Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Spectrum as Asset – Whether amenable to CIRP – Core Issue – Question whether TSPs can invoke moratorium under IBC to restructure spectrum usage rights and wipe off licence dues – Held: Spectrum allocated to TSPs and reflected as “intangible asset” in books of account cannot be subjected to proceedings under IBC – IBC cannot be guiding principle for restructuring ownership and control of spectrum [Paras 1–1.2, 69(A)].

Natural Resources – Spectrum – Public Trust Doctrine – Spectrum recognised as scarce and finite natural resource – Ownership vests in people of India with Union holding it as trustee – Allocation must subserve common good under Article 39(b) – Licence confers only limited, conditional and revocable privilege – No proprietary interest transferred to TSPs [Paras 13–17, 24].

Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 4 – Exclusive Privilege of Union – Central Government has exclusive privilege to establish and license telecommunication systems – Licence is statutory contract emanating from sovereign power – Conditions including licence fee and spectrum usage charges integral to privilege – Failure to comply empowers suspension or termination – Control always retained by Licensor [Paras 18–19, 32–36].

Spectrum Trading Guidelines, 2015 – Regulatory Supremacy – Trading subject to prior approval and mandatory clearance of dues – Defaulting licensee cannot transfer spectrum without compliance with Guidelines 10, 11 and 12 – Insolvency process cannot override statutory and regulatory conditions governing spectrum transfer – IBC cannot substitute telecom regulatory approvals [Paras 26–30].

Accounting Treatment – Intangible Asset – Ownership Distinguished – Recognition of spectrum usage rights as “intangible asset” under AS 26/Ind AS 38 based on control and future economic benefits – Accounting recognition does not equate to ownership or transfer of title – Ownership not essential for accounting asset but essential under Sections 18 and 36 IBC – Spectrum remains property of Union [Paras 47–58].

IBC – Sections 18 and 36 – Assets of Corporate Debtor – Only assets over which corporate debtor has ownership rights fall within CIRP/liquidation estate – Explanation excludes assets owned by third party held under contractual arrangement without transfer of title – Spectrum licence does not create ownership rights – Hence excluded from insolvency pool [Paras 60–63].

Harmonious Construction – IBC vis-à-vis Telecom Laws – Where two special statutes operate, Court must reconcile – Telecom laws constitute complete code governing allocation, use and transfer of spectrum – IBC cannot trench upon sovereign and statutory powers relating to natural resources – Applying IBC to restructure spectrum would disturb legislative scheme – Embassy Property applied [Paras 64–68].

Moratorium – Section 14 IBC – Limited Scope – Moratorium preserves status quo but does not create new rights – Cannot be invoked to compel renewal, transfer or continuation of statutory licence contrary to governing law – Insolvency proceedings cannot neutralise sovereign control over natural resources [Paras 65, 67].

Operational Debt – DoT Dues – Though NCLAT treated licence dues as operational debt, Supreme Court clarified that spectrum itself cannot form insolvency asset – Regulatory dues arising from sovereign grant cannot be wiped off through CIRP – Insolvency cannot be used as device to evade statutory obligations [Paras 9, 67–68].

Statutory Interpretation – Dominant Purpose Test – IBC intended for insolvency resolution and value maximisation of corporate debtor – Telegraph Act, TRAI Act and Wireless Telegraphy Act govern telecom sector exclusively – Distinct subjects and purposes – IBC cannot override telecom regulatory regime merely by broad reading of “asset” or Section 238 [Paras 66–68].

Decision: Civil Appeal Nos. 1810, 2227, 2263, 4570 and 4571 of 2021 dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 6546 of 2021 filed by Union of India allowed in part – Spectrum allocated to TSPs cannot be subjected to IBC proceedings – Parties to bear own costs [Para 69].

Constitution of India – Article 32 – Right to Speedy Justice – Petition by victim’s legal heir alleging prolonged delay in pronouncement of judgment in criminal revisions pending before High Court – Judgment reserved in revisions since 05.02.2020 but not pronounced – Consequential stay stalled trial arising out of murder case of 1994 – Held: Although Supreme Court ordinarily does not supervise listing or functioning of High Courts, extraordinary intervention may be warranted where prolonged inaction results in infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 – Delay in adjudication affecting criminal justice process considered serious constitutional concern [Paras 3, 6].

