Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Welfare of the Child – Custody Granted to Father - The appellant-father sought custody of his minor child, who was living with his maternal grandparents after the mother’s demise – The High Court denied custody, granting only visitation rights – The Supreme Court held that the father, as the natural guardian, has a superior claim unless there are compelling reasons to deny custody – Considering that the father is well-employed and financially secure, and there are no allegations of abuse, the child’s welfare would be best served in the father’s custody – Ordered a transitional arrangement allowing the child to stay with the grandparents until the academic year’s end before transferring full custody to the father – The grandparents retained periodic visitation rights post-custody transfer. Appeal Allowed. [Paras 8-11].

Motor Accident – Compensation – Future Prospects – Split Multiplier Rejected – Compensation Enhanced - The claimants sought compensation for the death of the deceased in a road accident – The Tribunal awarded ₹28,66,994/-, but the High Court reduced it to ₹19,66,833/- by applying a split multiplier approach, considering pre- and post-retirement income – The Supreme Court held that the split multiplier method is impermissible unless special reasons are recorded – The Court relied on Sarla Verma and Sumathi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. to determine the appropriate multiplier – Held: The deceased’s full salary should have been considered for loss of dependency, with a 15% increase for future prospects – Compensation was reassessed by applying a multiplier of 9, granting loss of consortium to each claimant, and ensuring fair compensation – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and enhanced the compensation to ₹33,03,300/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal [Paras 11-14]. Appeal Allowed.

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Arrest – Violation of Article 22(1) – Arrest Declared Unconstitutional – Immediate Release Ordered - The appellant was arrested for financial offences under the IPC—He alleged that he was not informed of the grounds for arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution—The State argued that the appellant’s wife was informed of the grounds, but no record showed compliance with the requirement to inform the arrestee directly—The Supreme Court reaffirmed that informing the arrestee in a meaningful manner is a fundamental right—Held: Failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused renders the arrest unconstitutional and vitiates any subsequent remand—The appellant was ordered to be released immediately, and the State of Haryana was directed to issue guidelines to ensure strict compliance with constitutional safeguards in future arrests—Further, directions were issued to prevent inhumane treatment of arrested persons, such as handcuffing and chaining to hospital beds [Paras 21-33].

Motor Accident – Just and Fair Compensation – Compensation Enhanced - The appellant, a primary school teacher, suffered serious injuries in a road accident due to negligent driving – The Tribunal assessed the disability at 10% and awarded Rs. 6,17,515/- – The High Court enhanced the amount by Rs. 60,000/- but did not fully account for the extent of injuries and losses suffered – The Supreme Court held that just compensation should be awarded regardless of the amount claimed – Following the principles laid down in precedents, the compensation was recalculated based on loss of income, future prospects, permanent disability (40%), and additional expenses – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 17,82,825/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal Allowed. [Paras 9-11].

Challenge to the constitutionality - Legislative Power – Repeal of Law – Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 – Validity Upheld - Karnataka Legislature enacted the 2003 Repeal Act, repealing the 1976 KCCA Act, which had previously nationalized private contract carriages – Held: The power to repeal a statute is coextensive with the power to enact it – The repeal was a legislative policy decision taken to liberalize public transport and address passenger shortages – The contention that the repeal nullified prior Supreme Court rulings upholding the KCCA Act is untenable – Further, fresh Presidential assent was not required as the repeal did not amount to re-enactment but merely extinguished the earlier statutory framework – Accordingly, the 2003 Repeal Act is constitutional [Paras 10-18].

Delegation of Powers – Grant of Contract Carriage Permits – Whether a Quasi-Judicial Function – Validity of Delegation - Under Section 68(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Transport Authority (STA) and Regional Transport Authority (RTA) are empowered to delegate their functions if authorized by rules made under Section 96 – Rule 56(1)(d) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 permits delegation of the power to grant permits other than stage carriage permits – Held: Permit-granting is a quasi-judicial function, but statutory provisions allow its delegation to the Secretary, STA, for administrative efficiency – The High Court's finding that such delegation was impermissible was erroneous – The delegation is legally valid and necessary for expeditious processing of permits [Paras 19-27].

