Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance – Conviction and Sentence – Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Appeal Partly Allowed – A-1 (Village Administrative Officer) convicted for demanding and directing acceptance of ₹500/- bribe for issuing community certificate; A-2 (Village Assistant) convicted for accepting bribe on A-1’s instructions – Supreme Court held: Demand and acceptance duly proved against A-1 by PW-1 & PW-2; conviction upheld – Considering offence committed in 2004, small bribe amount, and prolonged trial, sentence reduced to statutory minimum of 1 year for each offence – A-2 never demanded bribe, no proof of connivance, and no charge of abetment; conviction set aside [Paras 15–18, 20–23].

Absence of Abetment Charge – Mere Acceptance on Directions – Conviction Unsustainable – Accepting money on behalf of another may amount to abetment, but in absence of a specific charge and proof of connivance, conviction under Sections 7 & 13 cannot be sustained – Reliance placed on Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 357 [Paras 15–17].

Reduction of Sentence – Article 142 – Court may reduce sentence to minimum prescribed by statute considering mitigating factors without overriding statutory provisions – Long pendency of trial (since 2004) and petty amount justify reduction [Paras 19–22].

Decision – A-1: Conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to 1 year RI for each offence – A-2: Conviction and sentence set aside; acquitted – Appeals disposed accordingly [Paras 22–23].

Company Law - IBC Appeal – Limitation and Filing Requirements – Section 61(2) IBC and Rule 22(2) NCLAT Rules – Appeal Barred – Respondent No. 1 e-filed appeal before NCLAT on 25.07.2023 without certified copy of impugned order or application for condonation of delay – Certified copy applied for only on 23.08.2023 and delay condonation sought on 22.09.2023 – Limitation commenced from date of pronouncement (23.06.2023) and not date of uploading (26.06.2023) – Held: Appeal defective and barred by limitation, NCLAT erred in ignoring mandatory procedural requirements; its judgment on merits set aside [Paras 5-13].

Criminal Law - Sentence – Life Imprisonment Fixed Term – Section 302 IPC – Sentence Complete – Release Mandated – The appellant was sentenced by the Delhi High Court to life imprisonment which was fixed at 20 years of actual incarceration without consideration of remission, affirmed by the Supreme Court – He completed 20 years of actual imprisonment on 09.03.2025 – Held: On completion of the judicially determined fixed term of 20 years, no further application for remission is required – Appellant entitled to immediate release upon completion of sentence, if not wanted in any other case [Paras 2, 13, 15.2, 15.4, 15.6].

Remission – Not Applicable to Fixed-Term Life Sentence – No Further Application Necessary – A convict serving a fixed-term sentence determined by the constitutional courts as a substitute for death penalty cannot be asked to seek remission after serving the full term – Sentence Review Board has no authority to alter or extend a judicially imposed fixed term sentence – Continued incarceration beyond fixed term without legal sanction violates Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 13, 15.2, 15.4, 15.7].

Remission vs. Completion of Sentence – Distinction Clarified – Remission is a reduction of a sentence before it is fully served and is an executive function – Completion of sentence is a matter of judicial determination when a fixed term is imposed – In the present case, once 20 years without remission was completed, sentence is deemed fully served – No further consideration of remission required [Paras 14–14.7].

Constitutional Mandate – Article 21 – Continued Detention Post-Sentence – Illegal – The Supreme Court held that continuing a convict in jail beyond the completed judicially fixed sentence term violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Administrative delay or technical objections cannot justify continued incarceration [Paras 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 15.7].

Judicial Authority – Fixed Term Sentence – Only Constitutional Courts Can Impose – The judgment reiterates that only the High Courts and the Supreme Court can impose fixed term life sentences that are not subject to remission, under their constitutional and appellate jurisdiction – Other courts or executive authorities cannot alter or extend such sentences [Paras 10.9, 11].

