Anticipatory Bail – Summoning under Section 319 CrPC – Effect of Closure Report Accepted by Court – Protection from Arrest by Supreme Court – Petitioner was named in FIR but Investigating Agency filed a Closure Report qua him – Closure Report accepted after notice to defacto-complainant and order attained finality – Petitioner was not sent for trial and charge-sheet filed only against co-accused – During trial, victim reiterated FIR allegations in her deposition and sought summoning of petitioner under Section 319 CrPC – Trial Court allowed application and summoned petitioner – Petitioner challenged summoning order before High Court and sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest – High Court declined anticipatory bail – Held: In peculiar facts where closure report had attained finality and summoning order is already under challenge before High Court, refusal of protection from arrest was unwarranted – Supreme Court directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail on conditions to be imposed by Investigating Officer [Paras 1–15].

Section 319 CrPC – Exercise of Power – Consequential Arrest – Judicial Discretion – Power under Section 319 invoked solely on basis of oral testimony of victim after acceptance of closure report – Summoning order under challenge and High Court is in-seisin of the matter – Supreme Court refrained from expressing any opinion on merits of summoning order – Interim protection granted to balance liberty of accused and interests of prosecution [Paras 8–14].

SC/ST Act – Anticipatory Bail – Supreme Court’s Power under Article 136 – Though offences under SC/ST Act involved and anticipatory bail declined by High Court – Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction to grant protective bail considering long pendency since 2018, earlier exoneration during investigation, and pendency of challenge to summoning order – Special Leave Petition disposed of with protective directions [Paras 10–16].

Decision: Special Leave Petition disposed of – In the event of arrest, petitioner to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by Investigating Officer – Petitioner to appear before Trial Court and furnish fresh bail – Continuance of trial against petitioner to abide by final outcome of proceedings pending before High Court – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Intention to Cause Alarm – Mere use of threatening words without intention to cause alarm does not constitute offence of criminal intimidation – Prosecution must prima facie establish intention to cause alarm irrespective of actual alarm caused – Vague and general allegations insufficient to sustain prosecution [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Improved Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Allegations against appellant absent in initial statement under Section 161 CrPC – Name of appellant surfaced after seven days through improved version in Section 164 statement – Such material improvement creates serious doubt about prosecution version – Proceedings based solely on such improved statement liable to be quashed [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Contradictions Between Section 161 and Section 164 CrPC Statements – Statement under Section 161 CrPC contained no allegation of threat by appellant – Subsequent Section 164 CrPC statement introduced vague reference to “uncle” allegedly threatening prosecutrix – Timing and contradiction weaken prosecution case at threshold stage [Paras 5–6].

Criminal Law – Vague Allegations – Abuse of Process – Vague reference to “an uncle” without specific role or overt act cannot disclose offence under Section 506 IPC – Criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on conjectures or generalized accusations unsupported by cogent material [Para 7].

Advocates – Professional Duty – Criminal Liability – Mere presence of an advocate or giving advice in professional capacity, absent foundational facts of intimidation or coercion, cannot amount to criminal intimidation – Criminal law cannot be set in motion to harass professionals without prima facie material [Para 7].

Inherent Powers / Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference at Threshold – Where uncontroverted allegations do not disclose commission of offence, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law – Appellate interference justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings set aside – FIR No. 389/2022 and consequential proceedings quashed qua the appellant alone – Proceedings to continue against other accused before jurisdictional trial court [Para 8].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Jurisdiction of State ACB Over Central Government Employees – Sections 17 and 22 of PC Act read with Section 156 of Cr.P.C. – SLP Dismissed – Whether State ACB is authorised to register and investigate PC Act offences against Central Government employees and whether a chargesheet filed without CBI's consent is valid – High Court held "it is incorrect to say that it is only the CBI who could have instituted the prosecution" – Held: "We find no error, not to speak of any error of law, in the impugned judgment" – SLP dismissed [Paras 2–12].

DSPE Act – Permissive in Nature – Does Not Oust State Police Jurisdiction – The DSPE Act "does not either expressly or by necessary implication divest the regular police authorities of their jurisdiction" – Held: The Act is "only permissive or empowering" enabling the DSPE to investigate without impairing any other law empowering police to investigate offences – Section 17 of PC Act does not "exclude or prevent the State Police or a Special Agency of the State from registering a crime" against Central Government employees [Paras 8–10].

