Criminal Law - Rape – Child Victim – Conviction Restored – Acquittal by High Court Set Aside – The appellant-State challenged the High Court’s decision acquitting the respondent-accused of rape charges – The Trial Court had convicted the accused based on medical evidence and eyewitness testimony but was overturned by the High Court on grounds of contradictions in witness statements – The Supreme Court held that minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not vitiate the prosecution case, especially in cases of child sexual assault – The doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit was invoked, emphasizing that delays in legal proceedings should not prejudice the victim – Held: The Trial Court’s conviction is restored, and the respondent-accused is directed to surrender and serve the sentence [Paras 17-22].

Child Witness – Competency and Reliability – Need for Cautious Evaluation – The Supreme Court reaffirmed that child witnesses can be competent if they understand the duty to speak the truth – The victim was unable to testify due to trauma, but her silence and tears were noted as significant indicators of distress – The Court cited Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 523, holding that the inability of a minor victim to testify does not automatically discredit the prosecution case – Held: The testimony of a traumatized child victim cannot be disregarded, especially when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence [Paras 12-14, 17].

Medical Evidence – Injuries Indicating Sexual Assault – Corroboration with Circumstantial Evidence – The medical report confirmed fresh injuries to the victim’s private parts consistent with sexual assault – The accused had injuries on his genitalia, supporting the prosecution’s claim of forced intercourse – The defense's argument that the injuries were caused by a nail was dismissed as unsubstantiated – Held: Medical evidence strongly supports the prosecution case, affirming the guilt of the accused [Paras 10, 20].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Events Leading to Conviction – The presence of bloodstains, the victim’s unconscious state, and the accused fleeing the scene corroborated the prosecution's case – The Supreme Court applied the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 test for circumstantial evidence, holding that the established facts were consistent only with the guilt of the accused – Held: The circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 15-16].

Reversal of Acquittal – Failure of High Court to Apply Settled Principles of Law – The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for failing to independently assess the evidence and merely dismissing the prosecution’s case based on minor discrepancies – Citing State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal (1988) 4 SCC 302, the Court emphasized that reasonable doubt must be substantial, not speculative – Held: The High Court’s reasoning was legally flawed, and its order of acquittal is set aside [Paras 6, 19].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 12/07/2013, which had acquitted the accused – The Trial Court’s judgment dated 19/11/1987 convicting the accused under Section 376 IPC is restored – The accused is directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence – No order as to costs [Para 22].
 

International Arbitration – Conflicting Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses – Applicability of Indian Law – Arbitration in India Ordered – The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking Clauses 16.5 and 18 of the Distributor Agreement – The respondent contended that arbitration should take place in Colombia under the Conciliation and Arbitration Centre of the Chamber of Commerce of Bogotá – The Supreme Court held that Clause 16.5, which stipulates Indian law and exclusive jurisdiction of Gujarat courts, prevails over Clause 18, which designates Bogotá as the arbitration venue – Held: Indian courts have jurisdiction over the arbitration agreement, and an arbitrator was appointed to conduct the proceedings in India under Delhi International Arbitration Centre rules [Paras 25-36].

Conflict of Laws – Lex Arbitri, Lex Contractus, and Seat of Arbitration – Indian Law Governs Arbitration Agreement – The Supreme Court applied the three-step test from Sulamérica Cia Nacional De Seguros S.A. v. Enesa Engenharia S.A., distinguishing between lex contractus (law governing the contract), lex arbitri (law governing arbitration), and seat of arbitration – The Court held that Indian law applies to the arbitration agreement, despite Bogotá being designated as the arbitration venue – The arbitration agreement’s validity, scope, and interpretation are governed by Indian law [Paras 13-16, 31].

Interpretation of Contracts – Harmonization of Conflicting Clauses – Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Prevails – The Court emphasized that in cases of inconsistent contractual clauses, interpretation must strive to give effect to all provisions rather than rejecting any clause outright – Following Milford Capital Partners v. Digby and Arnold v. Britton, the Court held that Clause 16.5 (exclusive Indian jurisdiction) and Clause 18 (arbitration in Bogotá) can be harmonized by treating Bogotá as the arbitration venue while retaining the Gujarat courts’ supervisory jurisdiction [Paras 26-29].

