Criminal Law – Murder by Arson – Parricide Allegation – Parents allegedly killed when their hut was set ablaze – Trial Court convicted son and daughter-in-law relying mainly on motive and dying declarations – High Court acquitted accused – Supreme Court held prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Investigation found selective and deficient – Acquittal affirmed [Paras 26-28, 31].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Principles Governing Reliability – Court reiterated that a dying declaration is an important exception to hearsay under Section 32 Evidence Act and can form sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence of the Court – However Court must ensure it is voluntary, truthful and not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination – Where declaration appears doubtful or suspicious, corroboration becomes necessary [Paras 7, 13-14].

Multiple Dying Declarations – Suspicion and Inconsistencies – Case involved two written declarations and several alleged oral declarations – First declaration (FIS) recorded in hospital without medical certification and in presence of villagers and relatives – Second declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate with conflicting testimony regarding authorship and without medical certification – Held: Surrounding circumstances created serious doubt about voluntariness and authenticity – Declarations did not inspire confidence [Paras 17-18].

Oral Dying Declarations – Credibility of Witnesses – Several witnesses claimed that deceased made oral statements implicating accused immediately after incident – However testimonies inconsistent and witnesses closely related or interested in property dispute – Independent witnesses who first noticed the fire not examined – Held: Oral declarations unreliable and unsafe to rely upon [Paras 19-22].

Criminal Investigation – Defective Investigation – Investigating Officer failed to prepare scene mahazar, conduct forensic examination, investigate possible accidental fire from gas cylinder, or examine independent witnesses – Arrest circumstances and presence of accused near scene not established – Held: Investigation appeared predetermined and selective, undermining prosecution case [Paras 24, 28, 31].

Witness Testimony – Interested Witnesses and Motive – Prosecution relied largely on relatives allegedly hostile to accused due to property dispute – Independent villagers and first witnesses to incident not examined – Evidence of motive also weakened by testimony that accused was entitled to share in property – Held: Prosecution evidence insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 21-22, 26].

Criminal Procedure – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC – Trial court asked only four general questions without putting incriminating circumstances such as motive, dying declarations and medical evidence – Supreme Court held such casual examination violates statutory duty and causes serious prejudice to accused – Courts and prosecutors must ensure every incriminating circumstance is put to the accused [Paras 29-30].

Standard of Proof – Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof – Criminal conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt and not on conjectures, suspicion or perceived motive – Where evidence fails to exclude other hypotheses, benefit of doubt must go to the accused [Para 30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed judgment of High Court acquitting the accused – Prosecution case found unreliable due to doubtful dying declarations, interested witnesses and defective investigation – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Seniority – Direct Recruits vs Internal Selectees – Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – Dispute regarding inter-se seniority between direct recruits appointed in 2000-2001 and internally selected candidates promoted in 2002 – High Court directed redrawing of seniority by treating both groups as appointed in 2002 on ground that probation of direct recruits commenced later – Held: Regulations 10(9) and 87 clearly treat training period as part of duty and appointment commences when a candidate joins service and undergoes training – Seniority cannot be postponed till commencement of probation – High Court erred in excluding training period for determining appointment date [Paras 19-22].

Service Regulations – Meaning of “Duty” and “Appointment” – Regulation 10(9) provides that a person is on duty when performing duties of a post or undergoing prescribed probation or training – Regulation 87 states that a person is appointed when he first discharges duties or commences training or probation for the post – Held: Training undertaken immediately after joining is part of service and cannot be ignored while computing seniority – Appointment of direct recruits dates back to initial joining and not to the date when probation formally begins [Paras 21-22].

Seniority Determination – Regulation 97 – Seniority to be determined by rank in the approved list of candidates prepared by appointing authority – Provision regarding commencement of probation relates only to service conditions and does not determine seniority between recruits from different sources – Interpretation adopted by High Court that seniority begins from probation date contrary to plain language of Regulations [Paras 22-22.3].

Recruitment from Multiple Sources – Applicability of Cyclic Seniority Rule – Proviso to Regulation 97 providing cyclic order (internal selection followed by direct recruitment) applicable only when recruitment from both sources occurs in the same calendar year – In present case direct recruits appointed in 2000-2001 while internal candidates promoted in May 2002 – Therefore proviso had no application and could not be used to alter seniority of earlier recruits [Paras 22.3].

Administrative Orders – Board Proceedings Reducing Training Period – BP No.9 dated 23.04.2002 reduced training period for direct recruits from two years to three months – Held: Such administrative instruction relates only to duration of training and emoluments and does not affect date of appointment or seniority – Internal candidates had no cause of action to challenge the same for seniority purposes [Paras 23-24].

