Criminal Law - Sections 366(A), 302, 201, 34 IPC – Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Incomplete Chain of Circumstances – Conviction Set Aside – The case was based purely on circumstantial evidence – The High Court discarded extra-judicial confession but convicted the appellant based on last seen theory and leading to discovery – The Supreme Court held that once a key link in the chain of circumstances was rejected, the conviction could not be sustained – Held: Incomplete chain of circumstances entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 23-26].

Last Seen Theory – Significant Time Gap Between Last Seen and Recovery of Dead Body – No Presumption of Guilt – The deceased was last seen with the appellant on 22.08.2003, but her dead body was found on 27.08.2003 – The Court held that a long time gap without further corroborative evidence weakens the last seen theory – Held: In the absence of other incriminating evidence, last seen theory alone cannot lead to conviction [Paras 29-33].

Leading to Discovery – Confession Made in Police Custody Not Admissible – Section 27 of Evidence Act Not Attracted – The High Court rejected the extra-judicial confession but relied on statements leading to the discovery of the dead body – The Supreme Court held that leading to discovery was intrinsically linked to the discarded confession and could not be relied upon independently – Held: When the confession itself is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, statements made under police custody leading to discovery cannot be admissible under Section 27 [Paras 39-44].

Motive – Absence of Motive Weakens Prosecution Case in Circumstantial Evidence – The prosecution failed to establish a motive for the murder – The appellant and deceased were in a romantic relationship, and the appellant’s family had assured the victim’s father that they would arrange their marriage – The Court held that the absence of motive in a circumstantial evidence case creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s theory – Held: Lack of motive reinforces the appellant’s entitlement to acquittal [Paras 48-51].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Appellant Acquitted – The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted of all charges – Conviction set aside [Paras 52-53].

Criminal Law – Forgery and Corruption – Conviction Based on Documentary Evidence – The appellant, a Traffic Superintendent with Indian Airlines, was convicted for tampering with airline tickets, issuing an infant ticket in a fictitious name and converting it into an adult ticket for monetary gain – Held: The evidence, including handwriting expert analysis and witness testimonies, established the appellant’s direct involvement – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of guilt [Paras 2-7].

Admissibility of Handwriting Expert's Opinion – Corroboration by Other Witnesses – The defense contended that there was no admissible evidence to establish that the appellant manipulated the ticket – Held: The handwriting expert (PW-8) confirmed that the fraudulent alterations were made by the appellant – Testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5, who were familiar with the appellant’s handwriting, further corroborated the findings – The expert evidence, being supported by other material evidence, was rightly relied upon by the courts below [Paras 5, 8].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Scope of Interference in Appeal – The Trial Court convicted the appellant, and the High Court upheld the conviction upon reappreciation of evidence – Held: Appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent findings unless there is a clear perversity or illegality – No such defect found in this case – The appeal is devoid of merit [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Established Principles of Evidence – The appellant relied on precedents emphasizing strict standards for proving forgery, including Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, Ram Narain v. State of U.P., and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Held: These cases do not assist the appellant as the prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt – The conviction is based on cogent documentary and expert evidence [Para 8].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence – No ground for interference found – Appeal dismissed [Para 9].

Right to Education – Medical Admission – Denial of MBBS Admission to a Candidate with Disability – The appellant, diagnosed with 58% disability, was denied admission despite clearing the NEET-UG exam with a qualifying rank – The Disability Assessment Board rejected his eligibility based on existing guidelines, which mandated that candidates must have “both hands intact” – Held: The existing guidelines were arbitrary and failed to assess functional ability – Functional assessment, rather than rigid physical criteria, is the correct approach – Denial of admission solely based on rigid physical criteria violates Articles 14, 21, and 41 of the Constitution [Paras 2-9, 20-21].

Constitutional Law – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Doctrine of Reasonable Accommodation – The Court held that reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act and international conventions requires assessment of individual capabilities rather than blanket exclusion based on disability percentage – Held: Blanket disqualification without functional assessment is unconstitutional – Regulatory bodies must adapt to technological advancements and inclusive policies in education [Paras 17-19, 22-23].

