Compulsory Registration of Marriage – Public Interest and Legal Certainty – Marriage Registration Made Mandatory – Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue while hearing a transfer petition – Held: Registration of marriages is essential for legal proof, curbing child marriages, ensuring rights of women, and preventing denial of marriage – Directed all States and Union Territories to frame or amend rules within three months making registration of marriages compulsory irrespective of religion – Directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution in the absence of uniform national legislation [Paras 1–3, 17–18].

Vital Statistics – Scope of Entry 30 of List III – Marriage Registration Included – Court held that ‘vital statistics’ under Entry 30 of the Concurrent List includes registration of marriages – This allows both the State and Central Governments to legislate on the subject – Harmonisation with personal laws permitted provided registration does not interfere with customs and rites [Para 4–5].

Women's Rights – Impact of Non-Registration – Non-registration Disproportionately Affects Women – Non-registration denies women the ability to claim maintenance, residence, inheritance, and matrimonial rights – Also hinders prevention of illegal bigamy and child marriages – National Commission for Women supported compulsory registration as a gender justice measure [Paras 13, 15–16].

Personal Laws – Registration Does Not Affect Validity – Evidentiary Value of Registration Recognised – Court clarified that registration does not determine the validity of marriage per se – However, it serves as important evidence for determining matrimonial status, legitimacy of children, age at marriage, and other civil consequences – It creates a rebuttable presumption of marriage [Paras 15–16].

Final Directions – Mandatory Implementation by States – Supreme Court directed all States/UTs to amend or frame Rules under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act or equivalent laws – Directed public notification, consultation, and appointment of registration officers – Further directed Central Government to place any proposed uniform marriage registration legislation before the Court for scrutiny – Registry directed to serve copy of judgment to the Solicitor General [Paras 17–19].

Civil Law - Caste Status - Scheduled Tribe Status – Offspring of Tribal Mother & Non-Tribal Father – Constitutional Scheme (Arts. 341, 342, 15(4), 16(4)) – ST Certificate Quashed – Appellant born to ST mother (Oraon) and forward-class father (Kayastha) claimed ST status based on a certificate and alleged community acceptance – Held: ST status is not acquired by mere parentage from a tribal mother where the father is non-tribal and the child is brought up in forward-class environment; condition precedent is suffering the cumulative social, educational and economic disabilities of the tribe; “transplantation” into ST by marriage/adoption without disabilities would be a fraud on the Constitution – Appeal dismissed with costs; ST certificate dated 07.08.1992 quashed [Paras 1-3, 6, 8, 11-13, 14-15].

Executive Circulars – Not “Law” under Article 13 – MHA Circular dated 04.03.1975 cannot override constitutional and judicial requirements for ST recognition – Facts here do not meet even the circular’s own conditions (no proven community acceptance) [Para 4].

Community Acceptance & Environment – Court Marriage outside village; residence and upbringing in non-tribal milieu – Casual visits to maternal village do not establish tribal environment or acceptance; concept of “tribe” entails common descent, territory, culture, and social organization [Paras 5-7].

Reservation Philosophy – Prevention of Dilution/Usurpation – Benefits under Arts. 15(4), 16(4), 16(4A) target historically disadvantaged groups; allowing forward-class entrants via marriage/parentage without disabilities undermines Articles 14, 21 and the goals of Articles 39, 46 [Paras 8, 11-13].

Fraudulent Caste Certificates – Strong Disapproval – Admissions/appointments obtained on fake/invalid caste certificates deprive genuine ST candidates; authorities must rigorously verify disability criteria; routine issuance is dereliction of constitutional duty [Paras 9-10, 13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – ST certificate dated 07.08.1992 set aside; appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 14-15].

Injunction – Interim Mandatory Relief – Jurisdictional Error – Orders Set Aside – The plaintiff, claiming tenancy under an unregistered document, sought restoration of possession via interim mandatory injunction – Trial court initially declined ex parte injunction, but District Court later granted interim relief without proper findings – Supreme Court held that findings on possession and dispossession were jurisdictionally necessary for grant of such extraordinary relief – Held: Interim mandatory injunction passed without proper basis or evidence – Orders of District Court and High Court set aside – Trial court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously [Paras 1, 4-5, 9-11, 15].

Possession – Requirement for Mandatory Injunction – Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – The plaintiff alleged he was dispossessed after order for status quo – However, no clear evidence was led, and trial court failed to examine oral evidence or possession on date of order – Held: Absence of findings on possession and dispossession makes mandatory injunction unsustainable – No jurisdiction to grant interim relief without such findings [Paras 6, 9-10, 13].

