State Definition – Article 12 – Appellant contested being classified as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution – Supreme Court upheld that Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd., a government company with pervasive government control, is a State for purposes of Article 12 – Company is subject to writ jurisdiction [Paras 1-27].

Employment Termination – Unconscionable Clauses – Supreme Court held that Clause 11(a) of the appointment letter allowing termination without cause is unconscionable and violates Article 14 of the Constitution – Such a hire-and-fire policy is unjust and arbitrary [Paras 28-29].

Public Authority – Criteria and Control – Court applied criteria including administrative, financial, and functional control by the government to determine that the company operates as a public authority – Factors such as monopoly status, government directives, and government-appointed directors indicated significant government control [Paras 6-17, 27].

Judicial Review – Public Character and Unfair Terms – Supreme Court emphasized that public authorities cannot impose unfair or unreasonable contract terms – Actions bearing public character and public interest are subject to judicial review – Employment terms must be equitable and just [Paras 19-20].

Subsequent Developments – Impact on Rights – Court considered the impact of subsequent developments on rights and remedies, emphasizing the need for just and updated relief based on current circumstances [Para 20].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Orders of the High Court upheld – Respondents entitled to arrears of wages, terminal benefits, and statutory entitlements – Terms and conditions in employment contracts to be non-arbitrary and equitable [Paras 28-30].

Substitution of Legal Representatives – Exemption under Order 22 Rule 4(4) – Appellant challenged abatement of suit for not substituting legal representatives of a deceased defendant – Trial court dismissed the suit, but First Appellate Court and High Court reversed, finding exemption applicable – Supreme Court affirms, holding that substitution was unnecessary as the deceased was ex parte [Paras 1-11].

Amendment History – Order 22 Rule 4(4) – Historical context of the 1976 amendment to CPC discussed – Legislative intent to expedite proceedings by exempting substitution for non-contesting defendants emphasized – Courts below rightly exercised exemption to prevent abatement [Paras 5-9].

Contempt Petitions – Allegations of contempt between parties – Supreme Court finds no merit in contempt petitions, dismissing them while urging focus on merits of the main suit [Paras 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Abatement set aside – Suit to proceed on merits – Contempt petitions dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Evidence for Framing Charges – Appeal concerning whether depositions recorded under Chapter XV CrPC before Magistrate's cognizance constitute evidence for framing charges under Chapter XIX – Magistrate’s initial enquiry found the dispute civil, but dissatisfaction led to issuing process under Section 202 CrPC – High Court’s erroneous consideration of Chapter XV depositions as evidence for framing charges [Paras 1-12].

Right to Cross-Examination – Essential for Fair Trial – Accused entitled to cross-examine witnesses under Section 244 CrPC – Evidence recorded in presence of accused necessary for framing charges – High Court wrongly assumed opportunity for cross-examination existed at initial stage [Paras 13-19].

Judicial Interpretation – Section 246 CrPC – Requires framing charges based on evidence presented in the presence of accused – Cross-examination crucial to ensure reliability and fairness – Precedents affirm accused’s right to cross-examine before charge framing [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Sessions Judge order restored – Costs imposed on Respondent No. 2-company to be deposited in SCBA Lawyers' Welfare Fund within two weeks [Para 24].

Regulatory Compliance – SEBI Regulations – Respondent's application for registration as CRA rejected by SEBI for not providing audited annual accounts of promoters – SAT directed SEBI to reconsider application without requiring two additional years’ accounts – SEBI’s appeal focuses on regulatory interpretation and the necessity of audited accounts for verifying net worth [Paras 1-14].

Eligibility Criteria – Audited Accounts – Regulation 4(e) and Form A require evidence of continuous net worth of Rs. 100 crores – SAT ruled Chartered Accountant’s certificate sufficient, SEBI contended that audited accounts are necessary – SEBI Act and CRA Regulations mandate strict adherence to criteria [Paras 15-23].

SEBI’s Authority – Verification of Information – SEBI's right to request further information or clarification under Regulation 7 – Court upholds SEBI's authority to seek audited accounts for proper assessment – Delay in rejection of application beyond regulatory timelines addressed [Paras 24-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – SAT order upheld – SEBI to process Respondent’s application based on existing submissions, including audited accounts for additional years – Costs not imposed [Paras 29-30].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Imposition of Penalties – Appeal concerns whether the disciplinary authority's order imposing two major penalties on the respondent was in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Rules – High Court found the imposition of two major penalties impermissible – Appeal addresses the interpretation of Rules 9 and 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Rules [Paras 1-14].