Service Law – Effect of Training on Seniority – Training imparted after entry into service is integral part of employment – Merely because trainees receive consolidated pay during training and regular pay during probation does not alter their status as members of service from the date of joining – Seniority must therefore be reckoned from initial appointment [Paras 24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing redrawing of seniority set aside – Held that seniority of direct recruit Assistant Engineers shall be counted from the date of their initial joining in service including the period of training – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Sine Qua Non – Dispute arising from a Collaboration Agreement of 2012 led the appellant to lodge a complaint with the Commissioner of Police – FIR not registered on complaint, whereupon appellant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate along with a complaint under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC – Magistrate by order dated 05.04.2023 directed the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC – Respondents challenged the Magistrate's order and FIR under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court – High Court quashed the Magistrate's order and the FIR on the grounds of suppression of facts in the Section 156(3) application, non-conduct of preliminary inquiry by the Magistrate and absence of reasoning and application of mind – High Court further quashed the complaint and all subsequent proceedings and characterised the complaint as based on false, malicious and vague allegations without any foundation – Held: The sine qua non for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR is a finding that the complaint, on its face, does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence – No such finding recorded by the High Court – Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 7-9].

Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Before embarking on quashment of an FIR, the High Court must record a conclusion that the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence – Labelling a complaint as false, malicious or vague without any foundation in the order is not sufficient to quash the FIR – High Court must pass a detailed reasoned order [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on all grounds under Section 482 CrPC – Interim order operating in favour of the respondents to continue subject to further orders by the High Court – High Court directed to decide the petition expeditiously.

Reservation – OBC Non-Creamy Layer – Determination of Creamy Layer – Respondent candidates qualified in Civil Services Examination and claimed benefit of OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) status – Authorities denied benefit by treating parental salary from private/PSU employment as falling within creamy layer criteria – High Courts set aside the exclusion – Held: The 1993 Office Memorandum contemplated consideration of income from “other sources” under the Income/Wealth Test where equivalence of posts was not determined – Introduction of salary income as a decisive factor through later clarificatory communication lacked rational basis and was unsustainable [Paras 5–7].

Reservation Policy – Objective of Creamy Layer Principle – The doctrine aims to exclude socially advanced members within backward classes so that reservation benefits reach genuinely backward sections – However, exclusion must strictly follow criteria prescribed under governing policy and constitutional principles – Arbitrary expansion of creamy layer criteria without rational classification violates equality principles under Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 17, 41].

Public Sector Employees – OBC Status – Treatment of children of PSU employees – Denial of OBC Non-Creamy Layer status to wards of PSU employees while granting similar benefit to wards of government employees occupying comparable posts amounts to hostile discrimination – Such unequal treatment cannot be sustained under constitutional equality principles [Paras 40–41].

Service Allocation – Civil Services Examination – Determination of eligibility for reservation benefits must be based on the applicable rules and certificates valid as on the relevant cut-off date – Authorities must apply reservation policy consistently with governing Office Memoranda and constitutional mandates [Paras 6–8].

Relief – Creation of Supernumerary Posts – Considering that several similarly placed candidates were affected, the Court directed the authorities to create supernumerary posts wherever necessary to accommodate candidates found eligible under the clarified creamy layer criteria, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions [Para 43].

Decision: All Civil Appeals dismissed – Union of India directed to reconsider claims of the candidates in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment and implement the same within six months.

Arbitration – Challenge to constitution of arbitral tribunal – Clause provided that if two nominee arbitrators failed to appoint presiding arbitrator within 30 days, appointment could be made by Secretary General of ICSID – Appellant contended that once 30-day period expired, co-arbitrators lost authority to appoint presiding arbitrator – Supreme Court held clause is enabling and not restrictive – non-appointment within 30 days does not extinguish power of co-arbitrators – ICSID appointment mechanism operates only if either party makes a request.

Arbitration Agreement – Interpretation of contractual arbitration clause – Court held that arbitration clause must be read in a commercially sensible manner – contingency allowing appointment by ICSID was merely a “fail-safe” mechanism to avoid stalemate – absence of a request to ICSID meant power of co-arbitrators to appoint presiding arbitrator continued.

Arbitral Tribunal – Improper constitution – Scope of judicial review – Where arbitral tribunal interprets contractual clause in a plausible manner, courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 cannot substitute their interpretation merely because another view is possible – arbitral autonomy and minimal judicial interference must be respected.

