Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Ground of Desertion – Consent of Parties – Decree Modified under Article 142 – Family Court and High Court granted divorce on ground of desertion – Appellant contested desertion, but agreed to dissolution by mutual consent during Supreme Court hearing – Respondent also agreed – Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 to modify the decree to reflect mutual consent and not desertion – Marriage dissolved accordingly – [Paras 5–8].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Consent Divorce Ordered by Supreme Court – Where parties unequivocally agreed to separation and reconciliation failed, Court invoked Article 142 to substitute contested decree with one based on mutual consent – Held: In view of irretrievable breakdown, ends of justice warrant such course – [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – One-time Settlement – Both parties being financially independent – Supreme Court fixed Rs. 25 lakhs as full and final settlement – Amount to be deposited within two months and drawn by wife – All pending disputes (civil/criminal) to be closed upon compliance – [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Appeal disposed – Divorce decree based on desertion set aside – Marriage dissolved by consent under Article 142 – Rs. 25 lakhs directed as full settlement – Pending proceedings to stand closed on payment compliance – [Paras 8–13].

Forest Conservation – Lease of Forest Land for Agriculture – Illegality – State granted lease of 134 acres 6 guntas of forest land to cooperative society for agricultural purpose – Cultivation involved clearing trees and deforestation – Lease not liable to be extended and could not be continued through representation mechanism – High Court erred in granting liberty to seek continuation/extension through Central Government consideration – Held: permission for non-forest use (agriculture) is barred under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 without prior Central approval and continuation would perpetuate illegality [Paras 4, 5, 13-16].

Forest Land – Eviction Proceedings – Possession Taken – After lease termination and dismissal of earlier writ petitions/suits/appeals, Forest Department initiated eviction under Karnataka Forest Act/Manual – Eviction order passed – Department took possession on 23/01/2007 and placed caution boards – Held: once possession reverted to Forest Department, direction allowing respondent to seek continuation of lease is unsustainable [Paras 8-10, 16].

Environment & Forests – Non-dereservation Directions – Binding effect – Reliance on Supreme Court’s continuing mandamus/orders restraining de-reservation and requiring cessation of non-forest activities without Central approval – Held: cultivation on forest land is a non-forest purpose; no permission could be granted to allow such use contrary to Section 2 FCA and Court directions [Paras 11-14].

Relief – Restoration/Reafforestation – Mandatory direction – Appeal allowed – High Court orders set aside insofar as they enabled representation for continuation of lease – Forest Department directed to restore forest on 134 acres by planting indigenous species in consultation with experts – Compliance within 12 months – Matter listed for compliance report on 17/12/2026 [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court directions permitting representation for continuation of lease set aside – Forest Department directed to restore forest land by plantation of indigenous trees – Compliance within 12 months – Listed on 17/12/2026 for compliance report.

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.

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].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Bail – Suspension of Sentence – High Court granted bail to co-accused (father and son) convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC citing delay in FIR submission and absence of original inquest report – Supreme Court held such grounds irrelevant and unsustainable – Convicts were armed and actively participated in a premeditated group assault – Held: Suspension of sentence in such grave offences requires exceptional circumstances, which were absent – High Court erred in applying lenient standards [Paras 5.3–6.5, 7–9 of both appeals]

Criminal Procedure – Section 389 CrPC – Scope – Convicts sentenced to life imprisonment not entitled to bail as a matter of course – Judicial precedents mandate restraint – Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence ceases post-conviction – Reiterated principles in Hasmat, Shakuntala Shukla, Omprakash Sahni, Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai – [Paras 6.1–6.5]

Joint Liability – Role of Instigation – Presence with Firearms – Both accused (Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto) instigated killing and were armed – Witness testimonies and medical evidence corroborated coordinated assault leading to death – Instigation and armed presence established common object of unlawful assembly – Active role ruled out leniency [Paras 5.5–5.6, 7–9]

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference with Bail – Held: High Court misapplied law by equating “instigation” with lesser culpability – Ignored gravity of offence and evidence on record – Bail order set aside – Convicts directed to surrender within 10 days [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court orders dated 28.08.2024 and 16.01.2025 suspending sentence and granting bail to Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto set aside – Both respondents directed to surrender – Police to ensure compliance within time permitted [Paras 10–11 of both judgments]

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 - Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Acquittal – Conviction based solely on “last seen together” without corroborative evidence is unsustainable – Appellant alleged to have taken deceased on motorcycle and later found to be dead – Trial Court and High Court convicted based on testimonies of PW-18 and PW-20 – Supreme Court held: Mere fact of last seen together, in absence of complete chain of evidence or motive, insufficient for conviction – Benefit of doubt must be extended – [Paras 1–6, 15–24, 34].

Evidence Law – Section 106 Evidence Act – Failure to explain last seen not conclusive – Court reiterated that Section 106 does not shift burden of proof from prosecution – Adverse inference under Section 106 applicable only when prosecution has established complete chain of incriminating facts – [Paras 29–33].

Motive – Lack of Proof – Prosecution claimed motive of looting a tractor to raise money to retrieve jeep – No evidence proving theft or sale of tractor by appellant – Recovery of tractor one month later from another location – Held: Motive not established – [Paras 15(i)].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – Appellant convicted while co-accused acquitted on same evidence – Discrimination and incomplete chain of circumstances – Held: Possibility of appellant’s guilt insufficient; chain of evidence not complete – Acquittal directed – [Paras 7, 34].

Precedents – Application of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles – Supreme Court reaffirmed five golden rules for conviction on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution failed to meet cumulative threshold – [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Appeal allowed – [Paras 34–36].

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.

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Section 45A – Jurisdiction – Preconditions – Determination of contribution – Corporation invoked Section 45A to assess contribution for period 1988–1992 – Employer had produced ledgers, cash books, vouchers, contractor records and returns and had participated in multiple personal hearings – Held: Section 45A can be invoked only when there is complete non-production of records under Section 44 or obstruction to inspection under Section 45 – Mere inadequacy or dissatisfaction with records does not amount to non-production – Invocation of Section 45A in such circumstances is without jurisdiction [Paras 24–27, 30–31].

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Section 45A vs Section 75 – Distinct statutory fields – Section 45A is a special and exceptional provision providing for best-judgment determination in cases of default or obstruction – Where records are produced and cooperation is forthcoming, assessment must be undertaken through adjudicatory mechanism under Section 75 – Section 45A is not an alternative assessment mechanism available at the discretion of the Corporation [Paras 20–22, 24–26].

Limitation – Section 77(1A)(b) – Five-year bar – Applicability – Proviso to Section 77(1A)(b) applies to claims initiated by the Corporation before the Employees’ Insurance Court – Though Section 45A per se does not prescribe limitation, its invocation is conditioned on jurisdictional facts – Corporation cannot bypass limitation under Section 77 by wrongly resorting to Section 45A when statutory conditions are absent [Paras 22–24, 28–29].

Appellate Review – Error of jurisdiction – Employees’ Insurance Court and High Court failed to examine whether conditions precedent for invoking Section 45A existed – Acceptance of production of records and cooperation by employer rendered Section 45A proceedings unsustainable – Orders passed by Corporation, Employees’ Insurance Court and High Court vitiated by jurisdictional error [Paras 25, 29–31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 17.04.2000 passed by ESI Corporation under Section 45A set aside – Order dated 06.07.2015 of Employees’ Insurance Court and judgment dated 12.10.2023 of Madras High Court set aside – No order as to costs.