Service Law - Pay Parity – Equal Pay for Equal Work – No Absolute Right – High Court's Direction Set Aside – The respondent association sought parity of pay scale for Personal Assistants (P.A.s) in the Haryana Civil Secretariat with their counterparts in the Central Secretariat under the Fourth Central Pay Commission – The High Court allowed the petition based on the unrebutted averment of similar duties and granted the scale of Rs. 2000–3500 from 1.1.1986 – Held: The Supreme Court ruled that parity in designation does not imply parity in duties, and that such matters fall within the executive’s domain – Courts should exercise restraint unless the administrative decision is shown to be patently irrational or discriminatory – The High Court erred in granting parity without conducting a proper comparison of qualifications, recruitment process, duties, and responsibilities – Judgment of the High Court set aside and the writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Pay Fixation – Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Supreme Court Reiterates Restraint – The Court observed that pay fixation and job evaluation are complex administrative matters involving several factors such as qualifications, job responsibilities, promotion avenues, and financial viability – Judicial review is permissible only when there is manifest arbitrariness – Held: In the absence of cogent material and comparative data, judicial directions on pay scales are inappropriate – Courts must defer to expert bodies like Pay Commissions unless irrationality is demonstrated [Paras 8-10].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, set aside the High Court’s judgment granting higher pay scale to P.A.s, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the association – However, no recovery of excess payments already made was ordered [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law - Child Rape – Conviction Restored – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix Sufficient – The prosecutrix, a child aged 8 years, was sexually assaulted by the respondent who was aged 18 at the time – The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC, relying on the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-5), her mother (PW-2), father (PW-1), and medical evidence (PW-11) – The High Court reversed the conviction citing absence of independent witnesses and delay in FIR – Held: The Supreme Court restored the conviction, holding that the victim’s testimony was natural, credible, and needed no further corroboration – Delay in FIR was satisfactorily explained – Appeal allowed [Paras 1–8, 12–14, 20].

Rape Law – Testimony of Victim – No Corroboration Required – Conviction Can Be Based Solely on Victim’s Statement – Referring to State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the Court reaffirmed that in rape cases, especially involving child victims, the victim's statement is of paramount importance – Requiring corroboration adds insult to injury – Held: The High Court erred in expecting independent witnesses and undervaluing the child victim’s testimony [Paras 12–13].

Delay in FIR – Justified Explanation – Not Fatal to Prosecution – The incident occurred in the morning, and the FIR was lodged the following day – The family waited for the return of the father and had no transport to reach the police station, which was 15 km away – Held: Delay was adequately explained, especially considering the rural setting and sensitive nature of the offence [Para 8].

Medical Evidence – Sufficient Support – Opinion of Doctor Affirmed Intercourse – The High Court rejected the prosecution’s case citing absence of evidence from lady doctors – However, PW-11, Dr. Harsh Chand Jain, clearly deposed that penetration had occurred and intercourse could not be ruled out – Held: Medical opinion corroborated the child’s testimony – Absence of Dr. Pushpa Gupta’s testimony not fatal [Paras 7, 15].

Evidence – Non-examination of Independent Witnesses – Not Fatal Where Victim is Credible – The High Court emphasized that no villagers were examined – Supreme Court held that in sexual offences, especially those involving minors, social stigma and victim trauma often prevent wider reporting – Held: Family members’ evidence sufficient – No unnatural conduct shown [Paras 11, 14].

Sentencing – No Leniency Warranted – Heinousness of Crime Emphasized – The respondent sought leniency due to passage of time and partial sentence already served – Held: Child rape is a crime against humanity and deserves no sympathy – Sentence of 7 years RI upheld – Respondent to serve remainder of sentence [Paras 18–19].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Conviction and Sentence by Trial Court Restored – Respondent to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence [Para 20].

Criminal Law - Conviction under TADA – Bomb Blast in Train – Life Sentence – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant was convicted for multiple offences including under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA, Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act in relation to a bomb blast in a Mumbai local train causing 12 deaths and injuries to 65 persons – The Designated Court relied on appellant’s confessional statement under Section 15 of TADA, eyewitness testimony, and co-accused’s confession – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction holding the confession voluntary and sufficient for conviction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 5–6, 17–23, 25].

Confession under Section 15 TADA – Substantive Evidence – No Corroboration Required – The appellant’s confession was recorded by a Superintendent of Police with due compliance of legal safeguards – The Court held that a voluntary and truthful confession under TADA is a substantive piece of evidence requiring no corroboration – The retraction of the confession after four years was held immaterial – Conviction based solely on confession sustained [Paras 9–11, 17–18].

