Passport Law – Renewal of Passport – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act – Statutory Exemption under Section 22 – GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 – Appellant’s passport expired during pendency of criminal proceedings before NIA Court and appeal against conviction before Delhi High Court – Criminal courts granted no objection for renewal subject to condition of prior permission for foreign travel and re-deposit of passport – Passport Authority refused renewal treating Section 6(2)(f) as absolute bar – Held: Section 6(2)(f) is subject to statutory exemption under Section 22 and GSR 570(E) – Once criminal courts consciously permit renewal while retaining control over travel, embargo under Section 6(2)(f) stands relaxed – Refusal of renewal unsustainable [Paras 12–16, 25].

Passports Act, 1967 – Interpretation of GSR 570(E) – Requirement of “permission to depart from India” – Whether specific foreign travel itinerary mandatory – Held: GSR 570(E) does not mandate that criminal court must authorise a particular journey as a precondition for renewal – Court may legitimately permit renewal of passport while requiring prior permission for each instance of travel – Such arrangement satisfies statutory object of securing presence of accused – Narrow interpretation adopted by High Court disapproved [Paras 10–15, 16].

Criminal Proceedings – Pending Trial and Conviction under Appeal – Distinction between Section 6(2)(f) and Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act – Appellant convicted in CBI case with sentence suspended – Held: Section 6(2)(f) applies at pre-conviction stage – After conviction, case falls under Section 6(2)(e) subject to its own conditions – Subsisting conviction under appeal cannot be used to reinforce bar under Section 6(2)(f) – Reliance placed on Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI [Paras 18–19].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – Passport as Civil Document – Proportionality of Restrictions – Denial of renewal of passport despite judicial permissions held to be disproportionate and unreasonable – Legitimate purpose of ensuring presence before court adequately safeguarded by bail conditions and court supervision – Indefinite denial of passport impermissible [Paras 20–23].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Enforcement of Statutory Obligation – High Court erred in holding that writ petition amounted to execution of criminal court orders – Writ sought enforcement of rights flowing from Passports Act and exemption notification – Passport Authority bound to act in accordance with statute and GSR 570(E) [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench of Calcutta High Court set aside – Respondents directed to re-issue ordinary passport to appellant for normal period of ten years – Passport to remain subject to existing and future orders of NIA Court, Ranchi and Delhi High Court, including condition of prior permission before leaving India – Compliance directed within four weeks [Paras 28–30].

Income Tax – Non-Compete Fee – Revenue or Capital Expenditure – Section 37(1), Income Tax Act, 1961 – Assessee paid non-compete fee to joint-venture partner to restrain it from competing in electronic office products business for a fixed period – Assessing Officer and Delhi High Court held expenditure to be capital in nature – Supreme Court examined tests of enduring benefit, capital field and profit-earning apparatus – Held: Non-compete fee merely facilitates carrying on of business more efficiently and profitably – No new asset created nor any accretion to profit-earning structure – Enduring advantage, if any, not in capital field – Payment is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) [Paras 25–29].

Capital vs Revenue Expenditure – Enduring Benefit Test – Limits – Court reiterated that enduring benefit test is not conclusive – What is material is whether advantage lies in capital field – Payments made to ward off competition without creation of capital asset or monopoly fall on revenue account – Length of restrictive period not determinative – Focus must be on commercial reality of transaction [Paras 18–28].

Non-Compete Fee – No Acquisition of Capital Asset – Payment of non-compete fee does not result in acquisition of any tangible or intangible asset nor expansion of profit-earning apparatus – Competition not eliminated altogether – Assessee only secured operational efficiency – Held not capital expenditure [Paras 26–28].

Depreciation on Non-Compete Fee – Section 32(1)(ii) – Since non-compete fee itself held to be revenue expenditure, question of allowing depreciation as intangible asset rendered redundant in case of Sharp Business System – However, appeals of other assessees involving depreciation issue remanded to ITATs to be reconsidered in light of law declared [Paras 31–34].

Judicial Discipline – Conflicting High Court Views – Resolution by Supreme Court – Delhi High Court view treating non-compete fee as capital expenditure set aside – Consistent judicial trend emphasising commercial expediency and absence of capital asset reaffirmed – Matters involving depreciation remitted for fresh adjudication consistent with this judgment [Paras 29–34].

Interest on Borrowed Funds – Investment in Subsidiary / Sister Concern – Section 36(1)(iii) – Assessee invested borrowed funds in subsidiary company to acquire controlling interest and advanced interest-free loans to sister concern and directors – Assessing Officer disallowed interest alleging non-business purpose – ITAT and High Court allowed deduction applying doctrine of commercial expediency – Supreme Court affirmed – Held: Once investment/advances are made for commercial expediency, interest on borrowed funds is allowable – Revenue cannot substitute its business judgment for that of assessee – Reliance placed on SA Builders Ltd. [Paras 35–41].

