Challenging the selection Appointment to Public Office – Eligibility Criteria – Mandatory Compliance – The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory eligibility requirements for public appointments must be strictly adhered to – The third respondent lacked the requisite experience of 10 years as "Head of a Department" or "Head of an Organisation" as required under Section 4 of the NCH Act – Held: Appointment of the third respondent as Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy was illegal and liable to be quashed [Paras 34-37].

Judicial Review in Selection Process – Limited but Essential Scrutiny – While courts should not interfere in selections made by expert committees, judicial review is warranted where statutory requirements are violated – The Supreme Court observed that the Search Committee itself had initially noted that the third respondent’s eligibility was unclear, yet no further verification was done before his selection – Held: Selection process was flawed and lacked procedural fairness, justifying judicial intervention [Paras 21-23].

Malice in Law – Abuse of Discretion by Executive Authorities – The Court found that the Secretary, Government of India, unilaterally certified the third respondent’s eligibility without citing any supporting documents – The concept of "malice in law" was applied, holding that executive actions violating statutory mandates amount to legal malice even without personal bias – Held: Appointment vitiated by arbitrariness and non-application of mind [Paras 52-56].

No Power to Relax Essential Qualifications – Consequences of Non-Compliance – The NCH Act does not grant the Government any discretion to relax the eligibility criteria – The Supreme Court held that when a statute prescribes specific qualifications, they cannot be diluted or ignored – Held: The appointment process could not be salvaged as the third respondent did not meet the statutory requirements [Paras 47-50].

Fraud on Public Appointments – Protection of Fair Selection Process – The Court emphasized that any appointment in violation of statutory provisions amounts to a fraud on the public and undermines the constitutional mandate under Article 16 – Held: The principle that fraudulent appointments unravel everything applies squarely to the present case; appointment set aside [Paras 57-59].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appointment of third respondent as Chairperson of National Commission for Homeopathy quashed – Fresh selection process to be initiated – The Court held that the selection of the third respondent was illegal and directed him to step down within one week – However, past benefits received by him were not disturbed, but no future claims would arise from his tenure [Paras 60-62].

Matrimonial Law - Void Marriage – Right to Permanent Alimony and Maintenance – Interpretation of Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act – The Court held that Section 25 applies to all decrees passed under the Hindu Marriage Act, including those declaring a marriage void under Section 11 – The word "any decree" in Section 25 must be given a broad interpretation to ensure financial protection for a spouse, even in cases where the marriage is void – Held: A spouse of a void marriage is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25, subject to the court's discretion [Paras 14-19, 28(a)].

Interim Maintenance – Applicability of Section 24 to Void Marriages – The Court held that even in cases where a marriage is ultimately declared void, interim maintenance pendente lite can be granted under Section 24 – The discretion of the court in awarding such relief must consider the conduct of the parties and financial necessity – Held: A spouse can seek maintenance under Section 24 pending final adjudication of the validity of marriage [Paras 26-28(b)].

Judicial Precedents – Conflict in Case Law Resolved – Broad Interpretation of Maintenance Rights – The Court resolved prior conflicting judgments, affirming the view in Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, (1993) 3 SCC 406, and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, (2005) 2 SCC 33, which supported maintenance claims in void marriages – It rejected the narrow interpretation adopted in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530, and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636, which denied maintenance in such cases – Held: Maintenance laws must be interpreted in favor of social justice and protection of dependent spouses [Paras 19-25].

Gender Justice – Dignity and Protection of Women in Void Marriages – Avoiding Derogatory Labels – The Court strongly criticized the use of terms like "illegitimate wife" and "faithful mistress" in earlier judicial pronouncements – It emphasized the need for respectful language in judgments and reaffirmed the constitutional right to dignity under Article 21 – Held: Women in void marriages should not be subjected to derogatory descriptions; maintenance laws must be applied in a manner consistent with gender justice [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Reference answered – Spouse of a void marriage entitled to claim maintenance under Section 25 – Interim maintenance under Section 24 also applicable in void marriages – Appeals to be placed before the appropriate bench for decision on merits – The Court directed that maintenance claims in void marriages should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account conduct, financial necessity, and fairness [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Abuse of Process of Law – The FIR was lodged by the wife two months after the husband filed for divorce – The Supreme Court noted that such delayed allegations, particularly after the initiation of divorce proceedings, indicate an ulterior motive – Held: Criminal proceedings appear to be vexatious and instituted to harass the accused; FIR and charge-sheet quashed [Paras 13-14, 19].

