Service Law – Approval of Charge-sheet – Applicability of Article 311(1) – Approval Held Not Mandatory – The High Court quashed the dismissal order on the ground that the charge-sheet was not approved by the Chief Minister – The Supreme Court held that Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules did not require approval of the charge-sheet by the appointing authority – Further held: Article 311(1) guarantees protection only against dismissal by a subordinate authority but does not mandate initiation of proceedings or issuance of charge-sheet by the appointing authority itself – Approved initiation of proceedings was sufficient [Paras 17-20, 30-33].

Distinction from Gopinath and Promod Kumar – Inapplicability – Rules considered in B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar required explicit approval of charge-sheet, whereas Rule 55 did not – The Court held that precedents relied upon by the High Court were based on different statutory schemes – Hence, misapplied to the present case [Paras 16, 26-28, 34-38].

Subsequent Application of 2016 Rules – Saving Clause in Rule 32(3) – The Court held that proceedings initiated under the 1930 Rules continued validly despite the promulgation of 2016 Rules – Rule 16 permitted disciplinary proceedings to be initiated by authorities other than the appointing authority – Draft charge-sheet having been approved along with initiation proposal was sufficient compliance [Paras 28-30].

Stare Decisis – Long-standing Precedents Upheld – The Court reaffirmed earlier judgments such as Shardul Singh, Srinivasa Sastry, Radhakrishna Moorthy, and Thavasippan – Held: Charge-sheet may be issued by a subordinate officer provided authority to impose penalty vests in competent authority [Paras 21-27].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Dismissal Order Restored – The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court and upheld the dismissal order – Liberty granted to respondent to file departmental appeal or revision within one month, waiving limitation [Paras 40-45].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Freedom of Speech – Recitation of Poem – FIR under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57, 3(5) BNS – Allegation of promoting enmity between groups – Poem does not refer to any religion, caste, or community – Expresses dissent against injustice through non-violent means – Held: Mere criticism or poetic dissent cannot constitute an offence under Section 196 or other sections invoked – Registration of FIR is an abuse of process [Paras 1-13, 31, 36].

Applicability of Section 173(3) BNSS – Preliminary Inquiry Mandatory – Court held that in cases involving speech-based offences punishable up to 7 years, the police must normally exercise discretion under Section 173(3) to conduct a preliminary inquiry – Non-exercise of discretion led to improper registration of FIR – Held: Police must balance duty under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 51A(a) before registering FIRs in free speech cases [Paras 23-30, 42(v)].

Mens Rea – Essential Ingredient under Section 196 BNS – Offence requires proof of intention to promote enmity or hatred – Held: No mens rea can be attributed to the appellant based on the plain reading of the poem – Poem promotes non-violence and sacrifice, not enmity – No case for invocation of Section 196 or similar provisions [Paras 34-35].

Standard of Strong-minded Reader – Interpretation of Alleged Offensive Speech – Court reiterated the principle that the effect of the words must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable, strong-minded individual – Held: Over-sensitivity or subjective perceptions cannot justify criminal prosecution for lawful speech [Paras 32-33].

High Court's Error – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – High Court mechanically refused to quash the FIR solely on ground of ongoing investigation – Held: There is no absolute rule restraining the High Court from quashing FIRs at nascent stage – When no prima facie offence is disclosed, High Court ought to intervene to prevent abuse of process [Paras 36-37].

Freedom of Speech – Constitutional Protection – Court emphasized that even criticism or unpopular expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a) unless it directly falls within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – Courts have a duty to protect unpopular or dissenting views and prevent misuse of criminal law against free speech [Paras 38-41].

Decision – FIR and Proceedings Quashed – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the High Court’s order – Directed that police authorities must be sensitized about constitutional rights and proper application of BNSS in free speech cases [Paras 42-44].
 

