Dying Declaration – Reliance on Evidence – Supreme Court held that the non-recovery of the weapon used in the crime does not invalidate reliance on a dying declaration – Conviction based on dying declaration upheld where it was recorded by a credible authority and established the respondent's participation in the unlawful assembly [Paras 6-7, 9].

Defective Framing of Charges – Section 464 CrPC – The court ruled that mere defects in the form or language of the charge do not render a conviction unsustainable if the accused is not prejudiced – Accused can be convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC despite not being specifically charged under Section 149 if the ingredients of the offence are implicit in the charges framed [Paras 7.1-8].

Unlawful Assembly and Rioting – Sections 148 and 149 IPC – Supreme Court clarified that an accused can be convicted under Section 148 IPC even if fewer than five persons are tried, as long as the involvement of six to seven persons is established – Conviction under Section 148 upheld based on the unlawful assembly's use of force or violence [Paras 12-12.1].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's acquittal of the respondent under Section 302 IPC quashed and set aside – Respondent convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC – Sentenced to ten years RI for Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC and three years RI for Section 148 IPC, with sentences to run concurrently – Respondent directed to surrender within four weeks to serve remaining sentence [Para 13].

Constitutional Law – Special Reservation – Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act, 2021 providing 10.5% internal reservation for Vanniakula Kshatriyas within the MBCs and DNCs declared unconstitutional – No substantial basis for classifying Vanniakula Kshatriyas into a separate group from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs – Violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 – [Paras 1-77].

Legislative Competence – Constitutional Amendments – The 105th Amendment Act is prospective – The 102nd Amendment Act held the field at the time of enactment of the 2021 Act – State's power to provide reservation and sub-classification within MBCs and DNCs affirmed, but such classification must be reasonable and not based solely on population – [Paras 17-48].

Consultation Requirement – Article 338-B(9) – State Government required to consult the National Commission for Backward Classes on major policy matters affecting SEBCs – Failure to consult does not void legislative competence but highlights procedural deficiency – [Paras 75-76].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act, 2021 declared unconstitutional – No bar on legislative competence but classification found unreasonable – [Para 77].

Remanding of Case: An order of remand should not be passed merely to send the proceedings back to the lower court or Tribunal. The Appellate Court must decide the appeal on its merits, especially when both sides have presented oral and documentary evidence. Remanding is only justified if the lower court failed to consider crucial evidence or made significant legal errors [Paras 1-88]​​​​.

Occupancy Rights under Karnataka Land Reforms Act: Sections 45 and 137 and Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules place the duty on the Tahsildar to verify the revenue records and other documents to record the name of the land owner accurately. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act is aimed at granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants, and courts should interpret its provisions to further this objective. The Act aims to confer ownership on tenants, with Section 45 specifically providing for registration of occupancy rights in favour of tenants [Paras 1-88]​​.

Delay and Laches: The court emphasized that significant delays in challenging legal orders without adequate justification can result in the dismissal of the case due to laches. In this case, the writ petition was filed after 13 years of the Appellate Authority’s order, with reasons like financial problems and ill health not being considered sufficient to condone the delay [Paras 1-88]​​.

Fraud and Misrepresentation: Allegations of fraud must be supported by substantial evidence. In this case, the contention that the order of the Land Tribunal was obtained by fraud was not substantiated with sufficient evidence, and hence, could not be upheld [Paras 1-88]​​ .

Decision: Appeals allowed. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 1950 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014 was set aside, and the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 27230/2002 dated 25.07.2007 was restored. The order in Writ Appeal No. 1563 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014 was also set aside, and the learned Single Judge’s order in W.P. No. 23034/2002 dated 25.07.2002 was restored. The Land Tribunal was directed to hold an inquiry on the notice dated 24.05.2002 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law expeditiously​​​​

Revision of Pay Scale – Pension Entitlement: The appellants, retired Assistant Professors and a College Librarian, were entitled to revised pension benefits as per the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2010. The Office Memorandum dated December 24, 2011, which purported to clarify a subsisting anomaly, was deemed to encroach upon the acquired or vested rights of the retirees. Such clarificatory orders cannot override orders having statutory strength [Paras 1-18]​​.

Office Memorandum and Vested Rights: The Court held that the Office Memorandum of December 24, 2011, could not alter the benefits under the Order of August 12, 2011. The appellants were entitled to revised pension benefits from April 1, 2010, as recognized by Clause 7 of the Order of August 12, 2011. The State Government’s contention that the benefit of revised pension should be from November 1, 2010, was rejected [Paras 1-18]​​.

Constitutional Provisions – Article 309: The revisions and orders made under Article 309 of the Constitution hold statutory strength. The Office Memorandum of May 5, 2010, and subsequent orders under Article 309 were binding and provided vested rights that could not be overridden by administrative orders [Paras 1-18]​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside, and the Single Judge’s order, which granted the benefit of revised pension from April 1, 2010, was restored​​.

Suspension and Departmental Proceedings – Authority of Commissioner: The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner of the KDM Corporation had the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner. This authority is derived from a harmonious construction of subsection (9) of Section 2, Sections 39A, and 56 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (MMC) Act. The requirement is to report the suspension to the Corporation with reasons, and if not confirmed within six months, the suspension ends [Paras 1-18] .

