Service Law – Pay Scale Dispute – Assistant Professors – Appellant-Society managing private engineering colleges challenged the Bombay High Court's order granting 6th Central Pay Commission benefits to Respondent-teachers – The High Court directed re-designation of certain teachers as Associate Professors with pay band Rs. 37,400-67,000 and AGP Rs. 9,000 – Appellant contended Respondents lacked the essential Ph.D. qualification prescribed by AICTE post 15.03.2000 – Held: Teachers appointed prior to 15.03.2000, when Ph.D. was not mandatory, are entitled to benefits – Teachers appointed after 15.03.2000 without Ph.D. or who failed to acquire it within 7 years are not entitled [Paras 2, 16, 17, 27, 28].

AICTE Regulations – Qualification Requirements – AICTE, as the statutory body under the 1987 Act, has authority to prescribe qualifications – Notifications of 2000, 2005, and 2010 make Ph.D. mandatory for Assistant Professors appointed after 15.03.2000 – Teachers who fail to acquire Ph.D. within 7 years face stoppage of increments and ineligibility for higher pay scales – 2016 Clarification merely reiterated existing rules, did not relax them – Supreme Court upheld AICTE’s standards as neither arbitrary nor unreasonable [Paras 4-12, 18-24].

Judicial Review – Limits – Supreme Court reiterated that Courts should defer to the expertise of statutory academic bodies like AICTE unless the prescribed qualifications are arbitrary or unlawful – The distinction between teachers with and without Ph.D. is reasonable and serves to maintain academic standards – Teachers who later obtain Ph.D. can seek benefits prospectively upon compliance [Paras 25, 26, 29].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Teachers appointed prior to 15.03.2000 and one teacher who later acquired Ph.D. entitled to benefits – Others denied – Higher pay scale with 7.5% interest on arrears to be paid within 4 weeks or interest to rise to 15% – Review petitions before High Court to be decided considering this judgment [Paras 28-31].

Service Law - Departmental Proceedings – Quasi-Judicial Function – Judges Protection Act – Protection granted – Appellant acted in quasi-judicial capacity as Tehsildar under Section 57(2) of the MP Land Revenue Code – No allegations of mala fide, extraneous consideration, bribery, or corruption – Mere irregularity or erroneous decision without dishonest intent not actionable departmentally – Held: The departmental proceedings are barred by the Judges Protection Act [Paras 5-17].

Delay in Disciplinary Action – 14 years delay unjustified – Proceedings quashed – No explanation for inordinate delay in issuance of chargesheet – Such delay violates principles of natural justice and causes prejudice – Held: Disciplinary proceedings quashed on the ground of delay alone [Paras 17-18].

K.K. Dhawan Principles – Not attracted – The exceptions laid down in Union of India v.

K.K. Dhawan (1993) regarding when disciplinary action may be initiated against officers discharging quasi-judicial functions not applicable – No evidence of misconduct beyond an erroneous order – Held: Disciplinary proceedings unsustainable [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Chargesheet and departmental proceedings quashed – Division Bench judgment set aside – Single Judge’s judgment restored – No order as to costs [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Law - Summoning of Additional Accused – Scope of Section 319 Cr. PC – Satisfaction beyond Prima Facie – Summoning Restored – The Sessions Judge allowed the appellant’s application under Section 319 Cr. PC to summon Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj as additional accused based on PW-1’s evidence alleging their direct involvement – The High Court reversed the order, citing lack of corroboration from medical evidence and police investigation reports – The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge’s satisfaction was higher than prima facie and consistent with settled law under Hardeep Singh’s case – Police reports alone cannot conclusively negate involvement when direct evidence exists – Held: High Court’s interference unwarranted; Sessions Judge’s order restored [Paras 16-19].

Section 319 Cr. PC – Nature of Power – Discretion Not Mechanical – Application Restored – Power under Section 319 is discretionary and should not be exercised mechanically but requires satisfaction higher than prima facie but below proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The High Court overlooked the principle that the trial court’s discretion should not be lightly interfered with unless perverse – Held: The Sessions Judge had correctly exercised discretion and reached a plausible conclusion – Appeal allowed [Paras 17-19].

