Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Sole conviction based on dying declaration – Deceased allegedly assaulted by accused Tarun Sharma and others – Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC relying upon alleged dying declaration (Exh. P-34) and recovery of knife based on disclosure (Exh. P-24) – High Court affirmed conviction without providing effective hearing to the accused or his counsel – Supreme Court held that the alleged dying declaration was riddled with infirmities and lacked procedural safeguards – Recovery of weapon uncorroborated by forensic evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 4, 27, 28, 30, 41, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67].

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Accused’s counsel absent at hearing before High Court – Appeal decided same day by appointing amicus curiae without granting time to prepare – Supreme Court held this deprived appellant of effective opportunity of hearing – Cited Chaluvegowda v. State, Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam, and Anokhilal v. State of M.P. – Held: Right to legal representation under Article 21 not an empty formality – Amicus must be given sufficient time to prepare – High Court erred in proceeding with hearing without fairness [Paras 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39].

Evidence Law – Hostile Witness – Prosecution’s star witness Amit Bakshi (PW-1), brother of the deceased, turned hostile – Stated he could not identify assailants due to darkness – Testified that deceased Munish Kumar fell unconscious immediately and was never in a position to speak – Supreme Court held testimony of hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto – Corroborated by medical evidence – Court relied on portions of testimony contradicting prosecution’s dying declaration theory [Paras 14, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility – Statement (Exh. P-34) allegedly made by deceased Munish Kumar while undergoing treatment – No doctor who issued fitness certificate (Exh. P-33) was examined – Time of recording not mentioned – Investigating Officer (PW-17) failed to record his own satisfaction as to victim’s fitness – Other medical witnesses (PW-9, PW-10) confirmed deceased was unconscious and not in condition to speak – Held: Dying declaration unreliable and cannot be sole basis for conviction [Paras 21, 24, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63(iv)].

Criminal Procedure – Failure to Examine Material Witness – Doctor who allegedly certified injured’s fitness (Exh. P-33) not identified or examined – No medical records from hospitals (GMCH/PGI) filed – Trial court failed to summon doctor under Section 311 CrPC – Held: Omission fatal to prosecution – Court must act proactively to ensure fair trial [Paras 51, 52, 54].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapon – Knife allegedly recovered based on disclosure by appellant (Exh. P-24) – No blood group detected – No FSL/serological match with deceased – Held: Recovery inconsequential – Cannot establish guilt absent corroboration – Mere recovery not sufficient where main evidence (dying declaration) is discredited [Paras 20, 65].

Infirmities in Prosecution Case – Presence of contradictions – Dying declaration implicates Sanjay and Bittoo – Sanjay not charge-sheeted, Bittoo acquitted – Medical evidence contradicts dying declaration – Witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 to PW-5) turned hostile – Deceased stated to be unconscious throughout – Held: Infirmities grave enough to negate prosecution’s case – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 14, 15, 41, 49, 61, 63, 64, 66].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Para 67, 68].

Right to Education – Applicability of RTE Act to Minority Institutions – Reconsideration of Pramati – Court records serious doubts about Pramati which exempted all minority institutions (aided/unaided) from the “entirety” of the RTE Act without analysing provisions beyond Section 12(1)(c) – Finds blanket exclusion disproportionate and potentially sub-serviating Article 21A; notes data-based consequences post-Pramati including increased claims to minority status and low representation of disadvantaged children – Reference framed to larger Bench on correctness of Pramati, scope of Article 29(2), and possibility of reading down Section 12(1)(c) rather than wholesale exclusion – Outcome: Questions referred; interim application of RTE preserved for non-minority schools [Paras 70-71, 115-132, 171, 174-177, 184-186, 188-190, 207-210].

Article 21A vs Article 30(1) – Harmonious Construction – No Inherent Conflict – Article 30(1) is not a blanket immunity from regulation; rights must be harmonised with Article 21A which operationalises the foundational right to elementary education through minimum standards – Core RTE norms (infrastructure, teacher qualifications, child safety, curriculum) are regulatory and child-centric and do not “annihilate” minority character – Outcome: Court affirms coexistence and rejects reading Article 30(1) as a trump over Article 21A [Paras 85-92, 133-143, 145-151, 171-174].

