NDPS Act – Confiscation of Vehicle – Interim Release – Jurisdiction of Special Court – Rules of 2022 do not divest the Special Court of power to order interim custody of a seized conveyance – Subordinate legislation cannot override parent statute – Power under Sections 451 & 457 CrPC [497 & 503 BNSS] remains intact – High Court’s contrary view unsustainable [Paras 13, 22, 29-30]

NDPS Act – Sections 60(3) & 63 – Confiscation of Conveyance – Burden of proof on owner to show lack of knowledge or connivance – Confiscation can only follow judicial determination by Special Court after hearing claimant – Drug Disposal Committee cannot decide ownership or confiscation of vehicle – Violation of natural justice if deprived without hearing [Paras 19-22]

Subordinate Legislation – NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 – Rules merely procedural and supplemental – Cannot curtail substantive rights of owner or judicial power of Court – Administrative Committee cannot substitute judicial adjudication under NDPS Act [Paras 13, 15-17, 27-30]

Interim Custody – Vehicle Seized under NDPS Act – Where owner not arrayed as accused and prima facie shows bona fides and absence of knowledge, Special Court empowered to release vehicle on supurdagi – Principle from Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 INSC 32 applied – Case fits within fourth category in Bishwajit Dey

(contraband recovered from third party without owner’s connivance) [Paras 31-35]

Presumption – Owner’s Knowledge – Mere presence of contraband in transport vehicle not sufficient to presume complicity of owner where no material indicates knowledge or connivance – Bonafide transporter carrying lawful goods entitled to interim release [Paras 31-33, 35]

Principles of Natural Justice – Property rights of innocent owner protected – Confiscation entails deprivation of property and must follow judicial process with opportunity of hearing – Rules of 2022 cannot override this constitutional safeguard [Paras 22, 27, 29]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Madras High Court dated 20.12.2024 set aside – Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 52 Q 0315 directed to be released to appellant on supurdagi subject to conditions imposed by the Special Court – Interpretation of Rules of 2022 clarified – Special Court retains jurisdiction to grant interim custody of seized conveyances [Paras 36-37].

Contempt of Court – Interim Orders – Effect of “Release” of Reserved Matter – Termination of Service during Subistence of Interim Protection – Appellant’s services were terminated on 10-06-2020 while an interim order dated 20-12-2018 restraining final orders in disciplinary proceedings was in operation and being extended – Mere “release” of the writ petition on 06-02-2019 did not extinguish the interim order – Held: Dismissal of contempt petition by High Court set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 2.8, 2.14–2.18, 5–6].

University Discipline – KGMU CPMS Audit and Enquiry – Procedural History – Multiple writ petitions (2018–2021) challenging preliminary enquiry, questionnaire, chargesheet, suspension, and termination – Interim stay of suspension on 05-12-2019 continued – Despite pendency, final termination order passed on 10-06-2020 forming the gravamen of contempt claim [Paras 2.3–2.6, 2.10–2.15].

Practice & Procedure – Remand – High Court requested to consider contempt afresh and, for effective adjudication, to take up connected matters together; pending applications disposed of [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 23-09-2024 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed and set aside – Contempt petition remitted for fresh consideration; connected matters may be heard together – Pending applications disposed of. [Paras 6–8].

Civil Writ - Transgender Rights – Indirect horizontality – Omissive discrimination – Reasonable accommodation – Private school recruitment – Second School denied employment after disclosure of gender identity; violation of Arts. 14, 15, 21 and ss. 3, 9 of 2019 Act – First School’s intentional discrimination not proved though grievance redressal deficient – Public law compensation under Art. 32 awarded against Union, States and private school – Article 142 directions: Welfare Boards, Protection Cells, Complaint Officers, SHRC as appeal forum, national helpline, 3-month compliance – Expert Advisory Committee constituted with funding and timelines – Continuing mandamus issued [Paras 150–163, 165–177, 199–200, 201–213, 214–221].

Transgender Rights – Horizontal Application – Omissive Discrimination – Reasonable Accommodation – Employment Discrimination – Public Law Compensation – Structural Directions under Art. 142 – Advisory Committee – Continuing Mandamus – The 2019 Act operationalises indirect horizontality by imposing non-discrimination and accommodation duties on “establishments” including private unaided schools – State inaction in enforcing grievance redressal and equal opportunity obligations amounts to omissive discrimination – Second School’s refusal to appoint after discovering petitioner’s transgender identity held discriminatory; First School’s conduct not proved as intentional discrimination though deficient in redressal – Public law compensation awarded against State actors and the Second School – Comprehensive directions issued to set up Welfare Boards, Protection Cells, Complaint Officers, an appeal forum (SHRC), and a national helpline; Expert Advisory Committee constituted with timelines and funding – Continuing mandamus issued [Paras 131–146, 150–163, 165–177, 178–213, 199–200, 214–221].

