Constitutional Law – Gender Discrimination – Recruitment in JAG Branch of Indian Army – Notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 permits induction of women into JAG branch – Petitioners, more meritorious female candidates (Ranks 4 and 5 in female list with 477 & 447 marks) denied selection in favour of less meritorious male candidate (Rank 3 in male list with 433 marks) due to separate gender-based merit lists and allocation of only 3 vacancies for women vs 6 for men – Held: Once women are allowed in a corps/branch under Section 12, executive cannot restrict their numbers or reserve seats for men by policy/administrative instruction – Such restriction not supported by statutory backing, violates Articles 14, 15, 16, and amounts to indirect discrimination – Combined merit list must be prepared as testing parameters are identical for men and women – Gender-neutral policy means selection of most meritorious candidates irrespective of gender, with at least 50% seats for women to compensate past exclusion, but no ceiling if more meritorious – Merit-based selection will improve efficiency of JAG – Respondents directed to induct Petitioner No.1 in next course, reject claim of less meritorious male candidate – Future recruitments to be on combined merit with marks published [Paras 38-50, 51-54, 55-58, 59-61, 62-68, 69-71, 72-82, 83, 84-87, 88-92, 93-99, 100-103, 104, 105-110, 111-118].

Army Law – Section 12 Army Act – Extent of Induction – Notifications of 1992 permitted women in 10 specified Combat Support Arms/Services including JAG – No statutory provision empowers executive to limit induction numbers within these branches – Administrative instructions/circulars of 2011 and 2012 imposing such limits are contrary to law – Principle: When statute prescribes a mode, it must be done in that manner or not at all – Reservation for male officers in permitted branches impermissible [Paras 38-50, 51-54].

Indirect Discrimination – 50:50 recruitment policy from 2024 facially equal but in practice disadvantages women – Evidence shows women candidates scored higher than men yet were excluded due to fixed ratio – Indirect discrimination occurs when facially neutral criteria have disproportionate adverse impact – Ceiling on female intake perpetuates historical exclusion and violates substantive equality – Selection must be merit-based without arbitrary gender ceilings [Paras 93-99].

Gender-Neutral vs Gender-Equal – Gender-equality means equal numbers; gender-neutrality means selection irrespective of gender based on merit – 2023 policy professes gender-neutrality but implemented as gender-equality with a fixed ratio, undermining merit – True gender-neutral recruitment must select best candidates regardless of gender, with 50% minimum for women only as compensatory measure, not maximum limit [Paras 84-92, 104].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Notification restricting female vacancies in JAG branch quashed to that extent – Petitioner No.1 to be inducted in next available course – Union of India directed to conduct future recruitments with combined merit list for men and women, publish marks and merit lists, and ensure compliance with constitutional mandate of equality [Paras 115-118].

Civil Law - Ex Parte Injunction – Mandatory Procedural Compliance – Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Trial Court's Injunction Set Aside – The High Court set aside an ex parte injunction granted to the petitioner real estate company on the ground that there was no prima facie case, no claim to ownership or specific performance, and that the application did not comply with mandatory procedural safeguards under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Held: Ex parte injunctions must comply strictly with the requirements of law including the recording of reasons and service of documents – Non-compliance justifies vacation of injunction without going into merits [Paras 1–7].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Improper Grant of Injunction – High Court's Intervention Upheld – The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, found the Trial Court order to be mechanical and lacking judicial application – Court directed transfer of case to another competent court for fresh hearing on injunction – Held: Inappropriate use of ex parte injunction without meeting legal thresholds warrants High Court’s interference under Article 227 [Paras 2, 5-6].

Transfer of Suit – Administrative Action Against Judicial Impropriety – Suit Transferred – In view of manner in which ex parte order was passed, the High Court ordered administrative placement of records before Administrative Judge for possible action – Held: Supervisory control may include corrective administrative measures in the interest of judicial propriety [Para 2].

Final Decision – Supreme Court Declines to Interfere – Hearing Fixed Before Trial Court – Supreme Court observed that since hearing on injunction was scheduled for the next day, it would not interfere with the High Court order – Directed Trial Court to hear both parties afresh and decide injunction application uninfluenced by prior observations – SLP disposed of [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Sections 307, 225, 186, 332, 353 & 120B IPC – Appeal Dismissed – Undertrial escorted by PW.1 & PW.2 was shifted, at appellant (Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail) instance, into a private Qualis with unknown men; near village stop on appellant’s pretext, chilli powder thrown and knife/kirpan used; attempt to free undertrial foiled due to handcuffs; appellant fled uninjured – Trial court conviction and High Court affirmation upheld; sentences concurrent – Held: chain of circumstances establishes conspiracy; single injured eyewitness reliable; Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning proper [Paras 2–4, 16–18, 19–22].

Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Prior police exoneration no bar – Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh followed – A person not named in FIR/charge-sheet may be summoned if trial evidence indicates involvement – No need to await cross-examination for 319 – Degree of satisfaction akin to framing charge – Summoning of appellant justified on PW.2’s testimony [Paras 16, 16.1; extracts of Hardeep Singh para 117].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Proof by circumstantial evidence – No overt act required – Inference from conduct before/during/after occurrence; concert of purpose suffices – Appellant suggested private vehicle with unknown men, orchestrated stop, remained passive, fled uninjured – Continuous chain of incriminating circumstances proves conspiracy; conviction with aid of 120B sustainable [Paras 17–17.4, 19.1–19.2].

Evidence – Hostile witnesses – Usable parts may be relied upon – PW.1 and driver PW.10 partly hostile, yet narrative on occurrence and roles supports prosecution – Law well settled that hostile testimony is not effaced and credible portions can be acted upon [Paras 14–15, 18–18.3].

Single eyewitness – Section 134 Evidence Act – Conviction can rest on injured eyewitness – PW.2’s account consistent, detailed (seating, stop on “nature call”, chilli powder, knife/kirpan injuries), corroborated by medical evidence; reliability enhanced as injured witness [Paras 12.2–12.3.1, 18.4–18.8].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Intent and weapon use decisive – Knife/kirpan blows and chilli-powder incapacitation during escape attempt indicate premeditated intent – Simple nature of injuries does not negate Section 307 when intention and means established [Paras 12.3–12.3.1, 8.4].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentences affirmed; no mitigating factor; appellant to be taken into custody; sentences to run concurrently [Paras 19–22].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Compounding of Offence – Conviction Quashed – Appellant convicted for dishonour of cheque of ₹5 lakhs – Courts below upheld sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and ₹1,000 fine – During pendency of SLP, parties amicably settled the matter and complainant filed affidavit of no objection – Held: Section 147 makes offence compoundable at any stage – Compromise was voluntary and supported by payment through demand drafts and post-dated cheques – Conviction set aside and appeal allowed [Paras 1–12].

Settlement – Civil Nature of NI Act Offence – Court Recognizes Private Dispute – Referring to Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, and P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat, Court reaffirmed that Section 138 proceedings are primarily civil in nature and brought into criminal realm for deterrent effect – When dispute is settled, further prosecution becomes an abuse of process [Paras 5–7].

Voluntary Compromise – Binding Effect – Acceptance of Settlement – Court referred to Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Goel and B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana to hold that once parties voluntarily settle the dispute with full knowledge and without coercion, complainant cannot oppose acquittal – Held: Settlement overrides continued prosecution [Paras 8–10].

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – Impugned order of High Court dated 27.03.2025 and concurrent conviction by Trial and Appellate Courts quashed – Appeal allowed – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 12–13].

Motor Accident Liability – Insurer’s Obligation – Appeal Allowed – Appellant, ostensible owner/driver, challenged High Court’s absolution of insurer from liability for compensation in three claim petitions—Supreme Court held that deceased/injured were owners of goods accompanying their goods in a goods vehicle, hence covered as third parties under Section 147(1)(b)(i) MV Act—Finding of gratuitous passengers by High Court set aside—Ownership remained with registered owner at accident time; insurer bound to indemnify [Paras 7-11].

Gratuitous Passengers – Evidence – Tribunal’s factual finding that victims were accompanying goods for security, hence not gratuitous passengers, upheld—Insurer’s assertion lacked substantiation; no seizure mahazar or criminal case records produced—High Court erred in reversing finding without material [Paras 7-8].

Transfer of Ownership – Possession vs. Ownership – Agreement showed only possession with balance consideration unpaid; registration not transferred as per Section 50 MV Act—Registered owner continued to be ‘owner’ for liability purposes—Naveen Kumar applied; liability falls on registered owner and indemnifiable by insurer [Paras 9-10].

Selective Appeals by Insurer – High Court failed to address claimants’ contention that insurer challenged only three of eleven awards—No rebuttal by insurer—Irrelevant in light of insurer’s liability being upheld [Para 11].

Decision – C.A. Nos. 6338-6339/2024 and 6340/2024 allowed; C.A. Nos. 6341/2024 and 6342/2024 dismissed as settled in Lok Adalat—Awards to be satisfied by insurer with interest as per Tribunal/High Court directions [Paras 6, 12].

Motor Accident Compensation – Cancelled Insurance Policy – Pay and Recovery – Appeal Disposed – Offending vehicle’s insurance policy cancelled over three months before accident due to dishonoured premium cheque; insurer intimated owner and RTO—Tribunal and High Court still directed insurer to pay claimants and recover from owner—Supreme Court applied Deddappa and United India Insurance principles: insurer absolved in law upon cancellation before accident with intimation, yet, in exercise of Article 142 powers, pay-and-recover direction sustained in part—No recovery from claimants for 50% already paid; insurer may recover that amount from owner—Remaining 50% recoverable by claimants from owner [Paras 3.1-6].

