Criminal Law  – Sections 303, 307 & 34 of the IPC – Appeal Against Conviction - Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence – Violation of Fair Trial – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted of murder and attempted murder under IPC Sections 302 and 307 based on eyewitness testimonies of PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6 – However, affidavits submitted by PW-5, PW-6, and injured PW-7 during bail proceedings contradicted their court testimonies and exonerated the accused – Investigating Officer admitted knowledge of these affidavits but failed to record supplementary statements or conduct verification – Such non-investigation and suppression violated the right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: Conviction based solely on PW-4's testimony, in absence of corroboration and amid investigative lapses, is unsafe – Conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted [Paras 17-24].

Investigation – Duty of Police – Failure to Conduct Supplementary Investigation – Despite knowledge of contradictory affidavits by eyewitnesses, Investigating Officer did not take steps to verify or rebut them nor documented any attempts to locate the witnesses – This omission compromised the integrity of the investigation and prosecution – The suppression of material evidence affected the fairness of the trial and cast doubt on the credibility of key witnesses [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Practice – Reference to Lower Court Records – Directive Issued – Supreme Court reaffirms that trial court records must not be referred to as “Lower Court Record” – High Courts directed to comply with earlier circular replacing such terminology in court documentation and communication [Para 25].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled [Para 26].

Mining Leases – Validity of DMF Contribution Policy – Sections 9B & 15A of MMDR Act – Demand Upheld – The appellant, a sand mining lessee, challenged a Demand Notice requiring payment of 10% of the bid amount to the DMF Trust, asserting violation of Section 9B of the 1957 Act – The Supreme Court held that Section 9B is inapplicable to minor minerals due to Section 14 – Further, State power under Sections 15 and 15A to prescribe DMF contributions is valid – The 2017 State Policy was properly exercised under Rule 68 of the 1963 Rules and was binding – Demand found to be in conformity with Rule 10(2) of the 2017 DMF Rules – Appeals dismissed [Paras 5–26].

Maternity Leave – Section 5 and 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - FR 101(a) and Constitutional Interpretation – Maternity Leave Granted – The appellant, a government teacher in Tamil Nadu, sought maternity leave for her first child born from her second marriage – The leave was denied on the ground that she already had two children from her first marriage – Supreme Court held that since the two children are in custody of her ex-husband and the present childbirth is from her subsisting marriage, the appellant is entitled to maternity benefits – Restriction under FR 101(a) must be interpreted liberally in light of constitutional rights and reproductive autonomy [Paras 4.1, 6, 9-11, 34-37].

Reproductive Rights – Article 21 of the Constitution – Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right – Recognized as a facet of the right to life – The Court emphasized that reproductive autonomy includes the right to bear children and access maternity benefits – Maternity leave is not merely a statutory right but part of the broader right to dignity and health under Article 21 [Paras 13-14, 28-31].

Maternity Benefit Act – Guidance in State Service Rules – Though not directly applicable to State Government employees, the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act provide beneficial guidance – Supreme Court acknowledged that the Act allows maternity benefits even for more than two children, though with a reduced leave period, reinforcing the liberal interpretation required for FR 101(a) [Paras 18-20, 33].

International Norms – Relevance of CEDAW and International Covenants – The judgment draws heavily on international instruments such as CEDAW and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to underscore that maternity protection is a human right – Reinforces the obligation of the State to provide maternity benefits as part of respect for international law [Paras 22-27].

Final Decision – Division Bench Judgment Set Aside – Maternity Leave Granted – Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment of the Madras High Court and directed the State to release maternity benefits under FR 101(a) to the appellant within two months [Paras 36-38].

Service Law - Disability Rights – Regularisation Under G.O. – Denial of Probation and Promotion – Held Discriminatory – Appellants, all persons with benchmark disabilities, were reappointed under G.O. dated 18/05/2013 to supernumerary posts after temporary service under Rule 9(a)(i) KS & SSR – Subsequently denied declaration of probation and promotional avenues by G.O. dated 03/02/2016 – Held: The later G.O. sought to withdraw vested service rights, causing discrimination in violation of Article 14 – Supreme Court set aside the impugned G.O. [Paras 1–3, 21–24].

Service Jurisprudence – Supernumerary Appointments – Nature and Legal Rights – Court held that reappointments under the 2013 G.O. amounted to regular appointments including probationary status – Denial of equal service treatment to disabled employees on that basis was impermissible – Held: Once appointed to posts with probation, denial of seniority and promotion by subsequent clarification is illegal [Paras 6, 20–23].

Article 14 – Equality in Public Employment – Disparate Treatment of Disabled Employees – Violation Found – Appellants resigned from other secure posts expecting regularization – Arbitrary denial of parity solely due to method of appointment struck down – Held: Appointments under G.O. 18/05/2013 gave rise to legitimate expectations, and Clause 3.5 of G.O. 03/02/2016 could not override them [Paras 11–13, 23].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – G.O. 03/02/2016 Quashed – Rights Restored – Supreme Court allowed all appeals – Set aside Kerala High Court Division Bench judgments – Restored orders of Single Judge and Kerala Administrative Tribunal that had granted full service benefits including probation and promotion to the appellants [Para 24].

