Wakf Act, 1995 – Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – Scope and limits – Section 83 – Nature and ambit – Held: Section 83 does not by itself confer substantive jurisdiction on the Tribunal – It merely enables constitution of the Tribunal – Jurisdiction must flow from specific provisions of the Act – Interpretation in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reaffirmed [Paras 15, 37, 44–47].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Ouster under Section 85 Wakf Act – Not absolute – Exclusion applies only to matters required by or under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal – Presumption in favour of civil court jurisdiction reiterated – Held: Tribunal jurisdiction and civil court ouster are confined strictly to powers expressly conferred under the Act [Paras 13–15, 18, 47].

Wakf Property – Determination of status – Sections 6 and 7 – Mandatory requirement of inclusion in ‘list of auqaf’ or registration under Section 37 – Held: Tribunal can decide whether a property is wakf property only if it is specified in the list of auqaf or entered in the Register of Auqaf – Properties outside the statutory list cannot be subjected to Tribunal adjudication [Paras 12, 14, 30, 44, 50].

Wakf by User – Claim based on recent user – Mosque allegedly established in 2008 – Requirement of long and immemorial user – Held: Question left open – Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide ‘waqf by user’ claim when property is not notified or registered as wakf [Paras 6, 50].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of plaint – Injunction simpliciter before Wakf Tribunal – Property not notified or registered as wakf – Held: Suit before Tribunal is barred for want of jurisdiction – Plaint liable to be rejected – High Court erred in affirming Tribunal’s jurisdiction [Paras 4, 5, 50].

Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 – Expansion of definition of ‘list of auqaf’ under Section 3(g) – Nature of amendment – Held: Amendment is procedural and clarificatory – Enables Tribunal to decide disputes relating to properties entered in Register of Auqaf under Section 37 – Does not enlarge Tribunal’s jurisdiction beyond statutory framework [Paras 30–36].

Section 83 Wakf Act – Misinterpretation in later decisions – Anis Fatma Begum and Rashid Wali Beg considered – Held: Expansive interpretation of Section 83 contrary to earlier binding precedent – Coordinate Benches could not have taken divergent view without reference to Larger Bench – Ramesh Gobindram continues to hold the field except to the limited extent of eviction of encroachers post-2013 amendment [Paras 28–29, 39–49].

Eviction and Encroachment – Power of Tribunal – Source of jurisdiction – Held: Power to remove encroachers flows from Section 54(3) & (4) and not from Section 83 – Amendment Act, 2013 only removes the bar noted in Ramesh Gobindram regarding eviction – Does not otherwise expand Tribunal jurisdiction [Paras 12, 46, 49].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Wakf Tribunal and High Court set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Suit before Wakf Tribunal rejected – Question whether property is a wakf left open to be agitated before competent forum in accordance with law [Paras 50–51].

Recruitment – Teacher Grade III (Level I & II) – Erroneous Answer Key – Expert Committee – Revised Merit List – High Court directed constitution of Expert Committee and preparation of fresh model answer keys – Directions not challenged by State – Revised results led to displacement of earlier selected candidates – Held: Consequential equities to be balanced in terms of earlier unchallenged judgments [Paras 3-6].

Selection Process – Concession by State – Binding Effect – In Mukesh Kumar Tailor case State conceded to accommodate candidates who secured more marks than last retained candidate subject to vacancies – Said concession not withdrawn or challenged – Government Resolution dated 04.09.2017 taken to implement directions – Held: State bound by its concession and subsequent policy decision – Cannot resile at later stage [Paras 9, 16].

Appointment – Interpretation of “Vacancies Available” – Whether vacancies include unfilled advertised posts or current vacancies – Clarified that vacancies include posts unfilled due to non-issuance of appointment letters, non-joining, resignation, etc. – Availability of substantial vacancies not disputed – Eligible candidates falling between last appointee in first list and cut-off of revised list entitled to consideration [Paras 10-12, 17].

Equitable Relief – Protection of Earlier Appointees – Candidates appointed under first list and retained pursuant to judicial orders not to be disturbed – More meritorious candidates in revised list to be accommodated against available vacancies without ousting earlier appointees – Balance of competing equities maintained [Paras 6, 8, 18].