False Allegations of Rape – No Charge-Sheet Under Section 376 IPC – Effect on Remaining Charges – The FIR initially included an allegation of rape against the brother-in-law, but after investigation, no charge-sheet was filed under Section 376 IPC – The complainant also did not file any protest petition against the omission of the rape charge – Held: Once the false charge of rape was removed, the remaining allegations were general and omnibus in nature, insufficient to sustain the prosecution [Paras 14-15].

Delayed FIR and Lack of Specific Allegations – Standard for Quashing Under Section 482 CrPC – The Supreme Court observed that the FIR lacked specific details regarding the alleged offenses, such as date, time, and particulars – The Court reiterated that vague and omnibus allegations against family members cannot be the basis for prosecution – Held: The High Court erred in dismissing the petition without a detailed examination of the allegations [Paras 12-13, 16].

Judicial Precedents on Quashing – Power Under Article 142 of the Constitution – The Court relied on past rulings to emphasize that courts should prevent misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes – Held: Applying the principles from previous cases, including Iqbal alias Bala v. State of U.P. and Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, the proceedings deserved to be quashed [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR No. 733/2021 and charge-sheet dated 02/02/2022 quashed – Criminal proceedings against the appellants terminated – The Supreme Court found the FIR and charge-sheet to be a misuse of the legal process and an attempt to harass the husband and his family following the divorce petition – High Court’s dismissal order set aside [Para 19].

Habeas Corpus Petition – Dismissal After Return of Missing Person – No Grounds for Further Judicial Review – The petitioners’ mother, who was allegedly in unlawful detention, returned home during the pendency of the Habeas Corpus petition – The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous – The Supreme Court held that once the detenue is no longer in unlawful custody, the Habeas Corpus petition ceases to have any merit – Held: High Court was justified in dismissing the petition, and subsequent review petitions were misconceived [Paras 1-3].

Allegation of Humiliation in Court Proceedings – No Basis for Judicial Intervention – The petitioners alleged that certain statements made by police officials regarding Petitioner No.1’s marital status in open court caused her humiliation – The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that court proceedings often involve statements and questions that may cause discomfort, but such discomfort does not amount to humiliation or defamation – Held: The petitioners’ claim was misconceived and not a valid ground for judicial interference [Paras 4-6].

Misuse of Judicial Process – Frivolous Petitions After Disposal of Habeas Corpus Case – Abuse of Court Time – Following the dismissal of the Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioners filed a review petition, a miscellaneous application, and finally the present petition – The Supreme Court observed that these petitions were unwarranted attempts to reopen a settled matter – Held: Filing of repeated petitions in a concluded matter is an abuse of judicial process and should be discouraged [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – No merit in the petitioners’ claims – Court warns against frivolous litigation – The Supreme Court found that the petitioners’ allegations were baseless and their repeated filings amounted to an abuse of judicial process – No further relief was granted [Paras 7-8].

Motor Accident Compensation – Functional Disability – Self-Employed Victim – The claimant-appellant suffered severe injuries in a motor accident, leading to complete incapacitation – The Tribunal assessed permanent disability at 20%, while the High Court increased it to 100% – Held: The High Court correctly assessed the disability at 100%, as the appellant was unable to perform any gainful employment post-accident – Compensation awarded accordingly [Paras 6-7].

Income Determination – Enhancement of Monthly Income – The appellant contended that his monthly income should be considered at Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 7,500/- as determined by the Tribunal and High Court – Held: In the absence of direct documentary proof, oral evidence and precedents establish that the appellant’s claim is reasonable – Monthly income fixed at Rs. 10,000/- for compensation computation [Paras 8-9].

Applicability of Future Prospects – Supreme Court Precedents – The High Court awarded future prospects at 40% – Held: Future prospects for self-employed individuals should be applied as per Pranay Sethi’s case – The High Court’s approach was correct and affirmed [Paras 9-10].

