Administrative Law - Correction of Date of Birth – Appeal against High Court’s administrative order refusing to correct date of birth from 26.01.1971 to 09.01.1972 – Appellant’s request made within prescribed two-year period under amended Punjab Financial Volume I Rules, 2001 – Supreme Court finds High Court failed to conduct special inquiry as required by rules – Affidavit from Chief Registrar confirming correct date of birth as 09.01.1972 – Appeal allowed, order for correction of service records issued. [Paras 1-11]

Presumption of Birth Records – Analysis – Held – Birth records hold presumptive value – Affidavit from Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths confirming correct date of birth – High Court’s reliance on assumption of selection committee’s influence by age unsubstantiated – Order denying correction set aside. [Paras 9-11]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order for Correction of Date of Birth – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s order, directs correction of appellant’s date of birth in service records to 09.01.1972 – Respondents ordered to make necessary changes. [Paras 10-11]

Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal – High Court’s reversal of trial court’s acquittal – Appeal against High Court’s conviction for murder and attempted murder – Supreme Court finds High Court justified in interfering due to perverse findings by trial court – Presence of injured eyewitness and other credible evidence supported prosecution case – Conviction upheld. [Paras 1-12]

Evaluation of Evidence – Delay in FIR – Analysis – Held – No unexplained delay in lodging FIR – High Court correctly observed that primary concern was to provide medical aid to injured – FIR recorded promptly after reaching hospital – High Court’s re-evaluation of evidence found consistent and justified. [Paras 11-12]

Witness Credibility – Injured Witness Testimony – Analysis – Held – Injured eyewitness testimony carries high probative value – Presence of injured witness corroborated by other independent witnesses – High Court’s acceptance of evidence found reasonable – Arguments regarding discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and non-examination of bus crew found unpersuasive. [Paras 12-12]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Upheld – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision, dismisses appeal, confirms life imprisonment sentences for appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. [Paras 12-12]

Administrative Law - Correction of Date of Birth – Appeal against High Court’s administrative order refusing to correct date of birth from 26.01.1971 to 09.01.1972 – Appellant’s request made within prescribed two-year period under amended Punjab Financial Volume I Rules, 2001 – Supreme Court finds High Court failed to conduct special inquiry as required by rules – Affidavit from Chief Registrar confirming correct date of birth as 09.01.1972 – Appeal allowed, order for correction of service records issued. [Paras 1-11]

Presumption of Birth Records – Analysis – Held – Birth records hold presumptive value – Affidavit from Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths confirming correct date of birth – High Court’s reliance on assumption of selection committee’s influence by age unsubstantiated – Order denying correction set aside. [Paras 9-11]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order for Correction of Date of Birth – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s order, directs correction of appellant’s date of birth in service records to 09.01.1972 – Respondents ordered to make necessary changes. [Paras 10-11]

Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal – High Court’s reversal of trial court’s acquittal – Appeal against High Court’s conviction for murder and attempted murder – Supreme Court finds High Court justified in interfering due to perverse findings by trial court – Presence of injured eyewitness and other credible evidence supported prosecution case – Conviction upheld. [Paras 1-12]

Evaluation of Evidence – Delay in FIR – Analysis – Held – No unexplained delay in lodging FIR – High Court correctly observed that primary concern was to provide medical aid to injured – FIR recorded promptly after reaching hospital – High Court’s re-evaluation of evidence found consistent and justified. [Paras 11-12]

Witness Credibility – Injured Witness Testimony – Analysis – Held – Injured eyewitness testimony carries high probative value – Presence of injured witness corroborated by other independent witnesses – High Court’s acceptance of evidence found reasonable – Arguments regarding discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and non-examination of bus crew found unpersuasive. [Paras 12-12]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Upheld – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision, dismisses appeal, confirms life imprisonment sentences for appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. [Paras 12-12]

Constitutional Law - Discretionary Allotment of Government Land – Public Interest Litigation challenging arbitrary and illegal discretionary allotments of plots in Salt Lake City – Petitioner alleges deviation from Master Plan, political and financial favoritism – Supreme Court finds prior judgments have attained finality and bar re-litigation of settled matters – No fresh adjudication warranted – PIL dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Principles of Finality and Fairness – Analysis – Held – Courts should not allow re-litigation of issues already settled – Previous judgments on discretionary allotments, including Supreme Court decisions, found no grounds to quash allotments – High Court and Supreme Court addressed allegations, ensuring finality in litigation – PIL re-raising settled issues found unsustainable. [Paras 13-15]