Decision – High Court Order Set Aside – Sessions Judge Order Restored – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the order of the Sessions Judge summoning Rajesh and Neeraj to face trial along with Mukesh – Trial directed to proceed expeditiously [Paras 19-21].

Civil Law - Deemed Conveyance – Maintainability of Successive Applications – Bar of Res Judicata – The Competent Authority, in its earlier order dated 22.02.2021, directed the Respondent-Society to first resolve legal complications regarding ownership, leasehold rights, and validity of the lease before seeking deemed conveyance – Without resolving these foundational disputes, the Society filed a fresh application under Section 11 of the 1963 Act – Held: Such successive application is barred by principles of res judicata – The Competent Authority, being a quasi-judicial body, has no power to review its earlier final decision, directly or indirectly – The second order granting deemed conveyance is unsustainable and without jurisdiction [Paras 5(i), 5(ii), 12-14].

Powers of Competent Authority – Limited to Adjudication, No Review Jurisdiction – The Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act has no express or implied power of review – Once an issue has attained finality, the Authority cannot entertain a fresh application on the same cause unless permitted by statute – The High Court erred in affirming the second application without examining the lack of statutory review powers [Paras 5(ii), 12-14].

Unauthorized Construction – Effect on Deemed Conveyance – The subject building was constructed without any sanctioned plans, building permission, or commencement certificate – In absence of compliance with statutory building norms, no vested right for deemed conveyance accrues to the Society – The Competent Authority overlooked this crucial fact while passing the impugned order – Grant of deemed conveyance in such circumstances is legally impermissible [Para 5(iii)].

Minority Rights of Flat Purchasers – Role of Competent Authority – The Competent Authority under Section 11 is bound to protect the interests of all flat purchasers, including those not party to the Society or the application – Passing a deemed conveyance order affecting third parties, without resolving inter-se ownership disputes, is contrary to the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice [Paras 5(iv), 6, 9].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent and Continuity of Orders – Once the Competent Authority had finally directed the resolution of ownership issues before any further application, the subsequent order ignoring the earlier direction amounts to judicial indiscipline – Orders of quasi-judicial authorities must maintain consistency unless validly reviewed or set aside by a higher court [Paras 5(i), 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The impugned orders dated 05.10.2021 and 15.06.2023 passed by the Competent Authority and the High Court respectively are quashed – Liberty is granted to the Respondent-Society to approach the Competent Authority afresh only after resolving legal complications before a competent civil court – Appeal stands allowed [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Freedom of Speech – Recitation of Poem – FIR under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57, 3(5) BNS – Allegation of promoting enmity between groups – Poem does not refer to any religion, caste, or community – Expresses dissent against injustice through non-violent means – Held: Mere criticism or poetic dissent cannot constitute an offence under Section 196 or other sections invoked – Registration of FIR is an abuse of process [Paras 1-13, 31, 36].

Applicability of Section 173(3) BNSS – Preliminary Inquiry Mandatory – Court held that in cases involving speech-based offences punishable up to 7 years, the police must normally exercise discretion under Section 173(3) to conduct a preliminary inquiry – Non-exercise of discretion led to improper registration of FIR – Held: Police must balance duty under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 51A(a) before registering FIRs in free speech cases [Paras 23-30, 42(v)].

Mens Rea – Essential Ingredient under Section 196 BNS – Offence requires proof of intention to promote enmity or hatred – Held: No mens rea can be attributed to the appellant based on the plain reading of the poem – Poem promotes non-violence and sacrifice, not enmity – No case for invocation of Section 196 or similar provisions [Paras 34-35].

Standard of Strong-minded Reader – Interpretation of Alleged Offensive Speech – Court reiterated the principle that the effect of the words must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable, strong-minded individual – Held: Over-sensitivity or subjective perceptions cannot justify criminal prosecution for lawful speech [Paras 32-33].