Customs Law – Classification of Imported Goods – Confiscation and Penalty – Appellants imported goods claiming them as Base Oil under CTH 27101960 – Customs Authorities classified the goods as High-Speed Diesel (HSD) under CTH 27101930, a prohibited item for private import, leading to confiscation and penalties – Customs Classification – Incomplete Compliance with IS 1460:2005 – Goods not conclusively proved to be HSD – The Department relied on three laboratory test reports that covered only a part of the 21 prescribed parameters under IS 1460:2005 – The Supreme Court held that without full testing, the goods could not be classified as HSD merely on the basis of partial conformity – Held: Absence of full parameter compliance leaves classification inconclusive [Paras 45-55].

Burden of Proof – Rule 4 of the General Rules of Interpretation and "Most Akin" Test – The Court clarified that the correct test for classification is not mere preponderance of probability but whether the goods are “most akin” to HSD under Rule 4 – Held: The Department failed to prove that the goods were most akin to HSD, thus rendering the confiscation and penalties unsustainable [Paras 39-43, 81-85].

Expert Evidence – Inconclusive and Evasive – The Court found that the expert from IOCL, Dr. Gobind Singh, gave evasive and non-committal responses on key aspects like flash point and untested parameters – Held: Expert evidence that avoids clear conclusions cannot form the basis for adverse action against the appellants [Paras 62-71].

Significance of Flash Point – Non-Conformity with Petroleum Act and IS 1460:2005 – The Court emphasized that flash point is a significant criterion under both the Petroleum Act and IS 1460:2005 – In the present case, samples had flash points far above the typical HSD range – Held: Non-conformity on flash point reinforced the inconclusiveness of classification as HSD [Paras 68-70].

Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability vs. Most Akin Test – The Court held that the High Court erred in applying mere preponderance of probability for classification where statutory parameters were prescribed – For classification under Customs Tariff Act, the goods must be “most akin” to the specified product – Held: Applying only the preponderance test was insufficient [Paras 78-84].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Classification as HSD Set Aside – Supreme Court restored the CESTAT's decision, allowed re-export, quashed the confiscation and penalty orders – The Court also directed the Customs Authorities to ensure that future laboratory facilities must be equipped to test all parameters essential for classification [Paras 86-90].
 

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Eviction of Son from Family Home – Claim of SelfAcquired Property – Dispute Pending – Eviction Refused – Appellantmother sought eviction of son Krishna Kumar alleging harassment – Tribunal allowed limited stay; Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction – Supreme Court found property was already transferred by deceased husband to daughters and others – Held: With title under challenge and son not shown to be misbehaving post order, eviction not warranted – Maintenance right under Section 4/5 sufficient [Paras 4–5, 17–29, 33– 35].

Right to Residence – Property Already Transferred – Tribunal’s Power to Evict Limited – Court held that once senior citizen has gifted or sold property, eviction claim loses basis unless transfer itself is void – Since property partly gifted to daughters and sold to third parties, claim of exclusive ownership failed – Eviction jurisdiction under Section 23 not applicable absent interest in property [Paras 24–26, 32].

Pending Civil Suits – Right to Share in Property – Eviction Cannot

Prejudice Title Claims – Respondent-son had filed civil suits claiming 1/6^th share and seeking cancellation of gift deeds – Supreme Court held eviction under Senior Citizens Act should not interfere with pending title adjudication – Tribunal ought to have refrained from ordering eviction until title claims are resolved [Paras 19, 24, 33].

Scope of Tribunal’s Powers – Maintenance, Not Possession – Eviction Discretionary – Tribunal may order eviction only if necessary to protect senior citizens – No post-order misbehavior by son proved – High Court rightly balanced equities and limited son’s occupancy to one room and shop – Appellant’s right to peaceful living protected without ordering eviction [Paras 27–29, 31–34].

Decision: Civil appeal dismissed – High Court’s order setting aside eviction upheld – Tribunal’s conditions on occupancy and maintenance to continue – Eviction may be reconsidered only if misbehavior resumes or title dispute is resolved [Paras 35–37].