Judicial Precedents – Legislative Repeal vs. Judicial Review – No Conflict -  Respondents argued that the repeal of the 1976 KCCA Act was unconstitutional as it overruled Supreme Court judgments in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) and Vijayakumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (1990) – Held: Judicial decisions upheld the validity of the 1976 KCCA Act at the time of enactment, but they do not prevent the Legislature from subsequently repealing it – The repeal was based on evolving transport policy needs and did not amount to overruling a judicial precedent [Paras 13-15].

Administrative Law – Scope of Delegation – Whether Delegation to STA Secretary is Ultra Vires – No - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, permit delegation of routine permit-granting powers – The Secretary, being a high-ranking official, is competent to process non-stage carriage permits – Held: Delegation does not remove judicial oversight but streamlines administration – Practical necessity warrants such delegation, and the High Court erred in invalidating it [Paras 22-27].

Final Decision – Appeals of KSRTC Dismissed – Appeals of Private Bus Operators and Karnataka STA Allowed - 2003 Repeal Act is constitutional, and the STA can delegate the power to grant non-stage carriage permits – The High Court’s ruling against delegation is set aside – Appeals by private bus operators and Karnataka STA allowed – Appeal by KSRTC dismissed [Paras 28-31].

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Retrospective or Prospective Application of Compensation Benefits – Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 – Supreme Court had earlier held that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, by excluding solatium and interest, was unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 – NHAI sought clarification that the judgment in Tarsem Singh (2019) should apply only prospectively – Held: Granting prospective operation would restore the inequality that Tarsem Singh sought to remedy – Thus, solatium and interest must be granted for acquisitions between 1997 and 2015 [Paras 15-20].

Doctrine of Immutability – Reopening of Closed Cases – NHAI contended that retrospective application would require reopening settled cases, violating doctrine of immutability – Supreme Court held that allowing compensation adjustments for solatium and interest does not equate to reopening cases but only ensures parity among similarly situated landowners – No re-evaluation of compensation or questioning of acquisition legality is involved – Hence, retrospective application does not violate the doctrine of immutability [Paras 21-25].

Financial Burden on the Government – Public Interest vs. Fair Compensation – NHAI argued that retrospective application would impose an additional burden of ₹92.18 crores on the public exchequer – Court held that financial hardship cannot justify denying constitutionally valid compensation – Compensation burden in public projects is ultimately borne by users through tolls or private partnerships – The State cannot escape liability for fair compensation under Article 300A [Paras 26-30].

Judicial Precedent – Avoiding Inconsistent Rulings – Article 14 Violation – Supreme Court clarified that allowing different treatment for landowners based on the date of acquisition would result in hostile discrimination – Denying solatium and interest to acquisitions before 2015, while allowing them for later cases, lacks intelligible differentia – Court reaffirmed that constitutional violations cannot be sustained based on arbitrary cut-off dates [Paras 31-35].

Misuse of Miscellaneous Applications – Strategic Litigation Tactics – Court criticized the misuse of miscellaneous applications as a backdoor method to seek review of settled law – Clarification applications cannot be used to re-litigate a decided issue – Held: The present application amounts to an indirect attempt to nullify Tarsem Singh (2019) and is dismissed accordingly [Paras 36-38].

Decision: The Miscellaneous Application is dismissed – Supreme Court rejects the plea to restrict the Tarsem Singh (2019) ruling to prospective cases – Solatium and interest must be granted retrospectively for land acquisitions between 1997 and 2015 – Connected appeals disposed of with directions to the Competent Authority to recalculate compensation accordingly.

Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction under Section 302 - Conviction set aside and benefit of doubt granted - Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility and Reliability – Prosecution relied on extra-judicial confession made by the accused before PW-1 (landlord), PW-3 (brother of deceased), PW-4 (relative), and PW-6 (neighbor) – Supreme Court reaffirmed that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and must be examined with great caution – Confession must be voluntary, truthful, and inspire confidence – Held: The alleged confession lacked credibility as PW-3 stated that the accused was in a confused state of mind when making the statement, making it unreliable [Paras 17-19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Burden on Prosecution to Prove Chain of Events – Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including last-seen theory and extra-judicial confession – Supreme Court reiterated that the chain of circumstances must be complete and exclude every hypothesis except guilt – Held: No forensic evidence, no blood-stained clothes, and no direct link between the accused and the crime – Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 19-22].

