Anticipatory Bail – Summoning under Section 319 CrPC – Effect of Closure Report Accepted by Court – Protection from Arrest by Supreme Court – Petitioner was named in FIR but Investigating Agency filed a Closure Report qua him – Closure Report accepted after notice to defacto-complainant and order attained finality – Petitioner was not sent for trial and charge-sheet filed only against co-accused – During trial, victim reiterated FIR allegations in her deposition and sought summoning of petitioner under Section 319 CrPC – Trial Court allowed application and summoned petitioner – Petitioner challenged summoning order before High Court and sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest – High Court declined anticipatory bail – Held: In peculiar facts where closure report had attained finality and summoning order is already under challenge before High Court, refusal of protection from arrest was unwarranted – Supreme Court directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail on conditions to be imposed by Investigating Officer [Paras 1–15].

Section 319 CrPC – Exercise of Power – Consequential Arrest – Judicial Discretion – Power under Section 319 invoked solely on basis of oral testimony of victim after acceptance of closure report – Summoning order under challenge and High Court is in-seisin of the matter – Supreme Court refrained from expressing any opinion on merits of summoning order – Interim protection granted to balance liberty of accused and interests of prosecution [Paras 8–14].

SC/ST Act – Anticipatory Bail – Supreme Court’s Power under Article 136 – Though offences under SC/ST Act involved and anticipatory bail declined by High Court – Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction to grant protective bail considering long pendency since 2018, earlier exoneration during investigation, and pendency of challenge to summoning order – Special Leave Petition disposed of with protective directions [Paras 10–16].

Decision: Special Leave Petition disposed of – In the event of arrest, petitioner to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by Investigating Officer – Petitioner to appear before Trial Court and furnish fresh bail – Continuance of trial against petitioner to abide by final outcome of proceedings pending before High Court – Pending applications disposed of.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Jurisdiction of State ACB Over Central Government Employees – Sections 17 and 22 of PC Act read with Section 156 of Cr.P.C. – SLP Dismissed – Whether State ACB is authorised to register and investigate PC Act offences against Central Government employees and whether a chargesheet filed without CBI's consent is valid – High Court held "it is incorrect to say that it is only the CBI who could have instituted the prosecution" – Held: "We find no error, not to speak of any error of law, in the impugned judgment" – SLP dismissed [Paras 2–12].

DSPE Act – Permissive in Nature – Does Not Oust State Police Jurisdiction – The DSPE Act "does not either expressly or by necessary implication divest the regular police authorities of their jurisdiction" – Held: The Act is "only permissive or empowering" enabling the DSPE to investigate without impairing any other law empowering police to investigate offences – Section 17 of PC Act does not "exclude or prevent the State Police or a Special Agency of the State from registering a crime" against Central Government employees [Paras 8–10].

Cr.P.C. – General Law of Investigation – Cannot Be Displaced Without Express Exclusion – "The Criminal Procedure Code is the parent statute and unless there is specific provision in another statute to indicate a different procedure, the provisions of Cr.P.C. cannot be displaced" – The PC Act being silent on a separate investigation procedure, Section 156 of Cr.P.C. prevails – Offences under the PC Act being cognizable, the State Police or VACB can investigate subject only to the rank restriction under Section 17 [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court's finding affirming State ACB jurisdiction to investigate PC Act offences against Central Government employees confirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Jurisdiction to Investigate – Central Government Employee – State Anti-Corruption Bureau – Question whether State ACB has authority to register FIR, investigate and file charge-sheet under the PC Act against a Central Government employee within the territorial jurisdiction of the State – Held: State ACB has jurisdiction to investigate offences under the PC Act even against Central Government employees – Jurisdiction not exclusive to CBI [Paras 2–5, 8].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 4 and 156 – General Power of Investigation – CrPC is the parent statute governing investigation and trial of offences – Unless special law expressly or impliedly excludes CrPC, provisions of CrPC continue to apply – PC Act does not exclude application of Section 156 CrPC – Any police officer in charge of a police station may investigate cognizable offences subject to statutory limitations [Paras 6–7].

