Education Law – Private University – Act Declared Ultra Vires – Protection of Degrees Already Awarded – Appellants obtained B.Lib degrees in 2004 from University established under Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 – Act declared ultra vires in Prof. Yash Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh – Services terminated on ground that University ceased to exist – Held: Students who had already passed out prior to declaration of Act as ultra vires cannot be penalized when University was validly established at the relevant time and not shown to be bogus – Degrees protected [Paras 13, 16].

Service Law – Termination – Appointment Based on Degree from University Established Under Invalidated Statute – Appellants appointed as librarians in 2010 and worked for over five years – No objection raised at time of appointment despite judgment in Prof. Yash Pal case being in public domain – Termination solely on ground of invalidity of parent Act – Held: Termination illegal as appellants not at fault and had studied in institution validly functioning at relevant time – Orders of termination set aside [Paras 14, 17].

Constitutional Law – Declaration of Statute as Ultra Vires – Effect on Past Transactions – Though Sections 5 and 6 of 2002 Act struck down resulting in cessation of universities, Supreme Court in Prof. Yash Pal protected interests of students studying at that time – In present case, Court extends protection to students who had already completed courses prior to judgment – Principle that innocent students should not suffer for legislative invalidity applied [Paras 11-12, 16].

Relief – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Appellants directed to be reinstated with continuity of service – However, no back wages granted for intervening period as they had not actually worked and matter not solely attributable to State – Balance of equities maintained [Para 18].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court judgments set aside – Termination orders quashed – Appellants to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages – Pending applications disposed of.

Sentence – Death Penalty Commuted – Life Imprisonment Without Remission Till Natural Life – Modification by Supreme Court – Appellants convicted for kidnapping, rape and murder of minor victim and destruction of evidence – Trial Court imposed death penalty – High Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment without possibility of remission till end of natural life – Appeal confined to quantum of sentence – Held: Interest of justice would be served by modifying sentence to life imprisonment for a fixed term of twenty years without remission – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 4-8].

Remission – Scope of Judicial Power – Double Hardship Argument – Appellants contended that life imprisonment till natural life without remission imposed twin hardship of indefinite incarceration and denial of statutory remission – Referred to principles in Union of India v. V. Sriharan and subsequent precedents – Supreme Court balanced brutality of offence with possibility of reformation – Modified sentence to fixed term of twenty years without remission instead of whole natural life – Held: Fixed term sentence without remission appropriate in facts of case [Paras 5-8].

Sentencing Principles – Young Age of Accused – Possibility of Reformation – Appellants aged 22 and 19 years at time of offence and had undergone over eleven years of incarceration – While crime was heinous involving kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of child, High Court itself found no material to conclude that appellants were beyond reformation – Supreme Court held that ends of justice met by imposing life imprisonment for twenty years without remission rather than incarceration till end of natural life [Paras 3, 6-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Sentence modified to life imprisonment for a period of twenty years without remission – Pending applications disposed of.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Section 7 – Admission of CIRP – Scope of Inquiry – Adjudicating Authority required only to ascertain existence of financial debt and default – Not required to examine business viability, equities or inability to pay – Ratio in Innoventive Industries reaffirmed – Vidarbha Industries confined to its peculiar facts – Admission lawful once default established [Paras 30-38, 40].

IBC – Section 10A – COVID-19 Suspension – Date of Default – Corporate Debtor defaulted on 31.03.2018 under common loan agreement – Restructuring proposals subject to pre-implementation conditions never fructified – Even assuming restructuring, first instalment under second proposal due on 31.03.2021 beyond Section 10A window (25.03.2020 to 24.03.2021) – Held: Section 10A bar not attracted [Paras 25-27].

Contract Law – Novation – Loan Restructuring – Pre-Implementation Conditions – Restructuring proposals dated 21.02.2020 and 29.09.2020 contingent upon fulfilment of conditions including favourable tariff order, creation of DSRA, demonstration of plant capacity and infusion of priority debt – Non-fulfilment prevented crystallisation into binding agreements – Mere acceptance of part payments does not amount to novation or full satisfaction of debt – Original default survives [Paras 27-28].