Appointment of Arbitrator – Consensus of Parties – Arbitration to be Conducted in India – During proceedings, both parties consented to arbitration in India under an Indian arbitral institution – The Supreme Court appointed Justice S.P. Garg (Retd.) of Delhi High Court as the sole arbitrator, with the venue to be decided mutually by the parties – The arbitration will be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre rules, applying the fee schedule for international arbitrations [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court held that the arbitration agreement is governed by Indian law, and Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator – Justice S.P. Garg (Retd.) appointed as the sole arbitrator – Arbitration shall be conducted in India, with the venue to be mutually decided by the parties – Proceedings to be governed by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre rules, applying the international arbitration fee schedule.
 

Education Law – Eligibility Criteria for Admission – Subsequent Fulfillment of Requirements – Relief Granted – The appellant secured admission to a B.A.M.S. course despite not meeting the eligibility requirement of passing English in the 10+2 examination – His college was later de-recognized, and students were transferred, but he was denied transfer on eligibility grounds – The appellant, acting on a provisional admission letter, reappeared for the 12th class examination, passed English, and completed almost the entire B.A.M.S. course – Held: Given the peculiar facts, including the appellant's substantial completion of the course and compliance with eligibility criteria during his studies, he should be allowed to complete the course and internship, and be issued his degree [Paras 7-9].

Doctrine of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – Court Should Not Prejudice a Party Due to Its Own Actions – The appellant pursued the course under interim orders for nearly six years and completed part of his mandatory internship – The High Court's decision to deny relief disregarded the principle that a court’s action should not cause undue hardship to a litigant (actus curiae neminem gravabit) – Held: Since the appellant had substantially complied with the eligibility requirements and invested significant time and effort, denying him relief would be unjust [Para 8].

Judicial Review – Power to Intervene in Academic Matters – Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Relief – Courts generally do not interfere in academic matters unless there is manifest injustice – The appellant’s admission was initially irregular, but subsequent compliance with eligibility norms and completion of studies justified intervention – Held: Exceptional circumstances warranted setting aside the High Court’s order, ensuring that the appellant is not unfairly deprived of his degree [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s orders dated 18.06.2014 (W.P. No. 10267 of 2012) and 01.08.2014 (Review Petition No. 236 of 2014) – The appellant shall be allowed to complete his course and internship at Shaskiya Swasashi Dhanwantari Ayurvedic Medical College, Ujjain – The concerned authorities shall issue the appellant his B.A.M.S. degree upon completion – No order as to costs [Para 9].

Service Law – Seniority Dispute – Promotion vs. Direct Recruitment – Applicability of Special Rules, 1960 and Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 – Seniority Upheld for Promoted Engineers – The dispute pertained to the seniority of Assistant Engineers in the Kerala Water Authority, where the appellants, promoted from Draftsman-Grade I, challenged the High Court's decision granting seniority to directly recruited engineers – The High Court erred in applying Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960 at the stage of appointment to Assistant Engineer, as the rule only applies for further promotions – The Supreme Court clarified that once an individual becomes an Assistant Engineer, they can opt for either the degree or diploma quota for further promotion – The seniority list prepared by the Kerala Water Authority was held to be valid – Appeals allowed, and the High Court's judgments set aside [Paras 16-27].

Statutory Interpretation – Avoidance of Absurdity – Harmonious Construction – The interpretation by the High Court created an anomalous situation where a junior employee with a diploma who later acquired a degree could leapfrog a senior employee with both qualifications – The Supreme Court applied the presumption against absurdity, holding that statutory provisions must be construed to avoid irrational results – The Court reiterated that the legislature's intent must be honored through a rational and just interpretation [Paras 28-30].

Precedents – Inapplicability of Chandravathi P.K. Case (2004) 3 SCC 734 – The respondents relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Chandravathi P.K., which dealt with weightage for service before acquiring a degree – The Court held that the ruling was not relevant to the present case, as it addressed a different issue – The private respondents' reliance on the case was misplaced [Paras 31].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court Judgment Overturned – The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, restoring their seniority as per the original list prepared by the Kerala Water Authority – The judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench were set aside [Para 32].