Evidence and Procedure – Status Quo Order – Ambiguity – Interim Relief Misapplied – The appellate court directed parties to maintain status quo without defining nature of status – Supreme Court held such ambiguous directions are inappropriate, especially at ex parte stage – Held: Appellate court exceeded scope of appeal, which was limited to denial of ex parte injunction – Findings on possession were prerequisite before considering restoration by interim mandatory injunction [Paras 4, 7].

Constitution – Article 227 – High Court’s Jurisdiction – Failure to Exercise Proper Scrutiny – Supreme Court held that High Court under Article 227 failed to examine whether District Court had rendered jurisdictionally valid findings before granting relief – Held: High Court erred in not correcting jurisdictional defect despite being empowered to do so [Paras 11-12].

Tenancy and Title – Unregistered Lease Document – Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act – Genuineness in Doubt – The alleged lease agreement was unregistered and executed on letterhead of a different legal entity – Supreme Court held that validity of tenancy and authenticity of document required trial – Held: Prima facie, lease not proved – Claim of possession not established [Para 6].

Final Relief – Orders Set Aside – Suit to Proceed – Possession to be Restored to Defendants – Directions Issued – Supreme Court allowed the appeal – Directed restitution of possession to defendants – Defendants restrained from creating third-party interests – Trial court directed to dispose of the suit and pending injunction application expeditiously and uninfluenced by interim observations [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Acquittal Reversed – Section 149 IPC Applied – Convictions Affirmed – In a group assault by a 27-member unlawful assembly, the Trial Court acquitted all on tenuous grounds (enmity, lack of “independent” witnesses, minor discrepancies). The High Court, after granting limited leave u/s 378(3) CrPC against five named assailants, convicted four (Kallu, Shafi, Madaniya, Bhuria) for offences under Sections 326/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC—Held: High Court rightly interfered; injured eyewitness testimony inspired confidence; minor inconsistencies immaterial; Section 149 attracted though only four ultimately convicted since participation of ≥5 assailants was firmly proved—Appeal dismissed [Paras 4-6, 8-16, 17-19, 20].

Appeals against Acquittal – Appellate Interference – Test – Power to reappreciate evidence exists but should not be routine—interference justified where Trial Court view is perverse/unreasonable or ignores material evidence—High Court gave cogent reasons; reversal sustained [Paras 7-8, 14-16].

Evidence – Injured Eyewitnesses – Minor Discrepancies – Not Fatal – PWs 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 (injured) consistently implicated appellants; PW-3 corroborated assembly and weapons—minor variations on exact spot/sequence or who landed which blow do not erode core—Masalti principle applied where precise allocation of roles in mob crimes is impracticable [Paras 9-13, 14-15].

Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Conviction of Fewer than Five – Still Permissible – Where evidence shows unlawful assembly of five or more, subsequent acquittal of some (or grant of leave only as to some) does not negate Section 149 for those proved guilty—Distinction between doubt about identity of some participants and doubt about total number of participants reiterated—Mohan Singh; Ram Bilas Singh; Dharam Pal followed [Paras 17-19].

Section 378(3) CrPC – Limited Leave – Effect – Grant of leave against selected accused (those specifically attributed overt acts) does not undermine finding that the unlawful assembly comprised more than five persons; vicarious liability under Section 149 may rest on that proved fact matrix [Paras 4, 19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s conviction and sentences (RI two years with fine under S.326/149; RI one year with fine under S.324/149; RI six months with fine under S.323/149; concurrent; set-off) upheld [Paras 5-6, 20].

Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution – Scope of Section 197 CrPC – Police Officer Acting in Discharge of Official Duties – Cognizance Quashed – Magistrate took cognizance against a police officer for alleged unlawful search without warrant – High Court held sanction under Section 197 CrPC not required – Held: Act of search was reasonably connected to discharge of official duty – Absence of search warrant alone cannot override statutory protection – High Court erred in not considering full factual matrix – Cognizance set aside [Paras 1-2, 18].

Protection to Public Servants – Nature and Purpose of Section 197 CrPC – Statutory Protection Upheld – Section 197 intends to protect public servants from vexatious criminal prosecution for acts done in official capacity – If act has reasonable connection to official duty, sanction is mandatory – Excess of duty does not forfeit protection if act is within scope of employment – Doctrine clarified through various precedents – Narrow interpretation would defeat legislative intent [Paras 4-10].

