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 set aside – Prosecution case resting mainly on testimony of related eyewitness (mother of deceased) suffering from material contradictions – Non-examination of material witness (granddaughter who allegedly informed informant) – Independent witnesses turned hostile – Medical evidence not conclusively corroborating ocular version – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 7–18].

Evidence – Related / Interested Witness – Mother of deceased claimed to be eyewitness – Law reiterated that testimony of related witness cannot be discarded solely on that ground but requires strict scrutiny – On facts, deposition contained serious inconsistencies regarding manner of assault, timing and presence at scene – Reliance on such testimony held unsafe [Paras 8–9, 13–15].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Granddaughter of informant allegedly first informant of incident not examined – Prosecution failed to explain omission – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution version [Paras 9, 14].

Witnesses – Hostile Independent Witnesses – PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9 did not support prosecution case – Seizure and recovery of weapons through memorandum statements not proved – Recovery evidence held unreliable [Paras 10–11, 15].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistency with Ocular Testimony – Post-mortem revealed three incised wounds – Prosecution alleged use of sticks and one stone – Doctor failed to specify which injury was caused by which weapon – Improbability of incised wounds being caused by single stone – Medical evidence not supporting prosecution story [Paras 12, 16].

Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Mere presence of accused at spot without clear proof of participation or overt act insufficient – Failure to establish common object beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 14–16].

Standard of Proof – Criminal Trial – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution evidence suffers from contradictions, hostile witnesses and weak medical corroboration – Conviction cannot be sustained – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court dated 17.02.2021 affirming conviction and sentence set aside – All appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 18–20].

Tender Law – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Venture Experience – Proportionate Experience – Arbitrary Rejection of Bid – Appellant disqualified at technical evaluation stage on ground that experience certificate pertained to joint venture and not in individual name – Tender condition required “each prime contractor in the same name and style” to have completed similar work – No clause in NIT expressly excluding experience gained as member of joint venture – Held: In absence of explicit exclusion, proportionate experience of joint venture partner must be considered – Rejection held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 17–19, 23–24, 28–29].

Joint Venture – Concept and Legal Position – Experience of Constituents – Application of New Horizons Principle – Joint venture experience is experience of its constituents – Commercial prudence test requires examining capacity and credentials of persons behind the bidder – Failure to consider constituent experience renders decision irrational – Reliance placed on New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India and Ganpati PV–Talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. [Paras 21–22, 26–27].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Legal Certainty – Ambiguity in Eligibility Clauses – Tender conditions must be clear, unambiguous and explicit – State cannot reject bid based on unstated or implied disqualifications – Vagueness leads to arbitrary exclusion and unequal treatment – Doctrine of level playing field reaffirmed [Paras 24–26].

Judicial Review – Deference to Tendering Authority – Limits – Courts ordinarily defer to interpretation of tendering authority – However, where interpretation is irrational, arbitrary or produces absurd results, constitutional courts must intervene – Deference doctrine not absolute [Para 27].

Prime Contractor – Meaning – Common Parlance Test – Prime contractor refers to tenderer responsible for execution – Where bidder demonstrates execution capacity through proportionate joint venture experience, exclusion without express prohibition unjustified [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 04/04/2025 set aside – Disqualification order dated 19/03/2025 quashed – Respondents directed to reconsider appellant’s bid by accepting proportionate experience as joint venture partner – No order as to costs [Paras 29–31].

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]

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.

Arbitration – Patent Illegality – Jurisdiction of Appellate Court under Section 37 – Arbitral award in favour of contractor upheld by Commercial Court – High Court reversed award citing patent illegality – Supreme Court held: Interference under Section 37 must be within the limited scope of Section 34 – Re-appreciation of facts or alternative interpretation of evidence not permissible – High Court acted beyond jurisdiction by substituting its view for that of Arbitrator [Paras 27–30, 38–39, 42]

Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction – Quantum Meruit – Section 70, Contract Act – Extra work done by contractor without agreed price but at request of employer – Arbitrator awarded compensation applying quantum meruit – Held: No rewriting of contract – Price left open as per communication – Award based on evidence and reasonable estimation – Not patently illegal [Paras 36–41]

Evidence – No Evidence vs. Weak Evidence – Arbitrator awarded damages based on oral and documentary evidence including tabular calculations – Supreme Court held: Use of rough estimations and honest guesswork permissible where some evidence exists – Arbitrator’s findings not based on "no evidence" – Award valid [Paras 35, 39, 42]

Judicial Restraint – Interpretation of Contract – Arbitrator is master of facts and contract construction – Even erroneous interpretation not ground for interference unless findings shock judicial conscience or are perverse – High Court erred in reassessing evidence and substituting view [Paras 29, 31–34, 41]

Award Components – Upholding of claims for extra work, idle machinery, and transportation costs – Arbitrator applied reasonable methodology based on materials on record – Supreme Court restored full award including interest [Paras 3.2–3.4, 39–40]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 03.05.2023 set aside – Arbitral award dated 15.07.2012 affirmed by Commercial Court restored – No costs. [Paras 43–44]

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.