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 17 – Persons Authorised to Investigate – Section 17 prescribes rank of police officer competent to investigate PC Act offences – No provision barring State Police or State Anti-Corruption Bureau from investigating offences against Central Government employees – Only requirement is compliance with rank and authorization prescribed under Section 17 [Paras 7–8].

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Scope and Effect – DSPE Act is enabling and permissive in nature – It empowers CBI to investigate specified offences but does not divest State Police of jurisdiction to investigate offences under other competent laws – Constitution of CBI does not create exclusive investigative domain [Paras 4–5, 9].

Anti-Corruption Bureau – State Police – Jurisdiction – VACB/ACB is a wing of State Police – PC Act offences are cognizable – State Police or ACB may investigate such offences provided officer is of requisite rank – Coordination between CBI and State agencies is administrative and not jurisdictional [Paras 8–9].

Precedent – Investigation by State Agency Against Central Government Employees – Reliance placed on A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration – Investigation by State agency upheld – DSPE Act does not exclude jurisdiction of regular police – High Court decisions of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh approving State police investigation against Central Government employees affirmed [Paras 9–10].

Special Leave Petition – Scope – No error of law found in judgment of High Court – View taken by High Court consistent with statutory scheme and binding precedents – Held: No ground made out for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Judgment of Rajasthan High Court upheld – State Anti-Corruption Bureau has jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Central Government employees without prior consent of CBI – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Direct Recruitment – Professor in Government Engineering Colleges – Applicability of AICTE Regulations – Advertisement dated 23.09.2015 issued by Gujarat Public Service Commission for direct recruitment under State Recruitment Rules – Candidate participated in interview-based selection and failed to secure minimum qualifying marks – Challenge raised post-selection invoking AICTE Career Advancement Scheme Regulations, 2012 – Held: AICTE Regulations are not recruitment rules but are confined to promotion and career advancement of incumbent or newly appointed faculty – They do not govern open competitive recruitment conducted by the State Commission – Division Bench erred in applying AICTE Regulations to initial appointment process [Paras 10–15].

Service Law – AICTE Act, 1987 – Scope and Object – Sections 10 and 23 – Power of AICTE to lay down norms and standards for technical education and career progression – Regulations framed to advance academic career and not to initiate entry into service – State Recruitment Rules and AICTE CAS Regulations operate in distinct and separate fields – No question of repugnancy or overriding arises in matters of initial recruitment [Paras 11–17].

Selection Process – Interview as Mode of Assessment – Validity – Advertisement and general guidelines expressly prescribed interview with minimum qualifying marks – Assessment carried out by expert committee – Candidate secured only 28 marks against prescribed 45 marks – No arbitrariness or illegality shown – Courts should not interfere with expert evaluation in recruitment matters [Paras 4, 6, 18].

Estoppel – Participation in Selection without Protest – Challenge after Failure – Settled principle reiterated that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of criteria cannot challenge the same after being declared unsuccessful – Invocation of a different regulatory framework post-failure impermissible – Reliance placed on Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Para 18].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Matters – Limited Scope – Courts do not make appointments – Recruitment concluded in 2015 cannot be reopened in 2025 on basis of inapplicable regulations – Academic merit and research credentials cannot override binding recruitment rules [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 20.08.2025 set aside – Recruitment process pursuant to advertisement dated 23.09.2015 upheld – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 – Section 3(2) – First Proviso – Interpretation – Notices of motion for removal of a Judge given in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the same day – Motion admitted in Lok Sabha but refused in Rajya Sabha – Contention that Joint Committee was mandatory and Speaker lacked authority to constitute Committee unilaterally rejected – Held: First proviso is situational and applies only where motions given on the same day are admitted in both Houses – Mere giving of notices on the same day does not disable the Presiding Officer of one House from proceeding independently where the motion is not admitted in the other House – Proviso cannot be read as exhaustive or as creating a disabling consequence not expressed by Parliament.

