Criminal Law – Examination Fraud – Systemic Malpractice – The petitioners alleged that the NEET 2024 examination was compromised due to widespread paper leaks and manipulation – Investigation revealed isolated incidents in Hazaribagh, Patna, and other places but no evidence of systemic malpractice affecting the overall integrity of the examination – The Supreme Court, after analyzing data and expert reports, concluded that there was no need for a re-examination as the breaches were not widespread and did not affect the overall results – The NEET 2024 results upheld with directions for recalibration of marks concerning one specific question [Paras 70-77].

Examination Law – Data Analysis and Integrity – IIT Madras report analyzed by the court showed no abnormal patterns or systemic issues in the NEET 2024 results – Court dismissed the argument of conflict of interest concerning the Director of IIT Madras who provided the data analysis, stating that the analysis was impartial and supported by data – NTA’s decision to award marks for both options in a contested question was overturned, and the correct answer was mandated based on IIT Delhi’s expert opinion [Paras 54-60].

Administrative Law – Reopening of Registration and Change of Cities – Allegations that the reopening of the registration window and changes in examination city preferences facilitated malpractice – Data analysis showed no significant increase in success rates among candidates who registered or changed cities during the extended window – Court found no basis to conclude that reopening facilitated malpractice, and the action was justified [Paras 78-80].

Decision:

Writ Petitions dismissed – NEET 2024 examination results upheld with a directive for the recalibration of marks concerning a specific question – No re-examination ordered.

Customs Duty – Redemption of Confiscated Goods – Whether customs duty is payable when confiscated goods are redeemed after payment of fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act – Held, duty liability arises upon exercise of option to pay fine for redemption – Duty must be assessed under Section 28 – Interest on delayed payment under Section 28AB applicable – [Paras 8.1-8.9, 10.1].

Interpretation of Jagdish Cancer Case – Liability to pay customs duty in confiscation proceedings arises under Section 125(2) and not Section 28 – However, Section 28 procedure applies for assessment and determination of duty – Interest under Section 28AB follows – Jagdish Cancer case does not preclude assessment under Section 28 for duty liability arising under Section 125(2) – [Paras 9.1-9.6].

Confiscation and Penalty – Distinction between duty obligation and penalty/fine for confiscation – Confiscation proceedings aim to transition from illegality to compliance – Payment of fine legitimizes the importation – [Paras 5.1, 8.4-8.5].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Appellant liable to pay customs duty and interest on delayed payment under Section 28AB – Costs not imposed – [Paras 11].

Promotion and Seniority – Retrospective Effect – Appellant Board’s decision not to grant the respondent retrospective promotion to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 29th July 1997 – High Court’s direction for retrospective promotion overturned – Supreme Court holds that promotions are effective from the date they are granted, not from the date vacancies occur or are created – Emphasizes that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but not a right to promotion itself – Resolves that the minimum qualifying service period (Kal Awadhi) for promotion is only eligibility and not entitlement for automatic promotion – Affirms that retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee not borne in the cadre from the retrospective date claimed [Paras 18-24, 25-31].

Right to Promotion – Interpretation of Kal Awadhi – The Resolution dated 26th December 1991 setting the Kal Awadhi is directory and not mandatory – A completed Kal Awadhi does not automatically entitle an employee to promotion – Administrative exigencies justified the Board’s decision not to promote the respondent retrospectively [Paras 27-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Learned Single Judge’s order restored – No costs imposed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Compounding of Offense – Consent Required – The High Court compounded an offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without the complainant's consent, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the N.I. Act – Held: Compounding under Section 147 of the N.I. Act requires the complainant's consent – The High Court erred in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to override this requirement – The consent of the complainant is a sine qua non for compounding offenses under Section 138 N.I. Act – The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's order is quashed to the extent it compounded the offense without consent​.

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Inherent Powers of High Court – Scope and Limitations – Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice – However, this power cannot be used to compound offenses under Section 138 N.I. Act without the complainant's consent – Held: The High Court wrongly invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. to compound the offense under Section 138 N.I. Act in the absence of consent from the complainant – The inherent power of the High Court cannot be used to bypass specific legal requirements for compounding offenses​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court, which compounded the offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without the complainant's consent, is set aside – However, the Supreme Court, recognizing the peculiar circumstances and the fact that the respondent had deposited the cheque amount with interest, invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the pending proceedings – The appellant is entitled to withdraw the deposited amount​.

Employment Law – Misconduct and Termination – CRPF constable terminated for suppressing information about pending criminal cases in the Verification Roll – Respondent contended he was unaware of the cases – Disciplinary Authority found suppression of material information and use of fake documents – High Court ordered reinstatement with minor punishment – Supreme Court reinstated termination, emphasizing the need for integrity in uniformed services – Held, respondent’s misconduct justified termination [Paras 1-28].