Seniority – Inter-se Seniority to Avoid Further Litigation – Direction issued that seniority be maintained as per revised merit list – Newly appointed candidates to be placed at bottom according to merit – State at liberty to provide opportunity while determining seniority – Object to curtail future disputes [Para 18(v)].

Relief – Confined to Litigating Parties – Benefit restricted to respondents and intervenors who approached Court up to date of judgment – No further claims to be entertained – Decision rendered in peculiar facts based on State’s concession [Para 19].

Decision:

Civil Appeals dismissed – Directions of High Court in Mukesh Kumar Tailor case reaffirmed – State directed to:

(i) Prepare fresh list of respondents/intervenors falling between last candidate appointed in first selection list (27.08.2012) and below cut-off of revised selection list (02.09.2013) within two months;

(ii) Verify documents and issue appointments within further two months;

(iii) Grant salary from date of joining with notional consequential benefits;

(iv) Offer appointment in nearby district if vacancy not available in concerned district;

(v) Maintain inter-se seniority as per revised merit to prevent further litigation.

Criminal Law – BNSS – Section 175(4) – Interpretation – Not a Standalone Provision – Issue whether Section 175(4) operates independently or in conjunction with Section 175(3) – Held: Sub-sections (3) and (4) are not isolated silos – Power to order investigation flows primarily from Section 175(3) – Section 175(4) provides an additional procedural safeguard where complaint is against a public servant – It neither stands alone nor operates independently of Section 175(3) [Paras 24–26, 31, 37–39, 42].

Statutory Construction – BNSS – Section 175(4) – Not a Proviso – Question whether Section 175(4) is to be read as a proviso to Section 175(3) – Held: Not a proviso – Provision does not carve out an exception but introduces an additional safeguard absent in CrPC – Placement as a sub-section and ability to operate even if Section 175(3) is removed militates against proviso construction [Paras 32–36].

Judicial Magistrate – Power to Order Investigation – Mandatory Preconditions – Magistrate can exercise power under Section 175 only after complainant exhausts remedy under Section 173(4) – Resort to Superintendent of Police is a mandatory statutory step – Direct approach to Magistrate impermissible – Sequential statutory scheme must be respected [Paras 31.1–31.2].

Affidavit – Mandatory Requirement – Complaints Against Public Servants – Though Section 175(4) uses expression “complaint”, term cannot include oral complaints – Context requires written complaint supported by affidavit – Affidavit requirement under Section 175(3) read with Section 333 BNSS applies equally to Section 175(4) – Any other interpretation would defeat safeguard laid down in Priyanka Srivastava [Paras 37.4–37.9, 41, 44].

Public Servants – Additional Threshold Protection – Legislative Intent – Section 175(4) introduced to prevent frivolous or vindictive complaints against public servants – Requires Magistrate to call for report from superior officer and consider explanation of accused public servant – Protection operates at pre-investigation stage and is distinct from sanction requirement under Section 218 BNSS [Paras 27–30, 40].

Lalita Kumari – FIR Registration – Limited Applicability – Principles of mandatory FIR registration govern police action under Section 154 CrPC / Section 173 BNSS – Once matter reaches Magistrate under Section 175 BNSS, statutory procedure therein governs – Lalita Kumari does not override Magistrate’s duties under Section 175 [Paras 16–19].

Judicial Magistrates – Discretion under Section 175(4) – Practical Guidelines – Where prima facie offence appears connected with discharge of official duties, Magistrate must follow Section 175(4) safeguards – Where doubt exists, Magistrate should err on side of caution – Where act clearly unrelated to official duty, Magistrate may proceed under Section 175(3) alone – Magistrate may reject complaints that are absurd, improbable or untenable with recorded reasons [Paras 45–48].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Premature Interference – Bar – Single Judge erred in entertaining writ petition while proceedings under Section 175 were pending before JMFC – Judicial order calling for report under Section 175(4) could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction – Directions issued without challenge to Magistrate’s order held impermissible [Paras 49–53].

Judicial Orders – Recall by Magistrate – Impermissibility – Single Judge’s directions effectively compelled Magistrate to recall his own judicial order – Such power unknown to criminal procedure – Magistrate’s subsequent FIR direction rendered unsustainable [Paras 52–53].