IBC – Financial Creditor vs Operational Creditor – Distinction – Financial creditor may initiate CIRP on proof of default of financial debt without pre-demand notice – At admission stage, Adjudicating Authority not to examine disputes or commercial viability – Summary and time-bound nature of proceedings emphasized [Paras 30-34].

Settlement Post-Admission – Section 12A – Commercial Wisdom of CoC – Appellant’s multiple settlement proposals rejected by overwhelming majority – Resolution plan of successful resolution applicant approved by 99.92% voting share – Courts cannot second-guess commercial wisdom of CoC – Post-admission withdrawal governed strictly by statutory framework – No ground to stall CIRP [Paras 41-44].

Article 142 – Limited Exercise – Although Court may exercise plenary powers in appropriate cases, in presence of statutory framework under Section 12A and Regulation 30A, no justification to interdict CIRP – Stay earlier granted vacated [Paras 43-45].

Relief – Appeal dismissed – Stay on CIRP vacated – Application by secured creditor (SEFL) seeking release of Rs.125 crore deposit rejected – Registry directed to refund deposit with accrued interest to Appellant [Paras 45-47].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Admission of Section 7 application upheld – Stay on CIRP vacated – Settlement plea rejected – Deposit of Rs.125 crore to be refunded to Appellant – Interlocutory applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Reduction of Sentence – Trial Court convicted accused under Sections 307, 326 and 324 IPC for inflicting four life-threatening stab injuries – Sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed – High Court in revision confirmed conviction but reduced sentence to period already undergone (two months) on ground of lapse of 10½ years, subsequent murder of victim in unrelated incident and offer of ₹1,00,000 as compensation – Held: High Court acted in complete defiance of settled sentencing principles – Reduction illegal and unsustainable – Trial Court judgment restored [Paras 18-19, 37-39].

Sentencing Policy – Proportionality – Just Deserts – Cardinal principle is that punishment must be proportionate to gravity of offence – Undue sympathy leading to inadequate sentence undermines public confidence in justice system – Mere lapse of time cannot be decisive mitigating factor – Courts must balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances while keeping societal interest in view [Paras 22-27, 34].

Revision Jurisdiction – Improper Exercise – High Court, while exercising revisional powers, reduced sentence without cogent reasoning and without considering gravity of life-threatening injuries – Failure to apply judicial mind to sentencing factors amounts to perversity warranting interference by Supreme Court [Paras 19, 37].

Victim Compensation – Not a Substitute for Punishment – Section 357 CrPC (now Section 395 BNSS) provides for compensatory relief to victim but compensation is restitutory and in addition to sentence – Enhancement of compensation coupled with reduction of sentence in grave offences sends dangerous message that liability can be “purchased by money” – Practice deprecated – Compensation cannot replace punitive and deterrent function of sentence [Paras 29-33].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Objectives of Punishment – Protection of society and deterrence against crime are primary aims – Retribution not ultimate object but deterrence and reformation must not dilute proportional punishment – Sentence must reflect conscience of society and respond to society’s cry for justice [Paras 21-24, 27-28].

Guidelines on Sentencing – Factors to be Considered – Court enumerated basic factors: (A) Proportionality between crime and punishment – (B) Consideration of facts and evidence – (C) Impact on society and public trust – (D) Balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances – Courts cautioned against mechanical and capricious reduction of sentences [Para 34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2013 as affirmed by First Appellate Court restored – Private Respondents directed to surrender within four weeks and serve remaining sentence after adjustment of period already undergone – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 38-40].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder of Minor Child – Conviction based on three circumstances, namely, last seen together, recovery of bone remnants on information supplied by accused and DNA matching with biological parents – Held: Circumstances did not form complete chain leading only to hypothesis of guilt – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction set aside [Paras 2, 18-19].