High Court’s Error – Legislative Intent: The High Court erred in setting aside the suspension and departmental proceedings initiated against the AMC. The legislative intent indicated that the Commissioner and Corporation had the authority to act against officers, including AMCs, to avoid absurd and anomalous situations where misconduct goes unaddressed due to jurisdictional issues [Paras 1-18] .

Principles of Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction: The Court emphasized that statutory provisions must be interpreted to avoid conflicts and redundancies, ensuring all provisions work cohesively. The broader interpretation preserving the legislation’s workability and efficacy was preferred over a narrower one leading to futility [Paras 1-18] .

Decision: The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The writ petition by the respondent was dismissed, and the departmental proceedings were directed to be completed within four months. The respondent would remain suspended until the proceedings' conclusion .

Genuineness of Execution of Will: Under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the genuineness of a Will's execution must be established without considering whether the distribution by the testator was fair and equitable among all children. The Court should not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will​​.

Suspicious Circumstances – High Court's Findings: The High Court identified several suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Wills, including discrepancies in the evidence about the timing and registration of the father’s Will, the exclusion of the daughter from the bequests, and minor contradictions in witness testimonies. However, the Supreme Court found these reasons insufficient to invalidate the Wills​​.

Court’s Approach – Previous Judgments: The Supreme Court referenced its previous decisions in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Kavita Kanwar v. Mrs. Pamela Mehta and Ors. to emphasize that the mental capacity of the testator and the absence of sound and disposing state of mind are critical factors in evaluating suspicious circumstances, not merely the exclusion of some heirs or the presence of minor discrepancies​​.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the probate granted by the Principal District Court. It ruled that the High Court had overlooked crucial aspects and unjustifiably created suspicion where none existed. The Wills executed by the parents were held valid, and the probate was confirmed​​.

Revisional Jurisdiction under Waqf Act – Section 83(9): Subsection (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act confers a narrower revisional jurisdiction on the High Court compared to the jurisdiction of an appellate court. The High Court, in exercising this revisional jurisdiction, must not re-appreciate evidence or decide issues beyond the scope of revision​​.

High Court’s Findings – Rejection of Relief: The High Court found that the Mahal Committee, being an unregistered entity, was not entitled to file a suit. The High Court also noted procedural lapses, such as the suit not being filed in a representative capacity and the absence of a schedule of property. The High Court decreed the respondents' suit in entirety and dismissed the appellants' suit, emphasizing that the evidence on record supported the Salafi Trust’s management and administration of the mosque​​.

Tribunal’s Error – Legal Entity Status: The Waqf Tribunal erroneously treated the Mahal Committee as a legal entity entitled to sue, based on its affiliation with a registered society. The High Court corrected this error under its revisional jurisdiction, stating that a local unit of a registered society without proper authorization to sue cannot maintain a suit​​.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Court agreed that the High Court acted within its powers in setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and rightly found procedural and substantive issues in the appellants' claims. There was no ground to interfere with the High Court's decision​​.

Administrative Law – Fairness in Administrative Actions: The Supreme Court emphasized that even if the High Court found the actions of the authorities to be irregular, illegal, or perverse, such findings alone do not imply deliberate action or bad faith on the part of the Assessing Authority. It is necessary to have concrete evidence to impute motives or bad faith​​ .

Service of Notice – Procedural Compliance: The Court observed that while the Assessing Authority must ensure proper service of notice, mere procedural errors do not automatically indicate malafide intentions. In this case, attempts were made to serve notice at both the registered and changed addresses, but the High Court did not accept these as proper service under the rules​​ .

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations: The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act is narrower than that of an appellate court. The High Court's role is to ensure compliance with the law without re-appreciating evidence or acting beyond its limited revisional powers​​ .

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the adverse observations and directions against the appellant made by the High Court. It held that the strictures and costs imposed were unwarranted as there was no sufficient basis to conclude deliberate or bad faith actions by the appellant. The matter was directed to be closed with annulment of the adverse remarks​​ .

Contract Law – Neglect by Promisee: Section 67 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, stipulates that if the promisee neglects or refuses to provide reasonable facilities for the promisor to perform the promise, the promisor is excused from non-performance. In this case, the High Court’s conclusion that the appellant abandoned the contract was erroneous. The evidence showed the respondents failed to provide essential materials and modified the contract terms without resolving the appellant’s demands for a modified rate​​.

Remand of Case – Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction: The High Court’s decision to remand the case based on perceived abandonment was found unjustified. The Supreme Court reiterated that procedural lapses on the respondent's part excused the appellant from performance, and there was no abandonment​​.

Effect of Non-Performance by Respondent: The refusal of the appellant to continue the work without reciprocal performance from the respondent did not constitute abandonment. The appellant's refusal to perform was deemed a reaction to the respondent’s failure to meet contractual obligations​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s decree. The bank guarantee provided by the appellant was discharged, affirming the appellant’s claims for the value of work done, idle labor, and other heads​​.