Constitutional Law – Gender Discrimination – Recruitment in JAG Branch of Indian Army – Notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 permits induction of women into JAG branch – Petitioners, more meritorious female candidates (Ranks 4 and 5 in female list with 477 & 447 marks) denied selection in favour of less meritorious male candidate (Rank 3 in male list with 433 marks) due to separate gender-based merit lists and allocation of only 3 vacancies for women vs 6 for men – Held: Once women are allowed in a corps/branch under Section 12, executive cannot restrict their numbers or reserve seats for men by policy/administrative instruction – Such restriction not supported by statutory backing, violates Articles 14, 15, 16, and amounts to indirect discrimination – Combined merit list must be prepared as testing parameters are identical for men and women – Gender-neutral policy means selection of most meritorious candidates irrespective of gender, with at least 50% seats for women to compensate past exclusion, but no ceiling if more meritorious – Merit-based selection will improve efficiency of JAG – Respondents directed to induct Petitioner No.1 in next course, reject claim of less meritorious male candidate – Future recruitments to be on combined merit with marks published [Paras 38-50, 51-54, 55-58, 59-61, 62-68, 69-71, 72-82, 83, 84-87, 88-92, 93-99, 100-103, 104, 105-110, 111-118].

Army Law – Section 12 Army Act – Extent of Induction – Notifications of 1992 permitted women in 10 specified Combat Support Arms/Services including JAG – No statutory provision empowers executive to limit induction numbers within these branches – Administrative instructions/circulars of 2011 and 2012 imposing such limits are contrary to law – Principle: When statute prescribes a mode, it must be done in that manner or not at all – Reservation for male officers in permitted branches impermissible [Paras 38-50, 51-54].

Indirect Discrimination – 50:50 recruitment policy from 2024 facially equal but in practice disadvantages women – Evidence shows women candidates scored higher than men yet were excluded due to fixed ratio – Indirect discrimination occurs when facially neutral criteria have disproportionate adverse impact – Ceiling on female intake perpetuates historical exclusion and violates substantive equality – Selection must be merit-based without arbitrary gender ceilings [Paras 93-99].

Gender-Neutral vs Gender-Equal – Gender-equality means equal numbers; gender-neutrality means selection irrespective of gender based on merit – 2023 policy professes gender-neutrality but implemented as gender-equality with a fixed ratio, undermining merit – True gender-neutral recruitment must select best candidates regardless of gender, with 50% minimum for women only as compensatory measure, not maximum limit [Paras 84-92, 104].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Notification restricting female vacancies in JAG branch quashed to that extent – Petitioner No.1 to be inducted in next available course – Union of India directed to conduct future recruitments with combined merit list for men and women, publish marks and merit lists, and ensure compliance with constitutional mandate of equality [Paras 115-118].

Criminal Law – Unlicensed Firearms – Suo motu action by Supreme Court – Issue of proliferation and widespread use of unlicensed firearms noticed during hearing of SLP involving Section 302 IPC – Court highlighted that unlike U.S. Constitution, Indian Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to bear arms – Preservation of life under Article 21 necessitates strict control of illegal firearms – Directed affidavits from States and Union of India on measures taken – Recognized alarming rise in crimes involving illegal arms despite existing framework under Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016 [Paras 1, Order extracts 13.02.2023 – 07.11.2024].

Amicus Curiae Assistance – Suggestions Recorded – Court appointed Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Advocate as Amicus Curiae; he categorized arms into licensed, misused licensed, smuggled, and domestically manufactured illegal firearms – Emphasized eradication of categories III and IV (smuggled and illicitly manufactured arms) as grave threats to peace and security – Court annexed his written suggestions dated 29.10.2023 to its order [Paras 1, Order dated 07.11.2024].

Union of India – Affidavits on Arms Act Enforcement – Union filed affidavits (14.09.2023 and 12.02.2024) detailing amendments through Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 enhancing punishments, introducing new offences (illicit trafficking, organized crime, celebratory gunfire), and creating electronic licensing – Admitted rising trend of illegal arms seizures (2017-2021 NCRB data) – Noted ineffective enforcement by States despite statutory framework [Paras, Order extracts 07.11.2024].

Committees – State-Level and National-Level Oversight – Supreme Court directed each State/UT to constitute a five-member Committee (Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, DGP/IG, Law Secretary, and a Ballistics Expert) to prepare an action plan within 10 weeks covering enforcement, inspection, smuggling prevention, and data collection – Later, Union of India constituted a central Committee of Experts under DG, BPR&D with members from IB, NIA, and senior State officials to examine State action plans and oversee effective nationwide implementation [Paras, Orders dated 07.11.2024, 28.07.2025, and 11.08.2025].