Constitution of India – Article 139A – Withdrawal of cases from High Court – Power of Supreme Court to withdraw proceedings involving substantial questions of general importance – Court held that continued pendency of criminal revisions and non-pronouncement of judgment despite earlier directions of Supreme Court raised issues relating to enforcement of constitutional guarantees and administration of criminal justice – Held: Appropriate to withdraw pending criminal revisions from Allahabad High Court for adjudication by Supreme Court to ensure effective and time-bound resolution [Paras 4–8].

Criminal Law – Withdrawal of prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Trial court partly allowed application for withdrawal of prosecution against one accused and rejected withdrawal against remaining accused – Revisions filed by accused pending before High Court since 2012 – Supreme Court earlier in Criminal Appeal No.2914/2024 set aside withdrawal of prosecution for one accused and directed reconsideration of remaining revisions – Non-disposal of revisions despite such direction necessitated intervention [Paras 7–8].

Criminal Justice Administration – Delay in adjudication – Impact on trial – Court noted that stay operating in criminal revisions effectively stalled trial arising from incident dated 30.05.1994 for decades – Held: Such prolonged stagnation undermines credibility of criminal justice system and prejudices victims and prosecution alike – Supreme Court exercised constitutional powers to restore effectiveness of adjudicatory process [Paras 6–8].

Judicial Discipline – Binding effect of Supreme Court judgments – Court emphasized that directions issued in earlier judgment must be implemented in light of Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution – Withdrawal of pending revisions ensured proper implementation of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling [Para 7].

Decision: Notice issued. In exercise of powers under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution, Criminal Revision Nos. 1678/2012, 1874/2012 and 1900/2012 pending before the Allahabad High Court withdrawn to the Supreme Court for disposal and tagged with the present writ petition. Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court directed to transmit complete records within three weeks.

Service Law - Armed Forces – Disability Pension – Broad Banding – Arrears – Limitation – Conflicting decisions of Armed Forces Tribunal regarding restriction of arrears to three years – Supreme Court held that once entitlement to broad banding of disability pension stood judicially affirmed in Union of India v. Ram Avtar (2014), arrears cannot be curtailed by invoking limitation, delay or laches – Benefit payable from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable [Paras 8, 23; ].

Pension – Nature of Right – Disability Pension – Not bounty or largesse – Deferred compensation and vested right – Pensionary benefits partake character of property – Any deprivation of accrued arrears without authority of law violates Article 300A – Disability pension recognises sacrifice in service of nation [Paras 15, 19; ].

Judgment in Rem – Ram Avtar (2014) – Three-Judge Bench decision extending broad banding to personnel retiring on completion of tenure – Held: Judgment is in rem – Union of India ought to have extended benefit uniformly instead of compelling ex-servicemen to litigate individually – Rights crystallised on 10.12.2014 [Paras 13–16; ].

Policy Decision – Government Communications – Letters dated 15.09.2014, 18.04.2016 and 10.10.2018 reflected conscious policy decision to grant arrears from 01.01.1996/01.01.2006 – Having taken policy decision with financial concurrence, Union of India cannot resile and restrict arrears to three years – Selective application impermissible [Paras 17–19; ].

Limitation and Section 22 AFT Act – Continuing/Recurring Right – Claims for re-computation of disability pension not barred – Right to approach Tribunal accrued only after decision in Ram Avtar – Objections founded on delay and limitation held without merit – Tarsem Singh distinguished [Paras 21–22; ].

Recurring Cause of Action – Disability pension being a continuing entitlement, once found due, arrears must flow from date of accrual – Benefit cannot be confined to three years preceding application [Paras 20–21; ].

Decision: Appeals filed by Union of India dismissed – Appeals filed by ex-servicemen allowed – Orders of Tribunal restricting arrears to three years set aside – Ex-servicemen held entitled to disability pension with benefit of broad banding from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as applicable, along with interest @ 6% per annum – No order as to costs.

Bail – Annulment of Bail Order – Suppression of Criminal Antecedents – Organised Educational Fraud – Accused allegedly fabricated and used forged LL.B. degree to project himself as advocate and appeared before Courts – High Court granted bail relying on disputed documents forming subject matter of prosecution and ignored categorical communications from University denying affiliation and issuance of degree – Multiple FIRs across States suppressed – Held: Bail order perverse, vitiated by non-application of mind and non-consideration of material facts – Bail liable to be annulled without waiting for supervening circumstances [Paras 12–19, 23–27, 31–33].