High Court's Error – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – High Court mechanically refused to quash the FIR solely on ground of ongoing investigation – Held: There is no absolute rule restraining the High Court from quashing FIRs at nascent stage – When no prima facie offence is disclosed, High Court ought to intervene to prevent abuse of process [Paras 36-37].

Freedom of Speech – Constitutional Protection – Court emphasized that even criticism or unpopular expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a) unless it directly falls within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – Courts have a duty to protect unpopular or dissenting views and prevent misuse of criminal law against free speech [Paras 38-41].

Decision – FIR and Proceedings Quashed – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the High Court’s order – Directed that police authorities must be sensitized about constitutional rights and proper application of BNSS in free speech cases [Paras 42-44].
 

Customs Law – Classification of Imported Goods – Confiscation and Penalty – Appellants imported goods claiming them as Base Oil under CTH 27101960 – Customs Authorities classified the goods as High-Speed Diesel (HSD) under CTH 27101930, a prohibited item for private import, leading to confiscation and penalties – Customs Classification – Incomplete Compliance with IS 1460:2005 – Goods not conclusively proved to be HSD – The Department relied on three laboratory test reports that covered only a part of the 21 prescribed parameters under IS 1460:2005 – The Supreme Court held that without full testing, the goods could not be classified as HSD merely on the basis of partial conformity – Held: Absence of full parameter compliance leaves classification inconclusive [Paras 45-55].

Burden of Proof – Rule 4 of the General Rules of Interpretation and "Most Akin" Test – The Court clarified that the correct test for classification is not mere preponderance of probability but whether the goods are “most akin” to HSD under Rule 4 – Held: The Department failed to prove that the goods were most akin to HSD, thus rendering the confiscation and penalties unsustainable [Paras 39-43, 81-85].

Expert Evidence – Inconclusive and Evasive – The Court found that the expert from IOCL, Dr. Gobind Singh, gave evasive and non-committal responses on key aspects like flash point and untested parameters – Held: Expert evidence that avoids clear conclusions cannot form the basis for adverse action against the appellants [Paras 62-71].

Significance of Flash Point – Non-Conformity with Petroleum Act and IS 1460:2005 – The Court emphasized that flash point is a significant criterion under both the Petroleum Act and IS 1460:2005 – In the present case, samples had flash points far above the typical HSD range – Held: Non-conformity on flash point reinforced the inconclusiveness of classification as HSD [Paras 68-70].

Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability vs. Most Akin Test – The Court held that the High Court erred in applying mere preponderance of probability for classification where statutory parameters were prescribed – For classification under Customs Tariff Act, the goods must be “most akin” to the specified product – Held: Applying only the preponderance test was insufficient [Paras 78-84].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Classification as HSD Set Aside – Supreme Court restored the CESTAT's decision, allowed re-export, quashed the confiscation and penalty orders – The Court also directed the Customs Authorities to ensure that future laboratory facilities must be equipped to test all parameters essential for classification [Paras 86-90].
 

Service Law – Approval of Charge-sheet – Applicability of Article 311(1) – Approval Held Not Mandatory – The High Court quashed the dismissal order on the ground that the charge-sheet was not approved by the Chief Minister – The Supreme Court held that Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules did not require approval of the charge-sheet by the appointing authority – Further held: Article 311(1) guarantees protection only against dismissal by a subordinate authority but does not mandate initiation of proceedings or issuance of charge-sheet by the appointing authority itself – Approved initiation of proceedings was sufficient [Paras 17-20, 30-33].

Distinction from Gopinath and Promod Kumar – Inapplicability – Rules considered in B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar required explicit approval of charge-sheet, whereas Rule 55 did not – The Court held that precedents relied upon by the High Court were based on different statutory schemes – Hence, misapplied to the present case [Paras 16, 26-28, 34-38].

