Criminal Law – Right of Private Defence – Murder Charge – Acquittal Restored – Appellant, while accompanying his father (co-accused Bakhtawar Singh), fired two shots from his licensed gun when deceased Gurcharan Singh, armed with a Gandasa, attacked his father and caused a deep incised wound on his head – Appellant claimed he apprehended imminent danger to his own and his father’s life – Trial Court accepted defence plea and acquitted both accused – High Court reversed acquittal and convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC – Held: The incident occurred in the accused’s field; the deceased was the aggressor; and the appellant’s act fell squarely within the ambit of private defence – No duty to retreat when faced with imminent threat – Force used not wholly disproportionate – Trial Court’s view plausible and based on correct appreciation of evidence – High Court erred in reversing acquittal without cogent reasons [Paras 16–18, 36–38, 59–64].

Right of Private Defence – Scope and Limits – Sections 96 to 106 IPC – Law does not require a citizen to behave like a coward when faced with imminent peril – Mere reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt sufficient to invoke right of private defence – Force used in such circumstances need not be weighed with “golden scales” – Person exercising the right need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt; preponderance of probabilities suffices [Paras 19–23, 30, 34–35, 58].

Appellate Interference – Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence Reinforced – Appellate court not justified in reversing an acquittal if trial court’s view is possible or plausible – Presumption of innocence strengthened by trial court’s acquittal – Reversal permissible only when trial court’s view is perverse or wholly unreasonable – In this case, trial court’s findings based on sound evaluation of evidence; High Court erred in substituting its own opinion [Paras 61–64].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside – Trial Court’s acquittal restored – Appellant held to have acted in lawful exercise of right of private defence – Acquitted of all charges [Para 65].

Panchayati Raj – Scheduled Areas – 100% Reservation for Chairpersons – Constitutional Validity – Article 243M(4)(b), PESA Act, 1996 – Sections 21(B), 40(B), 55(B) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 – High Court held cent-percent reservation of Chairperson posts unconstitutional as excessive and violative of Article 14 – Supreme Court reversed – Held: Parliament under Article 243M(4)(b) empowered to enact exceptions for Scheduled Areas – Reservation of all Chairperson posts for Scheduled Tribes justified by historical disadvantage and need for tribal self-governance – Bhuria Committee Report and PESA intended to ensure effective tribal participation – Protective discrimination permissible for Scheduled Areas – [Paras 15–23].

Reservation – Aggregate Limit – 80% Reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs – Article 243D – Challenge to Sections 17(B)(2), 36(B)(2), and 51(B)(2) of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act on ground of excessive reservation beyond 50% ceiling – Held: 50% rule in Indra Sawhney applies to public employment, not to political representation – Article 243D a distinct constitutional source – Scheduled Areas constitute an exceptional class warranting special treatment – Reservation up to 80% permissible under Article 243M(4)(b) – [Paras 24–42].

Affirmative Action – Reasonable Classification – Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas – Reservation exceeding 50% justified by social and historical conditions – Objective is substantive equality and democratic decentralization – PESA provisions protect tribal communities from exploitation and preserve autonomy – [Paras 28–37].

Election Law – Right to Contest and Vote – Right to vote or contest elections is statutory, not fundamental – Limitations arising from reservation policy incidental to larger objective of ensuring representation of weaker sections – Compelling state interest outweighs individual inconvenience – [Paras 39–40].

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Legislative choices for protective discrimination in Scheduled Areas not open to interference – Courts not to second-guess legislative wisdom when policy is founded on intelligible differentia and rational nexus to objective – [Paras 37–38].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Judgment of Jharkhand High Court set aside – Second proviso to Section 4(g) of the PESA Act, 1996 and Sections 21(B), 40(B), 55(B), 17(B)(2), 36(B)(2) and 51(B)(2) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 held constitutionally valid – State Election Commission directed to con

Reservation – Adjustment of Reserved Category Candidates in General Quota – Concessions vs. Merit – Appellants challenged selection of reserved category candidates adjusted in general category despite availing fee/age relaxation – Held: Relaxation in age and fee under Section 8 of the 1994 Act relates to eligibility and does not affect the selection standard – Reserved category candidates securing higher merit than last general category candidate can be adjusted in unreserved quota under Section 3(6) – No conflict with constitutional equality principles under Articles 14 and 16(1) – Distinction drawn between eligibility concession and merit-based selection – Interpretation consistent with object of empowering disadvantaged groups without undermining open competition [Paras 1, 6–10, 16–18, 37–43, 49–53].