Amendment of Rules – Retrospective Effect – Consideration of whether amended rules have retrospective effect – Respondent argued that disciplinary proceedings initiated under unamended rules should not impose penalties as per amended rules – Court examined whether amendment should be considered retrospective [Paras 15-27].

Accrued Rights – Vested Rights in Service Jurisprudence – Analysis of whether the respondent had vested or accrued rights under unamended rules – Court examined the distinction between penalties under unamended and amended rules – Impact of amendments on disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to amendment [Paras 28-45].

Judicial Precedents – Examination of relevant case law on retrospective application of rules and imposition of penalties – References to Supreme Court judgments on vested rights and penal consequences in service law [Paras 46-50].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court orders set aside – Order of punishment imposed by disciplinary authority restored – No costs [Paras 51-52].

Criminal Law – Extra-Judicial Confession – Appeal questions the validity of appellant's conviction for murder based on an extra-judicial confession – Appellant argued confession was improbable, unsupported, and uncorroborated – Courts below found confession voluntary and truthful [Paras 1-4].

Legal Standards – Admissibility of Extra-Judicial Confession – Established that an extra-judicial confession can support a conviction if voluntary and truthful – Courts must cautiously approach such evidence, seeking corroboration as a measure of abundant caution – Judicial precedents affirm that corroboration, though not always necessary, enhances credibility [Paras 5-7].

Case Analysis – Corroborative Evidence – Examination of prosecution’s evidence, including the extra-judicial confession recorded by the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), medical evidence, and depositions of other witnesses – Confession found reliable and corroborated by medical evidence indicating drowning as the cause of death and by other witness testimonies [Paras 8-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Confession found voluntary, truthful, and sufficiently corroborated – No miscarriage of justice identified [Para 19].

Leave to Appeal – Requirement of Reasoned Orders – Appeal concerns the High Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal without providing reasons – Emphasized the obligation of courts to give reasons when denying leave, ensuring clarity and demonstrating application of mind – Court reiterated that absence of reasons renders orders unsustainable [Paras 1-5].

Judicial Precedents – Consistency in Providing Reasons – Examination of precedents where Supreme Court insisted on reasoned orders – Highlighted that cryptic orders with mere statements of non-infirmity in trial court judgments are insufficient – Courts must address prima facie case or arguable points while granting or denying leave [Paras 6-12].

Restoration and Remand – Appeal allowed due to lack of reasoning in the High Court’s order – Matter remitted to the High Court for a reasoned decision on the grant or refusal of leave – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Case remanded to High Court to pass a reasoned order regarding the grant or refusal of leave [Para 13].

Judicial Appointment – Verification of Antecedents – Appeal concerns non-appointment of appellant as Civil Judge due to alleged links with CPI (Maoist) – Initial report mentioned appellant’s husband’s alleged links, later reports implicated appellant directly – Appellant denied allegations and alleged false implications due to her husband’s legal practice defending political prisoners [Paras 1-11].

Role of Advocates – Protection under Article 22(1) – Discussed the duty of advocates to represent clients, including those from banned organizations – Emphasized that penalizing an advocate or their family for fulfilling professional duties violates constitutional protections – Cited relevant judgments affirming the right to legal representation and professional obligations of advocates [Paras 18-20].

Constitutional and Legal Framework – Appointment Procedure – Article 234 requires meaningful consultation with the High Court for judicial appointments – High Court failed to consider adverse reports, relying solely on government decision – Judicial review warranted to ensure adherence to constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice [Paras 21-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Matter remitted to High Court to reconsider appointment after reviewing police reports and appellant’s explanations – Directed State Government to submit reports to High Court within two weeks – High Court to decide within four weeks and communicate decision to State Government for issuance of appointment order [Para 30].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Authority – Appeal examines whether High Court can quash the appointment of a Chairman of the Public Service Commission under its writ jurisdiction – High Court’s role in ensuring transparency and adherence to constitutional provisions in appointments highlighted [Paras 1-11].

Procedure for Appointment – Constitutional and Statutory Provisions – Article 316 of the Constitution provides the Governor the power to appoint Chairman of the Public Service Commission – Court discusses the need for a fair, transparent, and rational procedure for such appointments to uphold integrity and public confidence in the Commission [Paras 12-20].

Implied Restrictions on Executive Power – Analysis of the implied limitations on the discretionary power of the State Government in appointing public officials – Judicial precedents affirm that relevant factors such as integrity, competence, and independence must guide appointments [Paras 21-29].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court’s order quashing appointment upheld, but judgment prescribing appointment procedure set aside – Appointment of new Chairman, Lt. Gen. R.A. Sujlana, not disturbed [Para 30].