Civil Law - Contempt of Court - Insolvency Proceedings – Binding Effect of Approved Resolution Plan – Contempt for Continuing Tax Recovery – Petitioner alleged contemnors continued to pursue demands for pre-CIRP dues despite Supreme Court’s ruling in Ghanshyam Mishra – Court reaffirmed that claims not included in approved Resolution Plan stand extinguished under Section 31(1) of IBC – Held: Recovery proceedings by Chhattisgarh authorities are illegal and contemptuous [Paras 3–5, 14–17, 23–24, 34–37].

Contempt of Court – Continuation of Recovery Despite Clear Judgment – State Authorities Issued Demand Notices for VAT, CST, and Entry Tax Post-Resolution – Petitioner specifically part of Ghanshyam Mishra batch – Court held deliberate disobedience despite being notified of judgment – Demand notices quashed – Unconditional apology accepted, no penal action taken [Paras 6–13, 27, 36–37].

IBC Supremacy – Clean Slate Doctrine – All Pre-Resolution Claims Must Be Submitted to

RP – Court emphasized Resolution Applicant must not be faced with undecided claims –

Stakeholders cannot raise belated dues post-approval – Judgments in Essar Steel,

Innoventive, and Rainbow Papers discussed – Rainbow Papers held inapplicable as claim in that case was filed before CoC [Paras 18–22, 28–33].

*Binding Nature of IBC Resolution – Applies Even to Non-Participating Creditors – Court clarified even if State was not a party to insolvency proceedings, approved Resolution Plan is binding – Absence of claim before IRP/RP fatal – Highlights intent to maintain finality and certainty post-resolution [Paras 33–36].

Decision: Contempt petition disposed – Respondents’ conduct held contemptuous but no action taken in view of unconditional apology – All recovery notices and proceedings quashed – Order of Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra reiterated as binding on all stakeholders including government authorities [Paras 34–37].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction - Inconsistent Witness Testimony – Conviction Set Aside – Deceased Mohan Singh was allegedly attacked by five men – Trial Court convicted all; High Court acquitted one – Remaining four appellants challenged conviction – Supreme Court found key prosecution witnesses (family members) gave embellished versions, timelines contradicted FIR and each other – Held: Evidence untrustworthy, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Convictions set aside [Paras 7–17, 19].

Delay in Recording Witness Statements – Impact on Credibility – Statements of material witnesses, including child witness and wife of deceased, recorded after 7–17 days – Court held such unexplained delay casts serious doubt on credibility and integrity of prosecution case – Investigating Officer’s testimony confirmed discrepancies [Paras 14, 17].

Medical Evidence – Discrepancies on Cause of Death – Post-mortem attributed death to gunshot injury but later clarified as stab wound – Bullet not recovered – Held: Medical evidence failed to support firearm theory – Seizure of pistol from accused Arun rendered inconsequential [Paras 5, 18].

Benefit of Doubt – Sole Reliance on Dubious Oral Testimony – Court emphasized need for credible, corroborated evidence in criminal trials – Rule of caution invoked due to admitted enmity between accused and deceased – Held: Conviction cannot rest solely on suspicious family testimony – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 16, 19–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – All four appellants acquitted – Those on bail discharged; remaining accused (Ramlal) to be released unless required in other matters – Fine amounts to be refunded [Para 20].

Criminal Proceedings – Cross FIRs between Advocates – Quashing in Interest of Justice – Incident arose from personal animosity between two lawyers – First FIR registered by appellant alleged physical assault; second FIR by respondent alleged abuse and threats – Supreme Court held both FIRs stemmed from same transaction and prolonged animosity – Quashed both FIRs to ensure professional harmony [Paras 1–4, 9, 16–17].