Horizontal Reservations – Vacancies for Women and Sportspersons – Carry Forward – 2% posts reserved for sportspersons and 10% for women under horizontal reservations – Held: Horizontal reservations cannot be carried forward – Government Order dated 26.02.1999 mandates unfilled posts under women/sports quotas to be filled by suitable male/general candidates in same cycle – High Court erred in holding such posts were carried forward – Supreme Court clarifies that vacancies were lawfully filled and no illegality occurred in this regard – Directions of High Court modified and set aside [Paras 19–20, 55–64].

Reservation – Constitutional Interpretation – Article 16(4) vs. 16(1) – Held: Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but a facet of equality – Reservations must not breach the 50% ceiling (Indra Sawhney) – Reserved category candidates qualifying on merit cannot be excluded from general quota due to non-substantive relaxations – PGIMER v. Faculty Association reaffirms that equality must be balanced with empowerment [Paras 33–36, 48, 54].

Precedents – K.L. Narasimhan Overruled – Reliance on K.L. Narasimhan v. PGIMER for exclusion of reserved category candidates from general quota is misplaced – Overruled by Constitution Bench in PGIMER v. Faculty Association – Observations in Narasimhan not binding – Only candidates benefiting from relaxation in standard (not eligibility) are to be confined to reserved quota [Paras 40–47].

Decision:

Civil Appeals filed by general category candidates dismissed – High Court’s interpretation upheld on merit-based inclusion of reserved candidates in general quota – Civil Appeals filed by State of U.P. allowed – High Court’s directions regarding carry forward of women and sportspersons’ quota set aside – Posts lawfully filled by male/general category candidates.

Limitation – Declaratory Relief – Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963 – Accrual of Cause of Action – Mere existence of wrong entry in revenue records not sufficient to give rise to cause of action – Right to sue arises only when right asserted is infringed or threatened – Suit for declaration filed on 21.08.1990 after parties’ compromise of 26.10.1972 alleged to be barred by limitation – Trial Court, First Appellate Court and High Court dismissed the suit holding limitation began from date of compromise – Held: Right to sue first accrued when defendants refused to correct revenue entries and denied plaintiffs’ title about a week before filing the suit – Plaint averments must be accepted for deciding limitation at threshold – Suit therefore within time – Judgments of courts below and High Court set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for decision on merits [Paras 7–12].

Interpretation of “Right to Sue” – Cause of Action – When Arises – Judicial Precedents – Reiterated that there can be no right to sue until there is infringement or clear threat to infringe the right – Followed C. Mohammed Yunus v. Syed Unissa, AIR 1961 SC 808 – Applied principle that limitation begins when threat to right is manifest, not when adverse entry first made [Paras 7–9].

Revenue Records – Wrong Entry – Effect – Mere wrong entry in record of rights does not confer or extinguish title and cannot by itself start limitation – Cause of action arises when person entitled becomes aware and is denied his claim [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside – Matter remitted for decision on merits – No order as to costs.

Industrial Law – Retrenchment – Section 25G ID Act – Rule of “last come, first go” – Violation established – Labour Court’s award of reinstatement with 50% back wages justified – High Court substituted compensation of Rs. 87,582/- on erroneous assumption of illegal appointment – Held: High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 – No such plea or evidence before Labour Court – Findings of fact not open to reappreciation in writ jurisdiction – Labour Court award restored [Paras 5–13, 16].

Constitution of India – Articles 226 & 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limits of Interference – High Court cannot act as appellate court or entertain new factual pleas – Interference permissible only for jurisdictional or patent errors of law – Findings supported by evidence not open to review [Paras 10–11].

Labour Law – Employment Status – Erroneous assumption by High Court that workman was a daily wager despite documentary evidence showing appointment in regular pay scales – Decision vitiated [Para 12].

