1. The Court cannot direct the legislature to enact a particular law for
reason that under the constitutional scheme Parliament exercises
sovereign power to enact law and no outside power or authority can
issue a particular piece of legislation.

2. The executive instruction cannot override the statutory
provision but they are meant to supplement the law or to carry
out the provisions of law.

3. Under S. 304-A IPC, no minimum sentence is prescribed. The sentence can
also be limited to fine without any term of imprisonment.

4. The practice to file review petition without any substantial error apperant on the face of record, that too; with change of counsel is not conductive to healthy practice of the bar, which has the responsibility to maintain the salutory practice of profession.

5. The scope of review is limited under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the case, which has already been addressed and decided.

6. Fiscal provisions must, where reasonably possible, be interpreted in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees.

A statutory condition, though couched in mandatory language, cannot be enforced where compliance is factually impossible or where the very premise on which the condition operates does not exist.

7. Where the prosecution relied upon electronic evidence such as alleged ransom calls, call detail records and CCTV footage to establish kidnapping for ransom and allied offences, but failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, such electronic evidence would be inadmissible in law.

8. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4(1), 5A, 6, 11 and 18 — Section 5A(1) objections lie only to acquisition of land; disputes limited to compensation, employment, rehabilitation or environmental
safeguards fall outside its ambit and are to be addressed under Sections 11 and 18 — “Further inquiry” under Section 5A(2) is discretionary — Collateral or ancillary objections do not vitiate acquisition once possession is taken and projects are operational, and public purpose and legality must be challenged to attract Section 5A.

9. Pay scales and cadre hierarchies lie within the exclusive domain
of policy-making, and the Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with
such matters. Judicial intervention becomes warranted only if it is
demonstrably shown that the policy or decision is arbitrary, capricious,
or discriminatory in nature. Mere dissatisfaction with the structuring of
pay or cadre levels does not justify judicial interference, as these are
matters entrusted to the administrative and executive domain.

10. A candidate included in a validly prepared select panel does not
obtain a vested right to appointment, but is entitled to due, fair, and
lawful consideration for such appointment. The appointing authority
cannot disregard the select panel or refuse appointment arbitrarily or on
extraneous grounds. When a duly selected candidate stands in merit
and a corresponding vacancy exists, appointment may be denied only
for cogent and justifiable reasons. The Government’s unexplained
inaction, coupled with its failure to furnish any reason for the delay or
non-issuance of appointments, renders the decision arbitrary and
legally unsustainable.