Commercial Expediency – Controlling Interest – Investment in subsidiary to obtain controlling interest constitutes business purpose – Interest deduction allowable even if immediate profit not earned – Advances to sister concern covered by commercial expediency on facts [Paras 39–40].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 4072 of 2014 allowed – Non-compete fee held to be revenue expenditure – Delhi High Court judgment set aside – Remaining appeals relating to non-compete fee and depreciation remanded to respective ITATs for fresh consideration – Revenue appeal on interest disallowance dismissed – Deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) upheld

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Direction for Time-bound Investigation and Protection from Arrest – Legality and Justification of High Court's Order – High Court dismissed quashing petitions filed by three accused (Mohd. Arshad Khan, Sanjay Kapoor, Muhammad Zaid Khan) but simultaneously granted protection from arrest and directed investigation to be concluded within 90 days – Supreme Court held such direction impermissible in law – Protection from arrest while declining to quash FIR amounts to indirect grant of anticipatory bail without statutory satisfaction – Directions issued without proper application of mind to factual context or justification [Paras 4–7, 11–13, 15–16].

Investigation – Judicial Imposition of Timelines – Legality – Supreme Court held that although delay in investigation can justify judicial intervention in rare cases, such direction must be reactive, not prophylactic – Timelines must be imposed only where there is evident stagnation, delay, or prejudice to rights under Article 21 – In present case, no such material or justification was recorded by High Court – Hence, order directing conclusion of investigation in 90 days was unsustainable [Paras 9–11].

Protection from Arrest – Article 21 – Applicability of Precedent – High Court relied on Shobhit Nehra v. State of U.P. to grant protection from arrest – Supreme Court held that directions in Shobhit Nehra were justified based on unique facts of that case involving long-standing civil dispute – Impugned orders failed to conduct factual comparison or application of mind – Hence, reliance misplaced and protection from arrest set aside [Paras 5, 12–14].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reiteration of Law in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra – Supreme Court reaffirmed that High Courts cannot grant interim protection from arrest while declining to interfere under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 – Such practice amounts to backdoor anticipatory bail – High Courts must scrupulously follow binding precedent – Impugned High Court order violated settled law and was accordingly set aside [Para 15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Directions issued by High Court for time-bound investigation and protection from arrest set aside – Interim protection to continue for two weeks to enable respondents to seek appropriate legal remedies – All pending applications disposed of [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction – Affirmation – Deceased widow set ablaze for resisting sexual advances – Medical evidence proved homicidal death due to 60% burns – Hostile witnesses not fatal – Presence of accused and flight from scene proved through corroborative testimony – Dying declarations recorded by police officer and Magistrate found reliable and voluntary – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 4–7].

Evidence Act – Dying Declaration – Multiple Declarations – Reliability – Dying declarations recorded by police officer and Magistrate corroborated by medical evidence – Doctor certified fitness of declarant – Minor inconsistencies and hostile witnesses do not dilute probative value – Sole dying declaration sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 6–7].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Meaning – Life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for entire natural life subject to remission and commutation – Sessions Court has no power to direct that life sentence shall mean imprisonment till end of natural life without remission – Such power vests only in Constitutional Courts [Paras 9, 13–15].

Sentencing Policy – Special Category Sentence – Swamy Shraddananda (2) Principle – Life Imprisonment Without Remission – Power restricted to Supreme Court and High Courts – Sessions Courts incompetent to impose sentence beyond statutory framework – Reaffirmation of Constitution Bench ruling in V. Sriharan (Murugan) [Paras 11–15].

Criminal Procedure – Section 428 CrPC – Set-off – Mandatory Statutory Right – Period of detention during investigation, inquiry and trial must be set-off against sentence – Sessions Court cannot deny statutory set-off – Direction denying set-off illegal and liable to be deleted [Paras 16–17].

Remission and Commutation – Executive Power – Articles 72 & 161 – Cannot be curtailed by trial court – Accused entitled to be considered for remission as per law and government policy [Paras 9, 14–15, 18].

Sentencing Discretion – Proportionality – Heinousness of offence acknowledged – Case not warranting special category sentence of fixed minimum term without remission – Distinction from cases such as Ravinder Singh applied [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed –

(i) Conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed

(ii) Sentence modified to imprisonment for life simpliciter

(iii) Direction that sentence shall run till end of natural life set aside

(iv) Statutory set-off under Section 428 CrPC restored

(v) Accused entitled to consideration of remission/commutation as per law – Other sentences to run concurrently – Pending applications disposed of.