Social Welfare Legislation – Interpretation – Courts bound to adopt beneficial construction advancing objectives of the Industrial Disputes Act – Relief cannot be denied to workmen on technical grounds – Courts must be guided by Directive Principles (Articles 38, 39, 43, 43A) and constitutional philosophy of social justice [Paras 17–23].

Judicial Function – Role of Judiciary – Judiciary included in “State” under Article 12 – Duty under Article 38 to secure social, economic, and political justice – Judges must uphold the Preambular promise and protect weaker sections through purposive interpretation of welfare laws – Social justice forms the constitutional arch ensuring dignity and equality [Paras 26–43].

Globalisation and Social Justice – Liberalisation trends cannot dilute constitutional imperatives – Courts must remain vigilant to ensure that social justice and protection of workmen are not sacrificed to economic expediency [Paras 43–46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Labour Court’s award of reinstatement with 50% back wages restored – Costs of Rs. 25,000/- awarded to the appellant [Para 24].

Contract Law - Agency – Duty to Insure – Negligence of Agent – Section 211 & 212 Contract Act – Agent Liable as Insurer – The appellants, acting as commission agents, undertook to insure 92 bales of piecegoods for the respondents but failed to do so – Goods were destroyed in the Bombay dock explosion of 14 April 1944 – Held: Where an agent agrees to insure but fails, equity treats him as insurer himself and renders him liable for the loss as if a valid policy had existed – Neglect of duty directly caused the principal’s loss, not remotely – Appellants liable [Paras 12-14, 17].

Measure of Damages – Effect of Subsequent Ordinance – Bombay Explosion Compensation Ordinance, 1944 – Restitutio in integrum – Ordinance provided full compensation for insured property and only 50% for uninsured property – Goods being uninsured due to appellants’ neglect, respondents recovered only half from Government – Held: Loss of remaining half directly attributable to agent’s default – Ordinance merely substituted statutory yardstick for assessing damages but did not create new liability – Appellants must make good balance [Paras 17-19].

Remoteness of Damages – Intervening Legislation – Not Too Remote – Passing of Ordinance did not break chain of causation – Liability arose from neglect to insure; Ordinance only quantified damages – Anticipation of Government intervention irrelevant once breach established – Damages claimed were direct consequences of breach [Paras 15-19].

Section 18, Bombay Explosion Ordinance – Bar of Claims – Not Applicable to Counter-claim – Respondents’ claim not for “explosion damage” but for breach of duty by agent in business of agency – Cause of action was failure to insure, not explosion – Bar under Section 18(2) does not apply [Para 20-21].

Decision – By Majority (Kania C.J. & Das J.) – Appeal dismissed – Appellants held liable to make good balance of loss to respondents – Dissent (Patanjali Sastri J.) – Held that as ordinary fire insurance policy excluded explosion, no direct liability could arise – Ordinance did not enlarge agent’s liability – Counter-claim barred under Section 18(2) – Would have allowed appeal and dismissed counter-claim – Majority prevails; appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 22-33].

Criminal Law – Murder – Dying Declarations – Acquittal – Deceased Sarla suffered 90% burns in her matrimonial home – Three dying declarations recorded – In first two statements (Exh. D-3 and Exh. P-3), deceased stated she sustained injuries accidentally while cooking – In third dying declaration (Exh. P-18), recorded three days later by Executive Magistrate, she implicated her mother-in-law (appellant) for setting her on fire – Supreme Court found Exh. P-18 unreliable due to suspicious overwriting, unexplained delay, and possibility of tutoring – Held: First two consistent and voluntary statements inspire confidence, while third statement lacks credibility and cannot form basis for conviction [Paras 5-31]

Criminal Procedure – Evaluation of Dying Declarations – Principles reiterated – Dying declarations can form sole basis of conviction if found to be voluntary and trustworthy – However, where multiple declarations are inconsistent, Court must determine which, if any, inspires confidence – Held: Courts below erred in discarding earlier two declarations which were consistent, recorded promptly in presence of medical professionals and police officers, and supported by witness testimony [Paras 19-25, 31, 35]