Bail Jurisprudence – Distinction between Appeal against Grant of Bail and Cancellation for Post-Bail Conduct – Appellate Court examines legality and correctness of bail order at inception – Supervening circumstances relevant in cancellation, not in appeal against grant – If order based on irrelevant considerations or ignores gravity, antecedents and societal impact, interference warranted [Paras 14–18].

Criminal Antecedents – Duty of Full and Candid Disclosure – Accused concealed pendency of nine FIRs and made inconsistent statements regarding criminal history and professional status – Suppression of material facts amounts to abuse of process and fraud on Court – Discretionary relief such as bail cannot be secured by concealment – Bail vitiated where grant influenced by incomplete disclosure [Paras 31, 42–44].

Educational Fraud – Impact on Legal Profession and Administration of Justice – Allegations not confined to personal use but indicate systematic racket for fabrication and circulation of forged academic degrees – Impersonation as advocate undermines institutional integrity and public confidence – Existence of family dispute does not dilute gravity of allegations having wider societal ramifications [Paras 22, 25–26, 32].

Transfer of Investigation – Special Agency – Chargesheet Filed – No Exceptional Circumstances – Investigation completed and cognizance taken – No material to show bias, mala fides or involvement of high officials – Transfer to CBI/special agency permissible only in rare and exceptional cases – Prayer declined – Existing directions of Supreme Court regarding verification of law degrees by Bar Council and High-Level Committee noted [Paras 34–41].

Disclosure Framework in Bail Applications – Recommendatory Guidelines – Court emphasised mandatory disclosure of prior bail applications, criminal antecedents, custody details, stage of trial and coercive processes – Suggested structured disclosure format to ensure transparency and prevent abuse of process – Directed circulation of judgment to Registrar Generals of all High Courts for consideration of appropriate Rules [Paras 42–50].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025 set aside – Bail granted to Respondent No. 2 cancelled – Respondent directed to surrender before jurisdictional Court within two weeks – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously – Prayer for transfer of investigation to special agency rejected – Judgment directed to be circulated to all High Courts and District Judiciary.

Service Law - Payment of Gratuity Act – Definition of “Employee” – Exclusion Clause – Section 2(e) – Employees holding civil posts under Central Government and governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 claimed gratuity under PG Act – Held: Exclusionary limb of Section 2(e) expressly excludes persons holding posts under Central Government and governed by any other Act or Rules providing gratuity – Such employees do not fall within ambit of “employee” under PG Act [Paras 12–12.1, 13].

Jurisdictional Fact – Determination of Status of Establishment – Applicability of PG Act depends on existence of foundational facts – HWP not incorporated under Companies Act, not a PSU, not a Government Company – Functions as adjunct/ancillary unit of Department of Atomic Energy under Atomic Energy Act, 1962 – Held: HWP is part of Central Government establishment – Employees hold civil posts under Union – Jurisdictional fact excludes applicability of PG Act [Paras 10, 13].

Atomic Energy Act – Section 3 – Central Government’s Power – Central Government empowered to carry out atomic energy functions directly or through authority/corporation/government company – Heavy Water Projects Board constituted by Office Memorandum only to manage projects – Does not create separate legal entity – Functional autonomy does not alter character as government department [Paras 4, 12.1, 13].

Interpretation of Statute – “Means” and “Does Not Include” – Coupling of exhaustive definition with express exclusion – Where statute uses “means” and “does not include”, exclusion is strict and categorical – Persons governed by other gratuity-providing Rules stand excluded without further inquiry – Sections 5 (Exemption) and 14 (Overriding Effect) not attracted once exclusion applies [Paras 12–13].

Distinction from MCD Case – Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash Sharma distinguished – In MCD, employees were of a corporate body which adopted CCS Rules – In present case, employees are Central Government servants ab initio – Ratio not applicable [Paras 11].

Estoppel and Dual Benefits – Employees having accepted gratuity under CCS (Pension) Rules cannot claim parallel benefit under PG Act – Cannot claim benefits under two different statutory regimes for same purpose when specifically excluded [Paras 7(iv), 9].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – Judgment of High Court upheld – Employees of Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy, are excluded from definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Sections 5 and 14 of PG Act not attracted – No interference warranted.