Interpretation – Acts in Discharge or Purported Discharge of Official Duty – Broad and Purposive Interpretation Required – The act need not be strictly lawful if done under colour of office – Absence of warrant not sufficient to negate official nature of the act – Key test is whether act is linked to official function or duty – Court must not allow complaint to proceed if protection under Section 197 applies [Paras 5-9].

Retired Officers – Sanction Requirement Applies Post Retirement – Expanded Scope of Section 197 – Amendment to Section 197 covers both serving and retired public servants – Protection under Section 197 extends even if accused has retired at the time of cognizance – Consistent with Law Commission recommendation and public interest in preventing misuse of process [Paras 11-17].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s finding that sanction under Section 197 was not required found incorrect – Order of Magistrate taking cognizance quashed – Clarified that findings limited to applicability of Section 197 – Other allegations, if any, to be considered at appropriate stage [Para 18].

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code - Rape by Father – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Conviction Restored – Accused charged with raping his minor daughter at night after bolting the room – Trial Court convicted based on testimony of prosecutrix and supporting evidence – High Court acquitted relying on absence of medical corroboration and spermatozoa – Held: High Court committed grave error in law and fact – Sole testimony of prosecutrix sufficient if found credible – Acquittal reversed [Paras 1–6, 11, 16].

Credibility of Prosecutrix – No Motive for False Implication – Reiterated that a minor girl would not falsely implicate her father in a rape case, bringing shame to herself and her family – Allegation that complaint was fabricated due to strained relationship between parents rejected – Held: Testimony of prosecutrix, supported by sister and mother, inspires confidence and is unimpeached in cross-examination [Paras 6, 12–13].

Medical Evidence – Not a Prerequisite for Conviction – Doctors found abrasions and bloodstains on prosecutrix’s clothes and signs of recent intercourse – Absence of spermatozoa or hymen rupture not fatal – Courts must consider overall testimony and circumstantial medical support – Minor discrepancies immaterial [Paras 8–9, 14].

Corroboration – Not Mandatory in Rape Cases – Conviction can be based solely on credible statement of prosecutrix – Corroboration is a rule of prudence, not law – Particularly when survivor is a minor and testifies consistently and truthfully – Courts cautioned not to overlook broader probabilities and social context [Paras 5, 13–15].

Quantum of Sentence – Rarest of Rare – Life Imprisonment Justified – Held: Offence committed by father against his own daughter is gravest violation of trust – More heinous than murder – Grave psychological trauma and social stigma suffered by victim – Trial Court’s sentence of 5 years modified and enhanced to life imprisonment – Fine enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 25,000 payable to prosecutrix [Paras 17–19].

Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Conviction and Sentence Enhanced – Supreme Court allowed the appeal – Restored Trial Court’s conviction under Section 376 IPC – Enhanced sentence from 5 years to life imprisonment – Fine increased to ₹25,000 to be paid to victim – Respondent on bail directed to be taken into custody immediately – Compliance to be reported within one month [Paras 16–19].

Murder – Sections 302 & 34 IPC – Eyewitness testimony and medical corroboration – Conviction Altered to 302/34 – Prosecution case supported by consistent eyewitnesses (PWs 2 & 3) and postmortem showing multiple incised wounds consistent with kirpan blows – Defence plea of false implication rejected in view of admitted presence and superficial nature of accused’s injury and delayed counter-complaint – Held: Fatal injury not individually attributable, but common intention established – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC simpliciter to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 5–7, 14–15].

FIR – Section 154 CrPC – Daily Diary entry under Punjab Police Rules, Rule 24.1 – Non-mention of eyewitness names – No illegality – Requirement is entry of “substance of information” and not every detail – DD entry (Ex. DC) named accused and deceased – Non-mention of witnesses in DD/mortuary register does not vitiate the case where witnesses are named in the FIR and evidence inspires confidence [Paras 8–9].

Prompt dispatch of special report – Sections 157 CrPC and practice – Delivery to Magistrate at 0002 hours not delayed – Constable delivered copies to multiple senior officers before Magistrate – Even otherwise, minor delay per se not fatal if prosecution otherwise trustworthy – Held: No delay and no prejudice made out [Para 10].

Charge and prejudice – Sections 464 & 465 CrPC (read with old Sections 535 & 537) – Alteration from 302 to 302/34 permissible – No failure of justice – Accused knew case he had to meet, witnesses cross-examined at length, and Section 313 statements put common-intention facts – Distinction drawn from Shamnsaheb M. Multtani (304B without charge attracting presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act) – Followed Willie Slaney; State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy; Ramji Singh – Held: Conviction validly altered to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 11–15].