Last Seen Theory – Failure of Prosecution – Allegation that accused took child on motorbike on 05.10.2018 – However, accused arrested in assault case on 06.10.2018 and released on 08.10.2018 – Missing complaint lodged only on 11.10.2018 – Oral report suggested child missing after arrest – No prompt complaint despite knowledge that child went with accused – Held: Last seen theory unreliable and fails miserably [Paras 8-9].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery Statement – Recovery of burnt bones and skull pursuant to memorandum dated 13.10.2018 at 10.30 A.M. – Arrest memo showed arrest only at 22.00 hrs on same day – Accused not in police custody at time of statement – Held: Statement not admissible under Section 27 as custody is sine qua non – However, fact of recovery admissible as conduct under Section 8 – Such evidence only a link in chain and insufficient by itself for conviction [Paras 10-15, 18].

Evidence Act – Section 8 – Conduct of Accused – Accused leading police to field and canal for recovery of bone remnants – Even if Section 27 not attracted, conduct relevant under Section 8 – But such conduct is a weak piece of evidence and requires corroboration – Cannot by itself establish guilt [Paras 14-15, 18].

DNA Evidence – Limited Corroborative Value – DNA profiles of vertebrae and teeth recovered from canal matched with biological parents – Skull and bones recovered from field did not match – Matching establishes death of child but not involvement of accused – DNA matching put to accused under Section 313 CrPC – No infirmity in that regard – However, evidence insufficient to connect accused to crime [Paras 16-17, 18].

Section 106 Evidence Act – No Adverse Inference – High Court relied on lack of explanation by accused regarding knowledge of recovery site – In absence of complete chain of circumstances and in light of doubtful arrest and investigation lapses, Section 106 cannot fill gaps in prosecution case [Paras 2, 18].

Faulty Investigation – Effect – Interpolation in arrest memo and inconsistencies regarding date and time of arrest created serious doubt – Though every faulty investigation does not enure to benefit of accused, where evidence insufficient and serious prejudice caused, benefit of doubt must be given [Paras 6, 18].

Benefit of Doubt – Corpus Delicti Not Fully Recovered – No clear time of death established – Delay in lodging missing complaint – Serious gaps in prosecution case – Held: Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 19, 21].

Criminal Law – Sections 107, 306, 309, 114 of the IPC - Abetment of Suicide – Suicide Pact – Deceased and accused consumed organophosphate pesticide (Nuvacron) after opposition to their marriage – Deceased died, accused survived – Accused purchased poison and consumed it along with deceased – Held: Participation in suicide pact coupled with procurement of lethal poison constitutes intentional aid under Section 107 IPC – Survivor legally culpable under Section 306 IPC – Reciprocal commitment in suicide pact reinforces resolve of each participant and amounts to abetment [Paras 113-119].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Last Seen – Purchase of Poison – Medical Evidence – Deceased and accused last seen together outside beauty parlour and thereafter admitted together in hospital – Evidence of PW-34 proved purchase of Nuvacron – Hospital records, FSL reports and expert opinions proved death due to organophosphate poisoning – Complete chain established – Conviction upheld [Paras 84-88, 107-110].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Adverse Inference – Deceased and accused alone aware of circumstances of purchase and consumption of poison – Accused in Section 313 CrPC statement denied relationship and hospital admission despite overwhelming evidence – No explanation offered – Held: Adverse inference drawn against accused – Failure to explain constitutes additional link in chain of circumstances [Paras 110-111].

Medical Jurisprudence – Cause of Death – Strangulation Ruled Out – Deceased conscious and coherent at admission – No external injuries consistent with strangulation – Multiple independent expert bodies (State Expert Committee and AIIMS Committee) concluded death due to organophosphate poisoning – Overwhelming ocular and medical evidence established poisoning as cause of death [Paras 79-88].

