Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice Act – Determination of Age – School Certificate and Birth Certificate Take Precedence – The JJB had wrongly rejected documentary evidence and ordered medical examination despite availability of school and municipal birth records – Held: Section 94(2) of JJ Act mandates preference for documentary proof – Medical opinion can only be considered in their absence – Order of JJB declaring respondent an adult was invalid – Reversal by Appellate Court and High Court upheld [Paras 26-28].

Juvenility – Review of Previous JJB Decision – Not Permissible – JJB had previously accepted the respondent’s date of birth as 08.09.2003 – In subsequent proceedings, JJB took contrary view – Held: JJB lacks statutory power to review earlier declaration of age – Its contrary action was legally untenable – High Court rightly affirmed appellate reversal [Paras 29-30, 34].

Juvenility – Preliminary Assessment Under Section 15 – Respondent Aged Above 16 Years – JJB Conducted Assessment – Found Respondent Fit to Undergo Trial as Adult – As per JJ Act, in heinous offences involving minors aged 16–18, a preliminary assessment is mandatory – Respondent was assessed as mentally and physically capable and trial ordered before POCSO Court – Valid exercise of jurisdiction [Paras 35-39].

Bail – Juvenile in Conflict with Law – Grant of Bail Upheld – Though bail was initially denied by JJB and Sessions Court, High Court granted bail after finding no risk of moral or physical danger or criminal association – No evidence of misuse of liberty during three years of bail – Held: No interference warranted – Appellant or State free to seek cancellation if liberty is misused [Paras 41-42].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Declaration of Juvenility and Grant of Bail Upheld – Supreme Court found no legal error in impugned orders – Dismissed both criminal appeals with liberty to apply for bail cancellation if needed – No costs imposed [Para 43].

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Requirement of CVC Advice – Charge Sheet Issued Without Mandatory Consultation – Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations requires consultation with CVC wherever vigilance angle is involved – Respondent Bank admitted the case involved vigilance angle and sought CVC advice but issued charge sheet before receiving it – Held: Once the Bank accepted the necessity of CVC advice, it was not open to proceed without it – Charge sheet and proceedings quashed [Paras 16-21].

Administrative Fairness – Delay and Timing of Proceedings – Mala Fide Inference – Suspension initiated ten months before superannuation after 34 years of unblemished service – Charge sheet served just days before retirement without awaiting CVC advice – Held: Action arbitrary, mala fide, and designed to deprive the appellant of retiral benefits – Disciplinary process set aside [Paras 15, 20-21].

Interpretation of Regulation – Discretion vs. Obligation – Not a General Rule – Respondent Bank’s conduct rendered academic the debate on whether Regulation 19 is mandatory or directory – Having voluntarily opted for CVC consultation, Bank bound to await advice – High Court erred in treating it as discretionary in this case [Paras 16, 22].

Decision: Disciplinary Proceedings Quashed – Retiral Benefits Directed – Charge sheet dated 10th June 2019 and proceedings set aside – Appellant entitled to all retirement benefits as if superannuated on 30th June 2019 – No back wages allowed – Benefits to be paid within three months [Paras 24-25].

Customs Law – Section 14(1), 14(2), 27, 142 of the Customs Act  - Refund of Duty – Encashment of Bank Guarantee Not ‘Payment’ – Refund Allowed – Appellant furnished bank guarantees for differential customs duty under High Court orders—Upon High Court’s dismissal, department encashed guarantees—Supreme Court held: Bank guarantee encashment not “payment” under Section 27 of the Customs Act—Doctrine of unjust enrichment not applicable—Appellant entitled to refund [Paras 22–27, 30–34].

Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment – Not Applicable Where Payment Not Voluntary – Encashment of bank guarantees done unilaterally by the revenue without final adjudication—Court held: Unjust enrichment doctrine applies only to duty “paid” and passed on—Security through bank guarantee is not duty payment—Refund cannot be denied under Section 27 [Paras 19–21, 26–27].

Binding Precedents – Oswal Agro Mills and Somaiya Organics Applied – Supreme Court reaffirmed law laid down in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Somaiya Organics—Held: Encashed bank guarantees are not “paid duty” under Customs or Excise Acts—Decision in DCW Ltd. distinguished on facts as encashment there was court-directed after default [Paras 25–30].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Application of Section 27 Quashed – High Court held refund subject to proof of unjust enrichment under Section 27—Supreme Court reversed—Held: Encashment of security before SC’s ruling in favour of appellant was unjust—Respondents had no legal right to retain funds post decision in Param Industries Ltd. [Paras 28–31].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court order dated 28.04.2016 set aside – Department directed to refund full amounts with 6% interest from date of encashment – Refund to be completed within four months – No order as to costs [Paras 31–32].

Civil Law - Foreigners Act – Declaration of Appellant as a Foreigner -  Burden of Proof – Section 9 – Failure to Establish Citizenship – Appellant declared foreigner for entering India after 25.03.1971—Tribunal and High Court found documentary evidence inconsistent and untrustworthy—Held: Burden under Section 9 not discharged—No error in concurrent findings [Paras 13–17].