Juvenility – Section 2(h), Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – Procedure upon late plea – Though not raised below, Court to first consider conviction on merits and then seek trial court report on age – If juvenile on date of offence and no longer juvenile now, sentence set aside though conviction may stand – Bhoop Ram applied – Direction issued in connected Criminal Appeal No. 710 of 1995 (Mohinder Pal Singh) to obtain age report with opportunity to parties [Para 16, 18].

Decision – Criminal Appeal No. 711 of 1995 (Gurpreet Singh) dismissed – Conviction altered to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment maintained – Bail cancelled and appellant to be taken into custody forthwith with compliance report within one month – In Criminal Appeal No. 710 of 1995 (co-appellant Mohinder Pal Singh), report on juvenility called from trial court within three months; final orders to follow upon receipt [Paras 14, 17–18].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19(1) – Summoning of Public Servant without Sanction Impermissible – Cognizance can be taken only against a person for whom sanction has been specifically granted – Sanction qua one accused cannot be extended to another public servant – High Court’s order summoning appellant without sanction set aside [Paras 4-7, 9].

Criminal Procedure Code – Cognizance of Offence vs. Offender – Sections 190, 319 CrPC – Distinction – Though cognizance is generally of an offence and not of an offender, this principle cannot override special provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Special statute prevails over general provisions – Section 19 CrPC sanction requirement mandatory and overrides Sections 190 and 319 CrPC [Paras 8-9].

Interpretation of Statutes – Special Law vs. General Law – Principle of Generalia specialibus non derogant – Special provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act override general provisions of CrPC – Sanction requirement is sine qua non for valid cognizance [Para 8].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order dated 03/07/2002 summoning appellant set aside – Order of Special Judge dated 07/01/2002 dismissing application under Section 319 CrPC restored [Para 9].

Land Acquisition - Karnataka LA Act—Section 18 Scheme—Article 137 Limitation—Section 5 Inapplicable—Power of Deputy Commissioner to Refer Ceases—Claimant’s Remedy Extinguished – Karnataka’s Section 18 enlarges time to seek reference (90 days from Section 12(2) notice) and mandates Deputy Commissioner to refer within 90 days; on his failure, claimant must move the reference court under Section 18(3)(b) within three years from expiry of that 90-day period (Article 137) – Held: If not so moved, the claimant’s remedy to compel reference is barred and the Deputy Commissioner’s power to refer also ceases; belated references are incompetent; Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not available either at the Section 18(1) stage or for Section 18(3)(b) applications – Consequence: right to seek enhancement under Section 18 becomes unenforceable; Section 28A remains open [Paras 2-8, 9, 14-16, 21-23].

Condonation of Delay—Section 5 Limitation Act—No Application to LA Proceedings – Section 5 does not apply to proceedings before the Collector/Deputy Commissioner and, in Karnataka’s scheme, cannot be invoked before the reference court for a time-barred Section 18(3)(b) application since the remedy itself stands extinguished; a time-barred claim cannot be revived via Section 5 [Paras 9, 21-22].

Deputy Commissioner’s Power Post-Limitation—No Revival – Once three years + 90 days elapse from a timely Section 18(1) application, the Deputy Commissioner cannot revive the unenforceable claim by making a reference “at his sweet-will”; references made thereafter are incompetent and liable to be rejected [Paras 10-11, 15-16, 23].

“Shall” vs “Directory”—Irrelevant to Outcome – Whether Section 18(3)(a) is mandatory or directory is not determinative; scheme read harmoniously with Section 18(3)(b) creates a repose: claimant must enforce within limitation; failure ends both the remedy and Deputy Commissioner’s power to refer [Paras 12-14, 18-19].

Writ Remedy/Laches—Central vs Karnataka Scheme Distinguished – Under the Central Act, mandamus may lie (subject to laches per Bhailal Bhai); Karnataka amendment creates a specific statutory route/time-bar under Section 18(3)—the claimant must pursue that route within limitation; non-communication by Deputy Commissioner does not extend time [Paras 6-7, 12, 19].

Appellate/Procedural Points—District Court Appeals Not Contemplated – Appeals to the District Court against orders on Section 18(3)(b) are not provided by Section 54; remand orders entertaining Section 5 applications were unsustainable; High Court’s contrary view (Full Bench majority in Hanamappa) overruled; earlier view in Gurappa Channabasappa Paramaj approved [Paras 1(CA 4459/1999), 10-11, 23].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court orders set aside – Applications under Section 18(3)(b) dismissed as time-barred – Any references made beyond three years + 90 days held incompetent – No costs [Para 23].