Verification Roll – Disclosure of Criminal Cases – Respondent failed to disclose pending criminal cases at the time of filling Verification Roll – Acknowledged awareness of cases during departmental inquiry – Supreme Court held suppression of information as grave misconduct – Justified termination by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority [Paras 16-19, 23-27].

Legal Precedents – Employment in Law Enforcement – Stringent standards of integrity and disclosure required for uniformed services – Supreme Court relied on precedents including Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Bhupendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwaria – Emphasized that deliberate suppression of facts justifies termination [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Orders of Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities reinstated – Termination of respondent upheld – No costs imposed.

Bail – Pre-arrest Bail – Conditional Bail – High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the appellants with the condition to deposit 25% of ₹20,00,000. Supreme Court emphasizes that courts should not act as recovery agents for complainants’ dues when granting bail [Paras 2-5].

Conditional Bail – Jurisprudence – Supreme Court observes that the condition to deposit money was imposed based on appellants’ submission, which is against established jurisprudence. The High Court should independently assess bail applications on their merits [Para 5].

Precedents – Conditional Bail – References to prior judgments where courts held that bail conditions should not involve financial recovery for complainants: Ramesh Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), St. George Dsouza vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. [Para 3].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Directed High Court to re-examine the bail application afresh, excluding the monetary condition [Paras 6-8].

Sentencing under Section 307 IPC – Limitation on Term – Convicts sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment challenged the sentence – Argument that Section 307 IPC limits imprisonment to ten years unless hurt caused warrants life imprisonment – Court examined statutory interpretation of Section 307 IPC – Held that imprisonment exceeding ten years without awarding life imprisonment is impermissible – Sentence reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine maintained [Paras 1-10].

Concurrent Conviction – Upheld – The appellants' conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC supported by overwhelming evidence – Sentence modification restricted to statutory limits without altering conviction [Paras 2-3, 6].

Mens Rea and Actus Reus – Clarified the offence under Section 307 IPC constitutes attempt to murder by intention or knowledge causing hurt – Emphasized that actual hurt or bodily injury enhances the penalty to life imprisonment or up to ten years but not beyond [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Conviction upheld – Sentence modified from 14 years to 10 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine and default clause upheld [Paras 8-10].

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – High Court allowed review petitions reversing the decision of the original Division Bench – Review jurisdiction not properly exercised – Discovery of new evidence not sufficient to warrant review as it was not material to the contempt issue – Order set aside [Paras 10-26].

Contempt of Court – Limitation – Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act mandates one-year limitation for initiating contempt proceedings – Court emphasizes strict adherence to limitation period – "Continuing wrong" principle clarified – High Court's decision reversed for accepting a time-barred contempt petition [Paras 28-57].

Exercise of Review Jurisdiction – High Court invoked Order XLVII Rule 1 based on discovery of new evidence – Review order found to exceed the jurisdiction – Court emphasized limits of review jurisdiction – Review jurisdiction must not substitute appellate jurisdiction [Paras 10-27].

Evidence – Additional Documents – New evidence must be materially important to the decision – Documents discovered post-judgment not considered as impacting the original decision materially – High Court’s reliance on new evidence deemed inappropriate [Paras 14-20].

Contempt Proceedings – Inherent Power – Court discussed the inherent power of High Courts under Articles 129 and 215 – Such power must align with Contempt of Courts Act – Limitation period is mandatory and cannot be overlooked based on inherent power alone [Paras 28-34].

Continuing Wrong – Concept Clarified – Continuing wrong must involve a fresh breach each day – Mere non-compliance over time does not constitute continuing wrong – Court outlined clear criteria for invoking the principle of continuing wrong in contempt cases [Paras 35-57].

Procedure for Contempt – Necessity for Due Process – Emphasis on due process and adherence to statutory requirements in contempt proceedings – Court stressed on procedural fairness and necessity of clear grounds before initiating contempt actions [Paras 28-57].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Division Bench’s judgment and order dated 16th August, 2018 restored – Petition for contempt dismissed as time-barred [Para 57].

Deficiency in Service – Delay in Possession – NCDRC's order partially allowing the complaint – Found delay in handing over possession of flats – Compensation awarded at 6% per annum interest on deposits from due date of possession to date of offer of possession – NCDRC's method for determining due date based on payment of 11th instalment and grace period held erroneous – Supreme Court modified the due date to six months from March 2014 as per Clause 6.1 of the Construction Agreement [Paras 1-27].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – High Court exceeded review jurisdiction by re-evaluating merits of original decision under the guise of addressing contempt – Emphasized the finality of litigation and disciplined approach to review petitions [Paras 11-20].

Forfeiture of Right to File Written Statement – Legal Consequences – Opposite party’s failure to file written statement did not bar participation in proceedings or cross-examination of witnesses – NCDRC erred in considering facts introduced through written submissions in contravention of Supreme Court's order [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Modified NCDRC's method for determining due date for possession – Interest on delayed possession set from September 2014 till actual possession – Refund of car parking charge and legal fee claims declined – Direction to provide Green Jogging Track and Convenience Store upheld [Paras 25-27].