Arbitration Law – Conduct of parties – Acquiescence and waiver – Even where statutory waiver under Section 4 may not strictly apply, conduct of party during arbitral proceedings is relevant to determine its understanding of contractual scheme – appellant participated in arbitration and did not object to appointment of presiding arbitrator on multiple occasions – challenge raised only after preliminary meeting – conduct indicated acquiescence.

Arbitration Procedure – Section 16 challenge – Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal – Plea regarding lack of jurisdiction must be raised before submission of statement of defence – although challenge was filed within prescribed timeline, past conduct of party remained relevant while adjudicating validity of such challenge.

Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards – Limited scope – Court reiterated that under Section 34 and further appellate scrutiny under Section 37, interference is permissible only in cases of patent illegality, violation of arbitration agreement, or other statutory grounds – interpretation of contract by arbitral tribunal is generally binding if plausible.

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld arbitral award and affirmed decisions of the Bombay High Court under Sections 34 and 37 refusing to set aside the award – arbitral tribunal held to be validly constituted and no patent illegality established.

Criminal Law – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC – Deceased shot dead after being chased by group of armed persons – Trial Court convicted accused and High Court affirmed conviction – Supreme Court held that evidence established that accused persons arrived together armed with firearms and chased the deceased before firing upon him – Presence in unlawful assembly with common object sufficient to attract vicarious liability – Conviction upheld.

Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Vicarious Liability – Court reiterated that two essential ingredients for application of Section 149 IPC are existence of an unlawful assembly and a common object – Once participation of accused as members of such assembly is proved, it is not necessary that each accused must have committed a specific overt act – All members become vicariously liable for the acts committed in prosecution of the common object.

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony of Related Witnesses – Several prosecution witnesses were relatives of the deceased – Held: Evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely on ground of relationship if their testimony is consistent and credible – Minor discrepancies or allegedly unnatural behaviour of witnesses does not render their evidence unreliable when supported by other evidence on record.

Independent Witness – Limited Observation – Independent witness did not see the accused firing inside the house but heard gunshots – Court held that such evidence does not discredit prosecution case when other witnesses consistently proved that accused chased the deceased and multiple shots were fired resulting in death.

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Gunshot Injuries – Post-mortem revealed multiple firearm injuries with entry and exit wounds and recovery of pellets from the body – Ballistic evidence and recovery of cartridges corroborated the prosecution case that the deceased was killed by firearm shots during the attack.

Procedural Lapses – Effect – Alleged non-compliance with Section 157 CrPC regarding forwarding of FIR to Magistrate not fatal to prosecution where such lapse was not established by evidence and overall prosecution case stood proved by reliable ocular and medical evidence.

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed judgments of the Trial Court and High Court – Conviction and life sentence imposed on appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC upheld – Appellants directed to surrender forthwith to undergo remaining sentence.

Environmental Law – NGT Jurisdiction – Section 14 – Encroachment on Park – Temple Removal – Order Without Jurisdiction – Respondent No. 1 (RWA) filed application before NGT alleging encroachment and illegal construction of temple on land earmarked as park in Sector 16A, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad – NGT constituted Joint Committee without notice to Appellant; on basis of committee report, directed removal of temple and allied structures – Appellant contended that even in the Revised Layout Plan dated 14.07.2004 of the UP Housing Board, the temple was shown as existing – Held: NGT has jurisdiction under Section 14 only over civil cases involving a substantial question relating to environment arising from the statutes specified in Schedule I; removal of alleged encroachment raised in violation of Municipal and Town Planning laws not covered by Schedule I does not attract NGT's jurisdiction; impugned order passed without jurisdiction and quashed [Paras 7-10].

Substantial Question Relating to Environment – Definition – Section 2(m) of NGT Act defines substantial question relating to environment to include direct violation of specific statutory environmental obligation affecting the community at large, or where gravity of damage to environment or property is substantial, or damage to public health is broadly measurable, or environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or point source of pollution – Such question must arise from implementation of statutes enumerated in Schedule I – Violation of Municipal Laws and Town Planning Act does not satisfy the jurisdictional condition precedent [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of NGT dated 26.07.2022 quashed and set aside – Liberty reserved to the RWA to approach the competent authority for redressal – No action to be taken against Appellants without issuing notice to them and affected parties.