Service Law - Organised Group-A Service Status – Full Recognition of CAPFs as OGAS – DoPT OM Binding – High Court Error – The Court clarified that its earlier decision in Harananda (2019) was not limited to NFFU but affirmed full OGAS status for CAPFs – Held: Once declared OGAS, CAPFs must be treated as such for all cadre matters – High Court's failure to consider the DoPT OM dated 12.07.2019 rendered its ruling flawed [Paras 32, 36, 37].

Cadre Review and Service Rules – Mandate to Complete by Timeline – Direction Issued – The Court mandated completion of cadre review and amendment of recruitment rules within six months – DoPT to decide within three months after receiving MHA’s report – Held: Officers must be heard during review; cadre structure must reflect OGAS norms [Paras 45(1)-(4)].

Deputation of IPS Officers – Progressive Reduction Ordered – Stagnation Acknowledged – Court Recognized Need for Reform - The practice of deputation of IPS officers in senior ranks of CAPFs found to cause stagnation among cadre officers – Held: While policy matters lie within executive domain, excessive deputation undermines service mobility – Directed gradual reduction of deputation posts up to SAG within two years [Paras 15, 41, 45(5)].

Constitutional Equality – Unequal Treatment Violates Articles 14 and 16 – Mandate for Parity – Disparity in promotional norms and denial of OGAS benefits to CAPF officers despite equal standing held to violate fundamental rights – Held: Government cannot pick and choose implementation post-OGAS declaration – Parity must follow recognition [Paras 16.7, 19.2, 23, 24.1].

Policy Implementation – OM dated 12.07.2019 Has Legal Consequence – Government Bound – DoPT’s 2019 OM confirming CAPFs' OGAS status was held conclusive and binding – Held: Benefits such as NFFU, NFSG, cadre restructuring, and rule amendments are legal consequences of OGAS recognition [Paras 33-36, 43].

Decision – Civil Appeals Allowed – High Court Ruling Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s limited interpretation of OGAS status, and directed implementation of full OGAS benefits, cadre review, and structural changes – IPS deputation to be limited progressively [Paras 45-47].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Triable Issues Exist – Rejection Improper – High Court erroneously rejected the plaint holding that it disclosed no cause of action – Supreme Court held that revocation of power of attorney and dispute over subsequent sale deeds raised serious triable issues – Held: Rejection of plaint unwarranted at preliminary stage where pleadings disclosed a cause of action regarding title and invalidity of transactions [Paras 6-14].

Unregistered Documents – Effect on Title Transfer – Agreement to Sell and GPA – No Transfer of Ownership – Sale deeds executed on basis of an unregistered and revoked power of attorney were challenged – Supreme Court reiterated settled law that unregistered agreements to sell or GPA do not create title or transfer rights in immovable property – Held: Respondent could not rely on such documents to validate conveyance [Paras 9-9.4].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Dispute Over Title – Not Barred by Revenue Law – Appellants sought declaratory reliefs including title and possession – Revenue court jurisdiction under Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act held inapplicable – Held: Title disputes lie within exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts; mutation entries do not confer ownership [Paras 10-10.1].

Cause of Action – Distinct Reliefs – Partial Defect Does Not Warrant Full Rejection – Supreme Court reiterated that if even one cause of action is maintainable, the plaint must be tried – High Court erred in treating secondary reliefs as academic and rejecting entire suit – Held: Proper approach is to proceed with suit on triable issues rather than reject in entirety [Para 9.6, 9.7].

Final Decision – High Court Order Set Aside – Plaint Restored – Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court order rejecting plaint quashed – Order of Additional District Judge, Jodhpur restored – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit on merits [Para 14].

Service Law - Pension - Pension Arrears – Switch from CPF to Pension Scheme – RBI Circulars of 2020 – No Arrears Payable – Respondent retired in 2014 and later exercised option under 2020 RBI Circulars to switch from CPF to Pension Scheme – RBI provided that pension would only be paid prospectively from 01.07.2020 – Supreme Court upheld validity of this cut-off date – Held: No legal or constitutional right to claim retrospective pension benefits once scheme terms were accepted in full [Paras 1–20, 27–42].

Policy Decision – Cut-off Date – Judicial Review Limited – Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts must defer to government’s financial and policy considerations in fixing cut-off dates – Cited binding precedents to stress that cut-off dates based on economic rationale and viability are not arbitrary – Held: Division Bench erred in granting arrears; policy valid [Paras 22–36].

