1. The appellate jurisdiction has a much narrow scope of intervention particularly when the arbitration award has been upheld under Section 34 of the Act, 1996.

2. Mere satisfaction, without recording reasons, is not sufficient for the authority to invoke Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India for dispensing with a departmental enquiry.

3. The statutory standards prescribed by an authority constituted under a Central legislation cannot be diluted, altered or supplemented by the State authorities through executive instructions. Any administrative directions issued by the State Government inconsistent with such statutory prescriptions are impermissible and cannot override the standards framed by the competent statutory body.

4. The mandatory provisions relating to search and seizure under the NDPS Act must be strictly followed. Since the Act prescribes severe punishments and gives wide powers to the investigating officers, any non-compliance with these mandatory safeguards affects the fairness of the investigation, prejudices the rights of the accused, and weakens the prosecution case.

5. In cases arising from a Naxalite-affected area, where availability of independent witnesses may not always be practicable, the testimony of police officials cannot be rejected merely because they are official witnesses and may be relied upon if it is found trustworthy, reliable and credible.

6. In cases arising from Naxalite-affected areas, where the presence of independent witnesses may not always be feasible, the testimony of police officials cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they are official witnesses, and if their evidence is found to be cogent, trustworthy, reliable, and credible, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

7. The mandatory safeguards governing search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 must be strictly complied with. Any non-compliance, in view of the stringent provisions of the Act and the extraordinary powers vested in the officers, vitiates the prosecution case by jeopardizing the rights of the accused and undermining the fairness of the criminal justice system.

8. “No individual can be forcibly subjected to narco-analysis, polygraph examination, Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test, or any similar scientific investigative technique. Such techniques may be administered only in accordance with law and with due regard to constitutional and procedural safeguards, including informed consent and judicially recognized protections.”

9. No writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State Government to implement a Resolution lacking legal sanctity. The obligation under Section 54(2) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 arises only in respect of a Resolution validly adopted in accordance with the statutory scheme; in the absence of such a Resolution, no enforceable legal duty exists under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. A Writ Petitioner cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution of India to claim or perpetuate the benefit that is not sanctioned by the prevailing statutory rules, regulation or governing policy.