Cr.P.C. – General Law of Investigation – Cannot Be Displaced Without Express Exclusion – "The Criminal Procedure Code is the parent statute and unless there is specific provision in another statute to indicate a different procedure, the provisions of Cr.P.C. cannot be displaced" – The PC Act being silent on a separate investigation procedure, Section 156 of Cr.P.C. prevails – Offences under the PC Act being cognizable, the State Police or VACB can investigate subject only to the rank restriction under Section 17 [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court's finding affirming State ACB jurisdiction to investigate PC Act offences against Central Government employees confirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Jurisdiction to Investigate – Central Government Employee – State Anti-Corruption Bureau – Question whether State ACB has authority to register FIR, investigate and file charge-sheet under the PC Act against a Central Government employee within the territorial jurisdiction of the State – Held: State ACB has jurisdiction to investigate offences under the PC Act even against Central Government employees – Jurisdiction not exclusive to CBI [Paras 2–5, 8].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 4 and 156 – General Power of Investigation – CrPC is the parent statute governing investigation and trial of offences – Unless special law expressly or impliedly excludes CrPC, provisions of CrPC continue to apply – PC Act does not exclude application of Section 156 CrPC – Any police officer in charge of a police station may investigate cognizable offences subject to statutory limitations [Paras 6–7].

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 17 – Persons Authorised to Investigate – Section 17 prescribes rank of police officer competent to investigate PC Act offences – No provision barring State Police or State Anti-Corruption Bureau from investigating offences against Central Government employees – Only requirement is compliance with rank and authorization prescribed under Section 17 [Paras 7–8].

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Scope and Effect – DSPE Act is enabling and permissive in nature – It empowers CBI to investigate specified offences but does not divest State Police of jurisdiction to investigate offences under other competent laws – Constitution of CBI does not create exclusive investigative domain [Paras 4–5, 9].

Anti-Corruption Bureau – State Police – Jurisdiction – VACB/ACB is a wing of State Police – PC Act offences are cognizable – State Police or ACB may investigate such offences provided officer is of requisite rank – Coordination between CBI and State agencies is administrative and not jurisdictional [Paras 8–9].

Precedent – Investigation by State Agency Against Central Government Employees – Reliance placed on A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration – Investigation by State agency upheld – DSPE Act does not exclude jurisdiction of regular police – High Court decisions of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh approving State police investigation against Central Government employees affirmed [Paras 9–10].

Special Leave Petition – Scope – No error of law found in judgment of High Court – View taken by High Court consistent with statutory scheme and binding precedents – Held: No ground made out for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Judgment of Rajasthan High Court upheld – State Anti-Corruption Bureau has jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Central Government employees without prior consent of CBI – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Direct Recruitment – Professor in Government Engineering Colleges – Applicability of AICTE Regulations – Advertisement dated 23.09.2015 issued by Gujarat Public Service Commission for direct recruitment under State Recruitment Rules – Candidate participated in interview-based selection and failed to secure minimum qualifying marks – Challenge raised post-selection invoking AICTE Career Advancement Scheme Regulations, 2012 – Held: AICTE Regulations are not recruitment rules but are confined to promotion and career advancement of incumbent or newly appointed faculty – They do not govern open competitive recruitment conducted by the State Commission – Division Bench erred in applying AICTE Regulations to initial appointment process [Paras 10–15].

Service Law – AICTE Act, 1987 – Scope and Object – Sections 10 and 23 – Power of AICTE to lay down norms and standards for technical education and career progression – Regulations framed to advance academic career and not to initiate entry into service – State Recruitment Rules and AICTE CAS Regulations operate in distinct and separate fields – No question of repugnancy or overriding arises in matters of initial recruitment [Paras 11–17].

Selection Process – Interview as Mode of Assessment – Validity – Advertisement and general guidelines expressly prescribed interview with minimum qualifying marks – Assessment carried out by expert committee – Candidate secured only 28 marks against prescribed 45 marks – No arbitrariness or illegality shown – Courts should not interfere with expert evaluation in recruitment matters [Paras 4, 6, 18].

Estoppel – Participation in Selection without Protest – Challenge after Failure – Settled principle reiterated that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of criteria cannot challenge the same after being declared unsuccessful – Invocation of a different regulatory framework post-failure impermissible – Reliance placed on Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Para 18].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Matters – Limited Scope – Courts do not make appointments – Recruitment concluded in 2015 cannot be reopened in 2025 on basis of inapplicable regulations – Academic merit and research credentials cannot override binding recruitment rules [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 20.08.2025 set aside – Recruitment process pursuant to advertisement dated 23.09.2015 upheld – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Panchayat Law – Removal of Sarpanch – Misuse of Authority – Award of Contracts to Husband's Firm – Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 – Petitioner-Sarpanch faced six charges of misuse of authority, including award of Panchayat contracts to a firm in which her husband was a partner – Charges held proved by the District Development Officer; appeal and writ petition dismissed concurrently – Held: Awarding contracts to one's own family member, even through public tender, constitutes misuse of position as Sarpanch where no separation between the spouses is shown on record – SLP dismissed [Paras 2–5, 19–20].

