Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satinder S. Gulati, Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. S.Nagamuthu,Sr.Adv. Mr. A.S.Vairawan,Adv. Mr. R.Sudhakaran,Adv. Mr. G.R.Vikash,Adv. Mr. D.Subrahmanya Bhanu,Adv. Mr. Rohan Singh,Adv. Ms. Shalini Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamaldeep Gulati, AOR Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. A.S. Vairawan, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. G.R. Vikash, Adv. Mr. D. Subrahmanya Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Rohan Singh, Adv. Ms. Shalini Mishra, Adv. Mr. T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Adv. Mr. G. Mani Prabhu, Adv. Mr. C.Santhosh,Adv. Ms. Pushpita Basak,Adv. Mr. Rajarajeshwaran,Adv. Ms. Pushpa Basak, Adv. Mr. R. Poornachandran, Adv. Mr. S. Ajith Williyam, Adv. Mr. M.A. Aruneshe, Adv. Mr. K. Pragadeesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Basava Prabhu S.Patil,Sr.Adv. Mr. Geet Ahuja,Adv. Mr. Samarth Kashyap,Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. M.Karpaga Vinayagam,Sr.Adv. Mr. K. V. Muthu Kumar, AOR Mr. Nitin Kumar,Adv. Mr. Deepak Sharma,Adv. Mr. C. Aravind, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Dr. Sushil Balwada, Adv. Mr. Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nand Lal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav,Adv. Mr. Punit Jain,Adv. Ms. Christi Jain,Adv. Mr. Umang Mehta,Adv. Mr. Roy Abraham,Adv. Ms. Reena Roy,Adv. Mr. Akhil Abraham,Adv. Mr. Yaudhinder Lal,Adv. Ms. Purva,Adv. Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR Mr. Raghenth Basant,Adv. Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR Ms. Roopali Lakhotia,Adv. Mr. Ajay Krishna,Adv. Mr. B. Balaji, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra,Adv. Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain,Adv. Mr. Anil S.P.,Adv. Mr. Nikhil D.Kamath,Adv. Mr. Pavan R.Javali,Adv. Mr. Sunil M.V.,Adv. Mr. Vinayak Kulkarni,Adv. Mr. Somashekar Narayana,Adv. Mr. Uday Urs,Adv. Mr. Ashok Bannidinni, AOR Mr. Parnam Prabhakar,Adv. Mr. S.J.Amith,Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, AOR Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj,Adv. Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj,Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mallikarjun S.Mylar,Adv. Mr. Bammappanavar K.S.,Adv. Mr. Haribansh Manav,Adv. Mr. Ashok Bannidinni,Adv. M/S Bannidinni And Co., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,ASG Mr. Jayant K.Sud,ASG Ms. Kiran Suri,Sr.Adv. Ms. Sonia Mathur,Sr.Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde,Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr.Tyagi,Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana,Adv. Mr. Shubranshu Padhi,Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna,Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava,Adv. Ms. Kanika,Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra,Adv. Mr. Kartik Jasra, Adv. Mr. Randeep Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Harish Nadda, Adv. Mr. Shivam Jasra, Adv. Mr. K.M.Nataraj,ASG Mr. Sharath Nambiar,Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam,Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar,Adv. Mr. Manvendra Singh,Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Singh,Adv. Ms. Poornima Singh,Adv. Ms. B.L.N.Shivani,Adv. Mr. Aman Sharma,Adv. Mr. Kartik Jasra,Adv. Mr. Randeep Sachdeva,Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Mr. Harish Nadda, Adv. Mr. Shivam Jasra, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Basava Prabhu S.Patil,Sr.Adv. Mr. Geet Ahuja,Adv. Mr. Samarth Kashyap,Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Addl.A.G. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Harsh Parashar, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Ms. Anu K. Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Abraham C. Mathews, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Nupur Sharma,Adv. Mr. Shobhit Bhardwaj,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kr.Mahara,Adv. Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra,AAG Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sharma,Adv. Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv. Ms. Radhika Jalan, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz A.Naski, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham,Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef,Adv. Mr. T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,Adv. Mr. K.V.Girish Chowdary,Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Naveen Sharma(Bhardwaj),Adv.

What is the question of law referred to a Constitution Bench in relation to proving demand of illegal gratification in the absence of direct evidence? What is the Court’s answer regarding whether inferential deduction of culpability under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is permissible based on other evidence when the complainant's direct evidence is unavailable? What is the role and parameters of evidence (direct, circumstantial, or presumption under Section 20) in proving demand and acceptance/obtainment of illegal gratification under the Act?

Key Points: - The Constitution Bench addresses whether, in the absence of direct evidence of demand, demand for illegal gratification can be proved by other evidence (!) (!) . - It resolves that it is permissible to draw inferential deductions of culpability under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) based on other prosecution evidence when the complainant is unavailable or hostile (!) (!) (!) . - It clarifies the interplay of evidence types (oral, documentary, circumstantial) and the role of legal presumption under Section 20 versus presumptions under the Evidence Act in proving demand and obtainment/acceptance (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It emphasizes that proof of demand is a sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (i)(ii), but may be established through non-direct evidence and circumstantial links when direct evidence is unavailable (!) (!) (!) . - It discusses the treatment of "hostile" witnesses and the use of other corroborating evidence to sustain conviction (!) (!) (!) . - It confirms there is no conflict between various three-judge judgments on the quality of proof required when direct evidence is unavailable, and provides the concluding position that such inferential proof is permissible (!) . - It identifies the conceptual distinction between "acceptance" and "obtainment" and their respective evidentiary requirements under the Act (!) (!) .

What is the question of law referred to a Constitution Bench in relation to proving demand of illegal gratification in the absence of direct evidence?

What is the Court’s answer regarding whether inferential deduction of culpability under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is permissible based on other evidence when the complainant's direct evidence is unavailable?

What is the role and parameters of evidence (direct, circumstantial, or presumption under Section 20) in proving demand and acceptance/obtainment of illegal gratification under the Act?