Judicial Review – Disposal on Single Point – Duty to Decide All Material Issues – High Court remanded matter to Tribunal solely on issue of authorization of Secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings – Failed to consider other substantial issues including breach of natural justice and justification of Tribunal’s findings – Held: When multiple issues arise, Court must record findings with reasons on each – Decision focusing only on one decisive point vitiates order – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration [Paras 8–10].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice – Denial of Opportunity to Cross-Examine – Appellant contended that cross-examination of main management witness was abruptly closed and opportunity to examine other witnesses denied – Such contention required adjudication by High Court – Failure to examine this plea amounted to fundamental flaw in writ adjudication [Paras 5, 8].

Remand – Improper Exercise of Jurisdiction – High Court quashed Tribunal’s order granting reinstatement and consequential benefits without comprehensive consideration of claims and defences – Supreme Court set aside impugned orders (writ and review) and remanded writ petition for fresh decision on all issues [Paras 4, 10].

Superannuation – Relief – Appellant having attained age of superannuation – Reinstatement no longer viable – Primary issues before High Court on remand: (i) whether Tribunal justified in interfering with disciplinary action and (ii) whether appellant entitled to back wages and retiral benefits if employer’s action found unsustainable [Para 11].

Appellate Guidance – Reasoned Decisions – Comprehensive adjudication ensures clarity, finality and assists appellate review – Fragmented consideration undermines litigants’ rights to complete adjudication [Para 9].

Mediation – Liberty granted to parties to explore mediated settlement notwithstanding absence of settlement before Supreme Court [Para 14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders dated 05.09.2024 (writ) and 25.09.2024 (review) set aside – Writ petition remanded to Bombay High Court for fresh consideration within four months – All questions of fact and law kept open – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 10, 12–16].

Service Law - Departmental Enquiry – Charge of Forgery – Fabrication of Medical Certificate – Appellant dismissed for allegedly submitting fabricated medical certificate to justify absence – Doctor admitted that appellant consulted him and received tablets – Letterhead and rubber stamp belonged to doctor – Disputed and undisputed signatures not conclusively compared – No handwriting expert consulted – Held: Finding of fabrication perverse and based on no credible evidence – Charge of forgery not proved [Paras 29–36, 39–40].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Proceedings – Scope of Interference – Though Court does not sit as appellate authority, interference warranted where findings are perverse or based on no evidence – If on available material no reasonable person could have reached such conclusion, writ court and Supreme Court can interfere – Parameters reiterated [Paras 43].

Graver the Charge – Greater the Caution – Allegation of forgery entails serious civil consequences including mandatory dismissal under Rules – In case of fully handwritten disputed document, prudence required verification of disputed and admitted signatures and reference to handwriting expert – Failure to adopt such course vitiates finding [Paras 32–36].

Natural Justice – Preliminary Statement of Doctor – Statement initially recorded behind back of appellant – Though Court refrained from ruling on validity of preliminary inquiry, emphasised need for fair play in disciplinary proceedings involving livelihood – Investigations must be consistent with gravity of consequences [Paras 36, 41].

Unauthorized Absence – Minor Lapse – Delay of 13 days in submitting explanation not unreasonable – Salary for period already deducted – First charge intrinsically linked with second and cannot independently sustain major penalty of dismissal [Paras 28, 41].

Perverse Findings – “No Evidence” Principle – Rubber stamp on disputed certificate identical to acknowledged documents – Undisputed signatures themselves not identical though broadly similar – In absence of conclusive material, acceptance of doctor’s denial without expert verification renders finding unsustainable [Paras 37–40].

Punishment – Dismissal from Service – Once core charge of forgery not established, mandatory dismissal clause under Rule 9(x) proviso not attracted – Previous minor penalty irrelevant when present charges fail [Paras 44].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court dated 12.02.2024 in W.P. No. 40486 of 2022 set aside – Order of dismissal dated 13.11.2018 and appellate order dated 08.01.2021 quashed – Appellant directed to be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and emoluments – Compliance directed within three weeks – No order as to costs.