Calculation of Compensation – Proper Assessment – The Supreme Court reassessed the compensation under various heads, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, special diet, and loss of amenities – The total compensation awarded was Rs. 37,51,000/-, significantly higher than the Tribunal and High Court awards – Held: The revised compensation ensures just and fair compensation to the appellant [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 25,68,938/- to Rs. 37,51,000/- – Interest to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal – High Court’s order modified accordingly [Para 11].

Motor Accident Compensation – Functional Disability – Self-Employed Victim – The claimant-appellant suffered amputation of his right leg above the knee due to a motor accident – The Tribunal assessed permanent disability at 50%, while the High Court did not increase it – Held: The appellant, being self-employed, required mobility for his livelihood – The correct assessment of functional disability should be 90%, as it significantly affects his earning capacity – Compensation enhanced accordingly [Paras 10-12].

Income Determination – Applicability of Future Prospects – The appellant claimed to earn Rs. 25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal and High Court assessed his notional income at Rs. 6,000/- per month – Held: Since no documentary proof was furnished, notional income was correctly fixed at Rs. 6,000/- – However, future prospects at 40% should be applied in accordance with Pranay Sethi’s case – The High Court correctly granted 40% enhancement under future prospects [Paras 8, 12].

Age Determination – Correct Application of Multiplier – The appellant’s age was determined as 22 years at the time of the accident based on documentary evidence – The Tribunal and High Court incorrectly considered his age as 26 – Held: As per Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the correct multiplier for 22 years of age is 18 – Compensation reassessed accordingly [Paras 11, 12].

Heads of Compensation – Proper Assessment – The Supreme Court reassessed the compensation under various heads, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects, special diet, and cost of assistive devices – The total compensation awarded was Rs. 28,93,494/-, significantly higher than the Tribunal and High Court awards – Held: The revised compensation is fair and just, considering the severity of injuries and impact on livelihood [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 10,10,004/- to Rs. 28,93,494/- – Interest to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal – High Court’s order modified accordingly [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Abduction for Marriage – Section 366A IPC – Essential Ingredients Not Established – The accused was convicted for allegedly abducting a minor girl with the intention of marrying her – Held: The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence – No conclusive birth certificate or valid medical evidence was produced to prove the victim’s age – The victim’s inconsistent testimony cast doubt on the prosecution’s case – Conviction set aside [Paras 12-14].

Credibility of Witnesses – Victim’s Inconsistent Testimony – The victim initially alleged that she was forced into a vehicle and abducted, but later admitted in cross-examination that she had no prior acquaintance with the accused and did not attempt to escape – Held: The victim’s testimony lacked credibility, and her version did not inspire confidence – Her conduct during the alleged period of abduction suggested consent rather than coercion – Courts must be cautious in convicting an accused solely based on the victim’s statement when inconsistencies are present [Paras 9-11].

Medical Evidence – Age Determination – Reliability of Ossification Test – The prosecution relied on a medical officer’s opinion that the victim’s age was between 16 to 17 years – Held: Ossification tests have an inherent margin of error of up to two years – The prosecution failed to examine the radiologist who conducted the test, nor was the radiology report produced in evidence – In the absence of documentary proof of birth, the medical report alone could not conclusively establish minority – Benefit of doubt given to the accused [Paras 13-14].

Defective Investigation – Non-Production of Seized Vehicle and Lack of Independent Witnesses – The prosecution alleged that the victim was abducted in a jeep, but failed to connect the accused with the vehicle – The seizure of the jeep was not proved, and no independent witnesses confirmed the prosecution’s version – Held: Failure to establish key evidentiary links undermined the case against the accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Section 366A IPC set aside – The accused acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled [Para 14].

Service Tax – Lottery Distributors – Principal-Agent vs. Principal-to-Principal Relationship – No Service Tax Liability – The Government of Sikkim entered into agreements with the respondents for the sale of lottery tickets – The agreements provided for the outright sale of tickets, with unsold tickets being returned for destruction to ensure transparency – The consideration paid by the respondents was not in the nature of commission but was based on a wholesale price model – Held: The transactions were principal-to-principal sales, not agency transactions – No service tax liability could be imposed on the respondents under the Finance Act, 1994 [Paras 17.1–17.5].