Public Servants – Discharge of Official Duties – Fact-Dependent Determination – Whether alleged acts arose in discharge of official duties requires factual assessment – Writ court cannot undertake magisterial fact-finding – Issue must be left open for determination by JMFC under statutory procedure [Paras 54–57].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Division Bench upheld – Order of Single Judge set aside – Magistrate to proceed strictly in accordance with Sections 175(3), 175(4) and 333 BNSS – No direction for immediate FIR registration – Appellant granted liberty to raise all contentions before JMFC – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Sect 302 IPC – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Reversal of Acquittal – Limits of Appellate Interference – Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances – High Court reversed acquittal holding that the five golden principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda were satisfied – Supreme Court held that appellate court must first examine whether the view taken by Trial Court was a possible and reasonable view – Acquittal strengthens presumption of innocence and cannot be lightly disturbed – High Court erred in substituting its own inferences without dislodging the Trial Court’s reasoning [Paras 2–6, 31–32].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Requirement of Proximity – Prosecution alleged deceased was last seen with accused on evening of 18.02.2006 – No witness proved actual seeing together of deceased and accused immediately prior to death – Statements relied upon were hearsay or merely indicated intended meeting – Auto-rickshaw driver’s testimony unreliable due to absence of test identification parade and prior police identification – Held: Last seen theory not established as proximity to time of death not proved [Paras 10–15].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Inconclusive Opinion – Post-mortem suggested asphyxia by strangulation – Cross-examination revealed possibility of death by hanging – Absence of classical signs of strangulation such as cyanosis or blood clots – Medical evidence not conclusive of homicidal death – Held: Inconclusive medical opinion cannot sustain conviction without strong corroborative circumstantial evidence [Paras 9–12].

Recovery of Dead Body – Section 27 Evidence Act – Discovery Not Proved – Prosecution claimed accused led police to graveyard where body was exhumed – No disclosure statement recorded – Independent witnesses did not support accused’s presence at exhumation – Conflicting testimony on date of recovery – Held: Discovery not attributable to accused under Section 27 and cannot be treated as incriminating circumstance [Paras 17–18].

Recovery of Weapon – Rope – Forensic Evidence – Failure of Proof – Rope allegedly recovered at instance of accused – Recovery witnesses denied disclosure statement – Rope recovered from open place already accessed earlier – Forensic report did not show blood, human tissue or hair – Held: Recovery highly doubtful and not reliable as incriminating evidence [Paras 18–19].

Seizure of Articles – Identification of Property – Failure to Link with Crime – Alleged recovery of belongings of deceased from accused – Articles not identified by father of deceased – Some seizure witnesses turned hostile – Laptop admittedly handed over earlier to friend – Held: Seizures failed to establish nexus with crime [Paras 20–22].

Confessional Statements – Section 164 CrPC – Voluntariness and Evidentiary Value – Confessions retracted – Serious discrepancies in recording dates and language – Magistrate failed to inform accused of right to legal assistance – Confession of A1 exculpatory and incriminating co-accused – Confession of A2 not amounting to admission of guilt – Held: Confessions unreliable, not voluntary and lacking corroboration – Cannot form basis of conviction [Paras 23–30].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Confession – Requirement of Corroboration – Confession must be direct acknowledgment of guilt – Partial or exculpatory statements not confessions in law – In absence of independent corroborative evidence, conviction impermissible – Reliance placed on Pyarelal Bhargava and Kanda Pandyachi [Paras 29–30].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Acquittal recorded by Trial Court restored – Accused directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 32–33].

Land Acquisition – Railway Projects – Excess Compensation – Collusion Allegations – Scope of Setting Aside Awards – Award of compensation for land acquisition under Railways Act set aside by High Court on ground of excessive compensation and collusion between certain land owners and officials – Question whether such setting aside ipso facto nullifies awards of all land owners including those not implicated – Held: Allegations and inquiry confined only to specific beneficiaries – Entire acquisition award cannot be invalidated wholesale – Relief can operate only against tainted beneficiaries [Paras 2, 9–11].

Natural Justice – Non-Impleadment of Affected Parties – Effect – Writ petition by Railways challenging award impleaded only five land owners out of 550 beneficiaries – Appellant not arrayed as party nor alleged to have received excess compensation – High Court erred in extending effect of judgment to non-parties – Orders passed in proceedings to which appellant was not a party cannot prejudice his vested rights [Paras 7, 9–12].

