Anticipatory Bail – Cancellation – High Court granted anticipatory bail ignoring material aspects such as the nature and gravity of the offence and the specific allegations against the accused – Deficiencies in the investigation highlighted by JMFC and trial court, including failure to consider eyewitness statements, reliance on selective CCTV footage, and lack of fingerprint analysis – High Court's order set aside due to improper exercise of discretion in granting bail [Paras 1-20, 24-30].

Deficiencies in Investigation – Investigation ignored crucial evidence: failure to consider statements of eyewitnesses, reliance on CCTV footage post-incident, non-collection of relevant CCTV footage, reliance on call data records without verifying usage, and absence of fingerprint analysis – Orders for further investigation and supplementary challan indicated significant omissions by the investigating officer [Paras 11-28].

Legal Principles for Anticipatory Bail – Principles outlined in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reiterated – High Court's order quashed due to failure to consider relevant factors and clear deficiencies in the investigation – Importance of assessing the severity of the offence and ensuring justice highlighted [Paras 24-30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgments granting anticipatory bail to the respondents set aside – Anticipatory bail cancelled – Case remanded for further proceedings in line with the judgment.

Service Law – Selection Process – High Court set aside the appointment of the appellant to the post of Junior Lab Technician on grounds of arbitrariness in marks allocation for experience and interview – Selection Committee's criteria for allocating marks after advertisement found to change "rules of the game" – Division Bench of the High Court erred in examining the entire selection list to determine arbitrariness when the respondent only challenged appellant's selection [Paras 13-20].

Experience and Interview Marks – Appellant had relevant experience in government medical institutions, receiving higher marks in experience and interview categories compared to respondent who had lesser and private practice experience – Selection Committee's criteria to favor candidates with experience in government institutions justified – Division Bench's decision to quash selection based on alleged discrepancies in marks allocation erroneous [Paras 15-20].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Court should not sit in appeal over the decision of expert bodies like Selection Committees unless bias or mala fides are evident – High Court transgressed limits of judicial review by reassessing entire selection list and not just the specific appointment challenged [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing appellant's appointment set aside – Appointment of appellant to the post of Junior Lab Technician upheld [Paras 21-22].

Penal Code – Gang Rape – Conviction – Conviction under Section 376D IPC questioned – Evidence of the prosecutrix indicates repeated rape by the appellant over four months – No conclusive evidence of common intention or aiding by co-accused to establish gang rape – Conviction under Section 376D IPC modified to Section 376 IPC [Paras 9-12].

Evidentiary Value – Discrepancies and Contradictions – Discrepancies in prosecutrix's statements regarding initial complaint and her age – Medical evidence confirming pregnancy aligns with prosecutrix's statement of repeated rape – Minor contradictions do not negate the core of the prosecution’s case – Conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 6-11].

Sentencing – Appropriate Sentence – Incident occurred in 2013, prior to the amendment increasing minimum sentence under Section 376 IPC – Considering all circumstances, including appellant's lack of criminal antecedents and personal situation, sentence reduced to period already undergone (over 8 years) – Sentence for other charges and fines confirmed [Paras 14-16].

Judgment and Sentence:

Conviction and sentence under Sections 363, 366, and Section 4 of POCSO Act confirmed.

Conviction under Section 506 IPC set aside.

Conviction under Section 376D IPC modified to Section 376 IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine and default sentence maintained.

Appellant to be released on payment of fine, provided he is not required in any other case [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Section 376D IPC modified to Section 376 IPC – Sentence for other charges confirmed – Appellant ordered to be released subject to fine payment.

Lok Adalat – Jurisdiction and Authority – Lok Adalat has jurisdiction only to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute – If no compromise or settlement is reached, the Lok Adalat must return the case to the referring court – Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits in the absence of a settlement – Impugned order by Lok Adalat dismissing the writ petition on merits held unsustainable and quashed [Paras 1-10].

Compromise and Settlement – Legal Parameters – Lok Adalat's role limited to facilitating mutual settlement or compromise – Any decision on merits by Lok Adalat, in absence of settlement, beyond its jurisdiction – Case returned to High Court for disposal according to law [Paras 6-9].

Legal Services Authorities Act – Interpretation – Sections 20(3) and 20(5) of the Act clarify that Lok Adalat's mandate is to assist in reaching a compromise or settlement – If unsuccessful, the case must be reverted to the original court – Jurisdiction limited to compromise efforts, without authority for merit-based decisions [Paras 6.1-6.2, 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order passed by Lok Adalat on 30.11.2013 quashed – High Court directed to restore and decide Writ Petition No. 8074 of 2011 on merits in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

Service Law – Re-appointment – Suitability – Appellant found respondent unsuitable for re-appointment, approved by other authorities – Appointment order lacked automatic extension provision – Explicit order requiring suitability for re-appointment considered – Court not expected to substitute its view – Respondent not entitled to extension or consequential benefits [Paras 1-16].

Legal Services Authorities Act – Lok Adalat's Role – Lok Adalat's jurisdiction confined to facilitating compromise or settlement – Lacking authority to decide on merits absent a settlement – Case returned to original court for disposal according to law when no compromise reached – Lok Adalat’s dismissal of writ petition on merits quashed [Paras 6-10].

Delay, Laches, and Acquiescence – Principles – Delay, laches, and acquiescence principles applicable – Respondent delayed in raising issue, approaching court – Approaching the court near end of tenure highlighted as conduct issue – Respondent's delay and conduct barred relief under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 20-24].

