Detention Order Challenge - Respondent challenges the detention order claiming no imminent bail threat, which was accepted by the High Court but contested in Supreme Court - The High Court quashed the detention based on solitary ground case involvement and absence of bail application, determining a lack of real or imminent threat of release that could jeopardize state security - Supreme Court disagreed, citing preventive detention's broad scope and discretionary application [Paras 2-4].

Supreme Court's Assessment - Emphasized the broad and preventive scope of detention laws - Detention justified by potential future actions not solely past crimes; detention standards reiterated from prior judgments such as Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal and Others - Supreme Court finds the High Court misapplied the principle by focusing on the number of incidents rather than the potential future threat posed by the detenu [Paras 13-17].

Duration and Execution of Detention Order - Discussed whether to enforce remaining detention period post High Court's quashing - Noted the lengthy interval since initial detention and legal developments during intervening period; court suggests reconsideration by the detaining authority rather than automatic continuation of detention [Paras 18-22].

Decision: The appeal is allowed; the High Court's order quashing the detention order is set aside, with the direction for the detaining authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with law, considering the elapsed time and other relevant factors.

Bank Employment - Seniority Dispute - Appellants, originally from MMGS-II, moved horizontally to the Specialist Cadre as Electronic Data Processors in 1997 - Promotees from JMGS-I, who entered MMGS-II in 1997, claimed superior seniority over the appellants, despite appellants' earlier date of MMGS-II appointment in 1996 - Seniority, under Regulation 18 of the 1982 Regulations, is determined by the date of appointment in the respective grade or scale - Horizontal appointees (Appellants) held senior to vertical promotees as per the said regulation, despite contrary claims based on a 2002 Government Circular - Court affirmed the appellants' seniority due to earlier entry into MMGS-II and directed their consideration for further promotion - [Paras 1-9]

Decision - The appeals by the appellants are allowed, affirming their seniority and directing their prompt consideration for promotion to MMGS-III - The appeal by Punjab and Sind Bank is dismissed, rejecting their claim based on the 2002 Government Circular - [Para 9]

Interpretation of Legislation – Cable operator running private channels deemed not within the purview of "Exhibition by means of Video" as defined in U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, under which he was charged a significant license fee – Supreme Court holds that the provisions of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition by means of Video) Rules, 1988 are inapplicable to the Respondent's operations, which involve telecasting through cable and not public exhibitions [Paras 3-14]

Legal Obligations of Cable Operators – Respondent registered under Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and complies with sections relating to cable service operation – Not subject to video exhibition rules under the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, thereby exempting him from additional fees for private channels [Paras 6, 10, 14]

Judicial Review – High Court's quashing of license fee demand upheld – District Magistrate's interpretation of "video exhibition" rejected as extending beyond statutory definition – Implication being that cable services and private channel operations do not equate to public video exhibitions as intended under the act [Paras 12-16]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed as the Supreme Court found no legal basis for imposing the disputed license fee, affirming the High Court's decision. There shall be no order as to costs - Application for intervention allowed [Para 16-17].

Criminal Law - Murder and Assault – Conviction upheld by the Supreme Court for appellant (accused No. 1), despite the acquittal of co-accused on similar charges – Trial and High Court convictions based on ocular testimonies and forensic evidence – Examination of injuries and weapons consistent with the charges, particularly, the use of lathis resulting in compound fractures – Credibility of eyewitnesses and their testimonies underlined the appellant’s active participation in the attack leading to a homicide - The High Court's detailed analysis confirmed by the Supreme Court, dismissing the parity argument presented for acquittal - Accused No. 1’s role distinguished from acquitted co-accused based on specific evidence of his involvement in the initial attack and subsequent actions as noted in the first intimation report [Paras 1-14].

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment - Accused No. 1 is directed to surrender and serve the remaining life sentence, emphasizing the court's ability to differentiate individual roles and culpability among co-accused, leading to a rejection of the parity argument in this context [Paras 12-14].

Issue and Background – Data Entry Operators, previously appointed under various designations within Electronic Data Processing, sought reclassification and pay scale upgrades based on the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and subsequent organizational restructure by Government of India Office Memorandums in 1989 and rules framed under the Constitution - The contention centered on whether such employees are entitled to higher pay scales retroactively based on their qualifications and roles.

Tribunal and High Court Decisions – Various Central Administrative Tribunal benches and High Courts provided contradictory rulings on the entitlement to upgraded pay scales, with some granting higher scales retroactively and others denying such claims - Appeals were made to the Supreme Court against these decisions.