Judicial Review – Role of Courts in Protecting Disability Rights – The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that courts cannot interfere with expert medical opinions – Held: While courts are not medical experts, they have the duty to ensure expert opinions comply with constitutional and statutory mandates – Courts can strike down regulations and decisions that violate fundamental rights – The impugned High Court order was set aside [Paras 24-26].

Revised Guidelines – Directive to National Medical Commission (NMC) – The Court noted that recent rulings in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860 and Om Rathod v. DGHS, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130 mandated functional assessment over rigid physical disability criteria – Held: The National Medical Commission must revise its guidelines in accordance with these judgments and submit a compliance affidavit by 03/03/2025 [Paras 45-47].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Admission Granted – The appellant’s admission to MBBS at Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan, confirmed – The National Medical Commission directed to revise regulations in line with this judgment – No costs imposed [Paras 47-48].
 

Service Law - Delay in Filing Writ Appeals – Lethargic Approach of State Authorities – The State of Odisha challenged the High Court’s dismissal of Writ Appeals due to excessive delay – Held: The State displayed extreme carelessness and inordinate delay in pursuing appeals, failing to provide a satisfactory explanation – Courts do not assist those who sleep over their rights, including the State – The State directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as costs to affected employees in belatedly filed cases [Paras 2-3, 20].

Pensionary Benefits – Job Contract Employees vs. Work-Charged Employees – Scope of Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 – The Tribunal, in Nityanand Biswal’s case, erroneously directed that the entire service of Job Contract employees should be counted for pension – Held: The Odisha Pension Rules, 1992, explicitly provide that only the portion of Job Contract service necessary to qualify for pension can be counted – The Tribunal misinterpreted earlier precedents – The High Court's decision directing full service period calculation is unsustainable [Paras 5-7, 10-12].

Judicial Precedents – Scope of Prem Singh Case on Work-Charged Employees – The Court examined Prem Singh v. State of U.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516 and Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar (2023) SCC OnLine SC 527 – Held: Prem Singh applied to Work-Charged employees, not Job Contract employees – The two categories are distinct under Odisha Service Rules – Job Contract employees are governed by different rules and cannot claim the same pensionary benefits as Work-Charged employees [Paras 13-16].

Classification under Service Rules – Rational Basis for Differentiation – The distinction between Work-Charged and Job Contract employees is explicitly recognized under Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 – Held: The classification is not arbitrary under Article 14 – Since no challenge was raised against these rules, no interference warranted – Question of whether the classification is artificial left open [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The High Court’s judgment is set aside – The claim for counting the entire period of Job Contract service for pension calculation is rejected – The State directed to deposit costs of Rs. 1,50,000/- per affected employee in belatedly filed cases within four weeks – Review petitions in previously dismissed cases may be filed within four weeks [Paras 19-21].
 

Professional Misconduct - Advocate-on-Record – Duty of Care – Misrepresentation in SLP – An advocate-on-record filed an SLP concealing crucial facts about the appellant’s sentence, leading to wrongful interim relief – Held: An advocate-on-record is wholly responsible for verifying the correctness of petitions filed before the Supreme Court – Mere name lending without active participation amounts to misconduct under Supreme Court Rules – In this case, however, considering the unconditional apology and the role of the senior advocate, strict disciplinary action was not taken against the advocate-on-record [Paras 15-17, 25].

Senior Advocate – Accountability in Legal Proceedings – A senior advocate was found to have participated in drafting and filing petitions containing material misrepresentations and suppression of facts – Held: A pattern of such conduct in multiple cases raised concerns about the effectiveness of the senior advocate designation process – The Court left the decision of withdrawing the senior designation to the Chief Justice of India while emphasizing the need for stricter scrutiny in granting such designations [Paras 26-30].

