Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Fair Trial: Appellant denied assistance of counsel during trial – Fundamental right to fair trial and legal representation emphasized – Retrial necessary to ensure justice and due process – Appellate court's power to order retrial under Section 386 CrPC highlighted [Paras 11-16, 42].

Criminal Procedure – De Novo Trial – Section 386 CrPC: Retrial should be ordered only in exceptional and rare cases – Appellant's denial of due process warranted de novo trial – Balancing accused's rights with societal interest and gravity of offence – Retrial necessary to avert failure of justice [Paras 42-43].

Speedy Trial – Fair Trial – Article 21: Right to speedy trial is relative and depends on case circumstances – Long delay alone does not justify acquittal or dismissal of indictment – Fair trial rights must be balanced with impact on society and confidence in judicial system – Retrial in serious cases like terrorism essential for justice [Paras 41-43].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Matter remanded for de novo trial – Trial court directed to provide legal aid to appellant if necessary and conclude trial expeditiously within three months from order communication [Paras 45-46].

Medical Education – Admission Process – Regulation Compliance: MBBS admissions conducted by Geetanjali Medical College without following the MCI Regulations and state policies – College issued advertisement and conducted admissions based on 10+2 examination marks instead of the RPMT merit list – High Court declared such admissions illegal and directed compliance with the RPMT merit list for 85% of the seats [Paras 5-7, 16-18].

Private Medical Colleges – Right to Administer Admissions – Constitutional Rights: Private unaided institutions have the right to admit students under Article 19(1)(g) – However, admissions must be fair, transparent, and non-exploitative, adhering to merit-based criteria as mandated by regulatory bodies – No consensual arrangement between the college and the state for filling 85% seats through RPMT [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Review – Article 142 – Equitable Relief: Supreme Court exercises power under Article 142 to do complete justice – Despite procedural violations by the college, admissions of 117 students protected to prevent academic disruption – College directed to surrender equivalent seats in future admissions as a penalty for regulatory violations [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court's direction to admit students from RPMT merit list set aside – College to surrender 107 MBBS seats in a phased manner – Students admitted in violation to pay Rs. 3 lakhs each to state government for infrastructure development in government medical colleges – Results of affected students to be published [Paras 30-31].

Constitutional Law – Article 254 – Conflict Between State and Central Legislation: The Sugarcane Act and the Control Order are special legislations that regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane and cover all aspects of such transactions including the payment of price to cane growers – These special legislations prevail over the general provisions of the Market Act, which aims to regulate the sale and purchase of agricultural produce in market areas [Paras 14-20].

Market Fee – Levy on Sugarcane Transactions – Special vs. General Law: The Market Act’s general provisions regarding the levy of market fees on agricultural produce do not apply to sugarcane transactions covered by the Sugarcane Act and Control Order – The High Court correctly held that the market committees cannot levy fees on sugarcane purchases within market areas as the transactions are governed by the specific provisions of the Sugarcane Act and Control Order [Paras 17-18].

Judicial Precedents – Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar: The case law established that where there is a conflict between general and special legislation, the special law prevails – The Supreme Court reaffirms that the comprehensive mechanism provided by the Sugarcane Act and Control Order for the purchase and payment of sugarcane excludes the applicability of the Market Act’s provisions regarding the levy of market fees [Para 20].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1958 and the Sugarcane (Control) Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, govern the transactions involving the purchase of sugarcane by factories, excluding the levy of market fees under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 [Paras 21-22].

Central Excise – Valuation of Goods – Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act: Assessment of excisable goods based on "normal price" – Supreme Court held that the price at which goods are sold below cost of production to penetrate market cannot be considered "normal price" under Section 4(1)(a) – "Normal price" should reflect fair and reasonable value in ordinary course of trade – Revenue justified in determining assessable value based on cost of production and reasonable profit [Paras 30-31, 43-44, 50-51].

Commercial Consideration – Market Penetration Pricing: Selling goods at loss over extended period to compete in market and capture market share considered extra-commercial consideration – Price not reflecting true value – Transactions not at arm’s length – Section 4(1)(b) invoked for valuation based on nearest ascertainable equivalent price [Paras 43, 52].

Fiscal Legislation – Interpretation – Statutory Provisions: Emphasis on interpreting fiscal statutes strictly – Assessable value determined by legal fiction created under Section 4(1) – Economic rationale for pricing not a ground to deviate from statutory provisions for determining value [Paras 22, 29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Tribunal's order set aside – Assessable value to be determined based on cost of production plus reasonable profit – Price at which cars were sold by Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. not accepted as normal price for excise duty purposes [Paras 23, 43, 50-51].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Free Legal Aid: Supreme Court underscores the right to free legal aid as fundamental – Accused must be provided a lawyer even if they do not request one – Presence of a lawyer cannot be insisted upon during police interrogation to maintain the balance between individual rights and national security [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Law – Confessional Statement – Sections 164 and 161 CrPC: Detailed procedure followed for recording Kasab's confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC – Ensuring voluntariness and insulation from external influence – Confession corroborated by substantial evidence, including eyewitness accounts and forensic reports – Confession admissible and pivotal in establishing guilt [Paras 10-16, 80-84].