Statutory Interpretation – Proviso – Limits of operation – Proviso cannot be construed to nullify or curtail the substantive provision unless such intent is manifest – Main provision of Section 3(2) vests power in the Speaker or Chairman upon admission of motion – Rejection of a motion in one House does not render the other House incompetent to proceed – Interpretation suggested by petitioner would amount to judicial legislation and lead to absurd and obstructive consequences.

Parliamentary Autonomy – Removal of Judges – Constitutional Scheme – Interpretation that one House’s refusal to admit a motion would veto proceedings in the other House rejected – Such construction would undermine autonomy of Houses and frustrate mechanism for investigation into allegations of misbehaviour – Safeguards for Judges cannot be read so as to paralyse the statutory removal process itself.

Constitution of India – Article 91 – Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha – Powers – Office of Chairman of Rajya Sabha falling vacant due to resignation of Vice-President – Deputy Chairman acting under Article 91(1) – Held: Deputy Chairman is constitutionally empowered to perform all duties of the Chairman during vacancy – Definition of “Chairman” in Section 2(a) of the Inquiry Act cannot be read in isolation or so as to override constitutional mandate – Deputy Chairman was competent to refuse admission of the motion.

Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 – Role of Deputy Chairman – Constitution prevailing over statutory silence – Argument that Rules 16 and 17 limit Deputy Chairman’s powers rejected – Held: Where statute is silent, constitutional provisions must fill the gap – Doctrine of constitutional silence and necessity applied – Vacancy in constitutional office cannot be allowed to bring statutory machinery to a standstill.

Bias – Hypothetical Apprehension – Doctrine of Necessity – Contention that Deputy Chairman could be a signatory to the motion and hence judge in his own cause rejected as speculative – Even otherwise, recusal or doctrine of necessity would apply – Constitutional and statutory functioning cannot be impeded by hypothetical bias.

Effect of refusal of motion by Deputy Chairman – Validity of Speaker’s action – Even assuming refusal by Deputy Chairman to be illegal – Speaker’s admission of Lok Sabha motion and constitution of Committee not vitiated – Applicability of first proviso depends on existence of admitted motions in both Houses at the time of Speaker’s action – No retrospective invalidation of Speaker’s lawful exercise of power.

Prejudice – Removal Proceedings against Judge – Threshold – Constitution of Inquiry Committee does not by itself cause demonstrable or legal prejudice – Committee report not self-executory – Multiple constitutional and statutory safeguards remain, including special majority requirement under Article 124(4) – Alleged loss of Joint Committee does not amount to prejudice warranting interference under Article 32.

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 32 – Maintainability – Absence of challenge to impugned order – Decision of Deputy Chairman refusing admission not specifically challenged by pleadings or prayer – Courts cannot quash or ignore an order not put in issue – Relief cannot be granted on hypothesis or assumptions – Settled limits of writ jurisdiction reiterated.

Secretary-General of Rajya Sabha – Administrative role – Limits (Observations for future guidance) – Secretariat exceeded administrative remit by undertaking substantive scrutiny of notice and facts – Inquiry Act does not contemplate adjudicatory role for Secretariat – Observations held academic and not forming basis for relief, decision of Deputy Chairman remaining unchallenged.

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Constitution of Inquiry Committee by Speaker of the Lok Sabha upheld – No relief granted to petitioner.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Compromise Between Parties – Neighbourhood Dispute – FIR registered for offences under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) BNS, 2023 arising out of a minor altercation between neighbours – During investigation, parties entered into an amicable settlement – Accused approached High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR – High Court declined to quash FIR and merely directed compliance with arrest guidelines under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines – Held: High Court erred in not exercising inherent powers to quash proceedings despite compromise [Paras 3–6, 11].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Inherent power of High Court is of wide plenitude and may be exercised to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process of law – Even non-compoundable offences can be quashed where dispute is private in nature and continuation of proceedings would be futile – Principles reiterated from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [Paras 6–8].