Equality & Non-Discrimination – Articles 14, 15 & 21 – “Sex” includes gender identity – The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (“2019 Act”) extends constitutional guarantees to private spheres through Section 3 (broad non-discrimination) and Section 9 (employment) with Rule 12 (equal opportunity policy) and Section 11/Rule 13 (Complaint Officer & timelines) – Held: Act manifests indirect horizontal effect; failure to operationalise framework violates substantive equality and dignity [Paras 29–35, 39–42, 131–146].

Reasonable Accommodation – Positive obligation inherent in substantive equality – Though explicit in disability law (RPwD Act), it applies to transgender persons to remove structural barriers; undue hardship is the limiting standard – Indian jurisprudence (NALSA; Vikash Kumar; Kabir Paharia) and comparative materials (Canada/US/EU) relied upon [Paras 43–65, 48–55].

Omissive Discrimination – Legislative/administrative omission – Absolute and relative legislative omissions recognised; failure to establish mechanisms under the 2019 Act/2020 Rules (e.g., Complaint Officers, Protection Cells, policy under Rule 11) breaches equality code; courts may fill vacuums to the extent necessary (Vishaka line) [Paras 66–86, 115–130].

Stereotypes, Stigma & Substantive Equality – Anti-stereotyping principle reiterated; popular morality yields to constitutional morality (Navtej; Sabarimala; Babita Puniya; Nitisha; X2) – Formal neutrality that entrenches disadvantage is impermissible [Paras 88–96].

Employment Discrimination – First School v. Second School – First School: record showed accommodation efforts (hostel/washroom access; re-hire test), no intentional discrimination proved though handling of harassment inadequate – lack of internal redressal noted [Paras 153–158]. Second School: denial of appointment after identity disclosure; Section 9 prohibits discrimination in recruitment; St. Mary’s distinguished; violation found [Paras 160–163].

Article 32 – Public Law Compensation – Maintainability against Private Parties in appropriate cases – Relief distinct from tort damages – Rudul Sah; Bhim Singh; Nilabati Behera; M.C. Mehta; Jeeja Ghosh; CERC followed/applied – Held: compensation payable by Second School (private) and by Union/States for omissions [Paras 165–173, 176–177].

Quantum – Compensation of ₹50,000 each directed from Union of India and two States (Respondents 1–3) and ₹50,000 from Second School (Respondent 4) – Total ₹2,00,000 to petitioner; payable within four weeks [Paras 177, 214( i–iii)].

Structural Shortcomings of 2019 Act – Identification documentation hurdles; lack of workable grievance architecture; absence of reasonable accommodation norms in practice; suggestions issued (gender-neutral toilets, confidentiality, inclusive forms, curricula, security screening, medical curriculum updates) [Paras 178–198].

Directions (Article 142) – Comprehensive Structural Directions (IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING & POLICY) – HELD:

(i) Appellate authority under Rule 9 designated in every State/UT [Para 199(i)].

(ii) Welfare Boards for transgender persons under Rule 10(1) in every State/UT [Para 199(ii)].

(iii) Transgender Protection Cells at district (DM) and State (DGP) levels under Rule 11(5) in every State/UT [Para 199(iii)].

(iv) Every “establishment” to designate Complaint Officer under Section 11 and Rule 13(1) – States/UTs to ensure compliance [Para 199(iv)].

(v) SHRC designated as forum to hear objections/appeals against head of establishment’s decision under Rule 13(3) [Para 199(v)].

(vi) Dedicated nation-wide toll-free helpline to receive violations of the 2019 Act/2020 Rules and immediately alert Protection Cells – wider scope than Rule 13(5) mechanism [Para 199(vi)].

(vii) Union of India and States to ensure strict compliance with above directions within three months from judgment [Para 200].

(viii) Continuing mandamus – Union to ensure compliance in all States and report; matter to be relisted after six months with Committee report [Paras 218, 221].

Advisory Committee – Constitution, Funding & Timelines – Court constituted expert Advisory Committee chaired by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Asha Menon (Retd.) with trans-rights activists and experts; ex-officio Secretaries of key Ministries as advisory members; MoSJE to fund and provide logistics; initial ₹10,00,000 to be deposited with Registry in two weeks; Committee to submit report/model Equal Opportunity Policy within six months; Union to consider and bring its policy within three months thereafter [Paras 201–213, 215–217].

Registry/Communication – Circulation of judgment to all High Courts and State/Union authorities; relist after six months with policy draft/report [Paras 220–221].

