Service Law – Permanent Commission – Discrimination – Appellant, a Short Service Commissioned (SSC) officer in the Army Dental Corps, was denied a third chance for permanent commission due to amendments to age relaxation policies introduced in 2013 – Appellant sought parity with other officers granted permanent commission by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 – Tribunal rejected appellant’s claim on grounds that she was not a party to the original case – Supreme Court held appellant was identically situated to officers who benefited from the 2013 judgment and deserved similar treatment to avoid discrimination – Relief granted under Article 142 of the Constitution – Directions issued for granting appellant permanent commission with consequential benefits [Paras 1–24].

Policy Amendments – Age Relaxation – Amendments to AI 37/78 in 2013 capped age relaxation for SSC officers seeking permanent commission at 35 years and applied only to those with postgraduate qualifications – Appellant, eligible under pre-2013 rules, was deprived of her third chance – Supreme Court observed that denying the appellant relief while granting it to identically situated officers was discriminatory and unsupported by valid justification – Held: Amendments did not justify exclusion of appellant from consideration for permanent commission [Paras 3–19].

Principle of Parity – Similarly Situated Officers – Officers in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 who were also SSC officers denied a third chance due to the 2013 amendments were granted age relaxation and permanent commission by AFT Principal Bench – Supreme Court reiterated that similarly situated individuals should not be denied relief solely because they did not approach the court – Appellant, having actively pursued her rights since 2014, deserved identical relief [Paras 14–19].

Exercise of Discretion – Article 142 of the Constitution – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to provide full relief, noting appellant’s distinguished service, lack of fault, and longstanding efforts for redressal – Directed grant of permanent commission with seniority, promotion, and monetary arrears to align with similarly situated officers – Directions to be implemented within four weeks [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – AFT Regional Bench, Lucknow’s order dated 05.01.2022 set aside – Appellant granted permanent commission with effect from the same date as similarly situated officers, along with all consequential benefits [Paras 24–25].

Property Rights – Section 14(1) and 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act – Judicial Divergence – Referred to Larger Bench – Analysis of Precedents Required - Multiple judgments from different Benches, including two-judge and three-judge Bench decisions, present inconsistent interpretations of Section 14 – This has resulted in judicial conflict between principles of absolute ownership under Section 14(1) and restricted estate under Section 14(2) – A larger Bench to reconcile inconsistencies for clarity and certainty in the law governing Hindu females' property rights [Paras 1–5, 24–25].

Restricted Estate – Testamentary Disposition – Section 14(2) – Applicability Debated – The appeal involved a testamentary disposition creating a life estate in favor of a Hindu female, with subsequent alienation leading to legal challenges – High Court followed Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike favoring Section 14(2), while appellants argued that this contradicted Tulasamma – Held: Further adjudication needed by a larger Bench [Paras 6–14, 20–25].

Judicial Need for Uniform Interpretation – Conflict in Precedents – Impact on Hindu Females’ Rights – Observed that Section 14 impacts property rights of Hindu females, with inconsistencies causing lack of clarity across courts – Referral to larger Bench deemed essential to reconcile principles and ensure certainty in law [Paras 3, 24–25].

Decision – Interim Referral – Matter Adjourned – Directed Registry to place the appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for referral to an appropriate larger Bench – No final adjudication by the two-judge Bench – Outcome dependent on larger Bench decision [Para 25].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Implied Right to Possession – Execution Permitted – The petitioners, subsequent purchasers, opposed the High Court's direction for the delivery of possession to the decree-holder in a specific performance case where the original decree did not expressly order possession – Held: The decree-holder has an implied right to possession under Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in cases where exclusive possession is with the contracting party – Dismissal of the Special Leave Petition upheld the High Court’s interpretation [Paras 12-14].

Specific Relief Act – Amendment and Execution – Possession Claim Permissible at Execution Stage – Relying on Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, (1982) 1 SCC 525, the Court reaffirmed that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act allows a decree-holder to claim possession at any stage, including during execution, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Relief granted by the High Court upheld [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Precedents – Settled Position Reiterated – The judgment in Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd., 2024 INSC 920, reiterated the established principle that in cases of exclusive possession with the contracting party, specific performance decrees inherently include possession rights unless expressly excluded [Para 15].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed – The decree-holder entitled to possession as part of the specific performance decree, consistent with the principles laid down in Babu Lal and Rohit Kochhar cases [Para 16].