Designation of Senior Advocates – Reconsideration of Indira Jaising Judgments – The Supreme Court examined whether the existing guidelines for designating senior advocates effectively ensure that only deserving advocates receive the honor – Concerns were raised regarding self-application, the points-based assessment system, and the subjectivity of interviews – Held: The matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India to consider whether the decisions in Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II require reconsideration by a larger Bench [Paras 31-43].

Judicial Ethics – Advocates’ Duty to the Court – The case underscored the obligation of lawyers to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings and avoid misleading the Court – Held: Advocates must maintain high standards of honesty and diligence, especially before the Supreme Court – Any attempt to manipulate judicial proceedings through misrepresentation will be viewed seriously [Paras 19-24].

Guidelines for Advocates-on-Record – Need for Reform – The Court emphasized the necessity of framing clear guidelines for advocates-on-record to prevent instances of misconduct – The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) was requested to collaborate with an amicus curiae to propose reforms – Held: Advocates-on-record must ensure the accuracy of facts in petitions, and their role extends beyond mere filing – The Supreme Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to forward the judgment to the Secretary General for necessary steps to be taken in consultation with SCAORA [Paras 44-47].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to place a copy of the judgment before the Chief Justice of India for consideration of a reference to a larger Bench – The issue of the appellant’s premature release was left open for separate proceedings – Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 418 of 2024 was de-tagged and not to be treated as part-heard [Paras 44-50].
 

Public-Private Partnership – Scope of Judicial Review – The High Court directed RPPL to reimburse Rs. 42 crores spent by the State and to deposit Rs. 15 crores in advance for future events – Held: Courts cannot interfere with contractual obligations voluntarily undertaken by parties in a public-private partnership unless there is an allegation of illegality, fraud, or arbitrariness – The impugned directions interfered with a policy decision and were beyond the scope of judicial review – The High Court’s directions were set aside [Paras 19-23].

Contract Law – Freedom to Contract – Courts cannot impose new obligations on contracting parties – The MoU between RPPL and SDAT was the outcome of deliberations and specified the respective financial contributions – Held: Contractual terms cannot be unilaterally modified by judicial intervention – The High Court erred in imposing financial liabilities beyond what was agreed in the MoU [Paras 20-22].

Judicial Review – Policy Matters – The High Court directed the State to take over the responsibility of organizing future racing events instead of collaborating with private entities – Held: Such directions disregarded established principles of governance and public-private partnerships – The government has the discretion to decide whether to engage private entities in sporting events – The High Court’s interference was unwarranted [Paras 23-24].

Sports Development – Government’s Role in Infrastructure Support – The Tamil Nadu government, through SDAT, aimed to promote motorsports in Chennai as part of its broader policy of making the state a global sports hub – Held: Government support for international sporting events through financial aid and logistical support is a recognized global practice – Judicial intervention should not disrupt such initiatives unless there is manifest arbitrariness or malafide intent [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Directions of the High Court in paragraphs 22(iv), (v), (vi), and (vii) of the impugned judgment set aside – No costs awarded [Paras 24-26].
 

IBC - Personal Insolvency – Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority – The High Court quashed personal insolvency proceedings against the respondent (guarantor) on the ground that his liability as a personal guarantor had been waived – Held: Under the IBC, the adjudication of such issues is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) – The High Court precluded the statutory mechanism from taking its course and erred in interfering at a premature stage – High Court’s order set aside [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Limits of Interference – The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to decide the existence of debt and validity of the guarantee deed – Held: These are mixed questions of law and fact that fall within the domain of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 100 of the IBC – High Courts should not interfere with statutory tribunal processes unless there is clear lack of jurisdiction or manifest illegality – The High Court’s intervention was premature and unjustified [Paras 10-12].

IBC Framework – Role of Resolution Professional – As per Sections 95-100 of the IBC, the resolution professional is first required to examine the application, determine whether the debt has been repaid, and submit a report recommending acceptance or rejection – Held: The High Court’s interference before the submission of the resolution professional’s report disrupted the statutory process – The correct approach is to allow the Adjudicating Authority to decide based on the report [Paras 9-11].

