Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – Suit filed by appellant society for an injunction against interference in the administration and enjoyment of a Mosque and madrassa – Initially decreed by the Wakf Tribunal – High Court reversed the decision, citing jurisdictional limitations as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramesh Gobindram case – Supreme Court held High Court's interpretation erroneous – Affirmed Wakf Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Wakf Act – Orders of the High Court set aside and matter remitted for reconsideration on merits [Paras 1-7].

Wakf Property Disputes – Jurisdictional Scope – High Court erred in limiting the Wakf Tribunal's jurisdiction based on misinterpretation of Supreme Court precedent – Supreme Court clarified that the Wakf Tribunal is competent to address disputes related to administration and management of wakf properties, not just eviction matters – Emphasized the nature of relief sought (management and enjoyment) falls within the Tribunal’s purview [Paras 3-5, 7].

Previous Rulings – High Court relied on Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through LRs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, which dealt with eviction matters outside the Tribunal's scope – Supreme Court distinguished this case, reaffirming Tribunal’s jurisdiction for administrative and managerial disputes of wakf properties as per Wakf Act – Referenced subsequent clarification in Board of Wakf West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum, affirming Tribunal’s broader jurisdictional remit [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders set aside – Wakf Tribunal’s decree upheld – High Court to reassess the case on merits – No order as to costs [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping, Rape, and Criminal Intimidation – Appellant convicted for kidnapping, raping, and intimidating a minor girl – Trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years (Section 363 IPC), seven years (Section 376 IPC), and one year (Section 506 IPC) – High Court affirmed convictions for Sections 363 and 376 IPC, but set aside the conviction for Section 506 IPC – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the validity of age determination through school records and the corroborative medical evidence [Paras 1-19].

Age Determination – Reliability of School Records – Prosecutrix’s age determined as below 18 years based on school records, supported by testimonies of school officials – Rejected the appellant’s challenge based on medical opinion suggesting an age range of 17 to 25 years – Court referenced Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, prioritizing documentary evidence over medical opinion for age determination [Paras 8-12].

Evidence of Sexual Assault – Corroboration by Medical and Chemical Analysis Reports – Detailed testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical examination and chemical analysis – Semen stains on prosecutrix's clothes matched appellant’s blood group – Court found no contradictions in the prosecutrix’s testimony, supporting the conviction for rape [Paras 13-16].

Constitutional Rights – Violation of Article 21 – Reinforced that rape is a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21, highlighting the need for stern punishment – Referenced precedent establishing rape as an offense against human dignity and societal norms, warranting severe legal consequences [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Convictions and sentences for Sections 363 and 376 IPC upheld – Appellant's bail bond canceled, ordered to serve remaining sentence [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of his daughter-in-law by setting her on fire – Trial court and High Court relied on the dying declaration of the deceased, which indicated that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld, with the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default of which an additional three months of rigorous imprisonment [Paras 1-14].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Dying Declaration – The dying declaration recorded by Dr. Nirmal Kumar Gupta was accepted as valid secondary evidence after the original document was lost – Court permitted the use of a carbon copy, supported by witness testimony, under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act – Emphasized that a dying declaration can be recorded by any person and does not require a specific format [Paras 5-10].

Admissibility of Secondary Evidence – Secondary evidence allowed when the original is lost or destroyed – Court validated the process followed by the trial court in admitting secondary evidence of the dying declaration – Referenced multiple precedents to support the admissibility and probative value of such evidence [Paras 10-11].

Mental and Physical State for Dying Declaration – Confirmed that even a person with 100% burn injuries can be in a fit mental and physical condition to make a statement – Relied on medical testimony to affirm the validity of the dying declaration [Para 12].

Burden of Proof – Highlighted the appellant's inability to explain the circumstances of the deceased’s injuries, which occurred within the household – Affirmed the principle that such matters fall within the special knowledge of the appellant, necessitating a satisfactory explanation [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of the daughter-in-law affirmed – Court found no merit in the appellant’s defense and upheld the lower courts' findings [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Possession of Narcotics – Appellants convicted for possession of 410 kg of poppy husk – Trial court and High Court relied on testimony of police officials and physical evidence – Conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act upheld with a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each [Paras 1-30].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Testimony and Evidence – Emphasized that the credibility of police witnesses should not be dismissed solely because they are police officers – Highlighted that failure to involve independent witnesses does not automatically discredit police testimony if corroborated by other evidence – Referenced Section 114 of the Evidence Act presuming regularity of official acts [Paras 5-11, 25-29].

Burden of Proof – Conscious Possession – Explained the statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, placing the burden on the accused to prove lack of knowledge or control over the contraband – Referenced Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which requires the accused to explain facts within their special knowledge [Paras 13-16].

Procedure – Compliance with Section 313 CrPC – Addressed the requirement to put all incriminating evidence to the accused during their examination – Noted that failure to do so does not necessarily vitiate the trial unless material prejudice is shown – Reiterated that such objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity [Paras 20-24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence for possession of narcotic drugs upheld – Court found no merit in the appellants’ arguments regarding non-examination of independent witnesses, conscious possession, or procedural defects in the trial [Para 30].

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Magistrate and Sessions Judge – Magistrate's role after committing a case to the Court of Session – Held that Magistrate can disagree with the police report and summon persons mentioned in column 2 of the charge-sheet to stand trial along with those named in the charge-sheet – Session Judge can issue summons under Section 193 CrPC upon commitment without waiting for Section 319 stage [Paras 4-31].

