Adherence to Schedule – Admission and Affiliation – Petitioners challenged the denial of affiliation for not meeting the cut-off date – Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to the schedule for admission and affiliation set by previous judgments – No exceptions to the prescribed schedule permitted – Authorities directed to process applications within the stipulated timeframe [Paras 1-19].

Statutory Obligations – Recognition and Affiliation – Court highlighted the statutory obligation of universities and state authorities to comply with the timeframes for recognition and affiliation as per NCTE Regulations and previous court judgments – Any deviation or delay amounts to contempt of court [Paras 20-26].

Doctrine of Repugnancy – Conflict Between State and Central Laws – Discussed the principle of repugnancy where state laws conflict with central laws, particularly in the context of educational regulations – Central law prevails in case of direct conflict [Paras 27-33].

Decision – Writ Petitions and Appeals Disposed of – Held – Petitioners directed to comply with the stipulated schedules – Authorities to consider applications for affiliation within three months – No relief granted to institutions failing to meet cut-off dates – Directions issued for strict adherence to schedules in future [Paras 34-36].

Arbitration – Survivability of Arbitration Agreement – Arbitration clause naming two arbitrators who passed away – Whether the arbitration agreement survives the death of the named arbitrators – Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause does not automatically terminate upon the death of named arbitrators – Parties can appoint substitute arbitrators unless expressly prohibited [Paras 1-24].

Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – The appointment of substitute arbitrators must follow the same procedure as the initial appointment – Court emphasizes a liberal interpretation to support the efficacy of arbitration [Paras 14-17].

Arbitration Clause Interpretation – Words "at any time" in the arbitration clause – Court interpreted it contextually and reasonably to mean the agreement remains active as long as disputes exist, not limited to the lifetime of the named arbitrators [Paras 18-22].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court justified in appointing a substitute arbitrator – Arbitration clause survives the death of the named arbitrators [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Validity – Review petition challenging the summoning order issued by the Magistrate – Summons issued to Nupur Talwar and her husband for the murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj – Allegations of improper evaluation of evidence by the Magistrate [Paras 1-24].

Review Petition – Grounds – Petitioner argued that the Magistrate failed to consider alternative inferences and overlooked material facts – Supreme Court evaluated whether the Magistrate's order was based on sufficient grounds for proceeding [Paras 15-17].

Procedure – Recording Reasons – Supreme Court upheld the necessity for the Magistrate to record reasons for issuing summons – Magistrate's detailed reasoning, though lengthy, justified in the context of rejecting the CBI's closure report and summoning the complainant as an accused [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – Summoning order upheld – Supreme Court found no error in the Magistrate’s reasoning and detailed order – The matter to proceed to trial based on the material collected during investigation [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Attempted Rape – Appellant Jugendra Singh convicted for attempting to rape and subsequently murdering a nine-year-old girl – Trial court acquitted the appellant due to perceived inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative medical evidence – High Court reversed acquittal, emphasizing the strength of prosecution evidence and logical inferences – Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision, confirming the conviction [Paras 1-40].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Inconsistencies – Trial court noted discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence, leading to acquittal – High Court and Supreme Court found the trial court's focus on minor inconsistencies misplaced – Emphasized the overall credibility of witnesses and the logical coherence of their accounts [Paras 11-33].

Medical Evidence – Consistency with Prosecution Case – Medical report confirmed cause of death as asphyxia due to throttling, supporting witness testimonies – Supreme Court criticized trial court for misinterpreting medical evidence and ignoring logical conclusions drawn by the High Court [Paras 28-31].

Appellate Review – Reversing Acquittal – Supreme Court discussed principles for reversing acquittals, emphasizing appellate court's power to re-evaluate evidence and correct perverse findings – Highlighted need for comprehensive analysis and logical conclusions in cases of serious crimes [Paras 17-26].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Supreme Court recognized the societal impact of the crime and supported the High Court’s decision to impose a stringent sentence, underscoring the need to address heinous crimes against children decisively [Paras 38-40].