Medical Education – BDS Admissions – NEET – Lowering of Qualifying Percentile – Power of Relaxation – Regulation II(5), Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 – Proviso vests exclusive power in Central Government in consultation with DCI – State Government has no authority to lower NEET percentile – Letter of Central Government directing “necessary action as deemed fit” does not amount to delegation – Relaxation granted by State of Rajasthan of 10% and additional 5% held illegal – Admissions pursuant thereto declared unlawful [Paras 42–46].

Interpretation of Statute – Delegation of Power – Absence of Enabling Provision – Delegation cannot be inferred by implication – Words “necessary action as deemed fit” cannot override express statutory mandate – High Court erred in treating Central Government communication as delegation of power [Paras 44–45].

NEET – Sanctity of Merit – Uniform Entrance Examination – Admission to MBBS/BDS must strictly conform to NEET Regulations – Dilution of eligibility impermissible except as expressly permitted – Reaffirmation of Sankalp Charitable Trust and Christian Medical College Vellore principles [Paras 40–41].

Private Dental Colleges – Unauthorized Admissions – Greed to Fill Vacant Seats – Admissions beyond even State-granted relaxation – Students with zero and negative percentile admitted – Reliance on 10+2 marks impermissible – Such admissions a mockery of statutory framework and destructive of educational standards [Paras 48, 60].

Promissory Estoppel – No Estoppel Against Statute – Colleges cannot claim protection based on State’s illegal relaxation – Admissions in violation of statutory regulations cannot be legitimized by equity or conduct – Reliance placed on Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [Para 49].

Students – Knowledge of Irregularity – No Conclusive Proof of Informed Consent – Students acted on assurances of colleges and interim court orders – Sole victims of administrative and institutional failure [Paras 50–53].

Article 142 – Complete Justice – Equitable Regularisation – Students who have completed BDS course and received degrees protected – Degrees regularised subject to filing undertaking to render pro bono services up to cumulative two years during public emergencies – Relief confined to peculiar facts and not to be treated as precedent [Paras 57, 59].

Medical Education – Outer Time Limit – BDS Course – Nine-Year Completion Rule – Students who failed to complete course within prescribed period not entitled to relief – Discharge upheld [Para 58].

Costs and Accountability – Deterrent Punishment – Private Colleges directed to deposit Rs. 10 Crores each – State of Rajasthan directed to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs – Funds to be utilised for social welfare institutions under judicial oversight [Paras 62–63].

Decision:

Appeals partly allowed – High Court judgment modified –

(i) Admissions of students who have completed BDS course and obtained degrees regularised under Article 142, subject to pro bono service undertaking

(ii) Students who failed to complete BDS course within statutory time discharged

(iii) State-level reduction of NEET percentile declared illegal

(iv) Heavy costs imposed on erring colleges and State – Directions issued for utilisation of funds for social welfare – Appeals disposed of – No precedent value.

Administrative Law – Power of Chief Justice – High Court Additional Sitting – Section 51(3) of States Reorganisation Act – Validity of Notification – Notification appointing Kolhapur as an additional place of sitting of the Bombay High Court challenged under Article 32 – Petitioner contended that such appointment amounts to establishing a permanent bench, requiring Presidential order under Section 51(2) – Held: Section 51(3) is an independent and continuing source of power – No requirement of central government approval – Power lies with Chief Justice with Governor’s approval – Establishment of additional place of sitting does not result in territorial bifurcation or require permanence – No colourable exercise of power – Reaffirmed precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik – [Paras 19–30, 55]

Judicial Administration – Role of Chief Justice – Consultation – Full Court not mandatory – Chief Justice is master of roster and head of administration – Statute does not require consultation with Full Court under Section 51(3) – While internal deliberation is desirable, absence thereof does not vitiate exercise of power – [Paras 31–37]

Judicial Review – Administrative Decisions – Scope – Courts will not interfere unless mala fides, extraneous considerations, or manifest illegality shown – No fundamental right of the petitioner violated – Objections pertain to policy disagreement, not legal infirmity – [Paras 18, 42–44, 54]

Equality before Law – Article 14 – Rational Basis – Selection of Kolhapur not arbitrary – Geographic proximity, volume of litigation, and logistical feasibility justify the decision – Simultaneous consideration of all regional demands not constitutionally required – Article 14 not violated – [Paras 45–48]

Access to Justice – Article 21 – Establishment of High Court sittings at convenient locations enhances access – Resource allocation is a policy matter – Decision furthers constitutional mandate – [Paras 49–52]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Notification dated 01.08.2025 upheld – Held to be within statutory power under Section 51(3) – No costs. [Paras 53–57]

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction set aside – Prosecution case resting mainly on testimony of related eyewitness (mother of deceased) suffering from material contradictions – Non-examination of material witness (granddaughter who allegedly informed informant) – Independent witnesses turned hostile – Medical evidence not conclusively corroborating ocular version – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 7–18].