Nature and Gravity of Offence – Civil Flavour – No Societal Impact – Allegations pertained to voluntarily causing hurt, rioting, mischief and criminal intimidation arising out of neighbourhood quarrel – Except offence of rioting, other offences compoundable – No heinous or serious offence affecting society at large involved – Compromise arrived at prior to filing of charge-sheet – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose [Paras 5, 9–10].

Compromise – Effect on Criminal Proceedings – Where chances of conviction are bleak due to amicable settlement and wrong is essentially personal, quashing of proceedings is justified – Criminal trial in such circumstances would be an exercise in futility and defeat ends of justice [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – FIR No. 152 of 2025 registered at Police Station Bahariya, District Prayagraj and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed – Pending applications disposed of.

Reservation – Public Employment – Migration of Reserved Category Candidates – Selection on Own Merit – Appointment Against Unreserved Posts – High Court Interference Set Aside – Recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) in Airport Authority of India – Reserved category candidates selected against unreserved posts on basis of higher or equal merit without availing any relaxation – High Court directed appointment of writ petitioner and reworking of roster – Supreme Court held that a reserved category candidate securing marks higher than or equal to general category candidates must be treated as an unreserved candidate – Appointment against unreserved post on own merit valid – High Court orders unsustainable [Paras 18, 27–34].

Reservation Roster – Nature and Purpose – Not a Tool for Selection – Reservation roster is a post-based administrative mechanism to monitor cadre strength and identify future vacancies – Roster comes into operation only after completion of selection and joining of candidates – Roster cannot be applied as a parallel or overriding selection mechanism – Division Bench erred in applying roster at the selection stage [Paras 19, 28–30].

Merit List – Inclusion of Reserved Category Candidates in Unreserved List – Legally Permissible – All candidates initially considered on merit – Reserved category candidates who did not avail any concession and outperformed general category candidates rightly included in unreserved list – Remaining candidates considered for respective reserved categories – Selection methodology upheld as consistent with DoPT instructions and settled law [Paras 27–31].

Reservation Law – Migration on Merit – Settled Legal Position Reaffirmed – Supreme Court relied upon Indra Sawhney, Saurav Yadav and Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav – Open category is not a quota but is open to all candidates irrespective of caste or category – Merit alone governs appointment to unreserved posts – Concept of “migration” clarified as merit-based adjustment and not conferment of double benefit [Paras 32–33].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits on Court’s Power – Courts should not interfere with recruitment conducted strictly as per rules and settled reservation principles – No vested right to appointment merely because reserved vacancies remain unfilled – High Court erred in directing appointment when all unreserved posts were filled strictly on merit [Paras 33–34].

Delay and Laches – Challenge to Selection – Though issue of delay was raised, Supreme Court decided the matter on merits in view of crystallised law governing migration and merit-based selection [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 allowed – Judgment of Single Judge and Division Bench of Kerala High Court set aside – Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12937 of 2021 dismissed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal Restored – Appeal Against Conviction – High Court reversed Trial Court’s acquittal and convicted the accused under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 IPC – Supreme Court held that High Court erred in interfering with the plausible view of the Trial Court – Sole eye-witness (PW-5) found unreliable – Confessional statements not duly proved – Medical evidence inconsistent with prosecution’s version – Circumstantial evidence failed to establish complete chain – Conviction set aside – Trial Court’s acquittal order restored [Paras 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 16–25, 29–31]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Acquittal – Legal Standards – Reaffirmed that interference by Appellate Court in acquittal is permissible only where judgment is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or when no two views are possible – Trial Court’s view held to be plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – High Court erred in substituting its view in absence of compelling reasons – Judgment of conviction by High Court set aside [Paras 27–29]

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Sole Eye-Witness – PW-5, driver of vehicle allegedly used in abduction, gave delayed statement 21 days after incident – PW-5 did not inform police despite witnessing alleged murder and having opportunity – Admitted criminal antecedents – Did not know accused personally – Discrepancies between statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC – Held: PW-5 is not a trustworthy witness and appears to be a planted witness – Conviction cannot rest solely on his testimony [Paras 17–21]