Subsequent Application of 2016 Rules – Saving Clause in Rule 32(3) – The Court held that proceedings initiated under the 1930 Rules continued validly despite the promulgation of 2016 Rules – Rule 16 permitted disciplinary proceedings to be initiated by authorities other than the appointing authority – Draft charge-sheet having been approved along with initiation proposal was sufficient compliance [Paras 28-30].

Stare Decisis – Long-standing Precedents Upheld – The Court reaffirmed earlier judgments such as Shardul Singh, Srinivasa Sastry, Radhakrishna Moorthy, and Thavasippan – Held: Charge-sheet may be issued by a subordinate officer provided authority to impose penalty vests in competent authority [Paras 21-27].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Dismissal Order Restored – The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court and upheld the dismissal order – Liberty granted to respondent to file departmental appeal or revision within one month, waiving limitation [Paras 40-45].
 

Criminal Proceedings – Cross FIRs between Advocates – Quashing in Interest of Justice – Incident arose from personal animosity between two lawyers – First FIR registered by appellant alleged physical assault; second FIR by respondent alleged abuse and threats – Supreme Court held both FIRs stemmed from same transaction and prolonged animosity – Quashed both FIRs to ensure professional harmony [Paras 1–4, 9, 16–17].

Conduct of Advocate – Threat to Court – Apology and Undertaking Accepted – Appellant threatened suicide during court hearing if FIR against respondent was quashed – Court termed conduct contemptuous but accepted unconditional written apology and undertaking not to repeat – Chose magnanimity over punishment in interest of professional reform [Paras 5, 11–14].

Article 142 – Substantial Justice – Court Power to Quash Proceedings – Court

emphasized duty to deliver justice even where parties fail to appreciate their best interest – Invoked Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings, emphasizing future professional conduct over past conflict [Paras 15–17].

Settlement – Unconditional Apology by Respondent Advocate – Respondent filed affidavit apologizing to Court, Bar Council, Bar Association, and appellant – Undertook to maintain cordial conduct – Court recognized sincerity and included apology on record while granting relief [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR No. 500/2017 and STC No. 607/2019 quashed entirely –

FIR No. 499/2017 and C.C. No. 106/2022 quashed only against second respondent – Apologies and undertakings recorded – Past animosity held resolved through judicial intervention [Para 17].

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Eviction of Son from Family Home – Claim of SelfAcquired Property – Dispute Pending – Eviction Refused – Appellantmother sought eviction of son Krishna Kumar alleging harassment – Tribunal allowed limited stay; Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction – Supreme Court found property was already transferred by deceased husband to daughters and others – Held: With title under challenge and son not shown to be misbehaving post order, eviction not warranted – Maintenance right under Section 4/5 sufficient [Paras 4–5, 17–29, 33– 35].

Right to Residence – Property Already Transferred – Tribunal’s Power to Evict Limited – Court held that once senior citizen has gifted or sold property, eviction claim loses basis unless transfer itself is void – Since property partly gifted to daughters and sold to third parties, claim of exclusive ownership failed – Eviction jurisdiction under Section 23 not applicable absent interest in property [Paras 24–26, 32].

Pending Civil Suits – Right to Share in Property – Eviction Cannot

Prejudice Title Claims – Respondent-son had filed civil suits claiming 1/6^th share and seeking cancellation of gift deeds – Supreme Court held eviction under Senior Citizens Act should not interfere with pending title adjudication – Tribunal ought to have refrained from ordering eviction until title claims are resolved [Paras 19, 24, 33].

Scope of Tribunal’s Powers – Maintenance, Not Possession – Eviction Discretionary – Tribunal may order eviction only if necessary to protect senior citizens – No post-order misbehavior by son proved – High Court rightly balanced equities and limited son’s occupancy to one room and shop – Appellant’s right to peaceful living protected without ordering eviction [Paras 27–29, 31–34].

Decision: Civil appeal dismissed – High Court’s order setting aside eviction upheld – Tribunal’s conditions on occupancy and maintenance to continue – Eviction may be reconsidered only if misbehavior resumes or title dispute is resolved [Paras 35–37].