Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants (Accused Nos. 3 and 5) convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare – High Court sustained their conviction under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court – Court found discrepancies and contradictions in the sole testimony of PW-1 (widow of the deceased), the key prosecution witness – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted [Paras 1, 6, 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Sole Eye-Witness – PW-1 (widow of the deceased) was the only credible witness, as other alleged eye-witnesses (PW-4, PW-5, and PW-8) were disbelieved by the High Court – PW-1's testimony was riddled with inconsistencies between her initial complaint and deposition in court – She added details regarding the involvement of the accused, raising reasonable doubt about the certainty of her identification of the attackers during a power cut at the time of the incident – No other evidence substantiating her claim of moonlight visibility was presented – Court found her testimony unreliable for conviction [Paras 5, 7-10, 12].

Circumstantial Evidence – Power Cut and Visibility – Incident occurred during a power cut, with no corroboration regarding the availability of sufficient moonlight for proper identification of the accused – Court found that the identification of the assailants in such circumstances lacked clarity – Further, PW-1’s claim that the assault occurred for two hours was implausible, raising doubts about the prosecution’s version – Lack of clarity on weapon attribution further weakened the case [Paras 7, 8, 11].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 148 IPC and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged, and any fines paid to be refunded [Paras 13].

Armed Forces – Prosecution of Army Personnel – Protection Under AFSP Act – Section 6 of AFSP Act – Proceedings Stayed – The petitioners sought to quash FIRs filed against their husbands, who are Army personnel, without obtaining the mandatory prior sanction from the Central Government as required under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958 – The Court found that the FIRs and proceedings could not continue without such sanction – Held: The proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs shall remain closed in the absence of sanction from the Central Government, with liberty for the proceedings to continue if sanction is later granted [Paras 2, 3, 4, 6].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 6 of AFSP Act – Requirement of Prior Sanction – It was submitted that sanction for prosecution of the Army personnel was declined by the competent authority – The Court emphasized that prosecution or legal proceedings against Army personnel for actions taken under the AFSP Act require prior sanction from the Central Government – Held: The proceedings cannot continue without the Central Government's sanction [Para 6].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned FIRs against the Army personnel due to the absence of prior sanction from the Central Government as required under Section 6 of the AFSP Act – It was clarified that if the sanction is granted at any later stage, the proceedings can resume in accordance with the law [Para 6].

Trust Law – Ownership of Property – Interpretation of Decree – Nature of Trust Property – The appellant contended that the property in question was not a trust property and was under his absolute ownership, whereas the respondent claimed it was trust property meant for the upkeep of the respondent temple and the Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple. Held: The Supreme Court found that the properties in Schedules 'A' and 'C' continued to be part of the trust property. The Compromise Decree dated 26.11.1929 explicitly stipulated that the properties were vested in the head of the Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple for specific purposes, including the maintenance of the respondent temple. The appellant could hold the property only as a trustee and not as an absolute owner. The Division Bench's judgment declaring the property as trust property was upheld [Paras 15-23].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Distinct Nature of Claims – The appellant argued that the current suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, given previous proceedings determining the nature of the respondent temple. Held: The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the previous proceedings dealt with the nature of the respondent temple as public or private, whereas the present case related to the declaration of title over the suit property. The nature of the respondent temple did not affect the obligations under the Compromise Decree regarding the suit property. Therefore, res judicata did not apply in this context [Paras 24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court is upheld, confirming that the suit property remains trust property vested in the head of the Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple for specific purposes. The appellant can hold the property only as a trustee, not as an absolute owner [Paras 25-27].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court's Jurisdiction in Second Appeal – The High Court allowed the second appeal by answering in the affirmative on the question of whether the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the High Court erred by overturning the First Appellate Court’s findings without properly framing a substantial question of law concerning the lack of evidence or subletting. Held: The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to hearing appeals based on substantial questions of law. The High Court is obligated to frame these questions at the time of admission and must decide the appeal based on them. The High Court’s judgment was set aside for not adhering to these principles [Paras 14-20].

Landlord-Tenant Law – Subletting – Evidence Required – The First Appellate Court had decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, finding that the respondent had sublet the premises and was therefore liable for eviction. The High Court, however, set aside this finding, stating that there was no evidence of subletting. Held: The Supreme Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction in a second appeal by reassessing the evidence without framing a substantial question of law. The High Court’s judgment was thus set aside [Paras 13, 20].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – The judgment and order dated 24th August 2023 passed in S.A. No. 100 of 2021 by the High Court of Calcutta is set aside. The judgment and order dated 12th December 2019 passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Appeal No. 14/2018 stands affirmed. The respondent is directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property by 31.12.2024. [Paras 21-24].

Election Law – Election Petition – Dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Grounds for Election Petition – The respondent challenged the appellant's election on grounds of non-disclosure of assets and indulging in corrupt practices. The appellant sought dismissal of the petition for lacking cause of action, as it did not specify corrupt practices in detail. The High Court refused to dismiss the petition, requiring evidence and trial to determine if the appellant had indeed made incorrect declarations. Held: The Supreme Court found that the Election Petition did disclose a cause of action, meeting the "substantial compliance" of Section 83 of RPA. Whether the appellant had concealed her investments and income is a triable issue. Dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was inappropriate in this case​.

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 83(1) Compliance – "Substantial Compliance" Standard – An Election Petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged. The requirement of an affidavit under Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory if there is substantial compliance. The respondent's petition raised questions on improper acceptance of the appellant's nomination due to alleged non-disclosure of assets and income. Held: The Supreme Court affirmed that substantial compliance with Section 83(1)(a) and (b) suffices, thus the petition should proceed to trial​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating the Election Petition disclosed a triable issue, meeting substantial compliance with RPA provisions. Therefore, it should not be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC​.

