Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts – The Supreme Court disapproved the practice of High Courts ordering re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provisions in the relevant rules. The High Court, exercising powers under Article 226, is not justified in calling for the records and directing re-evaluation without such provisions. The decision highlights that the absence of re-evaluation regulations in MCI or University rules does not justify High Court orders for re-evaluation [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Courts should refrain from re-evaluating answer scripts or scrutinizing academic assessments due to lack of expertise. Academic matters should be left to academic authorities. Judicial interference in such processes can lead to unnecessary delays and practical problems in the finalization of examination results [Paras 5-8].

Digital Evaluation – Implementation and Acceptance – The University adopted a digital evaluation system approved by the Executive Council and subsequently improved the process based on High Court directives. The digital evaluation process, as modified, has been approved by the High Court in a recent decision, emphasizing the adequacy and accuracy of the evaluation [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The appeals are allowed, setting aside the High Court orders for re-evaluation. However, the results declared on the basis of the re-evaluation shall not be disturbed. The practice of ordering re-evaluation without specific rules is disapproved, but the outcome for the original writ petitioners remains unaffected [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law – Review Petition – Appellant, convicted for involvement in the 2000 Red Fort attack, challenged the death penalty – Supreme Court considered admissibility of Call Data Records (CDRs) without certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act – Previous judgments by Trial Court, High Court, and Supreme Court affirmed in the backdrop of the law prior to the decision in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) – Certain electronic evidence eschewed but conviction upheld based on remaining evidence [Paras 12-26].

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Section 65B, Evidence Act – CDRs without required certification inadmissible – Review petition focused on impact of such inadmissibility – Supreme Court observed that even without CDRs, other evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's involvement in the crime [Paras 24-26].

Circumstantial Evidence – Death Penalty – Review – Supreme Court re-evaluated evidence excluding inadmissible electronic records – Upheld death sentence considering remaining incriminating evidence including financial transactions and recoveries at the appellant's instance – Emphasized consistency with legal standards for circumstantial evidence and rarest of rare cases doctrine [Paras 27-28].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – Reaffirmed principles of limited scope in review petitions especially in death penalty cases – Errors apparent on the record must be significant to warrant review – Ensured due process and evaluated claims of ill-treatment and alleged procedural lapses [Paras 12, 27-28].

Decision – Review Petitions Dismissed – Held – Death sentence affirmed – Court emphasized gravity of terrorism-related crimes and the necessity for stringent penalties in such rarest of rare cases [Paras 27-28].

Income Tax – Charitable Trusts – Section 2(15) – Revenue sought clarification on judgment dated 19.10.2022 – Supreme Court clarified that the application of the law declared in the judgment is limited to the assessment years in question before the court – For future assessment years not before the court, authorities must apply the law declared in the judgment considering the facts of each assessment year – No further clarification necessary – Application disposed of [Paras 1-6].

Decision – Application disposed of with clarification – Judgment dated 19.10.2022 to be applied for assessment years before the court – Future assessment years to be examined based on facts and law declared in the judgment [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Identification of Deceased – The Supreme Court held that identification of the deceased through superimposition is acceptable as opinion evidence but generally not relied upon solely due to its fallibility. In the absence of supporting medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, conviction based solely on superimposition is risky. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the skeleton found is that of the victim and not someone else [Paras 1-6, 13].

Motive and Chain of Circumstances – In cases based on circumstantial evidence, proving motive is crucial. The prosecution failed to establish the motive, which is an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. The testimony of witnesses who turned hostile or the lack of reliable corroborative evidence weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 7-14].

Last Seen Theory – The Court noted that significant time gaps between last seen together and the occurrence of crime weaken the reliability of this theory. The testimonies of witnesses PW-6 and PW-7, recorded six months after the incident, did not inspire confidence due to inconsistencies and lack of immediate disclosure [Paras 9-12].

Decision: The appeals are allowed. The judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are set aside. The appellants and other accused are to be set free forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 15-17].

Contempt of Court – Civil and Criminal Contempt – The Supreme Court held that Perry Kansagra committed egregious acts of contempt by willfully disobeying the Court's orders, falsely representing facts before a foreign court, and obstructing the administration of justice. These actions constituted both civil and criminal contempt. The Court emphasized that its power to punish for contempt is not confined to the procedures under the Contempt of Courts Act but is inherent under Article 129 of the Constitution. The contemnor's actions lowered the authority of the Court and interfered with judicial proceedings, necessitating stringent punishment [Paras 1-18].

Punishment for Contempt – Consecutive Sentences – The contemnor was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment for civil contempt and an additional six months for criminal contempt, with the sentences to run consecutively. Additionally, a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed, to be paid within four weeks, failing which further imprisonment would ensue. The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to secure the contemnor's presence for serving the sentence and ordered compliance reports to be filed [Paras 20-23].

Decision: The contemnor is sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment for civil contempt and six months of simple imprisonment for criminal contempt, with sentences to run consecutively. A fine of Rs. 25 lakhs is imposed, to be paid within four weeks, with further imprisonment in default of payment. The Ministry of Home Affairs is directed to ensure the contemnor's presence for serving the sentence. The matter is listed for further orders on December 15, 2022 [Paras 20-24].

