Constitutional Law – Amendment Validity – Basic Structure Doctrine – Constitutionality of Articles 15(5) and 21AArticle 15(5), enabling the State to make special provisions for admission in educational institutions, and Article 21A, mandating free and compulsory education, do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Both provisions aim to provide equal educational opportunities without destroying the autonomy of private educational institutions or minority institutions. [Paras 16-29]

Right to Education – Interpretation and Scope – Constitutional ObligationArticle 21A imposes the obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education for children aged 6-14 years. The inclusion of private unaided institutions under the Right to Education Act, 2009 is constitutionally valid, provided the State compensates these institutions adequately. [Paras 40-44]

Minority Institutions – Autonomy and Rights – Impact of Right to Education Act, 2009Minority institutions, whether aided or unaided, enjoy protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Right to Education Act, 2009, cannot force minority institutions to admit students from non-minority communities if such admission affects the minority character of these institutions. [Paras 45-46]

Decision – Validity and Application of Constitutional Amendments and LegislationThe Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 (inserting Article 15(5)) and the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 (inserting Article 21A) are constitutionally valid. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is valid concerning non-minority private unaided institutions but ultra vires when applied to minority institutions under Article 30(1). [Paras 47]

Referred Cases:

Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789

Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3724

Miss. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858

Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 2012 SC 3445

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477

The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389

Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 119

P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 59

Shrimati Vidya Verma v. Dr. Shiv Narain Verma, AIR 1956 SC 108

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490

P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 3226

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355

Dr M. Ismail Frauqui v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 605

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304B IPC - Conviction of Appellant No. 2 (mother-in-law) upheld - Conviction of Appellant No. 1 (husband) overturned due to lack of evidence connecting him directly to dowry demands or cruelty soon before death - Held that immediate cause of suicide was dowry-related quarrel with Appellant No. 2 - Sentence reduced from 10 years to 7 years R.I. for Appellant No. 2 considering mitigating circumstances - [Paras 26-36]

Dying Declaration - Admissibility - Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act - Dying declaration of the deceased, Sunita, recorded in the presence of a Magistrate and certified by a doctor as being given in a fit state of mind, held credible and trustworthy despite being challenged on grounds of possible tutoring and not being in Q&A format - Declared strong evidence against Appellant No. 2 but not sufficient against Appellant No. 1 who was declared innocent by the deceased in her statement - [Paras 28-30]

Cruelty - Section 498A IPC - Conviction of Appellant No. 2 (mother-in-law) for subjecting deceased to cruelty for dowry demands upheld based on credible evidence including letters and witness testimonies - Conviction of Appellant No. 1 (husband) overturned due to absence of direct evidence linking him to acts of cruelty or harassment for dowry - [Paras 31-33]

Decision - Conviction of Appellant No. 2 under Sections 498A and 304B IPC affirmed with a reduced sentence - Conviction of Appellant No. 1 under Sections 498A and 304B IPC overturned due to insufficient evidence - [Paras 32-36]

Referred Cases: Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457 Muthu Kutty and Another v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 113 Sakatar Singh and Others v. State of Haryana, (2004) 11 SCC 291

Constitutional Law – Medium of Instruction – Fundamental Rights – Government Order issued by Karnataka prescribing mother tongue or Kannada as the medium of instruction in classes I to IV – Order challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 29(1), and 30(1) – Court held that the right to choose a medium of instruction is part of the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry on any occupation – Imposing mother tongue or Kannada as the medium of instruction violates these fundamental rights. [Paras 27-42]

Interpretation of "Mother Tongue" – Constitutional Provision – Mother tongue as used in Article 350A interpreted – Determined to be the language of the linguistic minority as declared by the parent or guardian – State cannot enforce mother tongue as medium of instruction by compulsory measures. [Paras 24-26]