Municipal Law – Development Control Regulations – TDR Entitlement – Retrospective Application of Amendments – The appellants surrendered lands and developed amenities like DP Roads, seeking additional TDR/FSI under the provisions of the MRTP Act and DCR. The High Court ruled in favor of the Municipal Corporation's stance that the amendment to Regulation 34 of DCR in 2016 was not retrospective, thus impacting the appellants' claims. Held: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the 2016 amendment could not be applied retrospectively to nullify the vested rights acquired under the previous regulations. The appellants were entitled to TDR/FSI as per the unamended regulations, consistent with the ruling in "Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Maharashtra" [Paras 4.8, 4.9, 12.1–12.7].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Delay and Laches – The appellants faced denial of relief by the High Court based on delay and laches in claiming additional TDR/FSI. Held: The Supreme Court emphasized that compensation for landowners, especially in cases of public acquisition, is a constitutional right. The Municipal Corporation, as the custodian of public interests, cannot deny compensation without establishing a substantial change in circumstances or prejudice caused due to the delay. The mere passage of time does not extinguish the landowners' rights. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches [Paras 8.2, 9.3, 18, 18.1].

Godrej & Boyce I: The Court reiterated the scheme of development rights under the MRTP Act, stating that it allows the acquisition of land required for public purposes through three modes: by agreement, by granting FSI or TDR, or by acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Paras 12, 12.1].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed. The appellants were entitled to the additional TDR/FSI as per the unamended regulations before the 2016 amendment. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation was directed to consider each appellant's case on its merits, ensuring compliance with the regulations as they stood at the relevant time. The High Court's dismissal of writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches was set aside. The Municipal Corporation was directed to consider the cases of the writ petitioners/appellants and release the balance FSI/TDR within three months [Paras 4.7, 4.11, 20, 20.1].

Service Law – Resignation – Withdrawal Before Acceptance – Acceptance of Resignation – The appellant tendered his resignation on 05.12.2013, but later sought to withdraw it. The respondent corporation claimed that the resignation was accepted on 15.04.2014, with effect from 07.04.2014, and rejected the withdrawal request on 23.06.2014. The appellant contested that the acceptance was never communicated and that he had continued to work even after the resignation date. Held: The Supreme Court found that the letter dated 15.04.2014 was an internal communication not served to the appellant. Additionally, the corporation's own conduct, including requesting the appellant to report for duty and considering his absence, indicated that the resignation had not been finalized. Therefore, the resignation was effectively withdrawn before its acceptance. The Division Bench's ruling was incorrect in not considering this fact [Paras 10-12].

Service Law – Reinstatement and Back Wages – The appellant was entitled to be reinstated into service. However, to balance equities, the salary payable for the period during which the appellant did not work was restricted to 50%. Held: The appellant is to be reinstated within thirty days of the order, with 50% back wages from 01.07.2014 to the date of reinstatement. This period shall count towards pensionary benefits, if any [Paras 13-13.2].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 3982 of 2019 (S-RES) is set aside. The appellant is directed to be reinstated into service within thirty days. He shall receive 50% of the salary for the period from 01.07.2014 to the date of reinstatement. This period shall be counted for pensionary benefits [Paras 13, 13.1].

Public Examination – Denial of Handkerchief – Re-Examination Denied – The petitioner, suffering from Hyperhidrosis, was not permitted to take a handkerchief into the NEET-2024 examination hall, allegedly affecting his performance. The High Court found that the petitioner was allotted the full examination time, and the denial of the handkerchief would not have materially affected his performance, as he could have wiped his sweat on his clothes. Held: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no merit in the Special Leave Petition and emphasizing the need for circumspection in individual grievances regarding public examinations, which can delay finalization of results and affect larger public interest [Paras 4, 7]​.

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – No merit found in the claim for re-examination due to the non-availability of a handkerchief during the examination [Paras 7, 8]​.

Criminal Law – Arrest and Bail – Allowed - High Court Judgment – Appellant Arvind Kejriwal's arrest upheld by the High Court for alleged involvement in manipulation of the Excise Policy for undue gains. High Court denied regular bail. Appellant challenged arrest procedure under Sections 41(1) and 41A of CrPC. Held: Arrest not illegal, but continued incarceration pending trial violated personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The prosecution failed to show a clear need for custodial interrogation after 22 months of investigation. The appellant had cooperated with the investigation, and there was no risk of tampering with evidence. Bail was granted with conditions. Paras23,40−42​​.

Arrest Procedure – Compliance with Section 41A CrPC – The appellant alleged non-compliance with Section 41A notice procedure. CBI interrogated the appellant while in judicial custody, then sought arrest without issuing a formal notice under Section 41A. The Court ruled that a formal notice was unnecessary as the appellant was already in custody. The CBI complied by seeking the court’s permission for interrogation and arrest, following the appropriate legal framework. Held: Arrest procedurally valid; Section 41A notice does not apply to individuals already in judicial custody.  Paras17−27​​.

Bail – Triple Test – Appellant granted bail as the CBI possessed all relevant evidence, reducing the risk of tampering. The appellant was neither a flight risk nor a threat to witnesses. The High Court erred in denying bail, as the appellant's continued detention served no substantial purpose. He should not be penalized for exercising his right to remain silent during interrogation. Bail was granted with strict conditions, including a prohibition on public comments about the case. Paras41−42​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside. Bail granted with conditions, including a Rs. 10 lakh bail bond and prohibition on discussing the case publicly. Appellant to be released if no other charges are pending. Paras42−47​​.