Disqualification Provisions – Section 30(1)(g), Gujarat Panchayats Act – Broad Interpretation – Financial Patronage – Section 30(1)(g) disqualifies a member who directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, has any share or interest in any contract with or on behalf of the Panchayat – Held: Too restrictive an interpretation of the disqualification clause would frustrate the very object for which it is incorporated in the statute – Disqualification provisions must be interpreted broadly to discourage financial patronage inherently beneficial to elected representatives – Virendrasing v. Additional Commissioner relied upon [Paras 11, 18].

Natural Justice – Non-Supply of Adverse Material – No Prejudice – Petitioner contended that a report called for by the District Development Officer from the Taluka Development Officer was not supplied to her before the removal order, violating principles of natural justice – High Court rejected the contention holding that the principal charge of awarding contracts to her husband was not denied and no prejudice was caused by non-supply of the additional material – Held: Principles of natural justice are not to be applied mechanically; where the ultimate decision is sustainable on the admitted position and no prejudice is caused, interference is not warranted [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Order of the High Court affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law - Public Employment – Pharmacist Recruitment – Essential Qualification – Diploma in Pharmacy – Validity of Cadre Rules Upheld – Appellants holding B.Pharma/M.Pharma challenged Rule 6(1) of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024) prescribing Diploma in Pharmacy as minimum qualification – Supreme Court held that fixation of eligibility criteria lies within exclusive domain of employer – Prescription of Diploma as essential qualification not arbitrary or unconstitutional – High Court’s view affirmed [Paras 41, 61–65].

Constitution of India – Article 309 – Rule-Making Power – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 can be struck down only on grounds of lack of competence or violation of fundamental rights – Courts cannot rewrite service rules or substitute employer’s policy with judicial opinion – State entitled to determine suitability of qualifications for public posts [Paras 50, 59].

Repugnancy – Central Legislation vs State Service Rules – Pharmacy Act, 1948 – No Conflict Found – Pharmacy Act and Pharmacy Practice Regulations govern professional education, standards and registration – Cadre Rules operate in field of public employment – Registration as Pharmacist does not confer right to public employment – No repugnancy between Cadre Rules and Central enactment [Paras 46–49].

Higher Qualification – Degree vs Diploma – Not Automatically Equivalent – Bachelor/Master of Pharmacy cannot be treated as higher qualification presupposing Diploma in Pharmacy – Diploma and Degree courses are distinct streams with different objectives and training – Lateral entry provision does not establish equivalence – State justified in treating Diploma as essential qualification [Paras 53–56, 62].

Equality – Articles 14 and 16 – Reasonable Classification – Diploma Holders as Separate Class – Classification based on Diploma qualification has intelligible differentia and rational nexus with object of effective public health delivery – Emphasis on compulsory hospital-based practical training for Diploma holders – No hostile discrimination or arbitrariness established [Paras 37–38, 61–64].

Minimum Qualification – Meaning of “Minimum” – Exclusion of Degree Holders Valid – Expression “minimum qualification” does not imply automatic inclusion of higher qualifications – In absence of specific rule permitting equivalence, higher qualification cannot be read into eligibility criteria – Note in Appendix-I validly requires degree holders to also possess Diploma [Paras 44–45, 53–55].

Judicial Precedents – Employer’s Discretion in Recruitment Policy Reaffirmed – Supreme Court relied on consistent line of authorities holding that prescription of qualifications is policy matter – Courts cannot expand eligibility by interpretative process – Decisions in Jyoti K.K., Zahoor Ahmad Rather, Anita, and others applied [Paras 51–60].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Constitutional validity of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 as amended in 2024 upheld – Contempt Petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Reservation – Public Employment – Migration of Reserved Category Candidates – Selection on Own Merit – Appointment Against Unreserved Posts – High Court Interference Set Aside – Recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) in Airport Authority of India – Reserved category candidates selected against unreserved posts on basis of higher or equal merit without availing any relaxation – High Court directed appointment of writ petitioner and reworking of roster – Supreme Court held that a reserved category candidate securing marks higher than or equal to general category candidates must be treated as an unreserved candidate – Appointment against unreserved post on own merit valid – High Court orders unsustainable [Paras 18, 27–34].