Fairness Doctrine in Employment – Fairness doctrine in employer-employee relationships applied post-relationship formation, not at recruitment stage – Substantial discretion conferred on employer for recruitment suitability and adequacy – State as employer expected to act fairly, with discrimination only if valid [Paras 30-36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Respondent not entitled to re-appointment or consequential benefits – Appellant's decision on suitability for re-appointment upheld – Respondent's appeals dismissed [Paras 44].

Termination of Service – Delay and Laches – Late husband of the respondent, Rameshwar Lal, was terminated from service on 16.12.1996 – He appealed, but during pendency, he passed away in 2009 – Respondent filed a writ petition in 2012, 15 years post-termination and 13 years after he would have retired – High Court's Single Judge quashed termination and granted benefits – Division Bench confirmed – Supreme Court held writ petition barred by delay and laches – Order of termination restored [Paras 1-10].

Service Law – Termination and Superannuation – Even if the termination was set aside, deceased employee would have retired in 1999 – Benefits granted for a period post-superannuation deemed improper – High Court erred by entering into merits despite delay – Case involved clear laches barring relief [Paras 3-6].

Principles of Natural Justice – Bar Due to Laches – Merits of the termination need not be examined when writ petition is barred by delay and laches – Relief not available due to substantial delay – Single Judge’s error in adjudicating on merits when appeal should have considered delay [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgments quashing the termination and granting consequential benefits set aside – Original order of termination reinstated – No costs [Paras 6-7].

Hindu Marriage Act – Counterclaim – Section 23A permits the respondent in divorce, judicial separation, or restitution of conjugal rights proceedings to make a counterclaim for relief on the grounds of the petitioner’s adultery, cruelty, or desertion – Counterclaim can only include reliefs under Sections 9 to 13 of the Act – Reliefs against third parties or declarations concerning the third party's marriage are outside the scope of counterclaim under the Act [Paras 9-11].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment sought after trial commencement requires proof of due diligence – Appellant-wife's knowledge of respondent's second marriage came during cross-examination – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC applies but facts support allowance of amendment concerning knowledge post-commencement of trial [Paras 7-8].

Counterclaim for Third Party Marriage – Legal Limits – Reliefs in counterclaim must pertain to parties in the original marriage petition – Relief against third party marriage beyond Hindu Marriage Act's Section 23A scope – Independent suit necessary for declarations involving third parties [Para 9].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court's order set aside – Family Court's order restored permitting amendment of written statement as per paras 35 and 36 – Amendment for counterclaim in para 37 dismissed – Appellant can pursue independent suit for reliefs concerning third party marriage [Paras 11-12].

Government Accommodation – Retention by Retired Employees – Kashmiri Migrants – Supreme Court addresses the policy allowing retired government employees who are Kashmiri Migrants to retain government accommodation. The Court emphasizes that such occupation should not exceed three years post-retirement. It rules that indefinite retention is not justified and stresses the importance of balancing compassion with the needs of serving officers waiting for allotments​​​​.

Article 142 of the Constitution – Special Provisions – While previous judgments under Article 142 offered compassionate consideration for Kashmiri Migrants, the Supreme Court asserts that such benefits cannot be extended indefinitely. The Court highlights the necessity for the government to provide alternative arrangements, including transit accommodations or cash allowances, within a three-year period​​​​.

Arbitrary and Discriminatory Policies – Office Memorandum – The Court invalidates the Office Memorandum issued on March 28, 2017, which allowed indefinite retention of government accommodation by Kashmiri Migrants. It holds that such policies violate Article 14 of the Constitution, stressing that government housing is primarily for serving employees, not for post-retirement indefinite use​​​​.

Implementation of Rehabilitation Schemes – Pragmatic Approach – Supreme Court suggests a reasonable three-year period post-retirement for Kashmiri Migrants to secure alternative accommodations. It also addresses the government's responsibility to assist these individuals in transitioning to private housing or transit accommodations within this timeframe​​​​.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the applications seeking indefinite retention of government accommodation by retired Kashmiri Migrants, affirming that government housing is meant for serving employees. The Court granted a final extension to vacate the premises by November 30, 2021, with a directive for the Union to report compliance by December 15, 2021​​​​.

Wills – Validity and Suspicious Circumstances – The Supreme Court underscores that mere exclusion of a beneficiary’s siblings from a will does not inherently create suspicion unless other circumstances support such an inference. The Court affirmed the validity of Exhibit P4, a registered will, properly executed and attested by the beneficiary’s siblings, dismissing concerns raised by a forged and fabricated subsequent will (Exhibit D1)【Paras 1-27】.

Civil Procedure Code – Section 96 – Appellate Review – The appellate court’s role under Section 96 is to re-evaluate the evidence and findings of the trial court. The Supreme Court criticizes the High Court for substituting its views without sufficient reasoning and without properly addressing the trial court's findings, especially when two views are possible, advising deference to the trial court's observations unless significantly flawed【Paras 21-23】.

Evidence Act – Sections 63 and 68 – Proof of Execution – The Court highlights compliance with Sections 63 and 68 of the Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act, noting that the will (Exhibit P4) was duly executed and witnessed by credible individuals. The presence and participation of the testatrix’s relatives during the execution added credibility to the will, mitigating any suspicion【Paras 14-16】.

Order VI of CPC – Pleadings and Relief – Emphasizes the necessity for specific pleadings and the impermissibility of granting relief beyond the scope of pleadings. The Court reiterates that relief should be confined to what has been explicitly stated and proven during the trial【Paras 20】.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, restoring the trial court’s judgment which had validated Exhibit P4 and dismissed Exhibit D1 as a forged document. The appeals were allowed, affirming the appellant's title to the suit property based on the valid will (Exhibit P4)【Paras 28-30】.