Direction to Authorities – Release of Overdetained Prisoners – Implementation of Judgment – Supreme Court directs circulation of this judgment to all State/UT Home Departments and Legal Services Authorities to ensure that no convict is unlawfully detained beyond their sentence – Appropriate action to be taken for release of such individuals, if not wanted in any other case [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Continued incarceration of the appellant post 09.03.2025 held illegal – He shall not be required to surrender after expiry of his furlough period – Authorities directed to treat his sentence as complete and release him if not wanted in any other case [Paras 15.6, 15.7, 16].

Judicial Service Law - Appointment of District Judges – Interpretation of Article 233(2) – Reference to Constitution Bench – Civil Appeal and Connected Matters – Multiple petitions sought review/clarification of Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401, wherein a three-judge bench held that only persons not in judicial service are eligible for direct recruitment from Bar as District Judges – Petitioners contended that judicial officers with seven years’ Bar practice prior to joining service should also qualify for Bar quota – Supreme Court held that the issue involves substantial questions of constitutional interpretation requiring hearing by a Bench of at least five judges under Article 145(3) – Matter referred to Constitution Bench [Paras 1–3, 16–24].

Scope of Article 233(2) – Two Key Questions Identified – (i) Whether judicial officers with seven years’ prior Bar practice can be appointed as Additional District Judges against Bar vacancies, and (ii) Whether eligibility is to be assessed at the time of application or appointment or both – Both held to be substantial questions of constitutional law [Para 23].

Effect of Earlier Precedents – Distinction drawn between present issue and Constitution Bench rulings in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab (1961) 2 SCR 874 and Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (1967) 1 SCR 77 – Noted that Dheeraj Mor was decided by three judges despite earlier order indicating reference to Constitution Bench – Such questions under Article 233(2) warrant hearing by five judges [Paras 12–15, 19–21].

Decision – Reference Allowed – Two questions framed and directed to be placed before Constitution Bench of five judges – Registry to place matter before CJI on administrative side – Present petitions to be heard after decision on reference [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Sections 307, 225, 186, 332, 353 & 120B IPC – Appeal Dismissed – Undertrial escorted by PW.1 & PW.2 was shifted, at appellant (Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail) instance, into a private Qualis with unknown men; near village stop on appellant’s pretext, chilli powder thrown and knife/kirpan used; attempt to free undertrial foiled due to handcuffs; appellant fled uninjured – Trial court conviction and High Court affirmation upheld; sentences concurrent – Held: chain of circumstances establishes conspiracy; single injured eyewitness reliable; Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning proper [Paras 2–4, 16–18, 19–22].

Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Prior police exoneration no bar – Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh followed – A person not named in FIR/charge-sheet may be summoned if trial evidence indicates involvement – No need to await cross-examination for 319 – Degree of satisfaction akin to framing charge – Summoning of appellant justified on PW.2’s testimony [Paras 16, 16.1; extracts of Hardeep Singh para 117].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Proof by circumstantial evidence – No overt act required – Inference from conduct before/during/after occurrence; concert of purpose suffices – Appellant suggested private vehicle with unknown men, orchestrated stop, remained passive, fled uninjured – Continuous chain of incriminating circumstances proves conspiracy; conviction with aid of 120B sustainable [Paras 17–17.4, 19.1–19.2].

Evidence – Hostile witnesses – Usable parts may be relied upon – PW.1 and driver PW.10 partly hostile, yet narrative on occurrence and roles supports prosecution – Law well settled that hostile testimony is not effaced and credible portions can be acted upon [Paras 14–15, 18–18.3].

Single eyewitness – Section 134 Evidence Act – Conviction can rest on injured eyewitness – PW.2’s account consistent, detailed (seating, stop on “nature call”, chilli powder, knife/kirpan injuries), corroborated by medical evidence; reliability enhanced as injured witness [Paras 12.2–12.3.1, 18.4–18.8].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Intent and weapon use decisive – Knife/kirpan blows and chilli-powder incapacitation during escape attempt indicate premeditated intent – Simple nature of injuries does not negate Section 307 when intention and means established [Paras 12.3–12.3.1, 8.4].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentences affirmed; no mitigating factor; appellant to be taken into custody; sentences to run concurrently [Paras 19–22].