Reservation Roster – Nature and Purpose – Not a Tool for Selection – Reservation roster is a post-based administrative mechanism to monitor cadre strength and identify future vacancies – Roster comes into operation only after completion of selection and joining of candidates – Roster cannot be applied as a parallel or overriding selection mechanism – Division Bench erred in applying roster at the selection stage [Paras 19, 28–30].

Merit List – Inclusion of Reserved Category Candidates in Unreserved List – Legally Permissible – All candidates initially considered on merit – Reserved category candidates who did not avail any concession and outperformed general category candidates rightly included in unreserved list – Remaining candidates considered for respective reserved categories – Selection methodology upheld as consistent with DoPT instructions and settled law [Paras 27–31].

Reservation Law – Migration on Merit – Settled Legal Position Reaffirmed – Supreme Court relied upon Indra Sawhney, Saurav Yadav and Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav – Open category is not a quota but is open to all candidates irrespective of caste or category – Merit alone governs appointment to unreserved posts – Concept of “migration” clarified as merit-based adjustment and not conferment of double benefit [Paras 32–33].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits on Court’s Power – Courts should not interfere with recruitment conducted strictly as per rules and settled reservation principles – No vested right to appointment merely because reserved vacancies remain unfilled – High Court erred in directing appointment when all unreserved posts were filled strictly on merit [Paras 33–34].

Delay and Laches – Challenge to Selection – Though issue of delay was raised, Supreme Court decided the matter on merits in view of crystallised law governing migration and merit-based selection [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 allowed – Judgment of Single Judge and Division Bench of Kerala High Court set aside – Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12937 of 2021 dismissed – No order as to costs.

Service Tax – Event Management Service – Reverse Charge Mechanism – Classification of Service – Booking of Foreign Speakers for Leadership Summit – Demand of Service Tax Set Aside – Appellant conducted annual “Hindustan Times Leadership Summit” and engaged foreign speakers through international booking agents – Revenue sought to levy Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zu) treating booking agents as “event managers” – Tribunal upheld tax demand for normal limitation period – Supreme Court examined statutory definitions of “event management” and “event manager” – Held: Mere booking of speakers and facilitation of their appearance does not amount to planning, promotion, organizing or presentation of an event – Booking contracts were not event management contracts – Levy under “Event Management Service” unsustainable [Paras 21–41].

Taxation – Strict Interpretation of Charging Provisions – Scope of Taxing Statute – Court reiterated that taxing statutes must be strictly construed – If activity does not fall squarely within charging provision, tax cannot be imposed by inference or analogy – Revenue failed to establish that service in question falls within four corners of Section 65(105)(zu) – Benefit of strict interpretation goes to assessee [Paras 42–44].

Service Tax – Role of Booking Agents – Principal–Agent Relationship Irrelevant for Classification – Revenue focused on absence of principal–agent relationship between speakers and booking agents – Supreme Court held that such inquiry was irrelevant – Core issue was nature of service rendered – Booking of speakers for participation cannot be equated with management of the event itself – Participation in event is not management of event [Paras 39–41].

Circulars – Binding Nature – TRU Circular dated 08.08.2002 – Circular clarifies that event managers are engaged in managing venues, logistics, publicity, stage arrangements and overall execution of event – Booking agents performed none of these activities – Circular supports assessee’s contention and limits scope of taxable event management services [Paras 28, 43–44].

Service Tax – Classification Dispute – Manpower Recruitment or Supply Service – International Merchandising Case Distinguished – Appellant relied on International Merchandising Company LLC v. CST to argue alternative classification – Supreme Court held that while dual classification is impermissible, facts of present case are distinguishable – Nevertheless, even without reclassification, levy under event management fails on merits – Revenue cannot sustain demand merely by rejecting alternative classification [Paras 45(a)–(e)].

Interpretation – Common Parlance Test – Meaning of Event Management – Applying common parlance test, Court held that event management is ordinarily understood as comprehensive organization and execution of events – Individual contracts for booking speakers are not commonly understood as event management – Supports exclusion of impugned service from taxable category [Paras 46–48].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment of CESTAT dated 31.08.2017 set aside – Demand of Service Tax under “Event Management Service” quashed – No Service Tax payable on booking of speakers for Leadership Summit.