Cancellation of Policy – Effect on Third Party Claims – While cancellation before accident generally negates liability, Court balanced equities by protecting amounts already disbursed to claimants—Avoided reopening settled part-payments to prevent hardship [Paras 5.3-5.7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed; insurer permitted to recover 50% already paid from vehicle owner; claimants to recover remaining 50% from owner—No recovery from claimants for amounts withdrawn [Para 6].

Motor Accident Compensation – Self-Employed Person Abroad – Appeal Partly Allowed – Claimants challenged High Court’s award of ₹1,17,20,200/- for accidental death of 31-year-old U.S. national, contending omission of “future prospects” – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s income assessment of ₹78,300/- per month but applied 40% addition towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi, revised conventional heads, and recalculated total compensation to ₹1,60,15,280/- – Additional sum of ₹42,95,080/- with 6% interest awarded [Paras 3.7, 5.3-5.8].

Assessment of Income – High Court Correct in Relying on Foreign Earnings Evidence – Salary certificate, tax records with social security number, and U.S. minimum wage data properly considered – Tribunal’s finding of ₹5,000/- per month rejected – No cross-objections from insurer; SC maintained High Court’s income computation [Paras 3.5, 3.7].

Future Prospects – Self-Employed – 40% Addition Applicable – Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi clarified benefit applies to self-employed persons below 40 years – Applied despite complexities of assessing prospects abroad; lack of contrary evidence justified standard addition – Multiplier of 16 upheld [Paras 4, 5.1-5.5].

Conventional Heads – Figures Aligned with Pranay Sethi – Loss of estate ₹15,000/-, funeral expenses ₹15,000/-, loss of consortium ₹40,000/- per dependent (four dependents: ₹1,60,000/-) – Medical/transportation expenses not allowed [Paras 5.5-5.7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Additional ₹42,95,080/- with 6% interest to be deposited by insurer within four weeks before Tribunal; claimants to withdraw upon verification [Paras 6-7].

Motor Accident Claim – Death of Minor – Tribunal’s award restored – Appeal by parents against High Court’s reduction of compensation from Rs.8,55,000/- to Rs.5,80,000/- – Supreme Court held that Tribunal’s assessment of Rs.5,000/- monthly income for a 10-year-old child under Section 166 MV Act was proper, no deduction for personal expenses applicable, multiplier of 15 justified, and certain heads of compensation wrongly deleted by the High Court – Order of Tribunal reinstated [Paras 5-7].

Quantum of Income – Schedule II in Section 163A vs. Section 166 – High Court erred in applying Schedule II (Rs.30,000/- p.a.) meant for ‘no-fault’ claims under Section 163A – Tribunal’s reliance on Division Bench precedent adopting Rs.5,000/- monthly income for minor upheld – No deduction for personal expenses in case of minor’s death – Multiplier of 15 correct considering mother’s age [Paras 5-6].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Filial Consortium and Funeral Expenses – As per Pranay Sethi, Rs.40,000/- each for both parents allowed – Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- maintained – High Court’s deletion of transportation expenses and loss of dress/ornaments/cycle set aside – Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- upheld – Recomputed total Rs.8,70,000/- [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Tribunal’s award of Rs.8,55,000/- restored – Amount to be paid within one month after deducting sums already deposited, with interest as directed by Tribunal/High Court [Para 7].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Benefit of Doubt – Appeal Allowed – Acquittal -  Appellant convicted with husband under Section 302 IPC for beating victim with sticks following land dispute—Supreme Court noted contradictions between medical evidence and prosecution’s timeline, unexplained injuries on victim’s parents, admitted family enmity over partition, and improbabilities in alleged dying declaration—Body found at victim’s house despite alleged assault at temple—Only PW-7, victim’s father with strained relations, claimed to witness attack; other witnesses only saw accused fleeing—Held: Reasonable doubt exists; conviction set aside; appellant acquitted [Paras 1-11].

Medical Evidence vs. Eyewitness Testimony – Doctor opined death occurred between 10-12 p.m., inconsistent with claim that victim died before 9 p.m.—Weapon (danda) allegedly recovered from appellant not chemically examined nor linked to fatal injury—Lack of clarity on cause and time of death undermined prosecution case [Paras 2-7].

Unexplained Injuries on Witnesses – PW-7 and victim’s mother had incised wounds possibly self-inflicted; prosecution failed to explain—Supports defence of intra-family dispute and alternative narrative [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside—Appellant acquitted; to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case; bail bonds cancelled [Paras 11-13].