Educational Institutions – Right to Establish and Administer – Rights of Minority Institutions under Article 30(1) – Right to choose the medium of instruction – The imposition of mother tongue as medium violates Article 30(1) – The State's power to regulate does not extend to prescribing the medium of instruction for minority and private unaided schools. [Paras 35-39]

Decision – Karnataka's Government Order dated 29.04.1994 prescribing mother tongue or Kannada as the medium of instruction for classes I to IV in all Government recognized schools struck down – Appeals by the State of Karnataka dismissed – The order violates Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 30(1) – Linguistic minorities cannot be compelled under Article 350A to choose their mother tongue as the medium of instruction. [Paras 43-45]

Referred Cases:

English Medium Students Parents Association Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1994 SC 1702 : (1993) 6 JT 634 : (1993) 4 SCALE 627 : (1994) 1 SCC 550 : (1993) 3 SCR 934 Supp : (1994) 1 UJ 291

Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., AIR 1993 SC 2178 : (1993) 1 JT 474 : (1993) 1 SCALE 290 : (1992) 2 SCALE 703 : (1993) 1 SCC 645 : (1993) 1 SCR 594

Rev. Father W. Proost and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1969 SC 465 : (1969) 2 SCR 73

The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, AIR 1974 SC 1389 : (1974) 1 SCC 717 : (1975) 1 SCR 173

The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad Vs. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Others, AIR 1963 SC 703 : (1963) 1 SCR 112 Supp

In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957. Reference Under Article 143(1) of The Constitution of India, AIR 1958 SC 956 : (1959) 1 SCR 995

The State of Bombay Vs. Bombay Education Society and Others, AIR 1954 SC 561 : (1955) 1 SCR 568

Romesh Thappar Vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 : (1950) CriLJ 1514 : (1950) 1 SCR 594

A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 : (1950) CriLJ 1383 : (1950) 1 SCR 88

Bennett Coleman and Co. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1973 SC 106 : (1972) 2 SCC 788 : (1973) 2 SCR 757

D.A.V. College, Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1971 SC 1737 : (1971) 2 SCC 269 : (1971) SCR 688 Supp

Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union of India (UOI), AIR 1962 SC 305 : (1962) 3 SCR 842

Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others, AIR 1995 SC 1236 : (1995) 2 JT 110 : (1995) 1 SCALE 539 : (1995) 2 SCC 161 : (1995) 1 SCR 1036

Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lokvidayan Sanghatana and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1642 : (1988) 3 JT 66 : (1988) 2 SCALE 34 : (1988) 3 SCC 410 : (1988) 1 SCR 486 Supp : (1988) 2 UJ 325

P.A. Inamdar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3226 : (2005) 4 CTC 81 : (2005) 3 ESC 373 : (2005) 7 JT 313 : (2004) 8 SCC 139 : (2005) 2 SCR 603 Supp : (2005) 2 UJ 1176 : (2005) AIRSCW 3923 : (2005) 5 Supreme 544

Usha Mehta and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2004) 5 SCALE 800 : (2004) 6 SCC 264 : (2004) 3 SCR 226 Supp : (2004) 2 UJ 1399

T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2003 SC 355 : (2002) 9 JT 1 : (2002) 8 SCC 481

Property Law – Ownership and Tenancy Dispute – Civil Appeal challenging High Court order dismissing Revision Application affirming lower court decisions – Property located in Pune Cantonment initially granted under old grant terms – Land resumed by Government under terms of old grant – Government Grants Act, 1895 stipulates Government's right to resume property despite any statutory provisions to the contrary – Held, the land belongs to Union of India, only superstructure owned by respondents – Lower courts erred in determining tenancy relationship – High Court's judgment set aside – Civil Suit dismissed. [Paras 1-56]

Government Grants – Applicability of Government Grants Act, 1895 – Held – Section 2 exempts Government grants from the Transfer of Property Act – Section 3 ensures grants take effect according to their tenor despite conflicting laws – Government retains right to resume property under old grant terms – Appellate courts misinterpreted applicability of tenancy laws over Government grant conditions. [Para 38-43]