Interpretation of Agency – Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Distinction Between Agent and Independent Contractor – An agent acts on behalf of the principal and alters the principal’s legal position in dealings with third parties – In contrast, an independent contractor or buyer acts in their own right and takes on commercial risk – The agreements in the present case do not establish an agency relationship but rather a sale transaction – Held: Since the respondents were purchasing lottery tickets for onward sale and not acting on behalf of the State Government, they were not agents and thus not liable to service tax [Paras 15.1–15.6, 16.1–16.8].

Finance Act, 1994 – Scope of Taxability – Amendments from 2010 to 2016 – The 2010 amendment introduced “promotion, marketing, organizing, or assisting in organizing lotteries” as a taxable service – The 2012 amendment included “betting, gambling, and lottery” in the Negative List, exempting them from service tax – Subsequent 2015 and 2016 amendments sought to exclude lottery distribution from the definition of “transaction in money or actionable claim” – Held: The substantive nature of the agreements remained that of sale and purchase – The amendments did not change the essential character of the relationship, and service tax was not applicable [Paras 18.1–18.6].

Doctrine of Noscitur a Sociis – Meaning of "Lottery" in the Context of Betting and Gambling – The expression “lottery” in Section 66D(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 must be read with “betting and gambling” using the principle of noscitur a sociis – A lottery is inherently a form of gambling, and taxation on lotteries falls within the State’s exclusive domain under Entry 62, List II of the Constitution – Held: Service tax cannot be levied on lottery distributors as they are not rendering a taxable service but participating in a State-regulated gambling activity [Paras 18.4–18.5].

Reaffirmation of K. Arumugam Case – Applicability to the Present Dispute – In K. Arumugam, the Supreme Court held that conducting a lottery is not a service but a State-regulated gambling activity – The differential between the price paid to the State and the price at which tickets were resold is the profit margin of the distributor, not a commission for services rendered – Held: The reasoning in K. Arumugam applies, and the respondents are not liable for service tax [Para 17.5].

Validity of Sikkim High Court Judgment – No Error in Setting Aside the Service Tax Demand – The Sikkim High Court ruled that lottery distributors were not agents and that service tax could not be imposed on lottery transactions – Held: The Sikkim High Court correctly applied legal principles, and there was no reason to interfere with its findings – Appeals filed by the Union of India were dismissed [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Appeals filed by the Union of India dismissed—Held that lottery distributors are not agents but independent buyers, and no service tax is payable.

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Financial Condition Criteria – Canara Bank Scheme of 1993 – The appellant bank rejected the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment on the grounds that his family was receiving pension and had received terminal benefits – The High Court held that financial condition was not a relevant factor under the 1993 scheme – Held: The objectives of the scheme explicitly required proof of indigent circumstances – The High Court erred in disregarding the financial position of the family – Financial condition is a crucial factor for assessing eligibility under the 1993 scheme [Paras 8, 31, 44].

Relaxation of Age Limit – Applicability Under Compassionate Appointment Scheme – The respondent’s application was rejected for exceeding the upper age limit by eight months – The High Court directed age relaxation – Held: Age relaxation can only be considered if the applicant is otherwise eligible – Since the respondent did not meet the indigence requirement, the question of age relaxation did not arise – High Court’s direction was erroneous [Paras 34-35].

Judicial Precedents – Scope of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) – The High Court heavily relied on Canara Bank (2015) to hold that financial condition was irrelevant for compassionate appointment – Held: The Supreme Court in the present case disagreed with the reasoning in Canara Bank (2015), stating that indigence is a fundamental requirement – The Court doubted the correctness of Canara Bank (2015) and refrained from referring it to a larger bench due to pending litigation – However, the present decision clarifies that financial condition is a mandatory consideration [Paras 39-40, 46].

Delay in Consideration of Claim – Lapse of Time and Impact on Compassionate Appointment – The respondent’s father passed away in 2001, and litigation persisted for over two decades – Held: Delay caused by court proceedings cannot be a ground to reject a claim – However, delay in filing an application may indicate lack of financial urgency – The respondent’s case did not merit compassionate appointment as he was not in indigent circumstances [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The High Court’s judgment and order are set aside – The respondent is not entitled to compassionate appointment – However, under Article 142, the appellant bank is directed to make a lump sum payment of Rs. 2.5 lakh to the respondent as a final settlement – No further claims maintainable [Paras 49-51].