Arbitration – Enhancement of Compensation – Power of Review – Railways Act, 1989 – Arbitrator enhanced compensation under Section 20-F(6) – Subsequent administrative orders kept enhancement in abeyance and later cancelled award – Held: Neither Competent Authority nor Arbitrator has statutory power of review under Railways Act or 2016 Rules – Cancellation of award without jurisdiction unsustainable in law [Paras 13–14].

Administrative Law – Colourable Exercise of Power – Limits – Inquiry and FIR lodged against specific officials and land owners for unjust enrichment – Appellant neither named in inquiry nor subjected to prosecution or refund proceedings – No finding of similarity in quantum or unjust enrichment qua appellant – Mechanical extension of adverse findings to appellant held arbitrary and illegal [Paras 9, 12].

Judicial Review – High Court Error – Failure to Distinguish Individual Claims – High Court failed to appreciate that challenge before it was limited to specific respondents – Setting aside arbitral and original awards affecting appellant without factual or legal basis amounted to egregious error – Supreme Court interfered to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11, 14].

Relief – Restoration of Award – Disbursement Directions – Orders keeping enhanced compensation in abeyance and cancelling award set aside – Original award dated 12.02.2018 and arbitral enhancement dated 28.06.2019 restored – Direction issued for payment of balance compensation with applicable interest and solatium within three months – Appeal allowed [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court judgments and consequential administrative orders set aside – Compensation and enhanced amounts restored – Directions for disbursement with interest and solatium – Pending applications disposed of.

Income Tax – Employees’ Contribution to PF and ESI – Deductibility – Section 2(24)(x) and Section 36(1)(va) – High Court held that employees’ contribution deducted from salaries constitutes income of the employer and is allowable as deduction only if deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant welfare statutes – Employer’s contribution under Section 36(1)(iv) and employees’ contribution under Section 36(1)(va) held to be fundamentally different in nature – Non-obstante clause of Section 43B held inapplicable to employees’ contribution – Alom Extrusions distinguished for not considering Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) [Paras 1–4, 6–8].

Income Tax – Interpretation of “Due Date” – Employees’ Contribution – Conflicting Judicial Views – One line of authorities holds that delayed deposit of employees’ contribution beyond the statutory due date under PF/ESI Acts disentitles deduction notwithstanding payment before filing of return – Another line of authorities applies Section 43B and allows deduction if payment is made before due date of filing return under Section 139(1) – Supreme Court notes divergence of opinion among High Courts across the country [Paras 5, 8–10].

Income Tax – Section 43B – Scope – Employees’ Contribution – Prima facie view that employees’ contribution held in trust by employer continues to be income unless deposited within statutory due date under PF/ESI laws – Explanation 5 to Section 43B noted as not having been considered in earlier decisions forming one view – Matter found to require authoritative determination by Supreme Court [Paras 6–7, 11].

Decision: Notice issued on the Special Leave Petition in view of conflicting High Court judgments on allowability of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI – Returnable in four weeks – Dasti service permitted [Paras 11–13].

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Reference of Dispute – Maintainability – Preliminary objection by Management that Union directly approached Conciliation Officer without serving charter of demands – Held: No statutory requirement under ID Act to first serve demand on employer before invoking conciliation – Section 10(1) allows reference of existing or apprehended dispute – Rejection of challenge to maintainability of reference upheld [Paras 12, 28, 33, 34].

Contract Labour – Sham and Camouflage – Jurisdiction – Workers claimed direct employment under principal employer and alleged labour contract was sham – Held: Industrial Court is the proper forum for adjudication of employer-employee relationship and whether contract is genuine or camouflage – High Court correctly declined to interfere in reference proceedings [Paras 19.6, 26, 28, 32, 35].

Employer-Employee Relationship – Tripartite Structure – Management engaged contract workers through registered contractors – Denial of direct relationship by Management – Held: Such denial itself raises a factual dispute warranting adjudication before Industrial Court – Reference cannot be quashed at threshold on such grounds [Paras 27, 31, 35.1].

Conciliation Proceedings – Commencement Without Prior Notice – Conciliation Officer acted on representation from Union and issued notice on same day – Management challenged such initiation – Held: Conciliation Manual is directory, not mandatory – Officer has discretion to intervene in apprehended disputes to prevent industrial unrest [Paras 12, 30, 33, 37].