Interpretation of Sections 193 and 209 CrPC – Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction upon commitment – Session Judge can take cognizance of offences and summon additional accused based on the materials available on record – Magistrate need not wait for fresh evidence under Section 319 CrPC [Paras 26-28].

Cognizance of Offences – Clarified that cognizance can only be taken once, either by the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge – On commitment, the Sessions Judge can take cognizance of offences based on the police report and proceed to issue summons [Para 27].

Procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution – Emphasized the necessity for the Magistrate to follow the due process while issuing summons based on a protest petition – Ensured that actions taken without adhering to Sections 190, 200, and 202 CrPC are not in violation of Article 21 [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Decision in Kishun Singh's case (1993) 2 SCC 16 affirmed, validating the power of the Sessions Judge to take cognizance and summon additional accused upon commitment – Matter remitted to the Three-Judge Bench to dispose of pending appeals in line with this judgment [Paras 30-32].

Juvenile Justice – Applicability of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Appellant convicted for murder and grievous hurt – Date of birth established as 01.06.1977 – At the time of offence on 06.05.1995, appellant was 17 years 11 months and 5 days – Held that appellant should be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which applies retroactively to those under 18 at the time of offence, even if they were not juveniles under the 1986 Act [Paras 1-8].

Juvenility – Determination and Sentencing – On determining juvenility based on age on the date of offence – Despite conviction being upheld, sentence set aside and matter remitted to Juvenile Justice Court for imposing adequate sentence under the 2000 Act and Rules [Paras 5-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Conviction confirmed but sentence set aside – Matter sent to Juvenile Justice Court for appropriate sentencing as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and corresponding Rules [Para 8].

Reservation Policy – Applicability to Super-Specialty Posts – The appeals challenge whether reservation policies apply to super-specialty posts in AIIMS – Held that reservations should not apply to super-specialty posts as it compromises excellence – Affirmed observations from Indra Sawhney's case and other related judgments which emphasize the need for merit in super-specialty education and faculty appointments [Paras 1-20].

Interpretation of Articles 15, 16, and 335 – Emphasized that while reservations at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels are justifiable, the same does not apply to super-specialty levels where merit alone should be the criterion – Affirmed the views from earlier judgments including Indra Sawhney, Dr. Jagadish Saran, Dr. Pradeep Jain, and Dr. Preeti Srivastava cases [Paras 6-18].

Article 141 – Obiter Dicta as Binding Precedent – Discussed the binding nature of obiter dicta in landmark cases, affirming their application as precedents under Article 141 of the Constitution [Para 19].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Reservations in super-specialty posts at AIIMS are not permissible – Government advised to align with the views expressed in relevant Supreme Court judgments, upholding the principle of merit at the highest levels of medical education and faculty appointments [Paras 19-20].

Education Law – NEET and Minority Rights – Notifications by MCI and DCI introducing NEET challenged by various medical institutions, including minority institutions, as violative of their rights to administer and admit students independently. The challenge emphasized the infringement on religious and linguistic minorities' rights under Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1), and 30 of the Constitution [Paras 1-43].

Powers of MCI and DCI – Statutory Limits – Questioned the authority of MCI and DCI under their respective Acts to regulate admissions through NEET. Emphasized that their roles are recommendatory and pertain to maintaining standards of education, not direct control over admissions [Paras 6-7, 38-39].

Fundamental Rights – Article 30 and Admission Autonomy – Minority institutions argued that NEET undermines their constitutionally protected rights to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, including the right to admit students per their regulations. Cited precedents affirming minimal interference in their admission processes as long as merit and fairness are maintained [Paras 25-37].

Regulations vs. Fundamental Rights – Asserted that subordinate legislation, such as the regulations under challenge, cannot override fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Cited precedents where similar attempts to regulate admissions in minority institutions were struck down [Paras 24, 30, 42].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Notifications introducing NEET for medical and dental admissions held unconstitutional as they infringe upon the fundamental rights of minority and unaided institutions to manage their admissions independently. The matter remitted to a Three-Judge Bench to address pending appeals in accordance with this judgment [Paras 43].

Civil Service Law – Refund of Salary and Allowances – Appellant-institute directed respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 12,32,126 paid towards salary and allowances during study leave granted for Ph.D. studies, as respondent failed to complete the Ph.D. program – High Court quashed demand notice and ordered refund of amount already recovered – Supreme Court held the bond executed by respondent was vague and did not clearly impose such a condition, but refused to order refund of the amount already recovered considering public interest [Paras 1-17].

Study Leave and Bond Conditions – Vague Terms – Bond executed on 05.05.1999 did not explicitly state the condition of refund if Ph.D. was not completed – Specific provision added later by the Board of Governors in 2002 – No clear reference to Rule 63 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules in the bond executed by the respondent [Paras 9-13].

Application of Rule 63 – Rule 63 imposes a requirement for refund of salary and allowances if an employee fails to complete the course of study – High Court had no occasion to examine the applicability of Rule 63, as it was not specifically urged by the appellant-institute – Supreme Court emphasized the principle of "no work no pay" and public interest in ensuring that public money is spent effectively [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Judgment of the High Court modified – No further amount to be recovered from the respondent, but the amount already recovered (approximately Rs. 6,50,000) will not be refunded, considering public interest and the disservice caused by non-completion of the Ph.D. program [Paras 17-18].