Terrorism – Planning and Execution of Mumbai Attacks: Comprehensive narrative of the planning, training, and execution of the attacks – Involvement of Lashkar-e-Toiba operatives – Use of sophisticated techniques and detailed planning – Confession reveals deep-rooted conspiracy and training received in Pakistan – Attack intended to destabilize India’s economic and social fabric [Paras 17-30, 72-84].

Judicial Review – Evaluation of Evidence: Supreme Court re-evaluates evidence independently in death penalty cases – Confirms findings of lower courts while ensuring adherence to due process – Upholds conviction and sentences, affirming the gravity of the offences and the meticulous planning involved [Paras 6, 23].

Decision: Appeals by Kasab dismissed – Conviction and death sentence upheld – Appeal by the State of Maharashtra against acquittal of Fahim Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed also dismissed – High Court's order maintained in all material aspects [Para 23].

Constitutional Law – Reservation in Promotions – Article 16(4A): Supreme Court reiterates the enabling nature of Article 16(4A) which permits reservations in promotions for SC/ST candidates subject to the collection of quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and maintenance of administrative efficiency – Compliance with M. Nagaraj judgment necessary – Notifications dated 28th December 2002 and 25th April 2008 quashed due to non-compliance with the requirements set out in M. Nagaraj [Paras 7, 37].

Contempt of Court – Compliance with Judicial Orders: High Court found State authorities guilty of contempt for non-compliance with its order to implement the "catch-up" principle – Supreme Court acknowledges delay but finds no willful disobedience – Appointment of Bhatnagar Committee for collecting quantifiable data as per M. Nagaraj indicates intention to comply – Contempt findings set aside [Paras 36, 43-44].

Seniority – "Catch-up" Principle – Retrospective Application: Examination of the seniority principle where general category candidates regain seniority upon promotion after reserved category candidates – Notifications attempting to alter this retrospectively without proper compliance with judicial directives invalidated – Protection of vested rights emphasized [Paras 3, 32-33].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Contempt findings by the High Court set aside – Directions issued to the State and its authorities to act in accordance with the Bhatnagar Committee report and M. Nagaraj judgment within two months [Paras 45-46].

Criminal Law – Causing Death by Negligence – Sections 279, 304A IPC: Conviction for causing death and injury due to negligent driving upheld – Accident occurred due to detachment of trailer from tractor driven recklessly at high speed – Mechanical failure defense rejected – Conviction based on independent witnesses and Motor Vehicle Inspector's testimony – Appeal against conviction dismissed [Paras 12-13].

Sentencing – Considerations for Leniency – Mitigating Factors: Appellant's age (22 years at the time of accident) and subsequent marriage not deemed sufficient to reduce substantive sentence – Emphasis on deterrence and societal impact of negligent driving – Court affirms High Court's sentence, emphasizing the need for adequate punishment to maintain public confidence in legal system [Paras 14-30].

Judicial Precedents – Proportionality in Sentencing: Reiterates principles of adequate sentencing for offences involving death by negligence – Courts must balance individual circumstances against societal interests and the need for deterrence – References cases emphasizing serious treatment of rash and negligent driving causing death/injury [Paras 16-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence by the High Court upheld – No interference with substantive sentence imposed by the High Court [Paras 30-31].

Arms Act – Mandatory Minimum Sentence – Section 25(1)(a): Possession of a gun, bullets, and explosives without a license – High Court confined the sentence to the period already served (seven days) – Supreme Court held that the courts below committed serious error by not awarding the minimum mandatory sentence – Statutory minimum of three years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 imposed – Appeal allowed [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Statutory Requirements: Emphasis on adherence to statutory minimum sentences for possession of unauthorized arms and ammunition – Judicial discretion must align with legislative intent to impose stringent penalties for such offences – High Court’s reduction of sentence to time already served found erroneous [Paras 10-11].

National Security – Deterrence – Proliferation of Arms: Court underscores the importance of stringent sentencing to curb the proliferation of arms and ammunition – Possession of unauthorized arms seen as a serious threat to national security and public safety – Legislative intent to provide stringent punishment highlighted [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Sentence imposed by High Court and lower courts set aside – Respondent-accused to undergo a minimum sentence of three years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with an additional three months' simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine [Para 12].

Representing Advocates:

Sunny Chaudhary and C.D. Singh for the Appellant;

Yogesh Tiwari and Vikrant Singh Bais for the Respondent

Land Acquisition – Delay in Filing Petition – Maintainability: High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the land acquisition solely on the ground that it was filed after the passing of the award – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not examining the merits of the challenge – Respondents failed to prove that possession of the land was taken and delivered to HUDA – Writ petition maintainable despite being filed post-award [Paras 5, 8, 14].

Misuse of Power – Colourable Exercise of Authority: Acquisition declared illegal due to misuse of power by the state – Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act cited public purpose, but the real objective was to benefit a private developer – Evidence showed acquisition was for handing over to a colonizer, violating legal provisions for land acquisition for companies [Paras 15-16].

Discrimination – Policy Non-Application: Appellant's plea of discrimination upheld – State policy required release of land with constructions prior to Section 4 notification – Appellant's land not released despite qualifying under the policy – Contrasted with release of land for other private entities without justification [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Acquisition of appellant's land declared illegal and quashed – Respondents directed to bear their own costs [Paras 20].