rules – Issue regarding relaxation of prescribed essential qualifications post-application deadline – High Court's decision to allow relaxation for Post Codes 447 and 556 set aside – Relaxation deemed unsustainable post-application deadline without providing opportunity to similarly situated candidates. [Para 45(i)]

High Court Judgment – Direction in High Court judgment for recasting merit list using relaxed criteria – Direction overturned due to its inconsistency with established legal principles and constitutional mandates – Merit list for Post Code 556 not to be redrawn; recruitment for Post Code 817 to follow extant rules. [Para 45(ii)]

State Government's Relaxation Order – Relaxation/clarificatory order dated 21.08.2017 by State Government for certain recruitment post-codes – Held as legally unsustainable when issued after application deadline – Recruitment to adhere to qualifications specified in original advertisements and extant rules. [Para 45(i), (ii)]

Preservation of Existing Appointments – Appointments under Post Code 447 not to be disturbed despite eligibility gained through later relaxation – Considered decision in light of factors like nature of posts, period of appointments, and absence of specific allegations against appointees. [Para 45(iii)]

Constitutional Principles – Upholding of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in public recruitment – Requirement of adherence to stipulated selection criteria and avoidance of mid-process alterations without due notification and opportunity to all potential candidates. [Paras 26, 34]

Administrative Decision-Making – State's discretion in prescribing qualifications and conducting recruitment – Judicial restraint emphasized unless recruitment policy is malafide, arbitrary, or irrational. [Para 39]

Expeditious Disposal of Criminal Cases Against MPs and MLAs – Directing the establishment of special benches by High Courts to monitor and expedite criminal cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs. Guidelines formulated for prioritized hearing and trial on a day-to-day basis, ensuring speedy justice in line with Article 21 of the Constitution. [Paras 1, 3, 9, 14, 16, 20]

Special Courts and Designated District Courts – Shift from the initial idea of setting up special courts to designating specific courts in each district for handling such cases. Emphasis on prioritized hearing of cases involving serious offenses and those against sitting legislators. [Paras 4-7]

Monitoring and Reporting by High Courts – High Courts to register suo-motu cases titled "In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs" to oversee the progress of trials. Monthly status reports to be sent by designated courts to High Courts for review and necessary direction. [Paras 9, 20(iii), 20(vii)]

Witness Protection and Technology Use – Witness protection deemed essential, and courts directed to use video conferencing technology for witness examination and accused appearances, as far as possible. [Paras 9(iv), 20(vi)]

Stay on Proceedings – Direction to trial courts to proceed with trials notwithstanding any stay granted by High Courts unless a fresh order is passed extending the stay by recording reasons. Special Benches in High Courts to review and vacate stay orders, if necessary, to facilitate speedy trials. [Paras 9(iii), 20(v)]

Allocation of Cases and Infrastructure – Responsibility on Principal District and Sessions Judges to allocate cases effectively and ensure sufficient infrastructure and technological support for designated courts. [Paras 20(iii), 20(vi)]

Disposal of Writ Petition – Writ Petition disposed of with respect to the first prayer for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs. Matter to be listed for hearing on the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. [Paras 21-22]

Murder and Political Rivalry – Conviction of Madan under Sections 302, 148, 449 of IPC – Incident involving indiscriminate firing due to political rivalry leading to six deaths – Madan along with other accused found guilty of firing at victims, resulting in immediate deaths and subsequent fatalities [Paras 2.1-2.16, 26-29, 32-34, 36-37].

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Reliance on testimonies of four key witnesses (Lokendra (PW-1), Irshad Khan (PW-7), Harpal Singh (PW-10), and Sudhir (PW-11)) – Consistency in witness accounts despite cross-examination, establishing the involvement of Madan and co-accused in the brutal killings [Paras 28-30, 32-34, 36-37].

Motivation for Crime – Political enmity as the driving force behind the murders – Previous electoral rivalry cited as a motive for the indiscriminate firing and murders [Paras 30-31, 44].

Nature of Crime and Sentencing – Heinous nature of crime involving multiple murders in a public place – Trial court's award of capital punishment, with High Court commuting Sudesh Pal’s sentence to life imprisonment but maintaining Madan’s death penalty – Supreme Court commuting Madan’s death sentence to 20 years of imprisonment without remission [Paras 57-78].

Judicial Discretion in Sentencing – Supreme Court’s application of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine – Consideration of mitigating factors such as the possibility of reformation, age, and conduct of Madan in prison, leading to commutation of death penalty [Paras 58-77].

Civil Appeal – Interpretation of Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) – Dispute regarding capacity charges and energy charges under the PPA – Whether the appellant is liable to pay fixed capacity charges based on capacity declarations made on RLNG by the first respondent – Appellant's argument based on the need for prior approval under Clause 5.9 of the PPA – Examination of contractual provisions and the intention of the parties – Capacity charges treated as fixed charges under the PPA not subject to the appellant's consent – Commercial document interpreted in line with the original purpose and intent of the parties – Deviation from plain contract terms not warranted in the circumstances – Appeal dismissed. [Para 20-39]