Criminal Procedure – Applicability of Section 256 Cr. PC – Not every absence of complainant leads to acquittal – Restoration of complaint justified – The appellant’s complaint was dismissed for default by the Magistrate during the pandemic despite restrictions and interim stay from the High Court – The Sessions Judge correctly restored the complaint, noting absence of accused on the said date and violation of SoP – The High Court’s interference was erroneous as it misapplied Section 256 Cr. PC and wrongly treated the Sessions Court as sitting in appeal over the High Court – Held: Restoration of complaint proper, dismissal for default was unsustainable [Paras 14-22].

Section 256 Cr. PC – Purpose of date fixed is material – Only absence of complainant on a date fixed for appearance of accused triggers acquittal – Here, date was fixed only for show cause and not for appearance of accused – Respondents themselves were absent – Hence, Section 256 did not warrant acquittal – Observation of the High Court in CRR No.

2327/2018 was flawed – Sessions Judge’s order restoring the complaint was correct [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Discipline – Revisional Court not barred from setting aside order dismissing complaint – Earlier High Court observation was not binding as it was per incuriam – The Sessions Judge rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction – The High Court erred in quashing the Sessions Court order on the ground of judicial discipline [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Complaint restored – Order dated 15^th July, 2024 set aside – CRR No. 2327/2018 revived for fresh adjudication by High Court – Magistrate to proceed with complaint subject to outcome of CRR No. 2327/2018 [Paras 23-26].

Administrative Law – Auroville Foundation – Power of Governing Board – Validity of Standing Order Upheld – The appellant challenged the High Court's order setting aside Standing Order No. 01/2022, which reconstituted the Auroville Town Development Council – High Court erred in holding that the Residents’ Assembly had a legal right to nominate members to the ATDC – Held: Governing Board, under Sections 11(3), 16, and 17(e) of the A.F. Act, has exclusive authority over the management and implementation of Auroville’s Master Plan – Residents’ Assembly’s role is advisory and does not extend to nominating members to administrative committees – Impugned High Court order set aside [Paras 12-17].

Doctrine of Clean Hands – Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process of Law – The respondent had previously filed Writ Petition No. 22895/2022 challenging the same Office Order dated 01.06.2022, which was dismissed – She filed Writ Petition No. 25882/2022 without disclosing the prior dismissal – Held: Non-disclosure of material facts constitutes abuse of process of law – High Court failed to consider this suppression and should have dismissed the petition on this ground alone [Paras 9-11].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope in Policy Matters – No Judicial Overreach – The High Court wrongly interpreted the A.F. Act and interfered with the validly issued Standing Order – Held: Courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce procedural safeguards not contemplated in law – Governing Board’s power to constitute committees, including ATDC, is well established in the Act and Rules – Judicial interference in administrative decisions must be limited [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Order Set Aside – Costs Imposed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, upheld the validity of Standing Order No. 01/2022, and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the respondent for filing a frivolous petition – Costs to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks [Para 19].
 

Environmental Law – Jurisdiction of NGT – Tribunal Exceeded Powers – Appeal Allowed – The NGT directed the appellant to prepare a fresh township plan and obtain Environmental Clearance before further construction – Held: NGT lacked jurisdiction as no substantial question of environmental law under Schedule I of the NGT Act was involved – The Tribunal overstepped its authority by interfering with a Master Plan approved in 2001 and gazetted in 2010 – Order quashed [Paras 10-12].

Auroville Master Plan – Statutory Validity – No Fresh Approval Required – The Master Plan for Auroville was approved by the competent authorities in 2001 and legally notified in 2010 – Tribunal’s direction for a fresh township plan was unwarranted – Held: Once a Master Plan attains statutory status, it cannot be nullified or modified arbitrarily by a judicial forum lacking legislative or administrative authority [Paras 13-14].