Confession by Co-accused – Admissibility – Minor Contradictions Irrelevant – Confessional statement by co-accused Nishan Singh also implicated the appellant – The Court held minor discrepancies between the two confessions immaterial and found general corroboration in both statements – Confession of co-accused under TADA also admissible as substantive evidence against appellant [Paras 13–15, 19].

Approver's Testimony – Not Sole Basis – Legal Irregularities Not Examined – The Court chose not to rely on the testimony of approver Kulvinder Singh due to legal objections, including delay in pardon and procedural lapses – Held: Since conviction was based on independent and substantive evidence in the form of confession and eyewitness identification, approver’s evidence was not essential [Paras 20].

Eyewitness Identification – Satisfactory Corroboration – Deepali Chauhan (PW-3), a bomb blast survivor and eyewitness, identified the appellant in a test identification parade and during trial – Her testimony, though based on a brief sighting, was held reliable given the traumatic circumstances – Her version corroborated the appellant’s confession – Delay in identification explained and held non-fatal [Paras 21–22].

Retracted Confession – Conviction Still Valid – The retraction of the confession after four years during Section 313 CrPC examination was held to be of no consequence – The confession was found to be free, voluntary, and truthful, forming the valid basis of conviction under TADA [Paras 10, 17–18].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence including life imprisonment upheld – No illegality found in judgment of Designated Court – Confessional statement and eyewitness evidence held sufficient [Para 25].

Examination Law - Teacher Recruitment – Cancellation of Examination – Writs Challenging Selection Process – Judgment Allows Government Action – The Supreme Court allowed appeals filed against the High Court’s orders interfering with the Government of Andhra Pradesh’s decision to cancel the 1998 District Selection Committee examination in Anantapur District due to large-scale malpractices – The Court upheld the cancellation and fresh examination, set aside the High Court’s directions relating to administrative tribunal appointments, reservation carry-forward, and reduction of qualifying marks – Held: Government acted on valid reports of irregularities and courts should not lightly interfere in such policy decisions taken in public interest [Paras 1–9, 10–14, 16–22].

Teacher Recruitment – Mass Copying and Paper Leakage – Cancellation of Examination Justified – The Anantapur DSC examination was cancelled based on a detailed report by the Superintendent of Police citing serious irregularities including mass copying, sale of question papers, and invigilator collusion – Held: The Government's action was based on concrete material and was justified – Interference by the High Court without examining the full report was unwarranted [Paras 1–8].

Administrative Tribunals – High Court’s Directions on Tenure and Appointment – Improper Exercise of Power – The High Court issued directions altering tenure of tribunal members and prescribing appointment norms contrary to the statutory framework and binding Supreme Court judgments – Held: Such directions are beyond the High Court’s jurisdiction and overreach settled law under Articles 141 and 323A – Tribunal matters should be left to Parliament and the Supreme Court as per established precedent [Paras 10–14].

Relaxation of Qualifying Marks – Rule 13 of 1994 Rules – Valid and Within Executive Power – The Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 618 reducing the minimum qualifying marks for written examination to ensure adequate number of candidates qualified for interview – Held: Such relaxation was permissible under Rule 13 of the A.P. Direct Recruitment Rules – High Court erred in holding the notification ultra vires, especially in absence of impleadment of selected candidates [Paras 16–20].

Reservation Policy – Future Directions by High Court – Directions Uncalled For – The High Court issued directions on reservation and carry-forward policy for future recruitment despite holding that the current selections need not be disturbed – Held: The High Court’s directions were hypothetical, unnecessary, and not required for resolving the issue at hand – Such prospective declarations were unwarranted [Para 21].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Judgment of High Court Set Aside – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Cancellation of Anantapur exam upheld – Directions on tribunals, reservations, and qualifying marks held unsustainable [Paras 9, 14, 21–22].

Criminal Law - Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Acquittal Under Section 306 – No Automatic Conviction Under Section 498A – Trial Court and High Court convicted the accused under Section 498A while acquitting him of abetment of suicide under Section 306 – Held: Conviction under Section 498A not sustainable in absence of evidence satisfying statutory requirements – Explanation (b) to Section 498A requires proof of harassment related to unlawful demand – No such demand proved – Mere mention of quarrels or poor treatment in letters written by deceased insufficient to establish cruelty within the statutory meaning – Accused acquitted [Paras 15–18].

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Acquittal – Finding of Accidental Death – No Willful Conduct Proximate to Suicide – Held: With both trial court and High Court ruling out suicide, Explanation (a) to Section 498A cannot be invoked – No evidence of grave injury or mental cruelty proximate to death – Conviction under Section 498A unsustainable when abetment not established and death was not by suicide [Paras 10, 18].

Evidence – Inconsistency in Testimony – Oral and Documentary Evidence Not Corroborative – Letters allegedly written by deceased to family members show no consistent pattern of harassment – Oral testimonies of deceased’s brother and cousin contradictory and unreliable – Dying declaration inconclusive – Held: No credible material on record to prove charge under Section 498A – Conviction based on misplaced reliance on insufficient and inconsistent evidence amounts to perversity [Paras 12–14, 17].