Principle of Law – Even in absence of written demand, if substantial dispute exists or is apprehended, reference under Section 10 is valid – Purpose of ID Act is to maintain industrial peace, not to frustrate remedies on technicalities [Paras 24, 35, 36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Reference to Industrial Court upheld – Industrial Court directed to frame issues (i) whether the labour contracts are sham and (ii) whether Management is principal employer – To dispose of the case within 4 months [Paras 32, 41, 42].

Service Law – Reservation – Migration to Open Category – Relaxation in Qualifying Examination – Reserved category candidates excluded from general merit list despite securing higher marks in TAIT on ground of availing TET relaxation – Held: Relaxation in qualifying examination only enables entry into zone of consideration and does not affect merit determined in main examination – In absence of express prohibition in recruitment rules, such candidates are entitled to migrate to open category [Paras 3, 19, 28, 32].

Eligibility vs Merit – Distinction – TET as qualifying examination and TAIT as merit-based selection – Relaxation in TET marks affects only eligibility and not inter se merit – Merit must be determined solely on performance in main examination without any concession – Level playing field maintained as no relaxation granted in TAIT [Paras 13, 28].

Reservation Principles – Concessions and Level Playing Field – Concessions like relaxation in qualifying marks are intended to bring candidates within zone of consideration and cannot be treated as advantage in final selection – Such concessions do not dilute merit-based competition [Paras 19(i), (ii)].

Non-Migration Rule – Applicability – Principle barring migration applies only where candidate does not meet essential eligibility criteria or where recruitment rules expressly prohibit migration – Where rules are silent, migration permissible – Administrative instructions cannot override statutory scheme [Paras 19(iii)-(v), 31].

Erroneous Reliance on Precedent – High Court relied on precedent dealing with failure to meet essential eligibility criteria – Supreme Court held such reliance misplaced as relaxation in TET was statutorily permitted and did not affect eligibility – Distinction between lack of eligibility and permissible relaxation reiterated [Paras 30-31].

Administrative Instructions – Validity – Commissioner’s directions issued on date of merit list restricting migration based on executive interpretation held unsustainable – Cannot override recruitment framework or settled legal principles [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court judgment set aside – Authorities directed to include appellants in open category merit list if they secured marks higher than last selected general category candidate – No order as to costs [Paras 33-35].

Motor Accident Compensation – Appeal by Insurer – Dismissal Without Merits – Tribunal awarded ₹2,72,03,416/- to 22-year-old claimant with 100% functional disability – Insurer’s first appeal dismissed by High Court solely on ground that local manager had given undertaking before Executing Court to satisfy award – No adjudication on merits – Held: Undertaking to comply with award cannot be treated as waiver of statutory right of appeal – High Court erred in not examining legality and correctness of compensation – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 10, 14–15].

Execution Proceedings – Coercive Attachment – Tribunal issued warrants under Order XXI Rule 43 CPC attaching office furniture, fixtures and computers of insurer – Action taken in haste despite insurer being public sector undertaking – Held: Procedure adopted lacked fairness and judicial application of mind – Alternative modes of recovery available – Coercive steps cannot deprive party of appellate remedy [Paras 11, 13–13.2].

Appellate Jurisdiction – First Appeal on Facts and Law – High Court, as first appellate court, obligated to examine award on law and facts – Mere statement of claimant’s counsel regarding undertaking insufficient to dismiss appeal – At most relevant for stay of execution – Failure to exercise jurisdiction warranted interference under Article 136 [Paras 14–14.1].

Review Petition – Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review dismissed solely reiterating existence of undertaking – Supreme Court held that review rejection also unsustainable since foundational order itself erroneous [Paras 12.2, 15].

Interim Direction – Pending Remand – Considering non-disbursement of compensation and delay likely in remand, Supreme Court directed insurer to release ₹1,00,00,000/- to claimant within four weeks – Directions in Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal, (2025) 9 SCC 539 to be followed [Para 16].

Judicial Administration – e-Courts and Handwritten Orders – Supreme Court deprecated practice of handwritten and illegible order sheets by Tribunal despite e-Courts project – Directed Registrar General to place order before Chief Justice and circulate to other High Courts for corrective steps – Emphasized transition towards paperless courts [Paras 17–19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned orders dated 19.11.2025 and 06.01.2026 set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh decision on merits within six months – Direction to release ₹1,00,00,000/- to claimant – Pending applications disposed of.