Adjudication of Debt – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – The respondent argued that his personal guarantee stood waived, and therefore, insolvency proceedings were not maintainable – Held: The determination of such claims requires factual verification, examination of documents, and application of insolvency law, which are functions of the Adjudicating Authority – The High Court’s intervention was premature [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Order of the Karnataka High Court dated 28.05.2024 set aside – Proceedings in C.P. (IB) No. 139/BB/2022 restored before the NCLT, Bengaluru – The Adjudicating Authority directed to proceed from the stage of its earlier order dated 16.02.2024 and dispose of the case expeditiously – No order as to costs [Paras 14-16].
 

Recruitment Process – Qualification Equivalence – Role of Employer – The High Court ruled that only candidates possessing a Diploma in Electrical Engineering were eligible, thereby setting aside the selection of candidates with a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering – Held: Equivalence of educational qualifications is primarily a matter for the employer to decide – When the recruiting authority, after due consideration and expert consultation, determines two qualifications as equivalent, courts should not interfere – High Court's ruling set aside [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Review – Scope in Recruitment Matters – The High Court took a strict view of the recruitment notification and declined to accept equivalency in qualifications – Held: The judiciary should not second-guess the employer’s decision unless it is arbitrary or irrational – Courts must defer to administrative expertise in employment matters – The High Court’s interference was unjustified [Paras 22-23].

Public Employment – Right to Selection – Mere inclusion in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment – However, where the selection process is completed and the employer has not raised objections to qualifications, courts should not upset appointments without strong reasons – Held: The appellants’ selection was valid as they met the employer’s eligibility criteria – Tribunal and High Court orders quashed [Paras 18-20].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation – The advertisement prescribed a Diploma in Electrical Engineering, but the employer treated a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering as equivalent based on prior expert consultation – Held: The employer’s interpretation of its own rules, if reasonable, should not be disturbed by judicial intervention – Recruitment rules should be interpreted practically and not in a hyper-technical manner [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Judgment of the Kerala High Court in W.P. Nos. 15398/2010, 6014/2010, 14891/2010, and OP (CAT) No. 1305/2010 set aside – Appointments of the appellants upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law - Extradition Proceedings in Matrimonial Dispute – Non-appearance in Quasi-Criminal Proceedings – Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act – Extradition Order Set Aside – The appellant’s passport was impounded due to multiple cases filed by the respondent – The Trial Court ordered the initiation of extradition proceedings against him due to his failure to appear in a case under the Domestic Violence Act – Held: Proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are quasi-criminal in nature and do not necessitate personal presence of the appellant – The impoundment of the passport prevented his return, making the extradition order legally untenable – The High Court erred in affirming the same without proper reasoning – Extradition order quashed [Paras 18-22].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution – Marriage Dissolved – The parties cohabited for only 80 days – Multiple cases were filed by both sides, leading to prolonged litigation – No possibility of reconciliation despite mediation efforts – Applying the principles from Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023 SCC OnLine SC 544), the Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage – No child born from the wedlock, and prolonged separation made cohabitation impracticable – Marriage dissolved [Paras 23-37].

Permanent Alimony – Determination of Fair Compensation – Article 142 of the Constitution – Rs. 25 Lakh Awarded – The respondent was employed and earning Rs. 50,000 per month – The appellant, though unemployed, was previously earning Rs. 8 lakh per month – Considering the financial status and prolonged separation, the Court awarded Rs. 25 lakh as one-time alimony – The amount to be deposited within two months [Paras 38-41].

Impounding of Passport – Violation of Natural Justice – Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 – Passport Ordered to be Released – The appellant’s passport was impounded without granting him an opportunity to be heard – Held: The impoundment was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 – The authorities were directed to release the passport within a week [Paras 42-46].

Closure of Pending Cases – All Matrimonial Disputes and Related Criminal Cases Closed – In view of the dissolution of marriage and the settlement, all criminal and civil cases filed by both parties were ordered to be closed – Ensured complete relief under Article 142 [Para 47].