Constitutional Law – Gender Discrimination – Recruitment in JAG Branch of Indian Army – Notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 permits induction of women into JAG branch – Petitioners, more meritorious female candidates (Ranks 4 and 5 in female list with 477 & 447 marks) denied selection in favour of less meritorious male candidate (Rank 3 in male list with 433 marks) due to separate gender-based merit lists and allocation of only 3 vacancies for women vs 6 for men – Held: Once women are allowed in a corps/branch under Section 12, executive cannot restrict their numbers or reserve seats for men by policy/administrative instruction – Such restriction not supported by statutory backing, violates Articles 14, 15, 16, and amounts to indirect discrimination – Combined merit list must be prepared as testing parameters are identical for men and women – Gender-neutral policy means selection of most meritorious candidates irrespective of gender, with at least 50% seats for women to compensate past exclusion, but no ceiling if more meritorious – Merit-based selection will improve efficiency of JAG – Respondents directed to induct Petitioner No.1 in next course, reject claim of less meritorious male candidate – Future recruitments to be on combined merit with marks published [Paras 38-50, 51-54, 55-58, 59-61, 62-68, 69-71, 72-82, 83, 84-87, 88-92, 93-99, 100-103, 104, 105-110, 111-118].

Army Law – Section 12 Army Act – Extent of Induction – Notifications of 1992 permitted women in 10 specified Combat Support Arms/Services including JAG – No statutory provision empowers executive to limit induction numbers within these branches – Administrative instructions/circulars of 2011 and 2012 imposing such limits are contrary to law – Principle: When statute prescribes a mode, it must be done in that manner or not at all – Reservation for male officers in permitted branches impermissible [Paras 38-50, 51-54].

Indirect Discrimination – 50:50 recruitment policy from 2024 facially equal but in practice disadvantages women – Evidence shows women candidates scored higher than men yet were excluded due to fixed ratio – Indirect discrimination occurs when facially neutral criteria have disproportionate adverse impact – Ceiling on female intake perpetuates historical exclusion and violates substantive equality – Selection must be merit-based without arbitrary gender ceilings [Paras 93-99].

Gender-Neutral vs Gender-Equal – Gender-equality means equal numbers; gender-neutrality means selection irrespective of gender based on merit – 2023 policy professes gender-neutrality but implemented as gender-equality with a fixed ratio, undermining merit – True gender-neutral recruitment must select best candidates regardless of gender, with 50% minimum for women only as compensatory measure, not maximum limit [Paras 84-92, 104].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Notification restricting female vacancies in JAG branch quashed to that extent – Petitioner No.1 to be inducted in next available course – Union of India directed to conduct future recruitments with combined merit list for men and women, publish marks and merit lists, and ensure compliance with constitutional mandate of equality [Paras 115-118].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Compounding of Offence – Conviction Quashed – Appellant convicted for dishonour of cheque of ₹5 lakhs – Courts below upheld sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and ₹1,000 fine – During pendency of SLP, parties amicably settled the matter and complainant filed affidavit of no objection – Held: Section 147 makes offence compoundable at any stage – Compromise was voluntary and supported by payment through demand drafts and post-dated cheques – Conviction set aside and appeal allowed [Paras 1–12].

Settlement – Civil Nature of NI Act Offence – Court Recognizes Private Dispute – Referring to Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, and P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat, Court reaffirmed that Section 138 proceedings are primarily civil in nature and brought into criminal realm for deterrent effect – When dispute is settled, further prosecution becomes an abuse of process [Paras 5–7].

Voluntary Compromise – Binding Effect – Acceptance of Settlement – Court referred to Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Goel and B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana to hold that once parties voluntarily settle the dispute with full knowledge and without coercion, complainant cannot oppose acquittal – Held: Settlement overrides continued prosecution [Paras 8–10].