Section 12(1)(c), RTE Act – 25% Entry-Level Admissions – Minority Institutions – Reading Down – Section 12(1)(c) furthers social inclusion and common schooling; minority character is not necessarily diluted since admissions under the quota can include disadvantaged/weaker-section children from within the same minority community; reimbursement preserves financial neutrality – Outcome: Instead of blanket inapplicability, Court moots reading down as a reconciliation tool; issue sent to larger Bench [Paras 100-107, 178-183, 185].

Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) – Mandatory Nature – Statutory Architecture and Rationale – NCTE designated as academic authority under Section 23; 2010 Notification introduced TET as a mandatory component of “minimum qualifications” for Classes I–VIII; 2011 amendment retained TET; 2014 Regulations continued the scheme; NCTE Guidelines (11.02.2011) justify TET for national standards and signalling teacher quality; MHRD clarified no relaxation and fixed 01.04.2019 as last date for in-service compliance – Outcome: TET held a binding minimum qualification, not a mere procedural eligibility [Paras 60-69, 64-66, 167-170, 202-206].

Minimum Qualifications vs Eligibility – TET is a Qualification under Section 23 – Court rejects semantic distinction; TET forms part of minimum qualifications, the acquisition of which renders a candidate eligible; without TET, a teacher is unqualified for appointment/promotion – Outcome: Challenge to TET’s status as “qualification” rejected [Paras 202-206].

In-Service Teachers (Pre-RTE Appointees) – Continuation and Promotion – Transitional Relief under Article 142 – Statutory scheme (first and second provisos to Section 23(2)) envisages time-bound acquisition of minimum qualifications by in-service teachers; failure leads to ineligibility to continue – Outcome: (i) Teachers with <5 years left in service may continue without TET till superannuation but are ineligible for promotion; (ii) Teachers with ≥5 years left must clear TET within 2 years from the judgment date or face separation with terminal benefits as per rules; (iii) For all future appointments/promotions, TET is mandatory [Paras 167-170, 198-201, 214-218].

High Court Judgments Impugned – Divergent Approaches – Supreme Court’s Resolution – Bombay HC (12.12.2017) upheld Maharashtra G.R. mandating TET even for minority schools relying on St. Xavier’s; Madras HC (02.06.2023) mandated TET for non-minority institutions and for promotions but treated minority institutions as exempt per Pramati; Bombay HC (01.04.2019) granted interim protection to minority-school teachers against TET-based termination; Madras HC (08.01.2019) directed approval of appointment in aided minority school without TET relying on Pramati – Outcome: SC doubts Pramati, refers questions; meanwhile, applies RTE/TET to non-minority schools; modifies impugned orders accordingly for in-service teachers; minority-institution appeals governed by reference [Paras 5-13, 14-23, 24-27, 28 (table), 207-215, 219].

Article 29(2) – Relevance to Aided Minority Institutions – Court notes Pramati did not engage with Article 29(2) while declaring RTE inapplicable to aided minority schools; admission non-discrimination mandate bears on Section 12(1)(b) – Outcome: Article 29(2) explicitly flagged as a reference question affecting the Pramati ratio [Paras 141-142, 210(c)].

Regulatory Power and Reasonable Restrictions – Articles 19(6) & 21A – RTE-driven quality norms are reasonable restrictions in public interest; T.M.A. Pai and St. Xavier’s affirm regulations for standards, efficiency, welfare; “right to administer is not a right to maladminister” – Outcome: Regulatory floor under RTE/NCTE is constitutionally legitimate and applies generally, subject to minority identity preservation [Paras 144-151, 176 (extracts), 150].

Procedural Bar – New Grounds in Supreme Court – Tamil Nadu Surplus Staff vs TET – In CA Nos. 6365-6367/2025, State raised TET for first time in SC; ordinarily impermissible; however, since the school is a minority institution, appeals brought within ambit of reference – Outcome: Appeals to be governed by reference order under Para 211 [Paras 9-13, 212-213].

Decision – Reference to larger Bench on Pramati and interrelated questions (scope of RTE vis-à-vis minority institutions, Article 29(2) effect, possibility of reading down Section 12(1)(c)) – Interim: RTE/TET regime applies to all non-minority schools; minority schools’ position subject to reference outcome – TET mandatory for appointments and promotions; Article 142 relief carved out for in-service teachers as specified – Impugned judgments/orders modified/disposed accordingly [Paras 207-211, 214-219].