Discretionary Quota Allotments – Policy and Compliance – Examination – Held – State government ceased discretionary allotments post guidelines issued in 1999 – Affidavit confirms minimal remaining plots under discretionary quota, no further allotments planned – Supreme Court recognizes efforts to end discretionary practices – Dismissal of PIL maintains policy consistency and judicial finality. [Paras 16-17]

Decision – Dismissal of Public Interest Litigation – Supreme Court dismisses PIL, citing settled rights and finality of previous judgments – Reaffirms policy and legal adherence by the state in allotment matters – No costs imposed. [Paras 17-17]

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator – Appeal against High Court order dismissing application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Dispute concerning termination of contract and subsequent extra costs incurred by the Appellant – Supreme Court holds Designate of Chief Justice exceeded jurisdiction in deciding tenability of claim and res judicata – Application under Section 11 should only address existence of arbitration agreement – Appeal allowed, arbitrator appointed. [Paras 1-21]

Jurisdiction of Chief Justice/Designate – Analysis – Held – Chief Justice or Designate not to examine merits or tenability of claims, limited to existence of arbitration agreement – Determination of issues like res judicata or limitation falls within arbitrator’s jurisdiction – Designate erred in dismissing application based on detailed examination of claims. [Paras 10-13]

Principles of Arbitration – Res Judicata and Limitation – Held – Consideration of res judicata and limitation involves factual analysis unsuitable for proceedings under Section 11 – Arbitrator to decide such issues during arbitration – Supreme Court corrects jurisdictional overreach by High Court’s Designate. [Paras 14-19]

Decision – Appointment of Arbitrator – Supreme Court sets aside High Court Designate’s order, appoints Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.) as sole arbitrator – Directions given for fair arbitration proceedings, including consideration of all contentions by parties. [Paras 20-21]

Criminal Law - Admissibility of Confessional Statements – Appeal against conviction based on confessional statement under TADA – Confession to police officer inadmissible under Evidence Act but admissible under TADA – Supreme Court finds confession weak evidence due to potential police torture – Conviction based solely on such confession without corroborative material deemed unsafe – Conviction set aside. [Paras 1-10]

Constitutional Law - Membership of Banned Organization – Appeal against conviction under Section 3(5) of TADA for membership of ULFA – Supreme Court holds mere membership not incriminating unless active participation in violence proven – Relies on principles from US Supreme Court decisions against guilt by association – Conviction under Section 3(5) set aside for lack of evidence of active involvement. [Paras 11-17]

Decision – Acquittal and Discharge – Supreme Court sets aside conviction and acquits appellant – Orders release of appellant from bail conditions. [Paras 18-19]

Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appeal against High Court judgment convicting appellants under Section 302 IPC – Initial trial court conviction under Section 307 IPC – Supreme Court finds inconsistency in prosecution case regarding cause of death – Post-mortem showed no gunshot wounds contrary to prosecution claims – Benefit of doubt given to appellants – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside. [Paras 1-6]

Conviction under Section 325 IPC – Analysis – Held – Appellants guilty under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC due to admission of gunshot injury to Baggar Singh – Sentence of period already undergone awarded – High Court judgment modified accordingly. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Modification of Judgment – Supreme Court modifies High Court judgment, acquits appellants of charge under Section 302 IPC, convicts under Section 325 IPC, and awards sentence of period already undergone – Appeal disposed of accordingly – Bonds of appellants discharged. [Paras 8-9]

Civil Procedure - Suit for Declaration – Appeal against High Court judgment dismissing suit for declaration of ownership and possession – Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld the suit – High Court reversed findings, holding suit not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Supreme Court finds High Court's application of Section 34 incorrect – Suit included prayer for declaration, injunction, and alternative possession – High Court's reliance on previous case law deemed misplaced – High Court judgment set aside and First Appellate Court's judgment restored. [Paras 1-15]

Specific Relief Act - Section 34 – Analysis – Held – A suit for declaration is maintainable if accompanied by consequential relief – Prayers for declaration, injunction, and alternative possession meet requirements of Section 34 – High Court misinterpreted Section 34, leading to erroneous dismissal of the suit – Appeal allowed, and suit maintained as per lower court findings. [Paras 7-13]

Decision – Restoration of Lower Court Judgment – Supreme Court restores judgment of First Appellate Court, setting aside High Court's order – Suit for declaration and injunction found maintainable under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act – No order as to costs. [Paras 14-15]