Constitutional Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Competence of Authority – Charge memo issued to respondent by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority – Tribunal and High Court quashed the charge memo on the ground of incompetence – Supreme Court upheld quashing due to lack of proper delegation and passage of time, leaving the legal question open [Paras 1-18].

Article 311 – Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, provided proper authorization exists – Emphasized that dismissal or removal must be by the appointing authority or an authority not below it [Paras 4-8].

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court noted significant delay in the case, with over two decades passing since the alleged misconduct – Recognized practical difficulties in proceeding with the inquiry after such a long period, including potential unavailability of evidence [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – Supreme Court declined to proceed on merits due to the lapse of time and absence of necessary authorization for the charge memo – No costs awarded [Para 18].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appellant convicted for demanding and accepting bribe – Trial court and High Court found the appellant guilty based on witness testimony and recovery of tainted money – Supreme Court upheld conviction, confirming demand and acceptance of bribe were proven beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-18].

Section 20 Presumption – Rebuttal of Presumption – Appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act – Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption is obligatory and can be rebutted only by direct or circumstantial evidence – Appellant’s explanations were found insufficient [Paras 13-17].

Judicial Discretion under Article 142 – Supreme Court declined to exercise discretion under Article 142 to reduce the sentence – Noted that reducing the sentence would contradict the legislative intent of imposing minimum sentences for corruption offenses – Emphasized the need for stringent measures to curb corruption [Paras 19-23].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the minimum sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court – Declined to reduce the sentence despite mitigating factors [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Appellant convicted for rape – Trial court and High Court heavily relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix – Supreme Court found material contradictions and embellishments in prosecutrix’s testimony – Noted failure to consider defense evidence properly – Conviction set aside due to benefit of doubt [Paras 1-25].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Inconsistencies – Supreme Court noted significant contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony, including discrepancies between her statements to police and in court – Highlighted the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimony in criminal cases [Paras 7-15].

Medical Evidence – Limited Support – Medical evidence indicated the possibility of rape but was inconclusive – Supreme Court emphasized that medical evidence must corroborate the prosecutrix’s testimony to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 9-10].

Defense Evidence – Ignored by Lower Courts – Supreme Court criticized the trial court and High Court for ignoring the defense’s evidence and arguments – Emphasized that all evidence must be considered to ensure a fair trial [Paras 6, 12-14].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Supreme Court granted benefit of doubt to the appellant – Directed that bail bonds be discharged [Paras 24-25].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appellants convicted for demanding and accepting bribe – Concurrent findings by trial court and High Court based on witness testimony and recovery of tainted money – Supreme Court upheld conviction, confirming the demand and acceptance of bribe were proven beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-15].

Section 20 Presumption – Rebuttal of Presumption – Appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act – Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption is obligatory and can be rebutted only by direct or circumstantial evidence – Appellants’ explanations were found insufficient [Paras 8-9].

Necessity of Shadow Witness – Supreme Court noted that while the presence of a shadow witness is desirable, its absence does not vitiate the trap proceedings – Emphasized the reliability of witness testimonies and absence of contradictions [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Convictions upheld – However, considering the long duration since the incident and the appellants’ severe ailments, Supreme Court reduced the sentence to one year [Para 15].

Service Law – Retrospective Seniority and Consequential Benefits – Appellants sought benefits similar to those granted to similarly placed candidates – Tribunal and High Court denied relief due to delay and laches – Supreme Court upheld the decisions, noting the appellants' delayed approach and the principle that seniority claims must be made promptly [Paras 1-31].

Doctrine of Parity – Appellants argued for parity with peers granted retrospective benefits – Supreme Court emphasized that claims must be raised timely and cannot be based on others' outcomes without similar legal actions – Delay and laches were significant factors against the appellants [Paras 17-23].

Necessary Parties – Absence of similarly placed candidates from the proceedings – Supreme Court noted that affected parties must be impleaded to ensure fair adjudication – Non-impleadment of peers who were granted benefits hindered the appellants' claim [Paras 28-30].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants' claims for retrospective seniority and benefits – Emphasized timely pursuit of claims and the necessity of including affected parties in the proceedings [Para 31].