Service Law – Regularization – Ad-hoc Appointments – Discrimination – Appellants appointed to Class III posts in High Court as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants under powers of Chief Justice – Though similarly situated persons were regularized, appellants denied such benefit citing their appointments were ad-hoc – Held: All categories of appointees were appointed through same channel under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules – Mere difference in wording of appointment orders not sufficient ground to treat them differently – Distinction drawn by administrative committee was arbitrary and violated Article 14 – Directions issued under Article 142 for reinstatement and regularization [Paras 23–28, 30–34].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equal Treatment – Arbitrary Discrimination – Supreme Court held that all appointees appointed through same legal authority and performing same duties must be treated equally – Classification based on labels such as "ad-hoc" or absence of examination clause in appointment letters is irrational when nature of work and source of power are identical – Denial of regularization violated principles of non-arbitrariness [Paras 24–29].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Appellants rendered over a decade of service before discontinuation – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to restore their services and direct regularization with consequential benefits (excluding back wages), overriding technical objections of procedural limitations or rule amendments – Relief restricted to facts of this case [Paras 33–36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court orders set aside – Appellants to be reinstated and regularized with all consequential benefits (excluding salary for non-working period) – Compliance directed within 8 weeks – Relief not to be treated as precedent [Paras 34–36].

Criminal Law – Recalling Witness – Section 311 CrPC – High Court set aside Trial Court’s refusal and allowed examination of minor child (daughter of deceased) after 7 years of incident – Held: Discretion under Section 311 CrPC is wide but must be exercised sparingly – Evidence must be essential to just decision of case – In absence of proof of child being present during incident, her proposed testimony is speculative – Trial Court's rejection restored [Paras 3.4, 5, 10.1–10.3, 11–12]

Child Witness – Reliability – Memory and Suggestibility – At time of incident, child was under 5 years old and is now about 11 – No contemporaneous statement recorded – Court held that memory of such tender age is vulnerable to distortion – Continuous residence with maternal grandparents creates apprehension of tutoring – Testimony would be unreliable and prejudicial to defence [Paras 3.5, 7, 10.2]

Evidence Law – Section 118 Indian Evidence Act – Competency of minor witness – Though legally competent, credibility must be judicially assessed – Court emphasized evidentiary value and not mere admissibility – Permitting examination after 21 witnesses would cause delay and prejudice [Paras 5, 10.3]

Trial Management – Protraction of Trial – Late-stage introduction of speculative witness without disclosure in FIR or charge-sheet undermines fairness – Section 311 not intended for strategic supplementation of prosecution case – High Court erred in overruling considered Trial Court discretion [Paras 3.3, 9–11]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s order dated 27/11/2024 set aside – Trial Court’s order dated 30/03/2024 restored – Prosecution not permitted to examine minor child witness – Trial to proceed as per law.

Clinical Establishments – Jurisdiction of Regulatory Commission – Deficiency in Patient Care Service – Commission constituted under the WBCE Act, 2017 examined complaint alleging improper diagnosis, delay in referral and treatment by hospital leading to death of patient – Commission found that ECG and echocardiography were conducted and interpreted by persons lacking requisite recognised qualifications – Compensation of Rs.20 lakhs awarded – Division Bench of High Court set aside findings holding lack of jurisdiction – Held: Commission acted within statutory mandate under Sections 36 and 38 – Findings restored [Paras 11–15].

Medical Law – Distinction between Medical Negligence and Deficiency in Service – Proviso to Section 38(1)(iii) of WBCE Act – Commission expressly refrained from adjudicating medical negligence, which lies within domain of State Medical Council – Examination of qualifications of service providers and assessment of deficiency in patient care service permissible – High Court erred in holding issues to be inseparable – Deficiency in service can be independently examined [Paras 12.6, 14].

Regulatory Powers – Examination of Qualifications – Section 38(1)(x) of WBCE Act – Duty of Commission to ensure employment of properly trained and qualified medical and paramedical personnel – Doctor holding unrecognised diploma in Clinical Cardiology and ECG technician with unrecognised qualification held unauthorised to perform critical procedures – Held: Commission competent to return findings on qualifications for purpose of patient care standards [Paras 12.2, 13].

Compensation – Death of Patient – Section 33 of WBCE Act – Death caused due to deficiency in service – Commission empowered to award compensation independent of disciplinary proceedings before Medical Council – Statutory minimum compensation reinforced – Award of Rs.20 lakhs with interest upheld [Paras 12.4, 15].

Interpretation of WBCE Act, 2017 – Legislative Intent – Regulation, Transparency and Minimum Standards – Preamble and scheme of Act indicate broad supervisory role of Commission to safeguard patient interest – Excessive deference to State Medical Council would render Commission ineffective – High Court’s restrictive interpretation defeats legislative purpose [Paras 12.1, 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dated 15.12.2023 set aside – Order of West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission dated 02.02.2018 and judgment of Single Judge dated 24.09.2019 restored – Respondent-hospital directed to pay compensation of Rs.20 lakhs with 6% interest within eight weeks – No costs [Paras 15].

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Delay in Filing Execution Petition – Trial Court decreed suit for specific performance directing execution of sale deed within two months on payment of balance consideration – Execution petition filed after expiry of two months and balance consideration deposited subsequently in instalments – High Court held decree inexecutable for failure to seek extension of time – Held: Mere delay in filing execution petition or deposit of balance consideration does not render decree inexecutable – Hyper-technical approach deprecated [Paras 7–9].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28 – Extension of Time – Power of Court – Purchaser failed to deposit balance sale consideration within time stipulated in decree – No formal application for extension filed – Held: Court retains power to extend time even at execution stage – Non-payment within stipulated time does not ipso facto amount to abandonment or rescission of contract – Conduct of decree-holder decisive [Paras 6–8].