Company Law - Oppression and Mismanagement - Interim Relief - Appellants claiming 40% shareholding in holding company alleged illegal removal of their shareholding, fabricated statutory filings, unlawful induction of directors and asset-stripping of valuable redevelopment project - NCLT declined interim relief - NCLAT set aside that order but confined protection to restraint against taking “perceptive steps” for one month - Held: Since the substantive Company Petition under Sections 241, 242, 244 and 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 remained pending, paramount consideration was preservation of the subject matter till final adjudication by NCLT - Interim arrangement earlier operating before Supreme Court directed to continue [Paras 20, 27-30].

Interlocutory Stage - Scope of Supreme Court Consideration - Court clarified that at this stage it was not examining merits of oppression and mismanagement allegations or rival claims regarding shareholding and control - Controversy before Court confined to nature and scope of interim protection necessary to preserve subject matter of dispute pending adjudication before NCLT [Paras 20, 32].

Preservation of Subject Matter - Project Land - Where project land constituted principal asset connected with dispute and allegations were made regarding conveyance, mortgage, transfer of development rights and alteration of management structure, status quo protection was necessary to ensure that proceedings do not become infructuous and parties are not left with shell entities [Paras 15-19, 27-29].

Insolvency Proceedings - Effect on Interim Protection - During pendency of appeals, entity in whose favour project land had been conveyed was admitted into corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 IBC - Supreme Court took note of these developments and continued restraint so that no irreversible changes were made to the property while underlying dispute as to corporate control and transactions remained unresolved [Paras 23, 28-29].

Limited Protective Works - No Creation of Equity - On complaints regarding excavation pits and safety of adjoining structures, Supreme Court permitted only limited protective works such as laying foundation in excavated pits, retaining walls, backfilling and barricading, subject to approvals - Held: Such permission was only to secure neighbouring structures and would not create any equity in favour of applicant [Paras 24-25].

Contempt Jurisdiction - Disputed Facts - Appellants alleged violation of interim directions by construction activity, registration with regulatory authorities and marketing of units - Respondents controverted allegations - Held: At this stage it was not necessary to enter into merits of contempt allegations since they involved factual disputes - focus remained on preserving subject matter pending final adjudication [Para 26].

Expeditious Disposal - NCLT Directed to Decide Main Petition - Supreme Court modified NCLAT order and directed continuation of status quo till disposal of Company Petition - Parties directed to appear before NCLT, Mumbai Bench on 19.03.2026 and Company Petition No.159(MB) of 2021 directed to be decided preferably within two months - All merits left open [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeals and Contempt Petitions disposed of - Impugned order dated 11.10.2022 modified - Parties directed to maintain status quo in terms of earlier orders of Supreme Court - No steps to be taken altering nature of property or creating third-party interests - NCLT directed to decide Company Petition expeditiously - Observations not to be treated as expression on merits [Paras 29-34].

Service Law – Police Recruitment – Criminal antecedents – Respondent applied for appointment as Constable (Driver) in Madhya Pradesh Police – Screening committee rejected candidature due to involvement in criminal case relating to serious offences including kidnapping and rape of a minor girl – Though respondent was acquitted in trial, acquittal was on benefit of doubt – Held: Employer is entitled to consider nature of acquittal and antecedents while assessing suitability for police service – Screening committee rightly treated candidate as unsuitable [Paras 6, 9].

Honourable Acquittal – Meaning – Expressions such as “honourable acquittal” or “fully acquitted” are not found in the Code of Criminal Procedure or Penal Code but evolved in judicial pronouncements – Honourable acquittal occurs when the court reaches a clear conclusion that the accused did not commit the offence – In contrast, acquittal due to lack of proof or benefit of doubt does not amount to honourable acquittal and may still raise concerns regarding suitability for public employment [Paras 5.2–5.2.3].

Recruitment to Disciplined Forces – Importance of Character and Integrity – Police force requires candidates with impeccable character, integrity and clean antecedents – Even where a candidate truthfully discloses involvement in a criminal case and is acquitted, employer may still examine antecedents and decide whether appointment is appropriate – Judicial review in such matters is limited unless decision is arbitrary or mala fide [Paras 7–9].

Screening Committee – Scope of Discretion – Screening committee has wide discretion to evaluate antecedents, nature of offences and surrounding circumstances while determining suitability – Courts should not substitute their own assessment unless the decision of the committee is perverse, irrational or mala fide [Paras 7.1–9].

Judicial Review – Limited Interference – High Court Division Bench erred in interfering with the decision of the screening committee and directing reconsideration by treating acquittal as honourable – Such interference amounted to intrusion into the employer’s domain of assessing suitability for police service [Para 9.2].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside – Order of screening committee rejecting candidature restored.