Property Law – Transfer of Immovable Property – Title Dispute – Appeal against concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court decreeing plaintiff’s suit for possession, mesne profits, declaration, and injunction – Plaintiff relied upon Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, Receipt, and Registered Will to claim title – Supreme Court held that such documents do not confer valid title under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act – Sale of immovable property can only be by registered sale deed – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to relief as no valid conveyance executed – Appeal allowed – Suit dismissed [Paras 11-19, 27-28, 35]

General Power of Attorney – Scope and Legal Effect – GPA relied upon by Plaintiff only authorised management of property, not transfer of ownership – GPA, even if valid, does not transfer title – Held: GPA is an instrument of agency, not a conveyance – No title conferred on Plaintiff through GPA – Power of Attorney is revocable and cannot be used to create proprietary rights [Paras 18-22]

Will – Validity and Proof – Registered Will dated 16.05.1996 propounded by Plaintiff found unproven – Plaintiff failed to examine attesting witnesses as mandated under Section 68 of Evidence Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act – Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including complete exclusion of three other children without justification – Held: Will not proved in accordance with law – No valid title derived by Plaintiff [Paras 23-27]

Doctrine of Part Performance – Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act – Plaintiff sought protection under doctrine of part performance – Supreme Court held that actual possession is precondition to invoke Section 53A – Plaintiff not in possession at the time of filing suit – Relief under Section 53A not available [Paras 29-31]

Succession – Absence of Valid Transfer or Will – On demise of original owner (father), property devolves upon all Class-I legal heirs – Plaintiff’s claim based on unproven Will and invalid sale documents rejected – Held: Property to be treated as intestate succession among legal heirs [Para 32]

Rights of Bona Fide Purchaser – Defendant No.2 purchased 50% share from Defendant No.1 – Supreme Court protected such share to the extent of Defendant No.1’s right – Held: Rights of Defendant No.2 preserved to the extent of seller’s share – Parties free to assert claims through appropriate legal proceedings [Paras 33-34]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of High Court and Trial Court set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed – No costs – Rights of Defendant No.2 protected to extent of seller’s share [Para 35]

Service Law – Dismissal from Police Force – Rule 16.2(1) of Punjab Police Rules – Repeated Absence Amounts to Gravest Misconduct – Dismissal Justified - Respondent constable remained repeatedly absent from duty during a short service period of less than seven years – Departmental inquiry initiated for fourth absence and due process followed – Held: Disciplinary authority acted under the first part of Rule 16.2(1), and length of service was not relevant in cases of gravest misconduct – High Court erred in applying second part of Rule 16.2(1) [Paras 25, 27-30, 32-33].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Past Misconduct – No Mandatory Requirement to Include in Show Cause When Not Basis of Punishment – Held: Disciplinary authority referred to past misconduct only to add weight to decision, not as the basis of dismissal – Hence, no violation of principles laid down in K. Manche Gowda’s case – High Court wrongly interfered with punishment [Paras 19, 31-33].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Interference with Dismissal in Disciplinary Matters – High Court's Interference Unwarranted – Held: When penalty is imposed for proven gravest misconduct following due process and natural justice, courts should refrain from interference under judicial review unless penalty is shockingly disproportionate – High Court failed to follow this principle [Paras 21-24, 33].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Dismissal Order Restored – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the dismissal of the respondent from service – Held: Departmental action complied with rules and principles of natural justice – No reinstatement or relief due [Para 33].

Motor Vehicles – Motor Vehicle Tax – Scope of ‘Public Place’ – Section 3 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 – Rule 12A of A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963 – Interpretation – Liability to pay tax arises only when motor vehicle is used or kept for use in a public place – Appellant’s vehicles used exclusively within the restricted premises of RINL – Area not accessible to public – Held: Not a ‘public place’ – No tax liability incurred – Appeal allowed.

Motor Vehicle Tax – Use in Restricted Industrial Premises – Section 3 of A.P. Act, 1963 – Exemption Allowed – The appellant operated heavy vehicles solely within the enclosed and access-controlled premises of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL), which is not a public place under the Motor Vehicles Act – Held: Section 3 imposes tax only on vehicles used or kept for use in a public place – Since the site was not accessible to the general public, tax under the Act was not leviable [Paras 8–10, 28, 45–46, 50].