Documentary Evidence – School Certificate, Voter Lists – Disbelieved – School certificate found unproved; issued after 10 years, headmaster not examined—Voter list entries of alleged grandfather inconsistent with appellant’s residence—Appellant failed to establish linkage or migration—Held: Evidence rightly rejected [Paras 4–6, 14–15].

Nationality Determination – Draft NRC Inclusion Irrelevant After Tribunal Declaration – Appellant claimed inclusion in 2018 draft NRC invalidated foreigner declaration—Court held: As per Rule 4A(3) of 2003 Rules, persons already declared foreigners by competent authority (Tribunal) cannot be included—NRC list has no overriding effect [Paras 19–28].

Precedent – Abdul Kuddus Case Applied – Tribunal is Competent Authority – Court reaffirmed that Tribunal’s declaration is final and binding under Rule 4A—Draft NRC cannot annul such declaration—Held: Appellant continues to be a declared foreigner despite NRC entry [Paras 25–27].

Constitutional Law – Article 136 – No Ground to Interfere – Supreme Court found no legal infirmity, perversity, or procedural irregularity in lower court findings—Petition under Article 136 dismissed—Interim release order discharged [Paras 16, 30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to be treated as foreigner – Interim release order withdrawn – Pending applications also disposed [Para 30].

Criminal Law - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), and Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Corruption Charges – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof Required – Acquittal Upheld – Respondent was accused of demanding and receiving ₹1,500 as bribe for submitting a spot inspection report – Trial Court convicted him based on recovery of tainted money – High Court acquitted him citing lack of credible evidence of demand – Supreme Court upheld acquittal, holding demand was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and testimony of complainant lacked reliability [Paras 1, 6–7, 23–26].

Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act – Applicability Conditional on Proof of Demand – Rebuttable Presumption Not Triggered – The Court clarified that presumption under Section 20 arises only upon proof of demand – In absence of credible evidence on demand, recovery alone does not sustain conviction – Cited decisions in Paritala Sudhakar and Om Parkash for proposition that presumption cannot substitute proof of demand [Paras 10, 24–25].

Credibility of Complainant – Contradictions and Admissions – Testimony Deemed Unreliable – Complainant denied prior spot inspection, then admitted the same upon confrontation with signed report – Such conduct considered sufficient to reject his testimony as unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 24–26].

Final Relief – Acquittal Not Interfered – Appeal Dismissed – Though High Court gave limited reasons for overturning conviction, Supreme Court independently examined the material and found no perversity in acquittal – Held: Chain of demand, acceptance, and recovery was incomplete – Appeal dismissed [Paras 27–29].

Service Law - Constitutional Law – Pension Rights of High Court Judges – Suo motu writ petition initiated to address anomalies in pension, gratuity, and post-retirement benefits for High Court Judges including Additional Judges – Clubbed with multiple writ petitions involving retired Judges from district judiciary and bar – Held: All retired High Court Judges, irrespective of source of entry (Bar or Judiciary), tenure, or status (Permanent or Additional), entitled to uniform pension of ₹13,50,000 per annum – Retired Chief Justices entitled to ₹15,00,000 per annum – Principle of ‘One Rank One Pension’ affirmed for constitutional office holders [Paras 1–11, 55–59, 76(i)-(iv)]

Service Law – Break-in-Service and NPS Implications – Full pension not to be denied due to break between District Judge retirement and High Court Judge appointment – Judges joining service post-NPS implementation also entitled to full pension – State must refund NPS contributions made by Judges with interest – State contributions to be retained by States [Paras 60–65, 76(v)-(vi)]

Service Law – Additional Judges – Family Pension and Gratuity – Retired Additional Judges of High Court included in definition of ‘Judge’ under Section 2(g) of the HCJ Act – Entitled to same pension as Permanent Judges – Widow/family of Additional Judge who dies in harness entitled to family pension and gratuity – Ten-year service addition to be applied for gratuity eligibility [Paras 66–72, 76(vii)-(viii)]

Constitutional Interpretation – Judicial Independence – Article 221(2) mandates equality in pension and benefits – Held: Any discrimination post-retirement on basis of service source violates Articles 14 and 16 – Emphasized that once appointed, Judges of High Courts form a homogenous constitutional class – Salaries and pensions charged respectively to Consolidated Funds of States and Union to ensure independence [Paras 52–54]

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction – Sections 14, 15, 17A of High Court Judges Act, 1954 to be read consistently to ensure non-discrimination – Cap on pension as per Schedule I (₹13.5L/₹15L) applies uniformly regardless of past service – Held: Family pension and gratuity provisions under HCJ Act to be interpreted liberally in light of constitutional mandate [Paras 56–59, 71–72, 74–75, 76(ix)]