Resumption of Property – Right of Union of India – Analysis – Held – Government's notice of resumption of property in Pune Cantonment under Old Grant terms lawful – Possession of property lawfully resumed by Government – Respondents only hold rights over superstructure, not the land – Civil suits and lower court judgments based on misinterpretation of legal status of property and rights of parties. [Para 30-54]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court, Appellate and Trial Court judgments set aside – Civil Suit No. 695/1999 dismissed – Union of India's right to resume property upheld – No order as to costs. [Para 55-56]

Referred Cases:

Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra Kumar Vakil and Others, AIR 1999 SC 2294 : (1999) 2 JT 315 : (1999) 2 SCALE 208 : (1999) 3 SCC 555 : (1999) 2 SCR 118 : (1999) AIRSCW 2360 : (1999) 3 Supreme 369

Azim Ahmad Kazmi and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 6 JT 603 : (2012) 6 SCALE 434 : (2012) 7 SCC 278

Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Kamla Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 511 : (2010) 9 SCR 1157

Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria Vs. H.C. Vashistha and Others, AIR 1980 Bom 9

Final Result : Allowed

Criminal Law – Summoning Of Call Detail Records (CDR) Of Investigating Officers - Electronic Evidence – Fair Trial – Appellant accused of possession of heroin and alprazolam, arrested by NCB officers near Yashica Palace hotel, Indore – Appellant disputed arrest location and sought mobile tower location and call data records of the arresting officers to demonstrate they were elsewhere – Trial Court and High Court rejected plea – Held: Call detail records admissible under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act – Accused has a right to summon relevant electronic records to support defence – Denial amounts to violation of fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 2–6]

Right to Fair Trial vs. Investigative Secrecy – Respondent contended that providing full CDRs could expose confidential investigation details and sources – Court accepted limited concern but held that privacy of officers can be protected by redacting numbers of calls made/received – Only tower location and timing relevant to the accused’s defence needs to be disclosed – Interest of justice best served by balancing both rights [Paras 4, 7]

Judicial Directions – Trial Court directed to summon call detail records from service providers for three mobile numbers (including accused's and officers') for specified time – Service providers to redact incoming and outgoing phone numbers – Appeal allowed – Trial to proceed without prejudice to the prosecution [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Trial Court directed to summon redacted CDRs and tower location records for relevant mobile numbers and timeframe – Only location information to be used, phone numbers to be blacked out to protect privacy and investigative integrity [Para 7]

Income Tax Law - Deduction under Section 80HHC - Inclusion of Scrap Sale Proceeds in Total Turnover – Appeals arising from the High Court judgment which approved the exclusion of scrap sale proceeds from total turnover for deduction calculations under Section 80HHC – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view – It was held that sale proceeds from scrap, which is a by-product and not the primary product, should not be included in total turnover – The intention behind Section 80HHC is to encourage exports and maximize foreign exchange earnings, thus the exclusion of scrap sales aligns with the legislative purpose. [Paras 1-30]

Meaning of Total Turnover - Accounting and Commercial Parlance – Analysis – The term "turnover" is not defined in the Income Tax Act – Supreme Court relies on ordinary accounting parlance and guidelines from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) – "Turnover" should refer to the sale proceeds of the primary goods in which the business deals, not ancillary sales such as scrap – Inclusion of scrap proceeds would distort the true financial performance of exporters and reduce the incentives provided by Section 80HHC. [Paras 17-26]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax were dismissed – The Court found the High Court's interpretation consistent with normal accounting practices and the purpose of Section 80HHC – No costs were ordered. [Para 30]

Referred Cases:

Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. K. Ravindranathan Nair (2007) 213 CTR 227