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – PW-14 (Doctor) opined that death occurred 10 days prior to autopsy – Contradicts prosecution version that murder occurred on 11.12.2011 and body found on 04.01.2012 (i.e., after 21 days) – Medical evidence creates doubt on prosecution timeline – Held: Medical evidence does not support case beyond reasonable doubt [Para 22]

Evidence – Confessional Statement and Discovery – Statements under Section 27 of Evidence Act made by accused nos. 2–4 led to recovery of body – However, prosecution failed to examine key witnesses (CW-22 & CW-23) who recovered the body from canal – Confessional statements not duly proved – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained solely on discovery without independent corroboration [Paras 10, 23]

Criminal Conspiracy – Ingredients Not Proved – Alleged motive of land dispute, strained relations and illicit relationship – Trial Court held these were speculative and not proved – High Court itself did not find involvement of accused nos. 5 & 6 in conspiracy – Held: Prosecution failed to establish meeting of minds or concerted action necessary for conviction under Section 120-B IPC [Paras 6, 7, 24, 25]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Supreme Court held that Trial Court’s acquittal was based on plausible view and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – High Court's judgment dated 28.11.2023 set aside – Trial Court's judgment dated 30.03.2019 restored – Appellants ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 31–33]

Service Law - Public Employment – Pharmacist Recruitment – Essential Qualification – Diploma in Pharmacy – Validity of Cadre Rules Upheld – Appellants holding B.Pharma/M.Pharma challenged Rule 6(1) of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024) prescribing Diploma in Pharmacy as minimum qualification – Supreme Court held that fixation of eligibility criteria lies within exclusive domain of employer – Prescription of Diploma as essential qualification not arbitrary or unconstitutional – High Court’s view affirmed [Paras 41, 61–65].

Constitution of India – Article 309 – Rule-Making Power – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 can be struck down only on grounds of lack of competence or violation of fundamental rights – Courts cannot rewrite service rules or substitute employer’s policy with judicial opinion – State entitled to determine suitability of qualifications for public posts [Paras 50, 59].

Repugnancy – Central Legislation vs State Service Rules – Pharmacy Act, 1948 – No Conflict Found – Pharmacy Act and Pharmacy Practice Regulations govern professional education, standards and registration – Cadre Rules operate in field of public employment – Registration as Pharmacist does not confer right to public employment – No repugnancy between Cadre Rules and Central enactment [Paras 46–49].

Higher Qualification – Degree vs Diploma – Not Automatically Equivalent – Bachelor/Master of Pharmacy cannot be treated as higher qualification presupposing Diploma in Pharmacy – Diploma and Degree courses are distinct streams with different objectives and training – Lateral entry provision does not establish equivalence – State justified in treating Diploma as essential qualification [Paras 53–56, 62].

Equality – Articles 14 and 16 – Reasonable Classification – Diploma Holders as Separate Class – Classification based on Diploma qualification has intelligible differentia and rational nexus with object of effective public health delivery – Emphasis on compulsory hospital-based practical training for Diploma holders – No hostile discrimination or arbitrariness established [Paras 37–38, 61–64].

Minimum Qualification – Meaning of “Minimum” – Exclusion of Degree Holders Valid – Expression “minimum qualification” does not imply automatic inclusion of higher qualifications – In absence of specific rule permitting equivalence, higher qualification cannot be read into eligibility criteria – Note in Appendix-I validly requires degree holders to also possess Diploma [Paras 44–45, 53–55].

Judicial Precedents – Employer’s Discretion in Recruitment Policy Reaffirmed – Supreme Court relied on consistent line of authorities holding that prescription of qualifications is policy matter – Courts cannot expand eligibility by interpretative process – Decisions in Jyoti K.K., Zahoor Ahmad Rather, Anita, and others applied [Paras 51–60].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Constitutional validity of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 as amended in 2024 upheld – Contempt Petition dismissed – No order as to costs.