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions – Discrimination by Second School established – Public law compensation of ₹2,00,000 awarded (₹50,000 each by Union and two States; ₹50,000 by Second School) – Comprehensive structural directions issued under Art. 142 – Advisory Committee constituted with timelines and funding – Continuing mandamus for compliance and monitoring [Paras 160–177, 199–221].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Sentence – Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC for causing death of intervenor S by axe blow to the neck – Trial court sentenced him to 10 years’ RI – High Court reduced sentence to 8 years – Appellant sought further reduction on ground of young age (20 years) and absence of intention – Supreme Court held that deceased S was an innocent peacekeeper who suffered fatal injury without provocation – Act of appellant found not to be covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – Sentence of 8 years not excessive in the circumstances – Held: Sentence imposed by High Court appropriate and does not warrant interference [Paras 8–10, 22–23, 27–28].

Sentencing – Proportionality – Deterrence – Supreme Court emphasized balancing judicial discretion with societal interests and victim’s rights – Reiterated principles from Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat – Undue sympathy and disproportionate leniency undermine faith in justice system – Sentence must reflect gravity of offence and protect social order – Held: No compelling reason to further reduce sentence in absence of mitigating circumstances [Paras 24–25, 27–28].

Premature Release – Remission – Appellant permitted to seek premature release under applicable State remission policy – Court noted that such statutory remedies remain open and independent of judicial sentence review [Paras 17, 30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Sentence of 8 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part-II IPC upheld – Appellant entitled to seek premature release as per remission policy of State of Karnataka.

Taxation – Business expenditure – Non-resident – Lull in business vs cessation – Assessee, a French drilling company with ONGC contract till 1993, maintained continuous correspondences and bid activity with ONGC during 1993–1998, ultimately securing a fresh contract in October 1998 (formalised January 1999) – Held: Such sustained efforts show intention to carry on business – Mere failure to procure a contract or maintain a permanent establishment in India does not imply cessation – Business expenditure (admin/legal etc.) undertaken wholly and exclusively for business is deductible and eligible for set-off under Section 71 [Paras 2, 4, 9, 11-17, 19-20].

Unabsorbed Depreciation – Section 32(2) – For the pre-2002 law, continuation of the business is relevant – On facts, business had not ceased; therefore, unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward and set off in terms of Section 32(2) – Note: first proviso to Section 32(2) stood omitted w.e.f. 01/04/2002 by Finance Act, 2001 [Paras 10-12, 17].

Permanent Establishment (PE) – Not a statutory precondition under the Act for being “in business” in India – PE is relevant to DTAA benefits, not to charging or computation provisions under Sections 4, 5(2), 9(1)(i), and 28 – High Court erred in equating lack of PE/office or foreign-based correspondence with absence of business in India [Paras 11-12, 18-19].

Income Characterisation – Interest on income-tax refunds taxable under “Income from Other Sources” – Yet, business expenditure incurred for carrying on business can be set off against such income under Section 71, given the finding that business continued [Paras 5, 9, 11, 15-17].

Principles – The term “business” has a wide import, denoting real, substantial, systematic activity with a set purpose – “For the purpose of business” is broader than “for earning profits” and includes acts incidental to carrying on business, measures for preservation/protection, and statutory payments – “Lull in business” is distinct from “going out of business” [Paras 4, 14-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – ITAT orders revived – Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment orders for AYs 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1999-2000 in terms of ITAT orders [Paras 21].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC along with three others – FIR stated incident occurred when accused tried to destroy hut of one Jagya, and deceased Ramesh intervened – Alleged eyewitnesses Madho Singh (PW-5) and Puniya (PW-12) gave materially contradictory accounts regarding place and sequence of incident – Court found contradictions regarding location (hut, Gopya’s field, Bholiya’s field) and number of assailants with sharp weapons – Doubt raised on presence of eyewitnesses due to improbabilities, contradictions, and omissions – Medical evidence confirmed homicidal death but lacked independent corroboration of witness accounts [Paras 26-40, 41-52].

Witness Testimony – Credibility – Madho Singh (PW-5) and Puniya (PW-12) contradicted each other on key aspects – Each denied other’s presence – Madho Singh admitted political rivalry with accused and stated no one came to rescue despite hue and cry – Puniya claimed to have witnessed the assault but made no attempt to assist the deceased – Their testimonies found unreliable and lacking corroboration – Court classified Puniya as “wholly unreliable” and Madho Singh as “partially reliable” – No corroborative evidence to support their testimonies [Paras 40, 55].

FIR and Investigation – Omission of key eyewitness name in FIR – FIR failed to mention presence of Puniya despite being relative and allegedly witnessing incident – Site inspection plan contradicted witness statements – No source of light recorded at scene – Seized weapons not proven to be linked with specific injuries – FIR filed next morning – Held: Prosecution suppressed genesis of incident and shifted scene of crime – Entire narrative doubtful [Paras 29, 36, 49, 56-57].