Decision: All petitions disposed of – Full pension, gratuity, and benefits granted as per uniform scale – Directions issued for refund of NPS contributions and universal application of benefits – Appreciation recorded for counsels including Amicus Curiae and Attorney General [Paras 76–78]

Criminal Procedure – Transfer and Clubbing of FIRs – Multiple FIRs lodged against petitioner across 10 States for offences under IPC and local deposit protection laws – Petitioner initially sought transfer of all FIRs to Panchkula, Haryana – Court noted similar relief was denied in 2020 – Alternative prayer for consolidation within respective States allowed due to non-objection by respondent States – Held: Clubbing of FIRs within each State directed, with the earliest FIR to act as the principal FIR and subsequent FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC – Supplementary charge-sheets may be filed accordingly [Paras 1-3, 9-13, 19-22]

Criminal Law – Offences under IPC and Special Laws – FIRs allege offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Sections 120B, 34, 263, 114 IPC and various State Acts such as the Gujarat Police Act, Haryana Depositors Act, and others – Petitioner accused of collecting deposits fraudulently via land allotment schemes – SEBI declined registration as Collective Investment Scheme citing pre-launch requirement – CBI preliminary inquiry reported KIDL lacked capacity to repay investors – Held: Trials must be held under Special Acts if any clubbed FIR invokes such legislation, even if principal FIR was under general law [Paras 4-8, 10]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Implications on Clubbed FIRs – Petitioner in custody since 11.10.2018 – Court directed that bail granted in the principal FIR would extend to clubbed FIRs unless they relate to special enactments or distinct IPC offences – In such cases, fresh bail applications must be moved and considered on merits – Direction issued under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 20-21]

Legal Precedents and Jurisdiction – Reliance on Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India – Court reaffirmed that multiplicity of proceedings not in public interest – Clubbing required to avoid conflict and ensure coherent prosecution – Clarified that if special laws are involved in subsequent FIRs, Special Courts shall retain jurisdiction [Para 10]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – FIRs in Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand to be merged within each State respectively – Chhattisgarh and Delhi FIRs to proceed independently as only one FIR is pending in each – Proceedings to continue in line with directions under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 19, 22]

Consumer Protection Act – Uniform Service Conditions – Judicial Directions Issued – Disparities in salary and allowances across different States for members and presidents of Consumer Commissions noted – Court invoked powers under Article 142 to ensure standardization – Directions issued aligning remuneration with judicial pay scales and protecting last drawn pay [Paras 5–9].

Model Rules 2020 – Application of Rules 3 and 4 – Interpretation and Modification – Supreme Court directed that Rules 3 and 4 of the Model Rules shall be followed with certain modifications – Pay scales of District and State Commission members aligned with judicial pay grades including super-time and selection grades – Allowances attached to respective judicial posts to apply [Paras 3–4, 9].

Retrospective Effect – Effective from 20 July 2020 – Uniform Pay Implementation – Court held that the revised pay structure shall be effective retrospectively from 20.07.2020 – Directed arrears to be paid within six months – Compliance to be monitored in next hearing [Para 9(viii)].

Legal Status – No Distinction in Appointment Type – Clarified that artificial distinctions such as part-time/full-time or judicial/non-judicial were not envisaged under the 2019 Act – All appointees performing adjudicatory roles to be treated uniformly for pay and service benefits [Para 9(vi)].

Decision: Directions Issued – Uniform pay and service conditions mandated across all States and UTs for Presidents and Members of Consumer Commissions – Orders to take effect from 20.07.2020 with arrears to be paid within six months – All distinctions in appointment status removed – Compliance to be reported by 22.09.2025 [Paras 9–11].

Family Law – Criminal Proceedings – Domestic Violence – Maintainability of Section 482 CrPC – Appellants challenged proceedings initiated under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) – High Court held that since the DV proceedings are civil in nature, they could not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court held: Even though proceedings are civil in nature, they are entertained by criminal courts (Magistrates) and governed by CrPC – Hence, High Courts can invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS to quash such proceedings in appropriate cases [Paras 1–2, 29–33, 39].

Criminal Procedure – Inherent Power – Section 482 CrPC – Scope clarified – Court held that while proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act are not criminal prosecutions in the strict sense, they are initiated in criminal courts and CrPC provisions apply – Section 482 CrPC empowers High Court to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice – However, courts should be slow to interfere, and only in cases of gross illegality or abuse [Paras 32–35, 39].

Domestic Violence – Civil vs Criminal Nature – Though reliefs under Sections 18–22 of DV Act (residence orders, protection, monetary relief, compensation) are civil in substance, they are enforced via criminal courts under CrPC – DV Act is a welfare statute aimed at protecting women from domestic abuse – Proceedings under Section 12(1) are not equated with criminal complaints under Section 200 CrPC [Paras 12–22, 27–29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 09.05.2024 set aside – Petitions under Section 482 CrPC restored to file for fresh adjudication on merits – High Courts directed to be cautious and restrained in quashing DV Act proceedings [Paras 40–41].