Environmental Impact Assessment – Applicability to Auroville Project – No Fresh EC Required – The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) had clarified that the Auroville Township Project commenced before the EIA Notification, 1994, and thus did not require Environmental Clearance under the 2006 notification – Held: Tribunal’s directive to obtain EC was contrary to the legal position – No new environmental concerns were demonstrated to justify such an order [Paras 14-15].

Precautionary Principle – Misapplication by NGT – No Environmental Violation Established – The Tribunal applied the Precautionary Principle to justify its interference, despite ruling that the disputed land was not a forest under the Forest (Conservation) Act – Held: Precautionary Principle does not grant courts the power to override statutory planning approvals without clear environmental violations – Unsubstantiated concerns cannot override legal frameworks [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – NGT Order Quashed – Auroville Master Plan Implementation Restored – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NGT’s orders – Held that the appellant is free to proceed with the approved Master Plan, including construction of the Crown Road, without further clearance [Paras 19-20].
 

Criminal Law - Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Discharge Application – Continuing Offence – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, a retired IAS officer, sought discharge from prosecution under PMLA, contending that the alleged predicate offences were committed before PMLA came into force – High Court dismissed his plea, holding that money laundering is a continuing offence – Held: Money laundering persists as long as proceeds of crime are used, concealed, or projected as untainted – PMLA applies even if predicate offences occurred before its enactment, provided the proceeds are still in circulation – No illegality in High Court’s order rejecting the discharge application [Paras 21-25].

Criminal Law – Retrospective Application of PMLA – No Merit in Appellant’s Contention – Appellant argued that PMLA was applied retrospectively as the alleged offences predated its enforcement – Held: The offence of money laundering is independent of the predicate offence and continues so long as tainted property is in possession or use – Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1, affirmed that PMLA is not applied retrospectively but as a continuing offence – Appellant failed to prove that the proceeds of crime were not laundered post-enactment of PMLA [Paras 22-24].

Economic Offences – Strict Judicial Approach – Quashing Not Warranted – Allegations against the appellant included large-scale corruption, illegal land allotments, and hawala transactions – Proceeds of crime exceeded ₹1.32 crores, justifying prosecution under PMLA – Held: Economic offences affect national integrity and require strict scrutiny – Courts must be cautious in quashing proceedings at the discharge stage – Appellant’s argument regarding monetary threshold under PMLA was misplaced, as the total proceeds of crime exceeded statutory limits even before the 2013 amendment [Paras 26-30].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial to Proceed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and allowing prosecution to continue – Affirmed that the appellant must face trial given the serious nature of allegations and financial implications of the offence [Paras 35-37].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheques – Moratorium under IBC – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Appeal Allowed – The appellant, a director of a corporate debtor, issued cheques that were dishonoured, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act – A moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC was imposed before the completion of the statutory 15-day period following the notice of dishonour – High Court dismissed appellant’s petition, relying on P. Mohan Raj v. M/S Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 258 – Held: P. Mohan Raj was distinguishable as the cause of action in the present case arose after the imposition of the moratorium – Since the appellant, due to the moratorium and Section 17 of the IBC, was no longer in charge of the corporate debtor, he was incapable of fulfilling the demand – Proceedings under Section 138 NI Act against him were impermissible and should have been quashed [Paras 6-12].

IBC – Effect of Moratorium – Protection to Corporate Debtor and its Directors – Proceedings under NI Act Barred – Under Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC, a moratorium prohibits the institution or continuation of suits and proceedings against the corporate debtor – The moratorium extends to all legal actions affecting the corporate debtor, including criminal complaints under Section 138 NI Act if the cause of action arises post-moratorium – Since the appellant ceased to have control over the corporate debtor due to the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), he could not have complied with the demand notice – Held: The proceedings under Section 138 NI Act were barred and deserved to be quashed [Paras 7-11].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – High Court’s Error – Quashing Justified – High Court failed to appreciate the distinction between a case where the cause of action under Section 138 NI Act arose before the moratorium and a case where it arose after – Given that the cause of action in this case was post-moratorium, the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s petition – Supreme Court invoked its power to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the legal process [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the summoning order dated 07.09.2018 – Complaint Case No. 15580/2018 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, also quashed [Para 13].