Service Law – Superannuation – Applicability of Revised AICTE/UGC Regulations – Appellant, Director at CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), contested his retirement at sixty years of age, citing amended AICTE/UGC regulations that raised the age of superannuation for teachers to sixty-five years – High Court dismissed his Writ Petition, affirming sixty years as the retirement age applicable under state policies and CSIIT’s governing rules – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision [Paras 1, 2, 9, 12].

Minority Educational Institutions – Applicability of State and Central Regulations – CSIIT, a Private Unaided Minority Educational Institution, governed by the affiliating JNT University and state regulations – Telangana government had not adopted revised UGC regulations on retirement age – Appellant failed to demonstrate entitlement to the revised retirement age as CSIIT’s policies adhered to state norms [Paras 3, 7, 9].

Administrative Role vs. Teaching Duties – Applicability of AICTE/UGC Regulations – Appellant served as Director and performed administrative duties – AICTE/UGC regulations concerning retirement age apply to teachers engaged in classroom teaching – Appellant did not qualify as a teacher post-appointment as Director – Supreme Court rejected claims of regulatory benefit extension [Paras 8, 10].

Retirement Benefits and Conduct – Appellant sought retiral benefits post-superannuation, indicating acceptance of retirement – Subsequent challenges to superannuation lacked merit as no evidence was provided to establish eligibility for continued service under revised regulations [Paras 9, 10].

Precedents Distinguished – Judgments cited by the Appellant concerning the binding nature of UGC regulations found factually inapplicable to the present case – No deviation from state policy warranted [Paras 6, 11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Appellant’s retirement upheld – Respondent No.4’s appointment as Director of CSIIT confirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12, 13, 14].

Criminal Law - Protest Petition – Direction to Reconsider Case – Order Upheld – The appellant challenged the High Court's decision that set aside the Magistrate's order directing the investigating agency to reconsider the case based on a protest petition – The Court interpreted the Magistrate’s order as a direction for continuation of investigation, not reinvestigation, aligning with the law – Held: High Court's observations quashing the Magistrate's order were improper – Order of Magistrate upheld [Paras 14-15, 18].

Scope of Magistrate’s Power – Investigation and Reconsideration – The Magistrate directed the investigating agency to reconsider facts based on expert opinions and sworn statements – Held: Such direction is within the scope of the Magistrate's power under the law, provided it aligns with the principles of fair investigation [Paras 12, 18].

Quashing of Proceedings – High Court's Overreach – The High Court quashed the Magistrate’s docket order based on an incorrect interpretation of the term “reinvestigation” – The Supreme Court found that the term implied a continuation of the investigation, not a fresh reinvestigation – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by setting aside the Magistrate’s order without considering its true intent [Paras 14, 15, 20].

Decision – The appeal was allowed – The High Court's observations in paragraphs 14 and 15 were set aside – The Magistrate's docket order was upheld and directed to be implemented as per law [Paras 18-20].
 

Service Law – Citizenship and Termination of Service – Delay in Verification – Principles of Natural Justice – Termination Held Arbitrary – Appellant served for 26 years before termination based on police report from 2010 – Tribunal quashed the termination for lack of personal hearing and detailed reasons – High Court erroneously restored the termination – Supreme Court restored Tribunal’s order citing gross violation of principles of natural justice and lack of cogent reasons [Paras 12.1, 12.6–12.8].

Citizenship – Onus of Proof – Section 9, Foreigners Act – Indian Citizenship Claimed through Migration – Burden of Proof on Individual – Migration certificate and related documents held sufficient for appellant’s claim under Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – High Court’s conclusion contrary to evidence on record overturned [Paras 11.1–11.3].

Natural Justice – Administrative Decision – Right to Be Heard – Administrative and quasi-judicial orders must provide reasons and afford personal hearing to affected individuals – Failure to furnish police report and termination without personal hearing held to vitiate entire process [Paras 12.2–12.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Tribunal’s order quashing termination restored – Respondents directed to pay all service benefits within three months – Court directed all States to ensure timely police verification of candidates within six months of appointment to avoid recurrence of such cases [Paras 13, 13.1].