Approbate and Reprobate – Entire Scheme Must Be Accepted or Rejected – Partial Challenge Impermissible – Respondent accepted all conditions of 2020 scheme, including pension start date and refund of CPF with interest – Later challenge to denial of arrears was inconsistent with settled contractual principles – Held: One cannot accept beneficial terms and contest burdensome ones under same scheme [Paras 17, 37–40].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Order Quashed – Single Judge Order Restored – Supreme Court set aside Kerala High Court Division Bench’s direction to grant pension from retirement date – Restored Single Judge’s order dismissing writ petition – Respondent to receive pension only from 01.07.2020, no arrears payable [Paras 41–42].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act – Trial Court and High Court upheld conviction based on testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-9 and corroborative material including fingerprint and recovery evidence – Supreme Court finds serious infirmities in prosecution’s case – Held: Conviction unsustainable as guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1, 6, 41, 42]

Witness Testimony – PW-1 (Informant and Eye-Witness) – Evidence found unreliable due to political rivalry, exaggeration, inconsistencies, and lack of clarity regarding visibility and identification – Admitted naming 36 persons initially, later retracted against 15 with no objection to their removal – Court held his testimony exaggerated and not confidence-inspiring [Paras 16–21, 29]

Witness Testimony – PW-2 (Chance Witness) – Came forward after 43 days citing fear, but prosecution failed to explain delay or examine companion Abdul Rahman – Court held testimony unbelievable and adverse inference drawn against prosecution for non-examination of material witness [Paras 22–24, 30]

Child Witness – PW-9 (Injured Minor) – Aged 10 years, no preliminary voir dire by Trial Court, no test identification parade conducted – Admitted mother told her details of incident – Court held her evidence inadmissible due to non-compliance with legal standards for examining child witnesses [Paras 25–28, 31]

Circumstantial Evidence – Fingerprint Evidence – Fingerprints of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 alleged on Scorpio car – No Mahazar prepared, photographs not exhibited, procedural irregularities found – Court held fingerprint evidence unreliable [Para 32]

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Recovered from common or open locations at different times with questionable reliability – Held: Recovery evidence alone insufficient for conviction in absence of credible primary evidence [Para 33]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Article 136 – Scope of Interference – Reiterated that Supreme Court generally does not interfere with concurrent findings unless manifest illegality or misreading of evidence causing miscarriage of justice – In this case, striking features of evidence overlooked and misread by both lower courts warranted interference [Paras 36–40]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – To be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 41, 42]

Arbitration Law - Statutory arbitration under SARFAESI Act - Scope of Section 11 – Statutory Arbitration Mandated – Interpretation of “any dispute relating to securitisation or reconstruction or non-payment” – Held: Section 11 of SARFAESI Act mandates arbitration for disputes between banks, financial institutions, ARCs, or qualified buyers where such disputes relate to securitisation, reconstruction, or non-payment of dues including interest – The provision creates a legal fiction that presumes the existence of a written arbitration agreement – DRT has no jurisdiction in such matters [Paras 42, 62-66, 124].

Inter-Bank Disputes – Priority of Charges – Arbitration Mandatory – Dispute regarding competing security interests over borrower’s stocks between two banks – Though rights were claimed via hypothecation and pledge respectively, the core issue was priority – Held: Even if one bank claims pledge (excluded under Section 31(b)), the dispute over priority inter se banks falls within Section 11 and must be referred to arbitration [Paras 74, 84].

Borrower Exception – Lender-Turned-Borrower Not Covered by Section 11 – A bank or financial institution, if acting as a borrower, cannot invoke Section 11 – Definition of “borrower” in Section 2(f) includes such entities – Held: Section 11 applies only when both parties act in their capacity as secured creditors, not when one acts as a borrower [Paras 85-92].

Written Arbitration Agreement – Not Required – Deemed Consent under Section 11 – Legal Fiction Created – Held: Section 11 expressly uses the phrase “as if parties have consented in writing” – This statutory fiction removes requirement of a written arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act – View in Federal Bank held incorrect, Oriental Bank of Commerce affirmed as correct [Paras 93-107].

Mandatory Nature of Section 11 – Use of “Shall” – No Forum Shopping Permitted – Held: The word “shall” in Section 11 signifies compulsion – Arbitration under Section 11 is the sole remedy for eligible disputes – DRT has no jurisdiction – SARFAESI aims at speedier recovery and efficient resolution, which could be frustrated if inter-se bank disputes are entertained by DRT [Paras 108-118].

AMRCD Memorandum – Not Applicable – Contractual Disputes Requirement – Held: AMRCD guidelines only apply to disputes arising out of commercial contracts between CPSEs – Disputes arising out of competing security interests over borrower’s assets under SARFAESI Act not covered – Cannot override a statutory mandate under Section 11 [Paras 119-123].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s order referring parties to arbitration under Section 11 – Dispute regarding security interest priority is arbitrable under SARFAESI Act – DRT rightly declined jurisdiction – No costs awarded [Paras 124-129].