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Reduction of Sentence by High Court – Appeal against High Court decision reducing the sentence of the primary respondent, Surajbhan Singh, from five years to seven days for grievous harm – Original conviction included offences under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 326, 323 IPC – High Court altered the conviction to Section 308 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 – Supreme Court held that the reduction of sentence was unjustified given the severity of the crime and the impact on the victim – Directed rigorous imprisonment of two years for the primary respondent. [Paras 1-36]

Principles of Sentencing - Adequate Punishment – Analysis of sentencing principles – Emphasized the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of the offence and its impact on society – Highlighted that undue leniency undermines public confidence in the justice system and fails to protect societal interests – Referenced established jurisprudence on the necessity of proportionate punishment. [Para 19-21, 24, 26-28]

Right of Private Defence - Application – Consideration of the right of private defence claimed by respondents – Supreme Court found no merit in the plea of private defence as the accused were the aggressors – Evidence demonstrated premeditated attack on the unarmed victims engaged in peaceful agricultural activities. [Para 16-17]

Decision – Enhancement of Sentence – The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s sentence and directed Surajbhan Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years apart from the fine imposed – Emphasized that the discretion in sentencing must be exercised with regard to judicial principles and not whimsically. [Para 32]

Referred Cases:

Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import, AIR 1981 SC 2085

Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15

Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 SC 1463

State of U.P. v. Dharmendra Singh, AIR 1999 SC 3789

State of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar, (2014) AIR SCW 2339

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem @ Chamaru, AIR 2005 SC 3996

Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 11 SCC 585

State of M.P. v. Najab Khan, (2014) 9 SCC 509

P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, AIR 1980 SC 856

Chandrakant Patil v. State through CBI, AIR 1998 SC 1165

U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633

Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26

Rattiram v. State of M.P., AIR 2012 SC 1485

The State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, AIR 2000 SC 1478

Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 1857

Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 787

Mahesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1346

Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SC 3580

Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2014) 9 SCC 516

State of Rajasthan v. Kishanlal, AIR 2002 SC 2250

Shyam Narain v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC 2209

Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 4416

Jameel v. State of U.P., AIR 2010 SC 345

Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly and Common Object - Conviction and Sentence - Appeal against High Court judgment altering conviction and sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC - Prosecution failed to establish presence and specific overt acts of accused Nos. 6 and 7 during the occurrence - Absence of their names in FIR and lack of corroborative eyewitness testimony - Appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt.

Presence and Role of Accused in Unlawful Assembly - Analysis - Held - Conviction requires proof of active participation or common object - Mere presence insufficient for conviction under Sections 147, 148 IPC - Testimonies failed to attribute any specific role to appellants in the assault - Legal threshold for sustaining conviction not met. [Para 13]

Decision - Acquittal of Appellants - Court allows appeals, setting aside conviction and sentences - Appellants acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence proving their involvement in the crime - Directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case. [Para 14]

Referred Cases:

Criminal Procedure – Authority to File Complaint – Criminal Appeal against the High Court’s order quashing a complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, against respondents for conspiracy and forgery in judicial proceedings – Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the complaint lacked valid authorization from the Allahabad High Court. – Held, complaint unauthorized and proceedings based on it invalid. [Paras 1-25]

Sanction for Prosecution – Analysis – Held – Sanction from the High Court necessary for filing a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC – The High Court and subsequent fact-finding enquiry confirmed no such sanction or authorization was given to the complainant by the Allahabad High Court. – The unauthorized complaint rendered further procedural considerations irrelevant. [Paras 14, 18, 19]

Jurisdiction – Magistrate's Cognizance – Analysis – Held – Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of an unauthorized complaint – The absence of valid authorization from the competent authority nullified the initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents. [Paras 20, 21]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the CBI, confirming the High Court’s decision to quash the complaint due to the lack of authorization from the Allahabad High Court – Emphasized adherence to procedural requirements for valid prosecution. [Para 22]

Referred Cases:

U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee vs. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and Others, AIR 1991 SC 909

Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, AIR 2005 SC 2119