Appreciation – Assistance Acknowledged – Court recorded appreciation for services rendered by Amicus Curiae, assisting counsels, ASGs, and State counsels in framing systemic responses – Granted liberty to intervenors to submit suggestions to the Committee of Experts [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Miscellaneous Application disposed of – Committees at State/UT level and Expert Committee under BPR&D directed to review and coordinate action plans, incorporating Amicus suggestions and Union affidavits – Effective implementation of Arms Act mandated to curb menace of illegal firearms across India [Paras 6-15].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Sections 307, 225, 186, 332, 353 & 120B IPC – Appeal Dismissed – Undertrial escorted by PW.1 & PW.2 was shifted, at appellant (Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail) instance, into a private Qualis with unknown men; near village stop on appellant’s pretext, chilli powder thrown and knife/kirpan used; attempt to free undertrial foiled due to handcuffs; appellant fled uninjured – Trial court conviction and High Court affirmation upheld; sentences concurrent – Held: chain of circumstances establishes conspiracy; single injured eyewitness reliable; Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning proper [Paras 2–4, 16–18, 19–22].

Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Prior police exoneration no bar – Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh followed – A person not named in FIR/charge-sheet may be summoned if trial evidence indicates involvement – No need to await cross-examination for 319 – Degree of satisfaction akin to framing charge – Summoning of appellant justified on PW.2’s testimony [Paras 16, 16.1; extracts of Hardeep Singh para 117].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Proof by circumstantial evidence – No overt act required – Inference from conduct before/during/after occurrence; concert of purpose suffices – Appellant suggested private vehicle with unknown men, orchestrated stop, remained passive, fled uninjured – Continuous chain of incriminating circumstances proves conspiracy; conviction with aid of 120B sustainable [Paras 17–17.4, 19.1–19.2].

Evidence – Hostile witnesses – Usable parts may be relied upon – PW.1 and driver PW.10 partly hostile, yet narrative on occurrence and roles supports prosecution – Law well settled that hostile testimony is not effaced and credible portions can be acted upon [Paras 14–15, 18–18.3].

Single eyewitness – Section 134 Evidence Act – Conviction can rest on injured eyewitness – PW.2’s account consistent, detailed (seating, stop on “nature call”, chilli powder, knife/kirpan injuries), corroborated by medical evidence; reliability enhanced as injured witness [Paras 12.2–12.3.1, 18.4–18.8].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Intent and weapon use decisive – Knife/kirpan blows and chilli-powder incapacitation during escape attempt indicate premeditated intent – Simple nature of injuries does not negate Section 307 when intention and means established [Paras 12.3–12.3.1, 8.4].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentences affirmed; no mitigating factor; appellant to be taken into custody; sentences to run concurrently [Paras 19–22].

Civil Law - Ex Parte Injunction – Mandatory Procedural Compliance – Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Trial Court's Injunction Set Aside – The High Court set aside an ex parte injunction granted to the petitioner real estate company on the ground that there was no prima facie case, no claim to ownership or specific performance, and that the application did not comply with mandatory procedural safeguards under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Held: Ex parte injunctions must comply strictly with the requirements of law including the recording of reasons and service of documents – Non-compliance justifies vacation of injunction without going into merits [Paras 1–7].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Improper Grant of Injunction – High Court's Intervention Upheld – The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, found the Trial Court order to be mechanical and lacking judicial application – Court directed transfer of case to another competent court for fresh hearing on injunction – Held: Inappropriate use of ex parte injunction without meeting legal thresholds warrants High Court’s interference under Article 227 [Paras 2, 5-6].

Transfer of Suit – Administrative Action Against Judicial Impropriety – Suit Transferred – In view of manner in which ex parte order was passed, the High Court ordered administrative placement of records before Administrative Judge for possible action – Held: Supervisory control may include corrective administrative measures in the interest of judicial propriety [Para 2].

Final Decision – Supreme Court Declines to Interfere – Hearing Fixed Before Trial Court – Supreme Court observed that since hearing on injunction was scheduled for the next day, it would not interfere with the High Court order – Directed Trial Court to hear both parties afresh and decide injunction application uninfluenced by prior observations – SLP disposed of [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Discipline – Directions to High Court Judge – Modification on Request of CJI – Supreme Court had earlier set aside an Allahabad High Court order and remanded matter for fresh hearing, while issuing directions restraining the concerned judge from handling criminal matters till demitting office – On written request from CJI, SC deleted paras 25 and 26 of earlier order, leaving matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court – Court reiterated that directions were issued to protect institutional dignity and public faith in judiciary, not to cast aspersions on the judge [Paras 1-8].

Institutional Integrity – Role of Supreme Court and High Courts – SC clarified it does not intend to interfere with administrative powers of High Court CJ as ‘master of the roster’ – However, in cases raising institutional concerns affecting rule of law, SC may intervene – Emphasised that High Courts must uphold rule of law, avoid perverse/unjust orders, and maintain credibility – Judges expected to discharge duties diligently and honour constitutional oath [Paras 4, 6, 9, 11-12].

Reference to Precedent – Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 512 – Noted past concern over misuse of criminal proceedings for civil disputes – Stressed the need to avoid recurrence of such cases [Para 10].

Decision – Special Leave Petition disposed – Paras 25 and 26 of order dated 04/08/2025 deleted – Registry to forward copy of present order to Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court [Paras 7, 13-14].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Benefit of Doubt – Appeal Allowed – Acquittal -  Appellant convicted with husband under Section 302 IPC for beating victim with sticks following land dispute—Supreme Court noted contradictions between medical evidence and prosecution’s timeline, unexplained injuries on victim’s parents, admitted family enmity over partition, and improbabilities in alleged dying declaration—Body found at victim’s house despite alleged assault at temple—Only PW-7, victim’s father with strained relations, claimed to witness attack; other witnesses only saw accused fleeing—Held: Reasonable doubt exists; conviction set aside; appellant acquitted [Paras 1-11].