Evidence – Related / Interested Witness – Mother of deceased claimed to be eyewitness – Law reiterated that testimony of related witness cannot be discarded solely on that ground but requires strict scrutiny – On facts, deposition contained serious inconsistencies regarding manner of assault, timing and presence at scene – Reliance on such testimony held unsafe [Paras 8–9, 13–15].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Granddaughter of informant allegedly first informant of incident not examined – Prosecution failed to explain omission – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution version [Paras 9, 14].

Witnesses – Hostile Independent Witnesses – PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9 did not support prosecution case – Seizure and recovery of weapons through memorandum statements not proved – Recovery evidence held unreliable [Paras 10–11, 15].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistency with Ocular Testimony – Post-mortem revealed three incised wounds – Prosecution alleged use of sticks and one stone – Doctor failed to specify which injury was caused by which weapon – Improbability of incised wounds being caused by single stone – Medical evidence not supporting prosecution story [Paras 12, 16].

Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Mere presence of accused at spot without clear proof of participation or overt act insufficient – Failure to establish common object beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 14–16].

Standard of Proof – Criminal Trial – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution evidence suffers from contradictions, hostile witnesses and weak medical corroboration – Conviction cannot be sustained – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court dated 17.02.2021 affirming conviction and sentence set aside – All appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 18–20].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown – Article 142 Invoked – Trial Court and High Court rejected husband’s petition under Section 13 on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Parties living separately for nearly two decades – Despite opportunity, mediation failed – Supreme Court held: Marital relationship broken beyond repair – Continued cohabitation futile – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 – [Paras 4–8, 10].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Dissolution Despite Denial by One Party – Respondent-wife opposed divorce and denied cruelty – But long separation and lack of reconciliation attempts justified exceptional exercise of power under Article 142 – Held: Ends of justice warrant granting divorce to avoid further hardship – [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – Lump Sum Settlement – Parties are government teachers – Appellant offered ₹15 lakhs; Court enhanced to ₹20 lakhs – Held: Fair and reasonable amount considering long separation and financial parity – Amount to be paid within two months – [Paras 9–11].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Closure on Divorce – Upon proof of payment of alimony, all pending proceedings between parties arising out of matrimonial dispute shall stand closed – [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Trial Court (14.08.2012) and High Court (28.02.2014) set aside – Decree of divorce granted under Article 142 – ₹20 lakhs directed as full and final alimony – All pending proceedings to stand closed on compliance – [Paras 13–14].

Service Law / Recruitment – Eligibility Condition – Driver Posts – Continuous valid driving licence for two years – Renewal after expiry – Break cannot be treated as “continuous” merely because renewal is granted – After Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, licence does not continue even for a single day beyond expiry and renewal takes effect from date of renewal – “Continuously” means uninterrupted legal capacity to drive – High Court orders treating expired-and-later-renewed licences as continuous set aside – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 22-35].

Recruitment Notification – Technical qualification – “Must have possessed… LMV (Transport) / HMV licence… continuously for full two years and above as on date of notification” – Meaning – Must be read literally to require unbroken validity with no intervening period of expiry/disqualification – Weight must be given to use of word “continuously” and not treated as redundant [Paras 25, 32-33].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 14 & 15 (post-2019) – Proviso to Section 14 granting 30-day continuation after expiry omitted – Statute now does not allow licence to continue after expiry even for a single day – Section 15 only provides a window for renewal but does not erase the legal disability during interregnum – Harmonious construction applied [Paras 27-31].

Interpretation – “Continuously” – Defined as “uninterruptedly; in unbroken sequence; without intermission… without intervening time” (Black’s Law Dictionary) – Applied to conclude that backdated/retrospective effect of renewal cannot be used to claim continuous validity for the gap period [Para 33].

Selection Process – Driving test at later stage – Does not dilute threshold eligibility – Candidate cannot gain eligibility merely because later driving proficiency is tested – Otherwise similarly placed candidates who did not apply considering themselves ineligible would be prejudiced (equality concern) [Para 34].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court Division Bench judgment dated 03/10/2023 and Single Judge interim orders dated 13/03/2023 & 28/03/2023 set aside – Underlying writ petitions dismissed – Recruitment process directed to be completed expeditiously, within three months – No order as to costs – Connected Diary No.12553/2024 appeals also allowed on same terms [Paras 35-37].