Material Contradictions in Witness Statements – Impact on Credibility – Testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6 suffered from material contradictions – PW-3 claimed that the accused confessed to him, but this was missing from his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement – PW-6 also admitted that the police failed to record key parts of his testimony – Supreme Court held that unexplained contradictions in witness statements weaken the prosecution case and cast serious doubt on the alleged confession [Paras 24-26].

Suspicion vs. Proof – Conviction Cannot Be Based on Doubt Alone – While the circumstances raised suspicion against the appellant, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Supreme Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof – Mere presence of the accused at the scene or post-incident behavior is insufficient for conviction – Held: Prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime – Appellant acquitted on the benefit of doubt [Paras 27-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt – Since the appellant is in custody, he shall be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.

Service Law – Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings vs. Criminal Proceedings – Standard of proof in a criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in a departmental enquiry, it is preponderance of probabilities – High Court erred in treating criminal acquittal as binding in disciplinary proceedings – Held: Even if an employee is acquitted in a criminal case, the employer can still impose penalties based on the disciplinary enquiry’s findings [Paras 12-17].

Administrative Law – Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings – Courts should not interfere with disciplinary proceedings unless procedural irregularities, bias, or violation of natural justice are evident – High Court wrongly re-evaluated evidence, which is beyond the scope of judicial review – Held: Intra-court appellate jurisdiction should not be exercised to reappreciate facts unless findings are perverse or legally unsustainable [Paras 18-21].

Service Law – Impact of Acquittal in Criminal Cases on Departmental Proceedings – High Court misapplied the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat – Disciplinary Authority was not bound by the criminal court’s finding, especially when acquittal was based on benefit of doubt – Supreme Court affirms that mere acquittal does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement [Paras 22-26].

Corruption Charges – Admissibility of Confessions in Departmental Proceedings – Statements made by the accused before the Trap Laying Officer (PW-2) and investigating officers were inadmissible in the criminal trial due to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act – However, such statements are admissible in departmental proceedings – Held: High Court erred in rejecting the evidence of investigating officers and trap witnesses, which was sufficient to establish misconduct under service rules [Paras 27-30].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Earlier Supreme Court Orders – The Division Bench overruled prior findings of a Coordinate Bench, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2008 – Supreme Court held that earlier findings had attained finality, and re-examining the same issue in a fresh appeal was impermissible – Held: The Division Bench acted beyond its jurisdiction in overturning well-settled findings [Paras 31-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Judgment of the Single Judge reinstated – Order of dismissal from service restored – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Appeals against conviction under Sections 392, 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act - Conviction based on identification – Test Identification Parade (TIP) not conducted – Benefit of doubt granted – The incident occurred at night, and none of the accused were named in the FIR – No TIP was conducted to confirm the identity of the accused – Dock identification by witnesses took place after a significant delay of over a year – Three prosecution witnesses categorically denied that the accused committed the crime, while another stated that it was too dark to recognize them – Held: Failure to conduct a TIP weakened the prosecution case, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt [Paras 18-20].

Criminal Law – Doubtful arrest and recovery – Credibility of prosecution case questioned – The prosecution claimed that the complainant spotted the accused two days after the robbery and informed the police, leading to their arrest near a bus depot – No record of the complainant’s tip-off was entered in the police station diary before officers left for the arrest – Conflicting statements by police witnesses (PW-10 and PW-13) regarding where they received the tip-off – Complainant (PW-1) contradicted himself during cross-examination, stating that he had not seen the accused on the date of arrest – Held: The arrest and recovery were found to be highly suspicious and unworthy of acceptance [Paras 11-17].

Criminal Law – Recovery of weapons – Prosecution evidence not reliable – The prosecution alleged that weapons (screwdriver, knives, and a country-made pistol) were recovered from the accused – Complainant (PW-1) testified that he was made to sign blank papers, casting doubt on the authenticity of the seizure memorandums – No looted articles were recovered from the appellants – Trial Court had already acquitted them of the charge under Section 411 IPC (possession of stolen property) – Held: Incriminating evidence not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal [Paras 15-18].

Criminal Procedure – Standard of proof in criminal trials – Benefit of doubt – In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, courts must scrutinize evidence carefully to determine the credibility of arrests and recoveries – The High Court failed to assess the prosecution evidence with necessary caution – Where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted – Held: Convictions set aside, and the appellants acquitted [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeals are allowed – The conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court are set aside – The appellants are acquitted of all charges – Since they are on bail, they need not surrender – Their bail bonds stand discharged.