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – Impugned order of High Court dated 27.03.2025 and concurrent conviction by Trial and Appellate Courts quashed – Appeal allowed – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 12–13].

Civil Law - Ex Parte Injunction – Mandatory Procedural Compliance – Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Trial Court's Injunction Set Aside – The High Court set aside an ex parte injunction granted to the petitioner real estate company on the ground that there was no prima facie case, no claim to ownership or specific performance, and that the application did not comply with mandatory procedural safeguards under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Held: Ex parte injunctions must comply strictly with the requirements of law including the recording of reasons and service of documents – Non-compliance justifies vacation of injunction without going into merits [Paras 1–7].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Improper Grant of Injunction – High Court's Intervention Upheld – The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, found the Trial Court order to be mechanical and lacking judicial application – Court directed transfer of case to another competent court for fresh hearing on injunction – Held: Inappropriate use of ex parte injunction without meeting legal thresholds warrants High Court’s interference under Article 227 [Paras 2, 5-6].

Transfer of Suit – Administrative Action Against Judicial Impropriety – Suit Transferred – In view of manner in which ex parte order was passed, the High Court ordered administrative placement of records before Administrative Judge for possible action – Held: Supervisory control may include corrective administrative measures in the interest of judicial propriety [Para 2].

Final Decision – Supreme Court Declines to Interfere – Hearing Fixed Before Trial Court – Supreme Court observed that since hearing on injunction was scheduled for the next day, it would not interfere with the High Court order – Directed Trial Court to hear both parties afresh and decide injunction application uninfluenced by prior observations – SLP disposed of [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law – Unlicensed Firearms – Suo motu action by Supreme Court – Issue of proliferation and widespread use of unlicensed firearms noticed during hearing of SLP involving Section 302 IPC – Court highlighted that unlike U.S. Constitution, Indian Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to bear arms – Preservation of life under Article 21 necessitates strict control of illegal firearms – Directed affidavits from States and Union of India on measures taken – Recognized alarming rise in crimes involving illegal arms despite existing framework under Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016 [Paras 1, Order extracts 13.02.2023 – 07.11.2024].

Amicus Curiae Assistance – Suggestions Recorded – Court appointed Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Advocate as Amicus Curiae; he categorized arms into licensed, misused licensed, smuggled, and domestically manufactured illegal firearms – Emphasized eradication of categories III and IV (smuggled and illicitly manufactured arms) as grave threats to peace and security – Court annexed his written suggestions dated 29.10.2023 to its order [Paras 1, Order dated 07.11.2024].

Union of India – Affidavits on Arms Act Enforcement – Union filed affidavits (14.09.2023 and 12.02.2024) detailing amendments through Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 enhancing punishments, introducing new offences (illicit trafficking, organized crime, celebratory gunfire), and creating electronic licensing – Admitted rising trend of illegal arms seizures (2017-2021 NCRB data) – Noted ineffective enforcement by States despite statutory framework [Paras, Order extracts 07.11.2024].

Committees – State-Level and National-Level Oversight – Supreme Court directed each State/UT to constitute a five-member Committee (Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, DGP/IG, Law Secretary, and a Ballistics Expert) to prepare an action plan within 10 weeks covering enforcement, inspection, smuggling prevention, and data collection – Later, Union of India constituted a central Committee of Experts under DG, BPR&D with members from IB, NIA, and senior State officials to examine State action plans and oversee effective nationwide implementation [Paras, Orders dated 07.11.2024, 28.07.2025, and 11.08.2025].

Appreciation – Assistance Acknowledged – Court recorded appreciation for services rendered by Amicus Curiae, assisting counsels, ASGs, and State counsels in framing systemic responses – Granted liberty to intervenors to submit suggestions to the Committee of Experts [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Miscellaneous Application disposed of – Committees at State/UT level and Expert Committee under BPR&D directed to review and coordinate action plans, incorporating Amicus suggestions and Union affidavits – Effective implementation of Arms Act mandated to curb menace of illegal firearms across India [Paras 6-15].