Rape Allegation – Forensic Evidence – AP FSL and CFSL reports found no semen or spermatozoa – CDFD detected male DNA fraction but did not match accused or suspected persons – No evidence of sexual assault in postmortem or expert reports – Held: Allegation of rape and murder devoid of factual and legal foundation [Paras 89-95].

Postmortem Report – Professional Misconduct – Autopsy surgeon Dr. B. Muni Swamy opined manual strangulation and gang rape without awaiting FSL report – Misinterpreted therapeutic injuries as violent injuries – Gave media interview before submitting report to Investigating Officer – Expert Committees found opinion erroneous and unprofessional – Held: Conduct violated medical ethics and sub judice principles – Constitutes contempt of Court; no further action due to demise of doctor [Paras 98-106].

Criminal Procedure – Public Interest Litigation – Monitoring by High Court – Investigation transferred to CBI – No protest petition filed by complainant against charges under Sections 306 and 309 IPC – At belated appellate stage, allegations of rape and murder cannot be revived [Paras 96-97].

Test Identification Parade – Evidentiary Value – Dock identification by PW-34 and PW-35 admissible – TIP primarily corroborative – Evidence of PW-34 regarding sale of Nuvacron found trustworthy – Minor discrepancies in billing practice immaterial [Paras 107-109].

Defence – Accidental Consumption – Rejected – Accused, an engineering student, knowingly purchased highly toxic pesticide – No evidence of mistake or accident – Defence implausible [Paras 111-112].

Probation – Section 309 IPC – Though conviction under Section 309 IPC upheld, benefit under Probation of Offenders Act not applicable to conviction under Section 306 IPC punishable up to ten years [Paras 52, 73].

Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2012 filed by accused dismissed – Conviction under Sections 306 and 309 IPC affirmed – Criminal Appeal Nos. 894-895 of 2012 filed by mother of deceased dismissed – Appellant directed to surrender within four weeks – No order as to costs [Para 120].

Criminal Law – Bail – Interference with Order Granting Bail – Economic Offence – Accused alleged to have cheated complainant of over ₹6.5 crores by use of forged documents and multiple fake identities – High Court granted bail primarily on ground of parity with co-accused, filing of chargesheet and assumption that offences were triable by Magistrate – Held: Impugned order unsustainable as relevant factors including criminal antecedents, abscondence and seriousness of offences under Sections 409 and 467 IPC were ignored – Order granting bail set aside [Paras 12-14, 21-24].

Bail – Parity Principle – Scope and Limits – High Court extended benefit of bail on parity with co-accused without examining distinctive features of respondent’s conduct – Accused had absconded for over 20 months and was arrested after declaration of reward – Held: Parity cannot be applied mechanically – Court must assess individual role, antecedents and conduct – Blind extension of parity impermissible [Paras 6, 9, 22].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Suppression and Habitual Offender – Material placed on record showed registration of multiple FIRs in different jurisdictions and use of 8–10 aliases with forged Aadhaar and PAN cards – Earlier bail in FIR No. 229 of 2017 followed by abscondence and issuance of non-bailable warrant – Held: Ignoring past criminal record and conduct vitiates bail order – Accused found to be habitual offender and menace to society [Paras 5, 8-11, 20-22].

Criminal Procedure – Triability by Magistrate – Misconception by High Court – High Court proceeded on premise that offences were triable by Magistrate – However, offences under Sections 409 and 467 IPC punishable with life imprisonment or up to ten years – Magistrate’s sentencing powers limited under Section 29 CrPC – Case could be committed under Sections 209 or 323 CrPC – Held: Assumption that case was triable by Magistrate premature and erroneous [Paras 12-14].

Bail Jurisprudence – Liberty of Accused vis-à-vis Societal Interest – Liberty not absolute – In economic offences, societal and economic well-being of victims must be considered – Courts must weigh likelihood of repetition of offences and danger to justice – Where relevant considerations are ignored or order is perverse, superior court justified in setting aside grant of bail [Paras 15-19, 23].