Arbitration – Section 11 – Consortium Agreements – Existence of Arbitration Agreement – Referral to Arbitral Tribunal Upheld – First respondent (Tecpro Systems Ltd.), a member of a three-party consortium, invoked arbitration individually under Clause 22.2 of General Conditions of Contract – Appellant objected that only the Consortium could invoke arbitration, not individual member – Supreme Court held: At referral stage under Section 11(6-A), court’s role is limited to prima facie satisfaction of existence of arbitration agreement – Complex issues of party status, authority, consortium dissolution, and maintainability are to be adjudicated by Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 – Held: Prima facie arbitration agreement existed and invocation not barred at referral stage – High Court order constituting Tribunal upheld [Paras 2, 14-19, 21].

Arbitration – Consortium Member’s Standing – Joinder of Non-Signatory – Prima Facie Test – Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Court emphasized limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6-A) – Referral court need not decide whether the member is a “veritable party” or “legal successor” to consortium – Such issues to be examined by AT applying doctrines of competence-competence and group of companies – Reference to Cox & Kings, Duro Felguera and Interplay Constitution Bench cases – Held: Consortium dissolution, insolvency, or loss of leadership by member does not automatically preclude referral – No “mini-trial” to be held at referral stage [Paras 15-18].

Contract Law – Incorporation by Reference – Arbitration Clause in GCC Validly Incorporated – Arbitration clause in GCC validly incorporated into Purchase Orders through reference – Despite separate jurisdiction clause in POs, not inconsistent with arbitration – Held: Arbitration clause survives as operative mechanism under composite contract – Distinguished from separate contractual regime argument [Paras 11.1, 14].

Judicial Discipline – Similar Arbitration Already Proceeding in Related Matter – Judicial Consistency Emphasized – Supreme Court noted similar arbitration proceedings were allowed in related case involving Telangana State Power Generation Corp. – Objections there also dismissed – Held: No reason to adopt contrary view when consortium and contract structure are materially the same [Paras 11.3, 20].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – Order appointing Arbitral Tribunal affirmed – Tribunal to decide all objections including maintainability under Section 16.

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – DNA Match – Conviction Confirmed – Deceased last seen in same vicinity as accused – Witnesses (PWs 4, 5, 6) corroborated presence and suspicious behaviour of accused – Blood-stained clothes, victim’s shrieks, and disappearance of accused from village strengthened prosecution’s chain – Medical and DNA evidence matched A1 and A2 – Time of death matched with eyewitness accounts – Held: Circumstantial evidence forms a complete and cogent chain to establish guilt under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction confirmed [Paras 5-12].

SC/ST Act – Caste-Based Offence – Absence of Knowledge of Victim’s Caste – Acquittal under SC/ST Act Provisions – Though caste of deceased was proved, prosecution failed to show that accused knew her caste – No acquaintance or motive related to caste established – Held: Essential ingredient under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act not proved – Conviction under SC/ST Act unsustainable – Acquittal directed [Paras 2, 13-14].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Improper Recovery – Confessional Statements in Police Custody – No Concealment – Knife, mobile phone and cash alleged to be recovered not admissible under Section 27 – No independent concealment shown – Recovery from person during arrest, not based on disclosure – Confession made in police presence inadmissible – Held: Recovery and confessional evidence unreliable – Conviction under Section 404 IPC against A2 set aside [Paras 6-8, 14].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Remission – Modification from Whole-Life Sentence to 25 Years – Trial Court imposed death sentence; High Court reduced it to imprisonment till last breath – Supreme Court found mitigating factors: A2 had no past criminal record, was 40 years old, had a dependent family, and showed reformation in custody – Held: Case not in ‘rarest of rare’ category – Sentence modified to 25 years rigorous imprisonment without remission under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Sentence under Section 376D read with Section 34 IPC to run concurrently [Paras 15-16].

Legal Aid – Direction for Appeal of Co-Convicts – Supreme Court noted that other two co-accused were convicted identically but had not filed appeals – Directed Telangana Legal Services Authority to assist in filing appeals for them via Supreme Court Legal Services Committee [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under IPC upheld – Conviction under SC/ST Act and Section 404 IPC set aside – Sentence under Section 302 modified to 25 years without remission – Sentence under Section 376D to run concurrently.