Conduct of Advocate – Threat to Court – Apology and Undertaking Accepted – Appellant threatened suicide during court hearing if FIR against respondent was quashed – Court termed conduct contemptuous but accepted unconditional written apology and undertaking not to repeat – Chose magnanimity over punishment in interest of professional reform [Paras 5, 11–14].

Article 142 – Substantial Justice – Court Power to Quash Proceedings – Court

emphasized duty to deliver justice even where parties fail to appreciate their best interest – Invoked Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings, emphasizing future professional conduct over past conflict [Paras 15–17].

Settlement – Unconditional Apology by Respondent Advocate – Respondent filed affidavit apologizing to Court, Bar Council, Bar Association, and appellant – Undertook to maintain cordial conduct – Court recognized sincerity and included apology on record while granting relief [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR No. 500/2017 and STC No. 607/2019 quashed entirely –

FIR No. 499/2017 and C.C. No. 106/2022 quashed only against second respondent – Apologies and undertakings recorded – Past animosity held resolved through judicial intervention [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction - Murder Trial – Contradictory Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted of murder of Zahid Khan alias Guddu— Prosecution relied on four eyewitnesses, but their testimonies conflicted on key facts such as presence, cause of death, and medical disclosure— Delay in recording statements, absence of bloodstains, and nonreporting to nearby police created grave doubts—Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt—Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10–21].

Benefit of Doubt – Previous Enmity and Inconsistent Evidence – Possibility of False Implication – Deceased was a history-sheeter facing multiple criminal cases—Known prior enmity with appellant—Court held that enmity may provide motive but also raises risk of false implication—Contradictions in testimony and lack of corroboration rendered conviction unsafe—Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 20–22].

Eyewitness Reliability – Delayed Statement – Lack of Bloodstains – Witnesses who allegedly carried bleeding deceased to hospital had no blood on clothes—Statements recorded 45+ days after incident—Such conduct and inconsistencies held unnatural and indicative of unreliable testimony [Paras 10–16, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Already on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged [Paras 23–24].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Circle Rates – Theory of Deduction Inapplicable under 2013 Act – Appellant challenged award of compensation based on circle rates notified under the Stamp Act – Supreme Court held: Section 26(1) of 2013 Act mandates highest of stamp value, average sale, or consent compensation – Collector’s discretion under Explanation 4 to adjust valuation must be reasoned – Theory of deduction developed under 1894 Act cannot override clear mandate of 2013 Act – No deduction permitted in absence of valid formation of opinion by Collector – Appeals dismissed [Paras 2, 21, 24– 27, 31, 41–43].

Circle Rate – Evidentiary Weight – Scientific Fixation Encouraged – Court analyzed legislative intent behind circle rates and valuation guidelines under 2018 Rules – Emphasized that properly fixed rates reflect fair market value and aid ease of doing business and tax compliance – Directed that fixing of circle rates be done scientifically and transparently by expert bodies – State authorities cannot disown rates they have themselves fixed [Paras 33–39, 42].

Acquisition Act 2013 – Sections 26, 27, 28 – Role of Collector’s Opinion – Collector must apply statutory criteria under Section 26(1) and then assess need for adjustment via Explanation 4 – Any enhancement or deduction must be based on recorded reasons – Collector’s failure to exercise discretion cannot be ground to reduce compensation awarded by Commissioner based on applicable circle rate [Paras 26–27, 31–32].

Arbitration Award – Interference Limited – High Court and District Court rightly upheld award passed by Commissioner under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act read with Arbitration Act – Award based on correct application of

2013 Act and valuation guidelines – No arbitrariness or legal error shown – Objections rightly rejected under Section 34 of Arbitration Act [Paras 6–7, 12– 13, 31].

Decision: Civil appeals dismissed – Compensation based on Collector’s  Guidelines upheld – No reduction allowed by applying theory of deduction – Circle rates held binding absent valid reasoned departure by competent authority – No costs awarded [Paras 41–43].