Interpretation of Rule 12A – Presumption of Use Must Align with Section 3 – No Automatic Liability – Rule 12A creates a deeming fiction of vehicle use unless prior intimation is given – Held: As subordinate legislation, Rule 12A cannot override Section 3 – Where actual use was exclusively in a non-public place, absence of intimation under Rule 12A is irrelevant – The vehicles were not ‘kept for use in a public place’, hence no tax liability arose [Paras 29, 43, 47–48, 50].

Public Place – Meaning under Section 2(34) of Motor Vehicles Act – Premises of RINL Not a Public Place – Appellant’s vehicles operated within a compound guarded by CISF with no public access – Held: ‘Public place’ requires a right of public access – Presence of a government company does not convert private industrial premises into a public place – Reliance on Bolani Ores Ltd. upheld – Decision in Akhil Gujarat Pravasi distinguished as not dealing with ‘public place’ requirement [Paras 28, 31–34, 44–46].

Constitutional Principle – Article 265 – Tax Only by Authority of Law – Literal Interpretation – Held: Taxing statutes must be strictly construed – There can be no presumption or inference of tax liability – Since Section 3 clearly restricts tax to vehicles used or kept for use in a public place, the levy in this case was without authority of law [Paras 36–38, 50].

Decision – Civil Appeal Allowed – Division Bench Set Aside – Judgment of learned Single Judge restored – Appellant not liable to pay motor vehicle tax for the period when its vehicles were confined to non-public premises – Refund of Rs. 22,71,700 ordered – No order as to costs [Para 51].

Criminal Law - Dowry Harassment – Appeal Against Conviction under Section 498-A IPC – Reversed – The appellant, mother-in-law of the deceased, was convicted under Section 498-A IPC while co-accused (father-in-law and brother-in-law) were acquitted – Held: Conviction based solely on vague and uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses (mother and brother of deceased) without any consistent or credible proof of cruelty or specific dowry demand – No evidence of persistent cruelty or harassment – Conviction unsustainable – Acquittal. [Paras 2, 7-11].

Interpretation of Section 498-A – Requirement of Continuous or Proximate Cruelty – Demand Must Be Specific – The Court reiterated that “cruelty” under Section 498-A must be persistent or in close proximity to the incident, and not based on petty quarrels or generalised allegations – Mere statements of dowry dissatisfaction unsupported by evidence cannot justify conviction – Held: Prosecution failed to meet the threshold laid down in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330 [Paras 8-9].

Appreciation of Evidence – Testimony of Defence Witness – Independent Witness Overlooked – The defence examined a neutral neighbour (DW-1), who testified there was no dowry demand and the deceased was unwell – Courts below wrongly disregarded this testimony without valid basis – Held: Disregarding neutral evidence while relying only on partisan witnesses was erroneous and led to miscarriage of justice [Paras 10-11].

Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Section 498-A IPC Not Attracted – The Supreme Court found that the charge under Section 498-A was not supported by cogent evidence – Conviction of appellant set aside and she was acquitted – Held: Acquittal justified as prosecution failed to prove cruelty or dowry harassment beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11-12].

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Interference with Findings – Article 136 of Constitution – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, a CISF constable, was charged with misconduct for being found in a civilian residential area without justification, resulting in public uproar – Though charge of leaving camp without permission was not sustained, the Supreme Court upheld findings of unwarranted conduct affecting the Force's reputation – Held: No breach of natural justice shown and the High Court's decision does not warrant interference under Article 136 [Paras 1-5].

Misconduct – Proportionality of Penalty – Reduction of Pay – Modified Penalty Justified – The Appellate Authority reduced the original penalty of three years' pay reduction to a one-stage reduction for two years with loss of increments – Held: The modified penalty was proportionate to the appellant's proven misconduct and did not call for further judicial review [Paras 2-5].

Conduct of Armed Forces Personnel – Off-Duty Misbehaviour – Found Proven – The appellant was detained by civilians until superiors arrived due to his conduct in a family residential colony – Held: Such behaviour by a member of a disciplined force justifies disciplinary action even if it occurred outside duty premises – High Court rightly upheld the findings of misconduct based on material evidence [Paras 3-5].

Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters – Scope – Principles of Natural Justice Not Violated – The Supreme Court observed that there was no claim of procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice in the inquiry process – Held: No case made out for interference under Article 136 when findings are based on evidence and procedure followed was fair [Paras 4-5].

Electricity Tariff Dispute – Redetermination of Tariff – Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, M/s. KKK Hydro Power Ltd., sought enhanced tariff for its entire 4.90 MW hydel power project based on a supplementary Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 10.09.2010, executed without prior approval of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission – The Supreme Court held that tariff fixation under the Electricity Act requires approval by the State Commission and parties cannot unilaterally or mutually agree to revised tariffs – The Court found that the Appellate Tribunal (APTEL) erred in granting relief to the appellant but refrained from interfering as the respondent Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB) had accepted the order and acted upon the revised tariff of ₹2.60/kWh – Held: Appeal dismissed; legal position clarified that tariff agreements without Commission’s approval are invalid and unenforceable [Paras 1, 21-22, 27-28, 31, 33].

Power Purchase Agreement – Requirement of Regulatory Approval – Supplementary PPA held invalid – The parties executed a supplementary PPA enhancing tariff from ₹2.50 to ₹2.95 per kWh, but failed to submit it to the Commission for approval – Held: In absence of Commission’s approval under Section 86(1)(b), such a PPA is unenforceable in law and tariff changes therein are non-binding [Paras 24-27, 31].

Tariff for Capacity Enhancement – Regulations of 2007 – Only Additional Capacity Covered – The 3 MW portion of the project was governed by the original PPA of 2000 prior to the Commission’s existence – The 1.90 MW augmented portion, commissioned post-2007 Regulations, was rightly subjected to redetermined tariff – Held: The enhanced tariff applied only to the 1.90 MW capacity, not to the original 3 MW plant – Weighted average tariff of ₹2.60 per kWh rightly computed for entire project as practical solution [Paras 18-22, 28].

Section 86(1)(b) of Electricity Act – Approval by Commission Mandatory – Fixing tariff or modifying PPA cannot be done privately – Held: Only the Commission is authorized to approve PPAs and tariff terms; failure to seek approval renders agreements non-binding – Private agreements between generator and licensee for tariff are ultra vires without regulatory consent [Paras 25-27, 31].

Finality of APTEL Order – No Interference Due to Acquiescence – Though APTEL erred in permitting enforcement of unapproved supplementary PPA, the HPSEB did not challenge the decision and implemented the revised tariff – Held: Supreme Court declines to disturb existing arrangement to avoid unsettling ongoing tariff mechanism, but clarifies legal position for future compliance [Paras 28, 31, 33].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Income Tax – Section 276C(1) of the IT Act – Complaint quashed – Settlement Commission granted immunity from penalty but not prosecution due to pendency of criminal proceedings – Held: In absence of wilful concealment and considering that the Settlement Commission accepted disclosure without suppression, prosecution cannot be sustained – High Court erred in refusing to quash complaint – Prosecution continued in violation of binding departmental circulars requiring ITAT-confirmed penalty and sanction by collegium for tax liability under Rs. 25 lakhs – Quashing of complaint justified [Paras 18, 33-38].

Binding Nature of Circulars – CBDT Circulars and Prosecution Manual – Department bound – Revenue bound by its own circulars governing initiation of prosecution – Lodging complaint without following guidelines amounts to abuse of process – Circulars held binding on authorities under the Act [Paras 20-31].

Settlement Commission – Section 245D and 245H – Immunity from penalty granted – No finding of suppression – Findings of Settlement Commission under Section 245-I held conclusive – Complaint continued despite no wilful attempt to evade tax – Violation of principle of fairness – Order of Settlement Commission takes precedence over procedural technicality of timing of complaint [Paras 34-37].

Criminal Law – Mens rea – Requirement of wilful attempt – Mere possession of unaccounted cash not sufficient – Burden lies on prosecution to prove wilful evasion – No such evidence shown – Continuation of complaint without mens rea unjustified [Paras 12, 18, 36].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Order of High Court set aside – Complaint and criminal proceedings quashed – Costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed on Revenue for unjustified prosecution [Para 38].