Contempt Jurisdiction – Repeated “Consider/Reconsider” Directions – Appeal against interim order listing contempt petition for framing of charges – Multiple writ petitions resulted in successive remand orders directing authorities to “reconsider” claim for salary and creation of posts – Authorities repeatedly rejected claim citing Government policy ban – High Court continued to seek fresh affidavits in contempt proceedings without adjudicating legality of latest order dated 09.05.2025 – Held: In absence of clear and categorical direction establishing right and specific mode of compliance, initiation of contempt proceedings was misplaced – Parties must challenge substantive adverse order rather than invoke contempt for quick relief – Matter remitted with directions [Paras 12–18, 20].

Judicial Practice – “Consider Jurisprudence” – Courts routinely issuing directions to “consider” or “reconsider” claims without determining existence of enforceable right – Such practice termed counterproductive and harmful to system – Relief must follow where right is established – Constitutional remedies are not meant for academic discourse – Courts must issue clear, categorical and enforceable directions specifying manner of compliance – Avoidance or postponement of relief under guise of equity deprecated [Paras 14–16].

Contempt Proceedings – Scope and Limitations – Contempt cannot be used to circumvent appellate remedies – Where Government passed detailed order dated 09.05.2025 pursuant to High Court’s earlier directions, proper course was to challenge said order – High Court erred in proceeding with contempt without first examining validity of latest order – Contempt jurisdiction not a substitute for substantive adjudication [Paras 17–18].

Directions to High Court – Expeditious Disposal – Respondents permitted to challenge Government order dated 09.05.2025 by fresh writ petition – High Court directed to hear writ petition along with pending contempt proceedings – High Court shall first decide writ petition on merits – Not to remand matter again for reconsideration – If satisfied, to issue clear and categorical directions – If not, to dismiss with reasons – Matter to be assigned for final disposal by 30.04.2026 – Civil Appeal disposed of [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Civil Appeal disposed of with directions – High Court to adjudicate fresh writ petition on merits and avoid further remand – Contempt proceedings to be considered in light of final adjudication.

Criminal Law – Abuse of Process – Successive FIRs – Article 32 – Petitioners alleged repeated registration of FIRs by Anti-Corruption Bureau to nullify bail orders and keep Petitioner No.1 in custody – Court examined sequence of FIR No.9/2025, FIR No.11/2025, FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025 – Noted that subsequent FIRs were not disclosed when interim bail was granted – Held that successive registration prima facie intended to defeat bail and ensure continued custody – Such conduct amounts to abuse of criminal process and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 – Writ Petition maintainable under Article 32 [Paras 7-12].

Constitution of India – Article 32 – Scope and Maintainability – Power of Supreme Court as “heart and soul” of Constitution reiterated – Court will not refuse to entertain petition where prima facie violation of fundamental rights is established – Existence of alternative remedy of bail before High Court not absolute bar in exceptional circumstances of abuse of process – Intervention warranted to protect personal liberty [Paras 7-8].

Bail – Successive Remand Despite Supreme Court’s Interim Bail – After grant of interim bail on 17.12.2025, petitioner remanded in FIR No.458/2025 and FIR No.20/2025 – Magistrate granted custodial interrogation immediately after Supreme Court order – Conduct of prosecution indicated conscious attempt to keep accused in custody – Held petitioner entitled to be released forthwith on bail in FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025 [Paras 10-13].

Cooperation in Investigation – Meaning – Alleged non-cooperation cannot imply obligation to confess to suit prosecution – Cooperation does not mandate self-incriminatory statements – Prosecution’s plea of non-cooperation viewed with caution [Para 11].

Protection from Coercive Action – Petitioner No.2 not arrested – Court directed that no coercive steps be taken subject to cooperation with investigation – Balance struck between investigation and protection of liberty [Para 13].

Criminal Appeal – Bail under PC Act and IPC – Interim bail granted earlier by Supreme Court in FIR No.11/2025 – Chargesheet filed – State raised no objection to confirmation of bail – Held interim bail made absolute subject to conditions imposed by jurisdictional court including appearance and cooperation [Paras 4-7 of Criminal Appeal].

Decision: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.55 of 2026 allowed – Petitioner No.1 directed to be released forthwith on bail in FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025 – No coercive steps against Petitioner No.2 subject to cooperation – Rule made absolute.

Criminal Appeal No.815 of 2026 allowed – Interim bail granted on 17.12.2025 in FIR No.11/2025 made absolute subject to terms imposed by jurisdictional court.