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Suit – Substitution of Legal Representatives – The Supreme Court held that the suit filed by the appellant's father did not abate upon his death, despite no immediate substitution of legal representatives in the suit itself. The Court emphasized that the substitution made in the appeal against an interlocutory order should enure for the benefit of the entire suit, thus allowing the legal representative to continue the proceedings. The High Court's finding that the suit abated due to non-substitution within the prescribed time was incorrect [Paras 1-13].

Temporary Injunction – Appeal and Continuation of Suit – The Court clarified that an appeal against an interlocutory order, such as one refusing a temporary injunction, is a continuation of the suit. Therefore, the legal representative brought on record during the appeal can continue the suit. The High Court erred in holding that the suit was extinguished due to the death of the sole plaintiff without substitution in the suit itself [Paras 9-12].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The High Court's order is set aside, and the suit is directed to be proceeded with. The Court ordered the consolidation of Original (Declaratory) Suit No. 3 of 2014 and Original (Injunction) Suit No. 39 of 2014 for a comprehensive adjudication. The consolidated suits are to be disposed of expeditiously within eight months [Paras 13].

Land Acquisition – Compensation and Rehabilitation – The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of delayed compensation and rehabilitation for landowners, predominantly tribal communities, whose lands were acquired for coal mining by Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited (MCL). The Court highlighted the prolonged struggle of the landowners for fair compensation and proper rehabilitation, spanning over two decades. It affirmed the necessity of adhering to the guidelines provided under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, and ensuring fair compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, especially for pending claims [Paras 1-12].

Determination of Compensation – Cut-off Date – The Court upheld the Commission's approach of fixing the cut-off date for determining compensation based on the date of survey notice (September 2010) rather than the date of acquisition notification, to prevent undue prejudice to landowners. It emphasized the importance of adopting a uniform cut-off date for determining compensation to avoid delays and ensure consistency across affected villages [Paras 13-18].

Applicability of R&R Act, 2013 – The Court held that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly the First Schedule, apply to acquisitions made under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, post the notification dated 28.08.2015. Therefore, compensation for the villages where the reports were not approved prior to this date must be re-determined as per the 2013 Act, ensuring fair and enhanced compensation for the landowners [Paras 19-34].

Rehabilitation Policy – Applicability of State Policies – The Court clarified that the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2006, as amended in 2013, should apply for determining benefits for displaced families. It stressed that major sons/grandsons and major unmarried daughters/granddaughters/sisters must be considered as separate families for rehabilitation benefits, ensuring comprehensive support for all affected individuals [Paras 35-43].

Decision: The appeals are partly allowed. The reports and recommendations of the Claims Commission are accepted with modifications. The compensation for the four villages, where the reports were not approved before 28.08.2015, is to be re-determined under the First Schedule of the R&R Act, 2013. The State's Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006 (as amended in 2013), will govern the benefits for displaced families. The Commission is directed to ensure compliance with these guidelines and report back to the Court [Paras 44-45].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – High Court declared acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation – High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation case – Supreme Court observed that the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled by the Indore Development Authority case – Held that possession of land taken by the Delhi Development Authority negates the lapse of proceedings – Compensation determination under the 2013 Act applicable only when the award was not made as of 1-1-2014 – Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside [Paras 1-5].

Indore Development Authority Case – Clarification of Law – The Supreme Court in the Indore Development Authority case clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) – Emphasized that non-payment of compensation does not result in lapse if possession has been taken – Explained that deposit of compensation in court is not required to avoid lapse [Paras 3-4].

Right to Fair Compensation – Applicability – Section 24(1)(a) and Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act discussed – Compensation under the 2013 Act applicable if the award was not made as on the date of commencement of the Act – Proceedings to continue under the 1894 Act if the award was made within five years prior, excluding periods covered by interim orders [Paras 3-4].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court judgment quashed – Acquisition proceedings not lapsed – Original writ petition dismissed [Paras 4-5].

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Non-reporting of Sexual Assault – Respondent, a medical practitioner, accused of failing to report sexual assault on minor tribal girls despite knowledge – High Court quashed FIR and chargesheet – Supreme Court emphasized that non-reporting of such crimes is serious and often shields offenders – Quashing of FIR and chargesheet at threshold without allowing evidence to be examined was held as miscarriage of justice [Paras 1-26].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Statements – Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence – Limited use for purposes under Sections 145 and 157 of the Evidence Act – High Court erred in relying on these statements to quash proceedings – Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also have limited use – Supreme Court reaffirmed inadmissibility of such statements for deciding quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 18-24].

Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be sparing and cautious – Quashing appropriate only when FIR and materials do not disclose any cognizable offence – Supreme Court held High Court's exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this case was improper and resulted in miscarriage of justice [Paras 7-25].

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Legal Obligation to Report – Under Section 19(1) of POCSO Act, individuals with knowledge of offence must report to authorities – Failure to do so punishable under Section 21 – Supreme Court stressed the importance of reporting to achieve the objectives of the Act [Paras 10-12, 15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court judgment quashed – FIR and chargesheet against respondent reinstated – Proceedings to continue as per law [Paras 25-26].