Matrimonial Law - Enhancement of maintenance - Exercise of Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Application - The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 482 CrPC for enhancement of interim maintenance, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 397 CrPC. The Supreme Court reiterated that the nomenclature of a petition is immaterial, and inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to prevent abuse of process or in extraordinary circumstances – Held: High Court erred; it should have converted the petition into a revision under Section 397 CrPC and decided on merits [Paras 5-8].

Judicial Approach to Technical Dismissals – Procedural Fairness Over Form - In dismissing the petition on technical grounds, the High Court compelled the appellant to approach the Supreme Court unnecessarily. Substantive justice demands that the Court focus on resolving the real dispute rather than dismissing on hyper-technical grounds – Held: Impugned order set aside; petition to be treated as a revision [Paras 7, 8].

Guidance for High Courts – Conversion of Petitions for Substantive Justice - Drawing from precedents like Madhu Limaye and Prabhu Chawla, the Supreme Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are not superseded by Section 397 CrPC and can be exercised to address extraordinary circumstances, particularly where dismissals would result in injustice – Held: High Court directed to decide the matter on merits after converting the petition [Paras 6-8].

Remand for Decision on Interim Maintenance – Expedited Resolution - The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court with directions to treat the petition under Section 482 CrPC as a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC and decide the issue of enhancement of interim maintenance expeditiously – Held: Matter remanded for expeditious disposal [Para 8].
 

Criminal Law – Fair Investigation – Transfer of Investigation – Petition under Article 32 seeking transfer of investigation of FIR No. 400 of 2020 and FIR No. 401 of 2020 from the West Bengal police to an independent agency – Allegations of political vendetta and misuse of state machinery against petitioner, a BJP spokesperson, by respondent No. 7, a TMC MP and former father-in-law of the petitioner – Supreme Court orders transfer of investigation to the CBI to ensure impartiality and credibility of the process – Held: Politically charged atmosphere in West Bengal necessitates independent investigation [Paras 1-36].

Factual Matrix – Allegations of Victimization – Petitioner, a practicing advocate and BJP spokesperson, alleged political harassment by respondent No. 7 – Petitioner’s house and CISF personnel were attacked by TMC supporters – FIRs registered against the petitioner following the incident – Local police accused of bias due to respondent No. 7’s influence as a ruling party MP – CISF counter affidavit corroborated attack on petitioner and resistance by CISF personnel [Paras 6-20].

Legal Principles – Transfer of Investigation – Supreme Court highlights that investigation must not only be fair but also appear credible – Transfer of investigation to an independent agency like CBI warranted in exceptional circumstances involving high-profile individuals or potential bias of local authorities – Held: Credibility of justice system requires transfer when politically influential individuals are involved [Paras 28-32].

Role of CISF and Conflicting Interests – CISF personnel allegedly involved in the incident – Local police deemed unsuitable to investigate the CISF’s conduct due to conflicting interests – Held: Independent investigation by the CBI is appropriate to examine CISF’s role impartially [Paras 35].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Investigation into FIRs transferred to the CBI – State directed to hand over all records to the CBI for completion of investigation and potential trial – Held: Transfer necessary to ensure fair investigation and justice in a politically sensitive case [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Possession of Knife – Applicability of DAD Notification – Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act – Quashing of FIR and Chargesheet - The appellant was charged under the Arms Act for possessing a buttondar knife with dimensions lesser than those specified in the Arms Rules. The prosecution relied on the DAD Notification (1980), which regulates certain knives for “manufacture, sale, or test.” However, no allegations were made that the possession was for any prohibited purpose. The Court held that the absence of essential allegations renders the prosecution’s case untenable, quashing the FIR, chargesheet, and all proceedings [Paras 6-10].

Quashing of Proceedings – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – High Court's Decision Set Aside - The High Court dismissed the appellant’s plea under Section 482 CrPC without addressing substantive flaws in the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court held that proceeding with prosecution absent foundational allegations constitutes an abuse of process and deserves to be quashed [Paras 13-15].

Abuse of Process – Lack of Specific Allegations – Violation of Due Process - The prosecution failed to specify that the knife was intended for prohibited purposes under the DAD Notification, and such omission cannot be remedied at trial. The evidence presented was insufficient to justify prosecution [Paras 10, 14].

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 18/04/2023. It quashed FIR No. 477 of 2022, the charge-sheet filed under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, and all related proceedings. The Court found the prosecution's case lacking in foundational allegations and evidence, deeming it an abuse of legal process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.