Medical Evidence vs. Eyewitness Testimony – Doctor opined death occurred between 10-12 p.m., inconsistent with claim that victim died before 9 p.m.—Weapon (danda) allegedly recovered from appellant not chemically examined nor linked to fatal injury—Lack of clarity on cause and time of death undermined prosecution case [Paras 2-7].

Unexplained Injuries on Witnesses – PW-7 and victim’s mother had incised wounds possibly self-inflicted; prosecution failed to explain—Supports defence of intra-family dispute and alternative narrative [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside—Appellant acquitted; to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case; bail bonds cancelled [Paras 11-13].

Motor Accident Compensation – Self-Employed Person Abroad – Appeal Partly Allowed – Claimants challenged High Court’s award of ₹1,17,20,200/- for accidental death of 31-year-old U.S. national, contending omission of “future prospects” – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s income assessment of ₹78,300/- per month but applied 40% addition towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi, revised conventional heads, and recalculated total compensation to ₹1,60,15,280/- – Additional sum of ₹42,95,080/- with 6% interest awarded [Paras 3.7, 5.3-5.8].

Assessment of Income – High Court Correct in Relying on Foreign Earnings Evidence – Salary certificate, tax records with social security number, and U.S. minimum wage data properly considered – Tribunal’s finding of ₹5,000/- per month rejected – No cross-objections from insurer; SC maintained High Court’s income computation [Paras 3.5, 3.7].

Future Prospects – Self-Employed – 40% Addition Applicable – Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi clarified benefit applies to self-employed persons below 40 years – Applied despite complexities of assessing prospects abroad; lack of contrary evidence justified standard addition – Multiplier of 16 upheld [Paras 4, 5.1-5.5].

Conventional Heads – Figures Aligned with Pranay Sethi – Loss of estate ₹15,000/-, funeral expenses ₹15,000/-, loss of consortium ₹40,000/- per dependent (four dependents: ₹1,60,000/-) – Medical/transportation expenses not allowed [Paras 5.5-5.7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Additional ₹42,95,080/- with 6% interest to be deposited by insurer within four weeks before Tribunal; claimants to withdraw upon verification [Paras 6-7].

Motor Accident Liability – Insurer’s Obligation – Appeal Allowed – Appellant, ostensible owner/driver, challenged High Court’s absolution of insurer from liability for compensation in three claim petitions—Supreme Court held that deceased/injured were owners of goods accompanying their goods in a goods vehicle, hence covered as third parties under Section 147(1)(b)(i) MV Act—Finding of gratuitous passengers by High Court set aside—Ownership remained with registered owner at accident time; insurer bound to indemnify [Paras 7-11].

Gratuitous Passengers – Evidence – Tribunal’s factual finding that victims were accompanying goods for security, hence not gratuitous passengers, upheld—Insurer’s assertion lacked substantiation; no seizure mahazar or criminal case records produced—High Court erred in reversing finding without material [Paras 7-8].

Transfer of Ownership – Possession vs. Ownership – Agreement showed only possession with balance consideration unpaid; registration not transferred as per Section 50 MV Act—Registered owner continued to be ‘owner’ for liability purposes—Naveen Kumar applied; liability falls on registered owner and indemnifiable by insurer [Paras 9-10].

Selective Appeals by Insurer – High Court failed to address claimants’ contention that insurer challenged only three of eleven awards—No rebuttal by insurer—Irrelevant in light of insurer’s liability being upheld [Para 11].

Decision – C.A. Nos. 6338-6339/2024 and 6340/2024 allowed; C.A. Nos. 6341/2024 and 6342/2024 dismissed as settled in Lok Adalat—Awards to be satisfied by insurer with interest as per Tribunal/High Court directions [Paras 6, 12].

Motor Accident Compensation – Cancelled Insurance Policy – Pay and Recovery – Appeal Disposed – Offending vehicle’s insurance policy cancelled over three months before accident due to dishonoured premium cheque; insurer intimated owner and RTO—Tribunal and High Court still directed insurer to pay claimants and recover from owner—Supreme Court applied Deddappa and United India Insurance principles: insurer absolved in law upon cancellation before accident with intimation, yet, in exercise of Article 142 powers, pay-and-recover direction sustained in part—No recovery from claimants for 50% already paid; insurer may recover that amount from owner—Remaining 50% recoverable by claimants from owner [Paras 3.1-6].

Cancellation of Policy – Effect on Third Party Claims – While cancellation before accident generally negates liability, Court balanced equities by protecting amounts already disbursed to claimants—Avoided reopening settled part-payments to prevent hardship [Paras 5.3-5.7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed; insurer permitted to recover 50% already paid from vehicle owner; claimants to recover remaining 50% from owner—No recovery from claimants for amounts withdrawn [Para 6].