Evidence Law – Weight of Dying Declarations – Earlier declarations made immediately after the incident without suspicion or signs of coercion given greater weight than subsequent contradictory version – Discrepancy in complainant’s conduct, delay in filing complaint, and sudden change in deceased's narrative highlighted as serious infirmities affecting reliability of Exh. P-18 [Paras 28-30]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Para 36]

Litigation – Duty of Candour – Clean Hands Doctrine – Litigant must come to court with true, complete, and candid disclosure of facts – Courts are not to grant relief to a party who suppresses material facts or misleads the court – Held: A litigant who pollutes the stream of justice or touches the fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final [Paras 1, 9, 19–21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Suppression and Misrepresentation – Petition under Article 226 containing misleading statements to obtain interim relief – Appellant falsely claimed ignorance of notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Ceiling Act and illness of his predecessor – Held: Misleading statement resulted in stay of lawful proceedings for over eleven years, frustrating statutory distribution of surplus land – Conduct held reprehensible [Paras 14–21].

Public Law – Misuse of Judicial Process – Courts have evolved principles to deny relief to litigants who abuse process through falsehood or concealment – Litigants who mislead the court in obtaining orders have no right to be heard on merits – Appeal liable to dismissal on this ground alone [Paras 2–6, 19–21].

Equitable Relief – Article 226 – Discretionary Nature – Exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 32, 136, and 226 is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary – Persons guilty of suppression, misrepresentation, or misleading conduct are disentitled from invoking such jurisdiction [Paras 7–9].

Land Ceiling – U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – Tenure-holder failed to file statement under Section 9(2A) and ignored notice under Section 10(2) – Ex parte order declaring surplus land passed after due service – Subsequent challenge based on false claim of non-service and illness rejected – Held: Proceedings before authorities and courts based on deception – No interference warranted [Paras 10–16, 20–22].

Judicial Ethics – Truth as Foundation of Justice – Court deplored growing tendency of litigants to resort to falsehood and suppression – Emphasised that truth must remain integral to justice delivery system, warning against abuse of courts by unscrupulous litigants [Para 1].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Orders of Prescribed and Appellate Authorities upheld – No interference warranted – Court refrained from imposing exemplary costs considering that the surplus land had already been distributed among landless persons [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction – Minor Victim – Intact Hymen – Slightest Penetration is Sufficient – Appellant found committing rape on 12-year-old prosecutrix in bushes by police officer (P.W.3) – Prosecutrix, though initially declared hostile, gave consistent account corroborated by FIR, medical history (Exh. P-9), and eyewitness testimony – Medical report indicated intact hymen, but Supreme Court reiterated legal position that slightest penetration constitutes rape under Section 375 IPC – Held: Offence of rape proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 12–16, 24–28].

Evidence Law – Prosecutrix as Sole Witness – Hostile Witness – Corroboration – Though prosecutrix was declared hostile, her version aligned with FIR and Section 161 CrPC statement – Medical history recorded immediately post-incident also consistent – Testimony of P.W.3, who caught appellant red-handed, provided strong corroboration – Court reiterated that testimony of prosecutrix, if trustworthy, does not require corroboration – Held: Conviction can be based on prosecutrix’s evidence even if uncorroborated [Paras 12, 15, 20–23, 30].

Medical Jurisprudence – Intact Hymen – Impact on Rape Allegation – Role of Medical Evidence – Defence contention that intact hymen disproved rape rejected – Court cited Modi and Parikh on Medical Jurisprudence to affirm that full penetration or emission of semen is not necessary – Slight penetration sufficient for legal definition of rape – Held: Medical opinion not determinative of legal conclusion on rape – Rape is a legal term, not a diagnosis – Non-examination of doctor not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 24–28].

Precedent – Applicability – Radhu v. State of M.P. Distinguished – Appellant relied on Radhu v. State of M.P. to seek benefit of doubt – Court held that unlike Radhu, present case had consistent evidence of prosecutrix, corroborated by eyewitness testimony of police officer – No major discrepancies found – Held: No ground to extend benefit of doubt – Conviction rightly upheld [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC confirmed – No interference warranted by Supreme Court.