Benefit of Doubt – Other co-accused not before Court – However, in exercise of powers under Article 142, Court extended benefit of doubt to similarly situated co-convicts Govardhan, Raja Ram, and Bhima – All four accused acquitted – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 61-64].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Appellant and co-accused acquitted – To be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – Intra-group Licensing – Scope of Restraint – Suit filed by respondent sought to restrain petitioner from creating third-party interest including license or assignment of ‘Kirloskar’ trademarks – Trial Court granted injunction on 09.01.2025 – High Court stayed the injunction on 25.07.2025 permitting limited licensing to group companies – Later, by order dated 10.10.2025, High Court modified earlier order to prohibit even such licensing – Held: Prima facie, modified order expanded restraint without proper consideration of earlier licensing practices and despite pendency of appeal – Operation of 10.10.2025 order stayed [Paras 2–10].

Trademark Ownership – Difference between Assignment and Licensing – Petitioner argued that licensing does not amount to transfer of ownership and is distinguishable from assignment – Court noted there was no dispute over ownership of the mark and no prior adjudication on internal licensing history – Modified restraint seen as excessive at interlocutory stage [Paras 5–8].

Judicial Discretion – Modification of Interim Orders – Supreme Court observed that expanding the scope of an interim injunction during pendency of appeal and without full factual analysis was not warranted – Ordered interim stay on modified order [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Notice issued returnable on 04.11.2025 – Effect and operation of High Court order dated 10.10.2025 stayed – Parties allowed to exchange affidavits/written submissions in the meantime

Service Law – Class IV Appointment – Validity of Appointments Beyond Advertised Vacancies – Rule 12, U.P. Rules – “Reasonable Dimension” of Waiting List – Appellants appointed against Class IV posts were terminated in 2008 on the ground that appointments exceeded notified vacancies – Advertisement of 2000 mentioned 12 vacancies “subject to increase or decrease” – Court held that Rule 12 permits maintenance of a waiting list of reasonable dimension to fill vacancies arising within the same or succeeding recruitment year – Reliance placed on Naseem Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2011) 2 SCC 734 – Held, appointments made from such waiting list were valid when vacancies arose subsequently – Termination unjustified [Paras 6–10].

Service Jurisprudence – Delay and Relief – Equitable Directions – Appellants were out of employment for 17 years – Two appellants had crossed superannuation age – Court directed reappointment of those still within age limit to existing or supernumerary posts in Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship – Those who crossed superannuation to be granted minimum pension – Intervening period not to count for seniority or pension computation – Directions confined to peculiar facts and not to be treated as precedent [Paras 11–12].

Interpretation of Rules – Rule 12, U.P. Rules – “Reasonable Dimension” – Expression construed to mean a waiting list adequate to cover vacancies likely to arise within the year of recruitment or the next year, in reasonable proportion to advertised vacancies – Ensures fairness and prevents arbitrariness in recruitment [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Termination orders set aside – Reappointment or pension benefits granted as per directions – Relief restricted to appellants – Not to be treated as precedent [Paras 11–12].

Transfer of Suits – Patent Infringement vs. Groundless Threats – Section 25 CPC – Earlier suit under Section 106 Patents Act has independent cause of action – Delhi jurisdiction invoked via online purchase and delivery – Substantial overlap of parties, facts and issues – To avoid duplication and conflicting findings, infringement suit in Delhi transferred to Bombay – Cross transfer petition dismissed [Paras 9-14]

Transfer – Competing Petitions – Chronology and Overlap – Petitioner first filed Bombay suit (01.07.2025) for groundless threats; Respondent later filed Delhi infringement suit (07.07.2025) – Court notes substantial overlap in facts, law, and issues – Held appropriate to have both tried by the same forum to conserve judicial time and ensure consistency [Paras 10 & 12]

Patents – Groundless Threats (S.106) – Independence from Infringement Action – 1911 Act proviso negating groundless-threat action upon diligent prosecution of infringement suit was deleted in the 1970 Act – Hence, S.106 suit is an independent cause of action and can proceed irrespective of an infringement action [Para 9]

Jurisdiction – Patent Infringement – Online purchase and delivery at Delhi – Court records that Delhi jurisdiction was invoked by respondent through online purchase and delivery in Delhi, but transfers the Delhi suit to Bombay in the interests of justice given overlap and earlier Bombay filing [Para 10(ii), Para 12]

Precedents – Transfer to Avoid Conflicting Judgments – Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85 – Applied – Where two suits between substantially the same parties arise out of the same transactions and evidence, separate trials may risk inconsistent findings; transfer allowed [Para 11]

Decision: Transfer Petition (C) No. 1983 of 2025 allowed – CS (COMM) No. 663 of 2025 (Delhi) transferred to Bombay High Court to be tried with Commercial IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025 – Injunction applications to be taken up and disposed of expeditiously – Transfer Petition (C) No. 2174 of 2025 dismissed [Paras 12-15]