Readiness and Willingness – Effect at Execution Stage – Findings of readiness and willingness attained finality up to Second Appeal – Delay of 27 days in filing execution and staggered deposits held not fatal – Held: Delay did not strike at root of contract nor demonstrate refusal to perform contractual obligations [Paras 7, 12].

Doctrine of Merger – Applicability – Decree of Trial Court affirmed in Second Appeal – Trial Court decree merged with judgment of High Court – Only one operative decree subsists – Executing Court bound to execute final decree as it stands – High Court erred in treating Trial Court’s time stipulation in isolation [Paras 9–12].

Powers of Executing Court – Limits and Duties – Executing Court cannot go behind decree but is competent to proceed with execution when decree is subsisting – Dismissal of execution petition on technical grounds defeats substantive justice – Held: Executing Court rightly dismissed objections; High Court exceeded jurisdiction in interference [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 08.08.2022 set aside – Order of Executing Court dismissing objections restored – Executing Court directed to proceed with execution of decree for specific performance in accordance with law – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Direction for Time-bound Investigation and Protection from Arrest – Legality and Justification of High Court's Order – High Court dismissed quashing petitions filed by three accused (Mohd. Arshad Khan, Sanjay Kapoor, Muhammad Zaid Khan) but simultaneously granted protection from arrest and directed investigation to be concluded within 90 days – Supreme Court held such direction impermissible in law – Protection from arrest while declining to quash FIR amounts to indirect grant of anticipatory bail without statutory satisfaction – Directions issued without proper application of mind to factual context or justification [Paras 4–7, 11–13, 15–16].

Investigation – Judicial Imposition of Timelines – Legality – Supreme Court held that although delay in investigation can justify judicial intervention in rare cases, such direction must be reactive, not prophylactic – Timelines must be imposed only where there is evident stagnation, delay, or prejudice to rights under Article 21 – In present case, no such material or justification was recorded by High Court – Hence, order directing conclusion of investigation in 90 days was unsustainable [Paras 9–11].

Protection from Arrest – Article 21 – Applicability of Precedent – High Court relied on Shobhit Nehra v. State of U.P. to grant protection from arrest – Supreme Court held that directions in Shobhit Nehra were justified based on unique facts of that case involving long-standing civil dispute – Impugned orders failed to conduct factual comparison or application of mind – Hence, reliance misplaced and protection from arrest set aside [Paras 5, 12–14].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reiteration of Law in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra – Supreme Court reaffirmed that High Courts cannot grant interim protection from arrest while declining to interfere under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 – Such practice amounts to backdoor anticipatory bail – High Courts must scrupulously follow binding precedent – Impugned High Court order violated settled law and was accordingly set aside [Para 15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Directions issued by High Court for time-bound investigation and protection from arrest set aside – Interim protection to continue for two weeks to enable respondents to seek appropriate legal remedies – All pending applications disposed of [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Reversal of Acquittal – High Court reversed acquittal of five accused (A-1 to A-4 and A-10) and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction based on consistent eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, and supported by circumstantial links such as weapon recovery and sniffer dog trail – FIR registered promptly and attributed overt acts to main accused – Delay in FIR reaching Magistrate held to be satisfactorily explained – Trial court’s findings found to be speculative and based on illusory contradictions [Paras 2, 4-5, 40-45, 48-51].

Eyewitness Testimony – Related Witnesses – Credibility – PWs 1 and 2 (brother-in-law and brother of the deceased) found to be natural and reliable witnesses – Their failure to intervene during the fatal attack justified due to real threat of harm – Minor inconsistencies treated as non-fatal – Court reaffirms duty to sift grain from chaff in witness testimony, especially in Indian context [Paras 34-38, 40, 46].

Medical Jurisprudence – Post-Mortem Report – Eleven incised and lacerated wounds recorded, including severed wrist and deep neck wounds – Medical evidence corroborated oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and FIR – Timing of post-mortem ruled out possibility of FIR manipulation – Defence’s argument regarding absence of rolling injuries found to be irrelevant embroidery [Paras 5, 43-44, 48, 50].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Ninja chain and 9 sickles recovered pursuant to disclosure – Sniffer dog tracing to A-4’s house – Physical evidence supports premeditated attack and shared common intention – Motive proved through prior feuds and earlier FIRs [Paras 5, 27, 41, 47].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Acquittal – High Court’s approach upheld – Trial court's acquittal held to be based on erroneous appreciation of evidence – No perversity in findings of High Court – Conviction upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 6-7, 32, 51-52].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and life sentences of A-1 to A-4 and A-10 upheld – No ground for interference found by Supreme Court.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Ground of Desertion – Consent of Parties – Decree Modified under Article 142 – Family Court and High Court granted divorce on ground of desertion – Appellant contested desertion, but agreed to dissolution by mutual consent during Supreme Court hearing – Respondent also agreed – Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 to modify the decree to reflect mutual consent and not desertion – Marriage dissolved accordingly – [Paras 5–8].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Consent Divorce Ordered by Supreme Court – Where parties unequivocally agreed to separation and reconciliation failed, Court invoked Article 142 to substitute contested decree with one based on mutual consent – Held: In view of irretrievable breakdown, ends of justice warrant such course – [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – One-time Settlement – Both parties being financially independent – Supreme Court fixed Rs. 25 lakhs as full and final settlement – Amount to be deposited within two months and drawn by wife – All pending disputes (civil/criminal) to be closed upon compliance – [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Appeal disposed – Divorce decree based on desertion set aside – Marriage dissolved by consent under Article 142 – Rs. 25 lakhs directed as full settlement – Pending proceedings to stand closed on payment compliance – [Paras 8–13].

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.

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].