Independent Offences – Section 306 and Section 498A IPC – Distinct Provisions – But Both Require Cogent Evidence – Held: Although Section 498A is independent of Section 306 IPC, it still requires clear proof of cruelty as defined – Conviction cannot be upheld merely on general allegations or unspecific grievances – In absence of demand for dowry or coercive harassment, Section 498A not attracted [Para 17].

Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Insufficient Evidence – No Statutory Ingredients Established – Accused Acquitted – Held: Neither explanation (a) nor (b) to Section 498A attracted – No cogent material to support conviction – Trial Court and High Court erred in appreciating evidence – Conviction set aside [Paras 18–19].

Constitutional Validity of Electricity Duty – Inter-State Sale – Constitutional Bar – Section 3 of the A.P. Electricity Duty Act and M.P. Electricity Duty Act – Taxation Not Permissible – The States of Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh levied duty on inter-State sales of electricity by NTPC Ltd. – Held: Electricity is 'goods', and its inter-State sale attracts Article 286(1) and Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act – The power supplied to other States pursuant to contracts resulted in movement of goods, making it an inter-State sale – The tax imposed by the States is ultra vires and void – Definition of ‘consumer’ under M.P. Act read down to exclude bulk recipients outside the State – Duty demands quashed [Paras 1, 7, 25-27, 30-32, 35].

Legislative Competence – Entries 53 and 54 of List II – Harmonious Construction – Electricity as Goods – Held: Electricity is covered under Entry 54 (sale of goods) as well as Entry 53 (sale/consumption of electricity) – However, sale of electricity for consumption outside the State cannot be taxed under Entry 53 – Sale and consumption of electricity occur simultaneously – Duty under Entry 53 must be limited to consumption within the State – State legislation taxing inter-State sale is constitutionally barred [Paras 23-24, 26-28].

Nature of Electricity – Legal Characterization – Electricity as Goods – Reaffirmed that electricity, though intangible, is movable property and qualifies as ‘goods’ under Article 366(12) – It can be transmitted, delivered, and consumed, though it cannot be stored – Sale, supply, and consumption are simultaneous in case of electricity, making situs of consumption crucial for tax liability [Paras 21-22].

Constitutional Framework – Articles 245, 269, and 286 – Legislative Entries and Territorial Nexus – Legislative entries are not sources of power but demarcate fields – Constitutionally prohibited taxation cannot be enabled through statutory definitions or legislative devices – Any attempt to fix situs of sale by State law or contract to tax inter-State sales is invalid unless permitted by central legislation – Extra-territorial taxation is not permissible without real and substantial territorial nexus [Paras 27-29, 30-32].

Inter-State Commerce – Free Movement – Sixth Amendment – Scheme of Constitution – Allowing States to tax inter-State sale of electricity would lead to multiple taxation and obstruct free trade and commerce – Such taxation defeats the constitutional objective of uniformity in inter-State commerce and violates the scheme introduced by the Sixth Amendment – Provisions of Articles 287 and 288 do not override Articles 269 and 286 in context of inter-State sale of electricity [Paras 18-20, 33-34].

Final Decision – Civil Appeal No. 3112 of 1990 dismissed – Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld – Transfer Case No. 3 of 1998 allowed – Demand notices by Madhya Pradesh quashed – Costs awarded to NTPC Ltd. [Para 35].

Criminal Law - Group Crime – Common Object – Sections 302/149 IPC – Partial Conviction Sustained – 12 accused were convicted for murder and attempt to murder arising out of a group assault – Upon close scrutiny of evidence, the Supreme Court upheld conviction of two accused (A-2 and A-3) who fired at the victims causing death and injuries – Held: Common object not proved beyond reasonable doubt for other accused; benefit of doubt extended [Paras 1–3, 9, 11–13].

FIR and Section 157 CrPC – Delay in Sending Report – Effect on Prosecution Case – FIR was allegedly recorded promptly, but its copy reached Magistrate two days later without explanation – Court held that unexplained delay casts doubt on credibility of prosecution version and may suggest deliberation or embellishment – Held: Delay under Section 157 CrPC weakens the prosecution in group offences unless convincingly explained [Paras 5, 7–8].

Credibility of Witness – Delay in Recording Statement – Section 161 Evidence Act – Statement of injured eyewitness (PW5) recorded after 9 days of incident without justification – Medical evidence did not support prolonged unconsciousness – Held: Delay in recording vital witness statement casts doubt on veracity and raises suspicion of afterthought or exaggeration – Evidence of PW5 not discarded entirely but considered with caution [Paras 4, 9(ii)].