Supreme Court Judgment – The Court reviewed the classifications, qualifications, pay scales, and recruitment rules involved, ultimately ruling that reclassification does not entitle an automatic upgrade to higher pay scales unless specified by government orders - The Court emphasized that differences in pay scales based on educational qualifications and responsibilities do not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution - The Supreme Court set aside the orders that granted pay scale upgrades not aligned with government stipulations. [Paras 22-33]

Principle of Equal Pay – The Court reiterated the principle that 'equal pay for equal work' is not mechanically applicable and must consider qualifications, responsibilities, and recruitment rules - Reliance on cases such as Mew Ram Kanojia vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India was highlighted to support the decision. [Paras 29-31]

Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution - Public Servant's Protection - Appeals against High Court's decision to quash prosecution orders for lack of valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and CrPC - High Court upheld that without valid sanction, cognizance of offenses could not be taken against the respondent who was a public servant both during and post-service - Supreme Court affirms that once sanction is refused while the public servant is in service, prosecution post-retirement is also untenable unless new facts emerge after retirement - Held, no merit in appeals, dismissed - Upholds the principle that lack of sanction precludes prosecution, stressing the importance of timely and reasoned decision-making in sanctioning processes to uphold public confidence and rule of law. [Paras 1-27]

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision highlights the critical role of proper sanction in the prosecution of public servants and underscores the judiciary's stance on protecting the rights of the accused against unwarranted prosecution, particularly in corruption cases. The case reinforces legal precedents concerning the necessity of sanction and the implications of its absence, ensuring adherence to the rule of law and due process.

Regulatory Compliance with Cigarettes Act and Rules – Various appeals from Mumbai, Chennai, and Ahmedabad contesting circulars/notices issued by Municipal Corporations regulating smoking areas in public places like hotels and restaurants - High Courts upheld these regulations, but appellants argued these exceed the scope of the Cigarettes Act and Rules [Paras 1-4]

Legal Interpretation of Smoking Regulations – Supreme Court scrutinized whether the impugned circular dated 4th July, 2011, and similar regulations from other cities merely implement or exceed the Cigarettes Act and Rules - Conditions like prohibiting sale of tobacco products within licensed premises, restrictions on hookah usage, and specifications on dimensions of smoking areas were challenged [Paras 6-7, 13-20]

Decision – Supreme Court found specific provisions of the circulars ultra vires to the Cigarettes Act - Provisions prohibiting the sale of tobacco in licensed premises and the usage of hookahs were struck down - Dimension requirements for smoking areas upheld - All appeals allowed partially [Paras 22-27]

Jurisdiction and Precedent – Revisiting the Supreme Court's decision – Appeal arising due to High Court's allowance of writ petition challenging reversion orders based on reservation in promotions – High Court's decision found contrary to Supreme Court's earlier decision which ruled no reservation in promotions – Supreme Court reasserts that lower courts must follow its decisions unless overruled or distinguished – High Court found to err by setting aside reversion orders which were in compliance with Supreme Court's precedent – Original judgment and subsequent reversion orders upheld. [Paras 1-20]

Employment and Cooperative Societies – Application of reservation policies – South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society had initially applied reservation in promotions, leading to legal challenges and reversion orders – Supreme Court maintains its stance that reservation policies were not applicable to promotions within the Society, as decided in earlier judgment, thus upholding reversion of employees promoted through reservation. [Paras 3-6, 19]

Judicial Overreach – High Court's decision to allow promotions despite Supreme Court's clear ruling considered an overreach and misinterpretation of the principle of stare decisis and Article 141 of the Constitution – Supreme Court criticizes the High Court for its judgment that disregarded Supreme Court's binding decision. [Paras 16-18]

Decision: The Supreme Court sets aside the judgment of the High Court, reinstating the original judgment and reversion orders – Appeal allowed with no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal - Challenge raised after submission of statement of defence - Whether permissible under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The Tribunal constituted under the Act held fully competent to adjudicate the dispute as per the contractual agreement - High Court’s decision allowing amendment to challenge jurisdiction after initial submission overturned - Emphasis on preventing delay and misuse of procedural rights in arbitration - [Paras 2, 10-18].

Jurisdictional Objections - Requirement to raise before or at submission of statement of defence under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 - High Court's allowance of amendment to include jurisdictional objections years after the award considered contrary to statutory mandates - Supreme Court clarifies limitations on raising jurisdictional objections beyond the specified stage to ensure procedural efficiency and fairness in arbitration - [Paras 12-16].

Public Policy and Jurisdiction - Argument that jurisdictional challenge relates to public policy rejected - Public policy under Section 34 related to the broader national context, not specific state legislation conflicts - Clarification of the scope of public policy in arbitral disputes - [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Amendment application allowing jurisdictional challenge set aside - High Court's judgment and order reversed - No order as to costs.