Economic Offences – Impact on Society – Though not heinous offences against person, pecuniary offences affecting hard-earned money of victims affect societal order and economic security – Letting habitual offender loose would pose risk and hazard to society – Bail declined in larger societal interest [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 12.11.2025 granting bail to respondent No.1 set aside – State directed to expedite trial – Pending applications disposed of [Para 24].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Welfare Society of Government Employees – Though registered under the Societies Registration Act, HEWO comprised government officers and functioned with land allotted by Government – Allegations of lack of transparency, arbitrariness and favouritism in allotment of flats – Held: Invocation of Article 226 proper – Governing Body members, being responsible government officers, act in fiduciary capacity and are bound by fairness and transparency [Paras 4-5].

Allotment of Flats – Preferential Allotment to Governing Body Member – Eligibility Criteria – Super deluxe flat allotted to third respondent after last date of application – On relevant date he was neither employee of HUDA nor Governing Body member – Did not satisfy minimum six months’ deputation requirement – No application or earnest money deposited within stipulated time – Communication issued by third respondent to himself in official and individual capacities termed a “complete farce” – Held: Clear act of favouritism and blatant self-aggrandizement – Allotment set aside [Paras 11-14].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Violation of Bye-laws – Preference carved out for Governing Body member cannot override basic eligibility criteria – Allotment made in violation of rules and without adherence to stipulated procedure – Action arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 9, 14].

Allotment by Draw of Lots – Ineligibility of Successful Applicant – Fourth respondent did not satisfy stipulated pay-band level requirement – Governing Body later attempted to regularise allotment on ground that only four out of seven applicants satisfied criteria – Held: No rule requiring minimum number of applicants – Ineligibility could not be cured by subsequent decision – Allotment illegal – Doubts also raised regarding timely submission of application and earnest money – Allotment set aside [Paras 15-16].

Bias and Abuse of Power – Governing Body Member Facilitating Allotment to Himself and Subordinate – Third respondent’s entry into HUDA facilitated preferential allotment to himself and to fourth respondent working under him – Gross abuse of power and authority – Court deprecated nepotism and self-aggrandizement in democratic institutions [Paras 2, 16-17].

Relief – Setting Aside High Court Judgment – Costs – Division Bench of High Court erred in cursorily dismissing writ petition and invoking estoppel against appellant – Supreme Court set aside High Court judgment – Costs imposed: ₹1 lakh on HEWO, ₹50,000 on third respondent, ₹25,000 on fourth respondent – Directions for refund of deposited amounts without interest, vacation of premises and fresh draw of lots among eligible applicants – Contingency direction for allotment to appellant if only one eligible applicant remains [Paras 5-6, 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Allotments to respondent Nos.3 and 4 quashed – Costs imposed – Fresh draw of lots directed – Refund and consequential directions issued – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 17-20].

Execution of Decree – Mandatory Injunction – Limitation – First Appellate Court decreed suit granting mandatory injunction directing compliance with earlier order and restraining demolition – Execution application filed on 12.08.2010 seeking enforcement of mandatory injunction – Held: Article 135 of Limitation Act prescribes three years for enforcement of decree granting mandatory injunction – Where no date fixed for performance, limitation runs from date of decree – Execution application barred by limitation [Paras 3-5].

Order XXI Rule 32 CPC – Scope – Petitioners invoked Order XXI Rule 32 for enforcement of mandatory injunction – Execution Court dismissed application as time-barred – High Court affirmed dismissal in revision – Supreme Court found no infirmity as execution was confined to mandatory injunction part of decree [Paras 2, 4, 6].

Limitation Act – Article 135 – Commencement of Limitation – Decree dated 06.01.2005 did not specify any date for compliance – Therefore, limitation commenced from date of decree itself – Filing execution after more than three years held impermissible [Paras 4-5].

Special Leave Petition – Interference – No ground to interfere with concurrent findings of Execution Court and High Court – SLP dismissed [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Execution application rightly held barred by limitation under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Pending applications disposed of.