Evidence – Omnibus Allegations – Need for Specific Role Attribution in Group Offences – Witnesses made general and vague allegations against multiple accused without specific roles – No weapons recovered, no injuries attributed to most accused – Court cautioned against relying on sweeping statements in group assaults – Held: Prosecution failed to establish individual participation or overt acts by accused other than A-2 and A-3 [Paras 1, 9(v)].

Related Witnesses – Not Unreliable per se – Evidence Must be Scrutinised – Court reaffirmed that related or interested witnesses cannot be discarded solely due to relationship with the victim – Testimony must be assessed on merits – Held: Despite exaggeration, presence of eyewitnesses accepted and partly relied upon [Para 10].

Extension of Acquittal – Benefit to Non-Appellant Co-Accused – Judicial Precedent Applied – Co-accused (A-11) who did not appeal before Supreme Court was extended the benefit of acquittal – Held: Similarly situated co-accused entitled to same relief even if not party to appeal – Legal consistency and fairness require equal treatment [Para 12].

Final Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Conviction of Two Accused Upheld – Others Acquitted – Conviction and sentence of Jawahar Singh (A-2) and Upender Singh (A-3) confirmed – Remaining accused acquitted and directed to be released unless required in other cases – Held: Failure to prove common object warrants acquittal of others [Para 13].

Rape – Acquittal Reversed – Section 376 IPC – Conviction Restored – The accused were convicted by the trial court based on the credible testimony of the prosecutrix and corroborating medical and forensic evidence – High Court acquitted them on speculative and unsustainable grounds, disbelieving the prosecutrix without sufficient basis – Supreme Court held the acquittal was perverse and unsupported by the evidence – Held: Conviction restored, accused to serve remaining sentence [Paras 1–3, 8–9].

Appreciation of Evidence – Prosecutrix’s Testimony – No Need for Corroboration – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – High Court rejected the victim’s evidence due to minor discrepancies and speculative doubts regarding injury and semen origin – Supreme Court reiterated that credible testimony of a rape victim does not require corroboration – Held: Where the prosecutrix's account is trustworthy and consistent, it should not be discarded on trivial grounds [Paras 4–7].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Supports Prosecution Case – Corroboration of Victim’s Version – Injuries on prosecutrix's person and forensic reports confirming presence of semen and blood on her clothes supported her narrative – High Court erred in dismissing such objective findings on hypothetical conjectures – Held: Medical and chemical evidence corroborate victim’s version of sexual assault [Paras 5–6].

Judicial Approach – Sensitivity in Rape Trials – Duty of Courts Emphasised – Supreme Court condemned the High Court’s insensitivity and reliance on unfounded assumptions – Cited precedent in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh to reaffirm that courts must adopt a sensitive approach in rape cases and not be swayed by minor contradictions – Held: Broader probabilities and victim dignity must guide judicial analysis [Para 7].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Restored – Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s acquittal, and restored the trial court’s conviction and sentence of five years’ imprisonment – Accused directed to be re-arrested to serve remainder of sentence [Para 9].

Criminal Law - Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of Constitution – Judicial Guidelines Not Binding Limitations – Directions Invalid – In several corruption cases, accused were acquitted by Special Courts for non-commencement of trial within two years as per directions in Raj Deo Sharma – High Courts reversed acquittals without notice – Held: Although right to speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, judicially fixed time-limits in Common Cause and Raj Deo Sharma amount to impermissible judicial legislation – Such fixed bars contradict the Constitution Bench ruling in A.R. Antulay – Held: Speedy trial must be determined on facts of each case; time limits may act as reminders but are not binding – Criminal proceedings cannot be terminated solely on lapse of time [Paras 1–5, 26–34].

Judicial Legislation – Separation of Powers – Time-Limits for Trials Impermissible – Judiciary Cannot Legislate – Held: Courts cannot enact general legal rules or cut-off dates for criminal trials in absence of legislative provision – Time-limits laid down in Common Cause and Raj Deo Sharma decisions were ultra vires the judicial function and encroached into legislative domain – Such bars scuttle justice and undermine victims’ rights [Paras 26–30].

Binding Precedent – Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay Prevails – Later Smaller Benches Cannot Override – Held: Judicial discipline demands that benches of lesser strength follow the law laid down by larger benches – Since A.R. Antulay (five-Judge Bench) held that time-limits for trials cannot be fixed, contrary views in Common Cause and Raj Deo Sharma (two/three-Judge Benches) are not good law and are overruled [Paras 31–32].

Remand – Violation of Natural Justice – High Court Orders Without Notice to Accused Set Aside – Appeals Allowed – Held: High Courts erred in allowing State appeals and reversing acquittals without issuing notice to accused – Such orders violate principles of natural justice – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh hearing after notice to accused [Paras 1–4, 34].